This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Jmabel.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

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 ofCurtea sticlarilor orThe 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 onStrada Şelarilor orSaddle-makers' Street. I hope this helps.Giuseppe8614:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing - the name of one of the churches on your page isn't spelledCreţulescu, butKretzulescu.Giuseppe8614:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Google shows about 50-50 between the two spellings. -Jmabel |Talk22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --llywrch22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Jmabel |Talk22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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.Nut03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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 ofThomas Pynchon will be next to be deleted [and I'm not kidding - these people are beyond parody at this point].john k16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is partly "mechanical following of rules," but it's also thatWikipedia 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 k18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"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 k00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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 |Talk00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's completely ridiculous. Do you think there's anything to be done?john k01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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 |Talk23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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 atWikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut. Thanks--Ling.Nut04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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.Nut14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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 toTaiwanese aborigines were numerous and interesting. I know thatHelp: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 (mytalk page, the other person's talk page, myeditor review page and the article'stalk page. Is there any case whereWP: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 (includingWikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut).

I apologize for being so pesky. :-)

--Ling.Nut20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My particular concerns would have been expressed on the talk page, except foranother 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 grammaticalSAE 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.Nut00:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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.Nut00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The linguist said, "You misconstrued the assertions ofWhorf."

Thank you for the input/advice.--Ling.Nut01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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 visitmy talk page (and checkthis draft for the portal contents). --Sugaar21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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 warriorUser:William Mauco (a correspondent for the on-line newspaperTiraspol Timessee 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[1],[2]; once, the report was rejected because I did not indicate a "Previous version"[3]; I simply received no reply in the fourth case[4], 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[5],[6].

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.Biruitorul22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, then, I had understood it correctly. This is all very surprising. Mauco should certainly have been blocked. -Jmabel |Talk22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for your recent help on theHmong American page. You may not be aware that the same poorly formatted list was recently added to theHmong 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.)Nposs01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have already done so, no? -Jmabel |Talk01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn't show up in my watchlist. Thanks for all of your work.Nposs02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On6 November,2006,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleBattle 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)

Hi Joe,

The High School of Industrial Arts and theHigh School of Art and Design are one and the same. WhenEva 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.Modernist13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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.Dahn23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've weighed in. -Jmabel |Talk00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As usual, refreshingly clear and balanced.Dahn03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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,Smeelgova05:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

(answered on Smeelgova's page) -Jmabel |Talk05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the response. A little clarification, what types of language does Wikipedia specifically consider a "legal threat"? Yours,Smeelgova05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

(answered again on Smeelgova's page) -Jmabel |Talk05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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.Smeelgova05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

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

Thanks! -Jmabel |Talk17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just made a reply to your query/comment re the POV tag. SeeTalk:Yakima War.Skookum120:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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 precedingunsigned comment was added byArmsgravy (talk •contribs) 7 November 2006.

Could you come onTalk:Transnistria. I have a nice example of what we're in with some of the users. Please, look atthese exhanges, from line 1286 on. And then check the edit history ofUser: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...Dpotop15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Second proof of lie and manipulation.User:Mark us street which is a self-acknowledged sock ofUser:MarkStreet manipulated the date of the posts, and then lied about it. You can find a diffhere. Unfortunately, it's polluted by other edits. In text, you should look for the first 5 posts of sectionTalk:Transnistria#Suggested Change to Polticial Status 2.

Is there some rule against forgery with the intent of pushing a POV?

It's like havingUser:Bonaparte the other way around. You should do something about this user.Dpotop19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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,Asterion^talk21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. -Jmabel |Talk21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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.Tvoz03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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 sectionbeneath 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.--Zleitzen20:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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 |Talk21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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 typicallyunorthodox 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. --Zleitzen22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I took a look at your user page.Aguirre, Wrath of God is indeed a magnificent movie! I have thePopol Vuh soundtrack which still sends shivers down my spine, particularly the opening section which accompanied the extraordinary earlyMachu 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 ofApocalypse now was a cakewalk.--Zleitzen11:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded atWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006#Edit warring over question. Thank you. --Avi20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I responded/asked a question concerning reverting alleged troll questions from ArbCom election question pageshere.84.44.169.10017:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, when you get some time, could you please list your {{POV}} concerns about this articleOccupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in its talk page. Thank you.:Dc7606:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are aware: I'm not the one whoput a POV tag on this.Grafikm fr did. -Jmabel |Talk07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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.:Dc7607:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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.86.55.244.23508:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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 isthe boy who cried wolf. -Jmabel |Talk08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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...)Dahn17:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed you had provided a link to a picture. IMO, you are 100% right. Not to mention that uploading low-resolution professional pictures of Romanian places is a Bonapartist habit.Dahn17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the boy who cried wolf?I send to you only two letters ,one in october and another one yesterday.In first letter I tell you about Cerin who is romanian and in romanian wikipedia,and about the liars who tell you wrong information about Cerin, and in second letter about Cerin's notability.Not you ask about notability in August?I don't understand Mr.Mabel.L.Marchis10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone writes an article about this, I will certainly be willing to view it with fresh eyes, but I put more than enough effort into investigating this months ago, and at that time could find no signs of notability as a published author, and quite a few signs of excessive self-promotion. If the picture has changed, fine, but someone else is going to have to do the legwork to demonstrate it. -Jmabel |Talk18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe: See vote at:Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12#Category:Orthodox Jewish communities. Please add your views. Thanks.IZAK11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at what is going on there?Dahn11:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I was wondering whether you, as one of the relatively few more or less non-aligned yet knowledgable editors around (or at least, that's my impression), might care to take a look at the current argument over what the lead to thePalestine Liberation Organization article should contain. I have been thinking about launching an RfC but don't particularly relish spending much of my time on such a process especially when in my experience obviously contentious political topics rarely gain much from RfCs.

Of course, if you would prefer to stay away from the issue, I perfectly understand.

All the best,Palmiro |Talk21:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, after you mentioned i fixedtr:Ohio Wesleyan Üniversitesi, created a disambiguation page fortr:Wesleyan, and redirectedtr:Wesleyan Üniversitesi to disambiguation pagetr:Wesleyan, and linked (now red) at that page Wesleyan University in Connecticut astr:Wesleyan Üniversitesi (Connecticut) as it is done withWesleyan University (Philippines) to separate them from each other. Thanks for the info. --Mskyrider08:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the recent Brokerblogger spam discussion fromWikipedia_talk:Spam toWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Brokerblogger.com. That page is much more active in discussing spam issues and policy.OhNoitsJamie^Talk17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice your comments onUser talk:HQCentral. We have just discovered that that user was a sock puppet of notorious plagiarist Primetime, who was banned by Jimbo.Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime,Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime As a banned user all of his edits may be removed, and as a serial plagiarist all of his edits should be scrutinized. If you have a chance to review his article and talk page contributions on articles where you've worked with him it'd be a help.HQCentral (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). Cheers, -Will Beback02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jmabel. Mountolive has been mass editing the ETA article (and I mostly undoing it). I trust your neutrality and common sense: could you pass by and give an opinion or help to NPOV-ize? Thanks. --Sugaar10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the introduction toMuhammad al-Durrah.[8] I feel the current version is better grammatically and in terms of POV, though it may be less pleasing stylistically. I am notifying you because you recently (today) edited the article.KazakhPol00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done.

• Noindexed pages