User talk:Jmabel/Archive 21

Lenora Fulani
Thanks for the heads-up -- see my reply at Talk:Lenora Fulani. And hey, you got nothing on me when it comes to inadequate edit summaries -- I just stupidly used "improve" when I meant "remove". RadicalSubversiv E 06:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Thanks
Appreciate your quick response to my fair use query. Geez, those things are hard to read. I also was disappointed I did not recognize the site as Agence France.Kyle Andrew Brown 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Promotional photo
Can you clarify Publicity_photos? The text is REALLY bad an easy to miss interpret. Can you also clarify exactly what a promo photo of a celebrity is? Does a photo taken by someone at a premier event and the photo being is spread all over the internet and finally landing on a fan site qualify it as promo? Classify this please. Cheers. --None-of-the-Above 14:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am trying to learn here, so can you please tell me what you would think about the copyright on this image . Clearly no source, but is it a promo photo? Is it technically valid to be on Wikipedia? --None-of-the-Above 17:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I would want to be a proper image sleuth. ;) --None-of-the-Above 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Romanian journal
Never being an avid reader of URL's, I haven't made a connection between you and the person who wrote the "Romanian journals" I've read one or two years ago, until I browsed through your user page tonight. I envy you for your sense of wonder and objectivity (and yes, this is on its own merit, completely unrelated to the barnstar :-)) -- most people (including myself) tend to simply discard value in countries which don't look or feel as good as their homeland, or at least qualify in the same ballpark (however, I must admit I never visited, say, an African country for some months -- actually never did at all.) You managed to go beyond that mentality and actually admire whatever you felt worthy. The piece I enjoyed most is the one where you're talking about young people humming Jewish songs, and commenting on Cişmigiu (not Jewish myself, in case you wondered; on an unrelated note, as far as I can remember, you also had one I liked about foot-skating on ice on the frozen lake in Cişmigiu, but I can't find a link right now.) Let me know (if, and) when you plan to come in Bucharest next time, I'd be happy to introduce you to my wife and daughter, and invite you to a true Romanian village, with all its best and its worst (I considered a play on "wurst", but you seem to be a vegan, so no wurst for you.) --Gutza T T+ 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Should you reply, please do it here, I hate following a conversation spanning across distinct pages. --Gutza T T+ 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, very much. On all counts. I'm not sure when I will next be in Romania. I had been planning to go this October, but my current contract got extended a few months, so I'll be staying here, probably into early December, because they are paying me to. But I will certainly get hold of you when I am headed that way! -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Great! Drop me a line on e-mail and on my talk page when you know a date and a generic schedule for you stay! --Gutza T T+ 19:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much. My English sucks. I'm not a Englisg native and if I'm in hurry I mess up things a lot. --Locketudor 09:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

African Americans
Mr. Mabel, maybe you should arrange for African Americans to be watched a little more closely...:)

Otherwise, thank you for everything else.--VKokielov 07:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply...I'm sorry.--VKokielov 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm used to hierarchies. All right.  Noted.  --VKokielov 03:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey
I have sent you a new message on te Serbs talk page, look when you have the time...

Okay Doky
I will read the copyright info. Sorry if i caused any inconvience. Empty

Interwiki bot
Hi, thanks for your attention. The bot did the wrong changes again because you only took the links out of Wesleyan, but not out of de:Wes and nl:Wes. I have done this now. --Head 08:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about 207.237.85.184?
I don't know what to think about 207.237.85.184 removing that relevant bit of information about the founders in the A.N.S.W.E.R. article. I know that you and I both have fixed the information back several times, and they don't seem to want to use the discussion page as suggested. I'm curious to know what you think about 207.237.85.184. Please do let me know... Schuminweb 11:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the above user is me. I apologize for all this. I didn't really understand how the site worked, and thought that my revisions were somehow being reverted automatically. I finally did some investigation, and realized I could just explain it. I hope I haven't agitated you too much.

Regarding my revision, I deleted the reference to the International Action Center in the opening paragraph about A.N.S.W.E.R. because although the IAC was a founding member of the ANSWER Coalition - among a few others - it no longer is a member. In fact it belongs to an entirely different antiwar coalition, the Troops Out Now Coalition. It therefore is an inappopriate sentence for an introduction to ANSWER. If you go the ANSWER website for instance, you will not find any mention of the International Action Center. None of the ANSWER groups refer to it as an "IAC" or "Ramsey Clark" initiative. Of course, if one were to write a history of ANSWER, on the other hand, it would be necessary to describe the IAC's past involvement.

Likewise, I removed the International R.E.S.P.O.N.S.E. criticism of ANSWER, because after a little investigation, that does not appear to be the name of any functioning social justice organization. In fact, it appears simply to be a webpage satirically created to slander and criticize ANSWER. We are, after all, talking about one of, if not the largest, antiwar coalitions in the country, so it has been involved in many meaningful debates, polemics, and discussions. The Wikipedia entry instead unduly highlights a criticism from a made-up group, which could have been thrown together in a few minutes. It doesn't really shed any light on the history of the organization or its involvement in the antiwar movement. It could be listed in the "criticisms" of ANSWER section of the page, but it's hardly the authoritative, or even credible, voice when it comes to describing ANSWER's organizational approach. Really the entry needs to be thoroughly expanded, because at the present time, "International RESPONSE" and the "Lerner incident" - receive an inordinate amount of attention considering everything that ANSWER has done in its 4-year (to the day) history. The "Lerner Incident" really is less than 1% of ANSWER's history - no antiwar coalition backed his claim of antisemitism, and the issue soon disappeared. It shouldn't be written out of the history, but it shouldn't be half the entry. I attempted to cut it down, but had the revision reverted once again. The pen 00:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)The_pen

I'm copying this to Talk:A.N.S.W.E.R., which is probably where this conversation should continue. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User categorization
Greetings, Jmabel! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Washington and removing your name from the Wikipedians/Washington page. The page will be deleted when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedians/Washington page? Thanks!!

To add your name to the category, please use the tag   to ensure proper sorting.

For more information, please see User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne  Talk •  Hist 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

French Revolution Template
Hey, I love what you've done to the French Revolution pages. I was wondering if the Template:French Revolution should perhaps be stripped of the entries on French history before and after the Revolution and become specifically a "French Revolution" template? Or if the Template:History of France should also be included on the main page? Also, it might be nice if a tiny picture could be added to the template. --NYArtsnWords 22:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Template:History of France is a little crazy right now. The old version did this weird thing of mixing periods ("Modern France") and political regimes ("First Empire") without rhyme or reason, leaving some political regimes off the template and putting others on.  I tried one rewrite of it, but the continued confusion historical periods with political regimes was criticized by User:SimonP, so I rewrote it to keep a clear distinction between them.  You can see some of our discussion on this on Talk:History of France.  I am really divided on this.... I think SimonP has a good point: history is not only the story of governments and political regimes, and one would like more discussion of other  cultural and sociological issues in the periods as one finds in historians like Eric Hobsbawm et.al. who have increasingly stressed a more global view and have used "the long nineteenth century", "the short twentieth century" or "early modern" as period divisions.  On the other hand, I know that when people come to a French history page, sometimes they want to find the article on the First Empire or the Fourth Republic right away.  A drill-down format might work to simplify the template; discuss it on History of France and see what people say. -- NYArtsnWords 15:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Lott and minstrel show
Hi, Joe! I've added most of your notes from Talk:Blackface/Lott into minstrel show. I kept a lot of your wording the same, though I paraphrased many of the direct quotes from Lott's book. The next step will be to change the parenthetical citations to wikified reference notes. At any rate, please look over everything and see if you agree with the rearranging I did to fit the new content. Let me know what you think! BrianSmithson 03:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Mariano Azuela
Joe- The reason I removed the link to the Spanish page as a reference is that this page has no sources either, and to have a Wikipedia article use an unsourced Wikipedia article as it's source seems rather circular. Upon closer inspection, the Spanish article is almost certainly drawn from the Colegio de Mexico website. The way it is structured, some of the phrases, etc. make it seem likely that this was the original source. When I added material to the English version I drew most of it from this source as well, and thus used it as a reference. I re-wrote the reference so that it makes more sense. If you still want to keep the Spanish page as a source that's OK, but my preference would be to simply link to it and say, "This entry has a corresponding page in the Spanish wikipedia..." or something of the sort, but I'll leave the decision up to you. best, - Marcuse 13:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini in Munich
I left an explanation at commons:Image talk:Adolf Hitler und Benito Mussolini in München 1940.jpg why I believe that this photo is from 1940. However, I'd be happy to hear arguments in favour of 1936. Thuresson 15:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

World Music
Hi! - Initial reply over at my talk page but i'm still in the middle of working on this "World Music" article and related things. It'll be a while because it involves working across multiple pages of music artists in relation to the main World Music page. --wayland 11:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Duck!
Thanks. That is the best answer I have ever got to the duck question. Ground Zero | t 13:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

From Barcelona
Hello. This is just to thanks you for your work in the subjects concerning Catalonia. Unfortunately, some people seems to have fun in changing pages, usually with a political purpose. This purpose is always the same: cut off any reference to Catalonia as a nation.

My english is quite poor, as you can see, and I can't write good contributions, but if you need some help or information, please use my discussion pages, in the english or catalan wikipedia.

(potser ens podríem entendre prou be, en català) (tal vez en español la comunicación seria más fluída). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan sense nick (talk • contribs) 13 Sept 2005


 * Creo que comunicar en español será mutuamente el más fácil. Yo puedo leer catalán (con unas pocas dificultades) pero no puedo escribirlo.
 * Su inglés está mejor que crees. Lo que escribió (arriba) es casi perfecto.
 * Es posible que tengas razón en decir que el cambio tuvo motivación política, pero pudiera ser támbien ignorancia o estupidez. Si la intención es negar la nacionalidad catalana, ¿no crees que hubiese cabiado la página Catalonia en una página estrecha tratando solamente con la comunidad autónoma moderna? Cambiarlo en un semi-esbozo tratando estrachament con el reino antiguo era muy raro, ¿no?
 * Puedes responder aquí, miraré la página. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joan_sense_nick"

Hola. Yo leo bien en inglés (pese a no tener nivel para redactar buenos artículos), por lo que te ruego que me escribas en tu idioma, y yo te contestaré en el mio (catalán) o en español. Dime cual prefieres.

Hace poco tiempo que he descubierto Wikipedia y me ha interesado vivamente por lo que tiene de obra colectiva y plural. Es apasionante. Existe, sin embargo, el peligro de la manipulación interesada de determinados artículos, especialmente los de tema político, filosófico, etc. En poco tiempo ya he detectado, por ejemplo, gentes enmendándose mútuamente artículos de historia. En el caso de la história, la cultura o incluso la geografia de las naciones que actualmente no estan constituídas como Estado, existe un problema de categorización de sus contenidos. Catalunya, (como Escocia, Kurdistan o Tibet), no aparecen en igualdad de condiciones junto a los demás pueblos, con lo que los artículos que tratan de sus realidades quedan ocultos. Y, por desgracia, frecuentemente son manipulados tendenciosamente. Un caso muy claro es observar los artículos sobre el País Vasco o Catalunya en la Wikipedia en español. Yo, personalmente, creo en la igualdad de todos los pueblos, incluído el mío. Intentaré trabajar en esa dirección, si me es posible, en la wikipedia.

Un cordial saludo. --Joan sense nick 00:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Si el artículo de "Catalonia" ha sido editado anteriormente a mí es porque es tendencioso o simplemente falso en muchas ocasiones. Es la primera vez que edito en Wiki y no firmé la edición por desconocimiento de cómo hacerlo, por lo que me disculpo. Como comentaba, como visión de "¿Qué piensa un nacionalista radical de Cataluña?" me parece correcto, pero como definición de "Catalonia" no hay por dónde cogerlo. Es impresentable. No es una cuestión de opiniones. Catón 18:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correction on The Mountain
Hi. I was the culprit who linked to the disambig page for that on the Collot d'Herbois page. Sorry. Thanks for the correction. I didn't see the blue link (didn't look far enough I guess; just read the info on the d page. Mille mercis (probable bad French). User:FeanorStar7

Fujimori
The same anon you cleaned up yesterday came back after you left. I have half a mind to blanket revert -- not so much on NPOV grounds (of which there are many), but on language ones. –Hajor 13:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Hadn't seen your message on Talk:Fuji. –Hajor 16:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Black Legend
Thanks for banging on about this hateful propaganda. I do think the alterations by Robot #68.236.16.130 are literate and correct; for example, libels are a matter of judgment, but criticism is simply a description, which is really what Wikipedia wants; also the substitution of that for which is subtle but spot on. Pity there's no name or talk page - if the alterations had been outrageous then you'd have to suspect something, especially on an article like this. What jokes about Attila the Hun?--shtove 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Mihai Eminescu
Thanks for inviting me to edit Mihai Eminescu. You will see some results in a few days. By the way, I had noticed the mention of antisemitism in the Abraham Goldfaden article (I even wanted to give it as a good example), but I didn't know it was your work. Quatrocentu 06:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | Talk

Yiddish etc.
Did you by any chance write the stub on Theodor Gaster? It mentions he was the son of one Moses Gaster who, I think, is in bad need of an article himself. Moses Gaster (1856-1939) did plenty for Romanian, Jewish, and British ethnology, linguistics, and whatnot. He was a friend of Eminescu (who hated Jewry but befriended Jews - many antisemits defend themselves by saying "oh, but I have many Jewish friends"), until he was kicked out of Romania and came to Britain. His son reprinted some of his works in 3 volumes of Studies and texts in folklore, magic, mediaeval romance, Hebrew Apocrypha, and Samaritan archaeology (New York, 1971). The Romanian Academy gives (or used to give) a Moses Gaster award for work in folklore and anthropology. Quatrocentu Quatrocentu 07:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | Talk

Na Na Songs
Curses! Now I will be able to sleep once more only if you reveal the answer to my admittedly implicit question at -Nunh-huh 07:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Never mind! "Land of 1000 Dances". I rest easy. - 07:34, 18

September 2005 (UTC)

Schop
Never read Parerga? For the read of your life, order Parerga and Paralipomena by Schopenhauer. It is quite an education. 152.163.101.13 22:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)James Moriarty, Professor of Mathematics

RE your post on my page, Joe: Correct on both count
Here's the dialogue from my page - your copy here:

Be all of this as it may, no one is entitled to be an administrator. We need some people to do these tasks; we try to choose uncontroversial nominees with broad support. I wasn't involved in this particular process, but there is really never a case to be made that controversy is inappropriate. Controversy is controversy, one cannot wish it away. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like you initially tell me that I should feel entitled or expecting of Adminship, but at the same time others should not call my actions inappropriate merely because there is controversy: You appear to be correct on both counts. Was that your intended message?--GordonWatts 10:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWatts 10:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Where I learned about the History of Islam
You previously added an external link to History of Islam but it is no longer on the article. I agree with you that it is a quality link, but I don't think the editors on that site will take my word for it. Would you check it out? Uriah923 15:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Uriah923, are you serious? I would have thought consensus against doing exactly the above would have been clear enough to anyone. Jmabel, you of course can do what you like, but I suggest that due to the negative implications of the linkspam involved, Wikipedia would be better off using higher quality references than this link in this case. - Taxman Talk 17:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. well spotted  - Nunh-huh 04:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)