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 IZAK (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 19 December 2006 (Category:Palestinian rabbis). 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]

PD images

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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]

Messianics again

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


ETA

Arbitration

Hello Jmabel. As you have noticed in the ETA talk page the situation is not very good recently. I am tired to have a "see no evil, hear no evil"-like discussion. It is not working and, in the meantime, the edits I believe are wrong keep in the article. I checked the wikipage about disputes and I feel we should go straight to Arbitration (I hope there is no need to try all the previous stages because I am afraid that "civil" manners won't work, since the positions are so different). Obviously the guy/s who go about this would be best if they have some acquaintance with the situation, but not enough to get influenced. I was only wondering if there is any advice or any comments you have about this particular procedure, for I have never been in one of these. Do you have any suggestions? I am talking about the procedure generally speaking. Once again, at the sight of your massive job in wikipedia, I'm just sorry to 'knock your door' again, we maybe are not be in line with our respective edits (I don't know), but I just thought you are the right person for your proven skills and knowledge...after all, if you have so many messages here it must be for something, right? Thanks Mountolive 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Why would you not want to seek mediation before arbitration? Under mediation, assuming that the person or people with whom you are in conflict will agree to mediation, you will get a mediator who will engage with the parties active in the article and try to work things out. Under arbitration, you will get a panel drawn from the small group of official arbitrators. They will be focused exclusively on conduct, and will not comment at all on article content. From what I've seen of the article (which I don't follow super-closely) no one has been behaving in an egregiously inappropriate manner, but if you really think that someone has been breaking the rules, and you have some evidence of that, you might get the arbitrators to take the case. Still, I think it is very unlikely that the arbitrators would decide that anyone's conduct with reference to this article demands a ban from working on this subject matter, or even limitations short of a ban; and, as I remarked, they won't comment on content at all; so it's hard to see what you'd expect to get out of it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Before I thought that Arbitration would go there and assess the factuality and act like some sort of executive committee who would finally close the dispute by assessing the factuality of the edits, but it looks like that is not their task, but they focus on manners. Indeed my point is not manners, but heavily biased edits, which looks like they are out of the Arbitration scope.
Thank you for the advice: I will request mediation then. My concern is that a mediator as a "peace man" won't work if the other part stubbornly refuses to accept the mediator's decissions. Does a mediator take decissions at all about the content of the article? because that is what is needed there: someone whom submit different views and he/she deciding and closing this for good once for all.
Actually....Would you mediate? Probably Sugaar would also accept you as a mediator. I guess this is not the official way to ask for mediation, but since you are familiar with the page and the situation, I can't think of any other person. Actually there is also Error...would it be possible that you two guys make a dual mediation? (of course if any of you agrees, that is to say).Mountolive 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Error nor I are officially mediators, and I don't know how much time I have to give this (and I bet similar remarks apply for him), but if Error will also participate (and, of course, if Sugaar is also willing) then, sure, I'm willing to see if we can help work it out. It's worth a try, and we can always bring in someone from the "mediation cabal" later if it doesn't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for considering it. I know you are damn busy and, yes, I'm afraid this will take some time indeed. I have already asked Sugaar about mediation. If he is positive, then maybe you could contact Error and we could all hopefully work something out. Mountolive 05:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I have replied to Jmabel in my talk page and to Mountolive in the article's talk page. I am generally open to any kind of possitive DR and I do encourage that more neutral users take a more active role in shaping the ETA article (as much as they can). --Sugaar 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate that you bother yourself to mediate. I've been -and continue to- rather busy in real life, but I will certainly post my comments soon.Mountolive 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be quite busy at the moment. --Error 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Elisabeth Young-Bruehl

I've responded on my talk page. You can comment there if you want. Sofeil 08:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to User:Messedrocker/Stablepedia

While I definitely appreciate your addition of two articles, unfortunately I had to remove them seeing as they had unsourced statements. All articles listed have to be fully sourced. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

Hi Jmabel. In Transnistria article is difficult to edit if rules are not followed and one part is allow to break 3RR. Please look at this and apply Wikipedia policies. Thanks.--MariusM 12:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism

Hi Joe: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page [2], and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." [3] and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." [4], and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Main categories: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I already made a report [5], before I asked your intervention. However I made other 6 reports in other cases which were ignored. This is why I asked your intervention, to be sure that at least now wiki rules are enforced. You were not involved in the dispute.--MariusM 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surrendered wife and BDSM

Please see my response on my talk page; I've given some links to a (rather alarming in places) website that endorses the "surrendered wife" movement, with explcit Biblical rationales for this (see my talk for the cite), that itself makes the comparison with BDSM, and in particular TPE.

A sample quote, from [6]:

"Since Taken In Hand is about male-led relationships and real control on the part of the man rather than just play control, it is not surprising that some Taken In Hand folk consider themselves to be in TPE or “absolute power” relationships. Nor should it be surprising that some Taken In Hand folk consider themselves to be in a “master-slave” relationship."

I'm pretty sure I can find other cites for the connection, with a bit more Googling. -- The Anome 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA, Ştefănescu

Hey, if it's edit summaries they want, it's edit summaries they'll get. But yes, I see your point; I do want the function, so I'll try to follow the participants' advice, which has been quite constructive. It's been a useful experience and I thank you for taking the initiative. Tentatively, let's say I'll give a renewed RfA some thought in July or August, but I'll keep this one open until it closes, if it's all right with you.

I'll have a look at the Ştefănescu matter. His son wrote me lots of information too and I'll be translating and transcribing that. Biruitorul 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder what you think about "oppose" vote number 6 (link for convenience). The whole issue of communicating with banned users seems a little esoteric to me, as it's never come up directly, and I must confess I hadn't read the official policy on that subject before. On the other hand, you've spoken with Anittas and Ronline has with Bonaparte (on his talk page, no less), so it seems that there's less than unanimous agreement on the matter. Biruitorul 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year in poetry

At Poetry of the United States, you added a bunch of "year in poetry" links. So, I said to myself, OK, wonder what there is of interest there. And I clicked on the year of H.D.'s birth, only to see that her birth isn't even itself on the page (which would be OK if, say, it focused on what was published that year, which it doesn't), which only contained something like four items in all. So... are these "Year in Poetry" pages substantive enough to be worth linking to? - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, gimme a chance. I must have spent 30 hours over the past couple of weeks in buildng up the year in poetry pages from 1900 to present. If there isn't a lot of info there now, there will be later. I think if there are several other poets born that year and in other years, it may help people to understand who her contemporaries are (what else could it show that would be useful to H.D.'s birth, anyway?). I think more interesting might be links from years that a work was published to that year in poetry so that people could see other events, works published and awards sections of these years. That would show someone what else was going on in poetry -- and what's useful about that would be the links to those other works and poets. I see these pages as central terminals where you take one link in, look at what's available, and take another link to that topic. What's substantial about each page is where it links to. The links have grown enormously and they'll keep growing. Check back in a month. Thanks for the input, I do appreciate it.Noroton 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to barge in, as I really need to ask an obvious question: did the creator of the articles consider the existing years in literature articles? Did he or she even see them? How does she or she plan to relate the two sets of articles? Dahn 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense; the question then becomes, though (and I promise this is not hostile) is it useful to link from birth dates? I can definitely see linking publication years this way, and building up a good list of what was published; but, sure, have at it, I was mostly wondering if this was something you were building or if you were linking into a half-abandoned scheme that someone else had built. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, maybe it isn't very useful to link from birth dates, now that I think of it, and I probably won't bother in the future. Actually it is both something I'm building (building up, that is) and a scheme someone else had built and did seem half-abandoned. I saw that a lot of the pages hadn't been created and a lot could be added to it, so I did. (I found a web page that had a lot of this information already on it and started importing it from there -- it was easy and seemed useful.)
Dahn, The poetry years were set up before I came to them. If you look at the recent poetry years (2000 and forward), you see that there's plenty of information in the poetry years to justify their own pages, separate from literature. I think there's a real usefulness to having a separate section, partly because it helps the reader who wants poetry information to get to it without weeding through other, non-poetry information. I wish I could provide a link to each poetry page at the literature page for the same year (the way each poetry page links to the literature page). Also, the literature pages seem to get filled with people sticking in any book that gets published. I'm fiddling around with 2005 in books, possibly as a model for a set of pages that might help remove some of those non-literary books.Noroton 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Edit to fix link to 2005 in books Noroton 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "year in poetry" and "year in literature" pages should certainly interlink; I suggest, though, that you link from "year in literature" pages to "year in poetry" pages only for examples of the latter that have some substance and are worth a click; as there are more of these, add more links. - Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's better to link after the pages have been filled out substantially. Hey, take a look at 1886 in poetry. Not the biggest page, but it's got more in it now. Noroton 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but I was not able to upload it. It is the image you can see on the infobox of the fr.Wiki's article. A similar problem is about the image of the logo of the Left Radical Party. If your able to upload them, I will be very grateful to you. If you could explain how you will have done these uploadings, I will be even more grateful to you. Thank you. --Checco 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regulamentul and templates

Hi. Greier has unilaterally replaced the History of Romania template, deleting Regulamentul Organic (and has created a but-ugly succession box in the process). Dahn 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I hope you never decide to contribute on Romanian articles, as you are a very valuable editor. I understand your point about Greier, and sympathize - all the edits he has ever produced are of questionable informative quality, and many appear to be plagiarism. I noticed for one that, aside from scholarship that has been irrelevant for some 200 years at best, he cites historians such as Mircea Dogaru (completely ignored by all academic sources, and who is in the habit of speaking about a Jewish-Hungarian conspiracy against Romania, as well as holding the opinion that all Ukrainians and Szeklers are actually Romanians...). As an administrator, perhaps you could start a serious debate about his habitual plagiarism. Then again, I'd understand if you don't want to risk hearing him spewing his inane attacks again. Btw, the "but[t]" thing was just a typing error - I knows how to spel tehm eesier words ;). Dahn 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I hope that you also typo'd in the second sentence of your follow-up and meant to put "not" before "to"?
Sorry. I was thinking of two ways to phrase that ("never decide to stop") and ("never stop contibuting") and I came up with this absurdity. M-a uitat dumnezeu. Dahn 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have several times tried raising my issues about Greier, but to no avail. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It must have been his personal charm and warm personality that prevented administrators from investigating your requests. Dahn 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has those when he wants them. He has at times in the past dealt with me quite politely. Unlike with some people, I see no chance that when he is rude it is because he does not know better. - Jmabel | Talk 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I have to say yep. Dahn 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I, or just find an admin?

Hi jmabel,

What sould I do about User talk:70.88.224.253? Thanks --Ling.Nut 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. For the future: WP:VIP - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads

The two images I would like to upload are:

Thank you for helping me. --Checco 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I converted these to PNGs (a preferred format) and uploaded them. You can now access them as Image:Logo parti radical.png and Image:Prg.png, respectively. - Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --Checco 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francoist eagle

Hola, Jmabel

No puse los datos que pides en la foto porque no estoy seguro de en qué ciudad española la tomé, ya que viajo mucho por España por asuntos de trabajo y tomo muchas fotos. A veces descargo una tarjeta de 1GB para preguntarme: ¿Dónde saqué esta foto?.

De lo que sí que estoy seguro es de que está (¿estaba?, las estan quitando) en lo alto de un edificio público del Estado (¿Delegación de Hacienda?, ¿Banco de España?).

Saqué también una foto con más definición que esta (que está muy croppeada, porque está sacada de lejos). Si la encuentro, la sustituyo.

Y si vuelvo a ver el águila (yo me fijo mucho en estas cosas), añado más datos.

Un saludo. Randroide 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


...ja, ja, ja. Yes, I know the movie. That´s the situation. Thank you for the laughs.Randroide 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Halakha

Hi Joe: Have you seen Talk:Messianic Halakha#Requested move? IZAK 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Deleting_List_of_ethnic_groups

I have no opinion. But you may: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Deleting List of ethnic groups.

I can kinda imagine that it might be useful. Just FYI, I was planning on doing LOTS of list-related work to the ethnic groups articles after Christmas.--Ling.Nut 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some time a few weeks from now we'll start a discussion about reorganizing etc. so we can coordinate our efforts. Maybe others will help too. --Ling.Nut 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ion Caramitru, 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.

Hello JMabel and thankyou for nominating this article. It certainly is helping to spoil us for choice and creates higher standards on the front page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but not created by me. Entirely Dahn's doing, I just nominated it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thank you. He did however add a somewhat similar template (for which I thank him), only he did it in a very unusual place (almost at the top of my talk page). Dahn 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biology & ...

Maybe the anon is too young to understand, and we should WP:AGF, or they understand and we should WP:NOFEEDING. Either way, maybe it's best that gets ignored, or deleted... Pete.Hurd 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, I was tempted to revert that edit as soon as it went up, but figured I'd leave it alone as long as everyone held fire. If it hadn't been an anon I suppose I'd have dragged out the lecture, but it just smelled too funky coming from an IP... Anyway, it's gone now. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wikipedia help

Hi there, I figured an admin who knows some Spanish might be able to help out (mine's a bit weak). Anyway, this article was created to avoid the block of Genmay. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on its talk page letting them know the status of it on en:. I'm not sure what else I can usefully do. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every little bit helps. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul RfA

Don't mention it (my support in your comment). I really wish there were more noms like the one you made. That would mean that more editors would be as worthy as him, and more editors would be as galant as you to fundamentally disagree, yet nominate. Bravo. NikoSilver 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Too bad the opposers can't realize the value of this.[reply]

Hmong people page

You've been a great help on that page and I hope you continue to keep an eye on it. I do watch it pretty closely, though (on a daily basis), and if you wanted to take it off your list, I will continue to keep it on mine.Nposs 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: on demographics

Hi, and sorry for the delay. Yes, I like your version, but I frankly have to consider why delve at all into the topic of ethnogenesis on that particular page? I know some contributors are obsessed about such matters, but don't we already have 1,000 articles dealing with this? If we provide the links, don't we trust people to click them? I suggest writing a paragraph or sentence using the key term Origin of the Romanians, Romance languages, Romanian language, and leave the rest to be figured out by the user who cares enough about the subject to click the links. I have quickly glanced over the article, as it is marginal in my interests (which is to say that, even if I eventually decide to contribute to it, I'm not going to invest enough time in watching over it). A minor suggestion I have is updating the links: there is no need for Tatars when we can have Tatars of Romania, there is no need for Greeks when we have Greeks of Romania etc. Dahn 06:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good suggestions. - Jmabel | Talk 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariawald Abbey

Articles should cite their sources. I don't see any citations where it would be appropriate. Isn't that what the fact tag is for? ArmAndLeg 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. In this case, it would make more sense to tag the entire article with {{unreferenced}}. {{fact}} is more for either of the following:
  1. To point up one of the few statements needing citation in a basically well-cited article.
  2. To point up a particularly suspect statement.
In other words, the {{fact}} tag is to draw attention to a particular phrase, sentence, or paragraph that is more at issue than its surroundings. To mark up every sentence in an article with it is not much use: it's like saying that everything is high priority to cite, which effectively means the same as that everything is low priority to cite, because both simply mean nothing is more important than anything else. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak or read German. It would be hard for me to read the page and make citations. I'll add the unreferenced tag. ArmAndLeg 21:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lowell

Would you like to take a look at the talk page if you have time? Two users - one of whom is a supporter of the party and one of whom administers the "Viva Malta" web discussion board (affiliated to Imperium Europa apparently are engaged in a dispute with me about the neutrality of the article. They are saying the new version (i.e. the one largely edited by me in the face of User:Drew88's attempts to whitewash the subject) is biased and I don't agree. A third opinion would be beneficial perhaps? I have your page on "watch" so please respond here. Thanks. --SandyDancer 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's way too late for me to come into this neutrally. I've tangled several times with User:Drew88 over matters related to Viva Malta (now deleted) & Imperium Europa. As far as I can see, these groups are about 3 millimeters from fascist; he presents them as somehow libertarian.
An article RFC might be in order. Or a multi-article RFC covering the whole area. In that context I'd certainly be willing to weigh in; I don't see much use to my repeating what I've already said about this. Feel free to quote any of what I said at User_talk:Drew88#Imperium Europa and Viva Malta. (Apparently, "List of Libertarian parties" in my edit was an error; I have admin privileges, and it appearst that this was never the name of an article.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Basque people needs neutral viewpoints

I'm not wading into it. I'm already trying to mediate (and approaching giving up) at Talk:ETA. There are editors on both sides of this who seem to feel that the only acceptable treatments are those that roundly endorse their own views on controversial matters.

My own view: it should be apparent to any objective observer that the Basques constitute a distinct ethnic group. To deny that amounts to denying the very concept of an ethnic group. Conversely, it should be apparent to any objective observer that the Basques are a Western European people: their native land straddles the French-Spanish border and their culture, like any culture, has influenced and been influenced by surrounding cultures; that they have long mixed socially and in terms of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples; and, finally, that there are no sharp edges on who belongs to a particular ethnic group, and that self-identification is a large part of the picture, though not the only part. - Jmabel | Talk 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • eh, I dunno why people can't see what is in front of their noses, sometimes.
  • yes, sometimes "not wading into it" is the wise response; I recently "waded not" into a dustup on Talk:Indigenous people. But I thought you might wanna know about Basque people.
  • I know nothing of the Basques except that they are the descendants of people either driven from their lands or assimilated by the Indo-European speakers [so they are the Taiwanese aborigines of Europe, or more likely vice versa, since the Basques were booted out of their lands before the Taiwanese aborigines were theirs].
  • later --Ling.Nut 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in Ro issue revisited

Hi. Remeber the issue of where and what to link regarding the Holocaust in Romania issues (including the challenge of finding vague enough terms for vaguish poliicies)? Well, I wondered if we could perhaps direct and expand info about killings in Transnistria to Transnistria (World War II) (an article which currently has little purpose), info about the Iaşi and Bucharest pogroms to the respective articles, and use as History of the Jews in Romania and Roma minority in Romania as the "umbrella" articles (I wanted to contribute substantially to the latter, but kept postponing it given the nature of debates there) - with Wiesel Commission as a supplementary connection. It is a massive task, and all those articles deserve a lot more attention, but this seems a good guideline for reducing redundancies and other such problems in the future. What do you think? Dahn 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to think this one over; I haven't given it a lot of thought. My first reflex is that there should be a Holocaust in Romania article that gives the overview of what happened in territories under the control of the Romanian gov't and that everywhere else coverage should be relatively short (varying from 1-4 paragraphs, depending on the article) and should link to that. If that becomes unwieldy because of size, then we might want a separate Holocaust in Transnistria article dealing with the Romanian operations east of the Dniester. - Jmabel | Talk 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good plan too, but I ask you to amend its last part and consider detailing information about the Holocaust in Transnistria on the "Transnistria (WWII)", which is, IMO< pointless and stubby otherwise. (There is not much to say about Transnistria in WWII without mentioning Romanian exterminations east of the Dniester.Thst is to say that, no matter how big the text about the Holocaust in WWII Transnistria will get, all the info about Transnistria that is not related to the Holocaust could fit in two paragraphs). Thoughts? Dahn 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSNP

You are of course right, all three edits are either dubious or utterly wrong. The 90,000 figure was sourced and anyone who wants to claim that the SSNP has mass support in Lebanon these days should feel free to show us where its candidates did well in the elections. But personally, I'm inclined to ask should we really bother? Palmiro | Talk 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, I have easily enough confidence in your judgement to advise that where unsourced edits are made on this page, you should revert first and ask questions afterwards if it seems appropriate. Unfortunately the article attracts generally pro-SSNP edits of a fairly uneducated kind from time to time. I've been discussing the topic with User:Filius Rosadis who may be able to further improve the article. I'm afraid that I don't have any really relevant sources available to me, at the moment or for the immediate future. It's a shame, because it's a genuinely interesting topic. Palmiro | Talk 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only conclude that you are probably right here, although with some regret... Palmiro | Talk 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Cohen

I agree, that was an important link I deleted. Thanks for reinserting it. It's sometimes hard to sort the wheat from the chaf. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Coalition

Black Rock Coalition article started, per your request :) --Bookgrrl 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice start on it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ştefănescu

Yes, I was pleased to see that. I corrected your translation directly, though it was quite good to begin with. I'll do the earlier parts soon. If anything is still unclear, do let me know. Biruitorul 09:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even Mr. Băsescu gets his verbs wrong sometimes - saying "vă udrerez" instead of "vă urez", and with the inset picture being of his adviser, Elena Udrea. (Though I suppose presidents don't necessarily serve as models of good grammar.)
By the way, I was wondering if you or anyone else had any further debate on the issue of communicating with banned users. I don't do it myself, so it's not of direct interest to me, but you were implicitly accused of violating official policy, so I would think that we should clarify the situation, unless you've let the matter drop. Biruitorul 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really for me to pursue the matter: it was for the person who claimed I was violating policy. I overtly welcomed an RFC about my behavior. This has become my standard approach when someone complains that I am technically violating policy when I am doing what I believe to be the right thing (e.g. NorbertArthur's claims that I edit with an anti-Romanian bias). So far, no one has pursued the matter. I do truly wish there was a way to start an RFC as the party whose conduct someone has put into question: I think it would make the whole thing much less adversarial. I would really like explicit exoneration rather than just letting the subject drop. But letting the subject drop is second best, and that seems to be what happened in this case. It much beats Norbert's approach (potty-mouthed obscenity on my user talk page, which led to one of his many blocks).

I'm not sure I understand the particular "vă udrerez" / "vă urez" thing (Băsescu's Romanian may be flawed, but it is certainly far better than mine!). Tell me if I have it right: "vă urez" = "I give you" and he just crossed that with her name? Does "vă udrerez" have some further connotation that I'm missing? - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation.
"Vă urez" means "I wish you" [in this case, a happy holiday]. My guess is that he wasn't thinking of her and his tongue just slipped, but the resulting nonsense word (which has no further connotations) did bear some similarity to her name, much to the joy of satirists. If only Ceauşescu had permitted similar lampooning of his Romanian, which was worse still. Biruitorul 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism articles

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

And here--Cberlet 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have clearly explained all of my edits in edit notes and talk pages. User:Cberlet has not addressed the nature of my edits, and only opposes them because in some cases, I have done many edits in one day (which is not against Wikipedia policy). I have not "rewritten" those articles; I have mostly done housekeeping edits such as correcting the formatting and organizing similar topics together. Cberlet has not discussed my specific edits in a meaningful way, and has made some personal attacks. The revert war in neo-Nazism is with User:NovaNova, who continuously reverts one section so that it focusses on subjects that are not about neo-Nazism, and so it has poor formatting. I made a comprimise and combined the two different versions of the section. Instead of making productive edits to the section, NovaNova merely keeps reverting the section and adds strangely-worded edit notes and makes false accusations of "vandalism" and "lying". NovaNova also has a long history of using sock puppets and anonymous IPs to edit that article. I have tried to get the article protected from NovaNova, and have reported NovaNova's disruptive editing and discussion behaviour to an administrator. If you have any questions, please leave comments on my talk page and I will give you more information. Spylab 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jerre Noe

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

Probably

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

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

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

Political parties

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

As an aside, the PNŢ - PNŢCD merge tags are now two and a half months old. Is any final resolution in sight? Biruitorul 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of a megber, per the PNL example, and considering the fact that we would have to reshape countless articles. We could create separate sections, but we should have all of that on one page, IMO. (Continuity, at least from the party's point of view, was also ensured - not just by claiming it, but based on the clandestine activities of Corneliu Coposu in Communist Romania). Dahn 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me either way.
I too back a merger. The question is: who'll do it and when? Biruitorul 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. No, I don't have a problem if you want to do the referencing mainly in the various party articles when they exist (although in this case there was no reference there either). - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, editing that article would take a lot of effort, and I tend to things like this in one go or thereabouts. (But I have left some referenced detail in other articles, in case someone wants to expand the text before I do.)
Does Scurtu have stuff to say about the minor parties, especially those not yet referenced? Dahn 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. As you may know, I'm still quite busy with a paid job until 22 December, then I plan to take some time not working, and while I am going to do some (probably North American) travel, I should be giving Wikipedia more time on average for a month or two. Reading a book in Romanian is a slow process for me, and I've really only skimmed the Scurtu book, not read it through. It is one of several possible sources I have (another is in French). I have to confess, though, this (Romanian parties) may not be my top priority even when I do focus more on it.
From the precision of his answers at times, I suspect that Biruitorul may have better sources than I, and also is clearly better qualified to handle Romanian-language sources. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. What we could really use is the Alexandrescu-Bulei-Mamina volume referenced on Mihai Stelescu. All I have is a fragment of it (which I used to reference the fact that Ion Gheorghe Maurer had the nerve to present himself as an agrarian politician in the 1930s), but I could tell that the book is written like a dictionary, which should make it easy to read and cite. (Initially, I thought that the Scurtu one was pretty much the same, that is why I had asked.) Dahn 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the Scurtu book I have is pretty much a narrative history. I know he's a prolific writer, and it wouldn't surprise me if he wrote something more like a reference book, but this isn't it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Dahn 17:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

expressionist architecture

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

admin needed on Transnistria

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

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

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

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

delete this, delete that, yadda yadda

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

Ceauşescu family

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

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

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Template:PockKleanBotCleanup2

Sorin Cerin recreated

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

Btw, it looks like all users who have contributed to the article (except BigHaz and yours trully) are sockpuppets of the same man with the same original grammar (I think it is lame how they all focus on just one article and write each other in that particular way). Dahn 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as recreation of deleted article. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November) to confirm that deletion was upheld. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?

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

We don't understand why?

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


Sorin Cerin Conclusion from December 3

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

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

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

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

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Template:PockKleanBotCleanup2


Smithsonian Folkways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golden Space Needle

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

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

Re: best of luck

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


Blackface vandalism

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

small option for template

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

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

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

As per your comments, I played with some of the text on the template. See Talk:Popora people for display options. Please note that these word changes are for test/display purposes only, and can be reverted if you don't agree with them. :-) Not all of the template's text has been changed; only that text which currently appears on Talk:Popora people. Note also that the word changes appear on the small version, but nothing is changed on the large version except that I removed the word "priority" from "WikiProject Ethnic groups [priority] open tasks"
--Ling.Nut 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Danse Macabre

Hi! You changed my translation twice to kingdom, which is wrong. You probably confuse it with Rîche. Instead Reyen is a variant of Middle High German reien or reyge and corresponds to modern High German Reigen, which means "round dance", so Death commands the mortals to join him in a round dance. That's why the dance is macabre. See Grimm's Dictionary [[7]] Teodorico 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fellow Polyglot

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

My Catalan is pretty weak. I've been to Barcelona at least half a dozen times, though, once for as long as a month, got a decent Catalan-English dictionary and some grammar books, did my best to pick up Avui now and then instead of El País or Vanguardia, and at least got to where I'm usually OK with museum wall texts and restaurant menus. That level has proven enough to do some fairly decent translations here. But note that I only claim "ca-1", and in this case I can't even say I'm being cautious (as I am with my "de-1" and "ro-2").
Anyway, glad to have you aboard. I'm sure you've noticed that there is a lot of translation work to do. You might want to join WP:SPATRA, and maybe help out on our current difficult task, Threshing-board/Translation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

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

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

Partition of India

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

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

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

Admin opinion needed

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

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


Your opinion please

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just don't know. It's not that blatant. I've seconded and expanded upon your remarks on his talk page. If there is not a sufficient response, I guess I'll have to start an RFC. May I assume that you would join me in that? - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay and thanks. I'll endorse the summary, but will like to add the SLOMR incident as further evidence for evaluation (we could perhaps ask someone not involved to translate it). Where in an RFC is this supposed to be done? Dahn 02:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a well-established way to do this. My best suggestion is to be explicit about adding material (that is, date & sign the additions, much as you would on a talk page, in the relevant sections). Since the certified basis for the dispute is basically just a statement of concern and a need to air the matter, I don't think that will create any confusion. - Jmabel | Talk 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had meant to ask you if I could mention the incident in the same RFC, and where I could do it. It was one of the contributing factors in raising my suspicions (I had basically bumped into texts that Vintila Barbu had copied, and he has admitted to have "adopted word by word"). I have referred you to the diffs in the first message on this topic - I think that they form a proper addition to the discussion. Dahn 11:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, I misread something in your message before giving the above answer) Basically, I just add to my signature then? Dahn 11:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about restoring common sense ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS what's this, RFC ?

"To Do" list

Jmabel,

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

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

What I'd most like to see happen is to get assessments done so that we can get rid of the apparatus from the old way of listing articles. Adding the assessment template to more talk pages is also, of course, welcome.
I'll be on this myself, also, probably about the end of the calendar year. I'm planning to put 20-30 hours into it, but I don't have that kind of time on my hands the next few weeks. I'm about 4 days behind on my watchlist right now, and seem to have just gotten sucked into an RFC as well. - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I might putter around with adding more articles to the project from time to time, but won't give it the intense concentration that I had envisioned. Will try to spend time assessing current members instead. Later --Ling.Nut 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou

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

WP:BAN

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

SORIN CERIN IS BACK!

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

Category:Palestinian rabbis

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&oldid=95313209"