User talk:Jmabel/Archive 55

Bumbershoot
Great suggestion about Wikimedia. I'm grabbing all the photos I've uploaded to Wikipedia and placing them on Wikimedia. - Dave C.talk 23:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Pinski-Tailor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pinski-Tailor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChristopherStreetMagIssue1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ChristopherStreetMagIssue1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~  Wi ki  her mit  18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a fair use rationale. - Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR
IF you have the time and inclination I hope you will participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research. I think your experience at Wikipedia makes your views essential. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Centralized traffic control
I added an image to Centralized traffic control. I believe what I've said in the caption is correct, but I'm pretty ignorant of the subject, I just happen to have taken the photo. Could you please check my work? Also, you might want to click through to the image page on Commons and see if you can add usefully to the description. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. As I'm British, my experience of CTC is limited, but I understand CTC as being a system for controlling long and relatively featureless railways over great distances. The interlocking machine in your photo was clearly used to control a small, but fairly complex, localised area. Interesting photo, but I suspect that it isn't relevant to the CTC article at all but could be a useful addition to another article, possibly Interlocking tower. Signalhead 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think
a generally unfriendly attitude I've been feeling lately around Wikipedia (not to say that there aren't a lot of great people here, there are, but I'm afraid lately the turkeys are exasperating me more than the good ones are giving me any pleasure)

''an attitude that Wikipedia should be driven entirely by some sort of legalistic framework, and one composed entirely of statute law with no case law (e.g., the utter refusal to compare to a plethora of similar - often considerably less well referenced - articles). This is often combined with an appallingly naive epistemology that seems to assume that good articles can be written almost algorithmically by following rules, and that no writing skill nor scholarly judgment is needed. Not to mention intellectual honesty.''

''how important it is to know who you can trust to be both intellectually honest and expert in certain areas. I've also noticed that certain users have used their user pages as a Rogue's Gallery of people they are annoyed with (which strikes me as totally out of the spirit of Wikipedia, though sometimes it's easy to see how they are tempted''

That we have some 'similarity' in POV about wikipedia, am i mistaking something? If you want, i would be interested to hear how wiki has shifted so and when. Actually i could be not more in agreement with the above statements. I have a very hard life inside wiki and believe me, i have noticed this worsement not only in wiki.en. In the last months it appears more similar to Inquisition that a collaborative opera.--Stefanomencarelli 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a lot to add to what I've already written, other than to talk about what forces I think are at work:
 * As Wikipedia has become a leading web resource, people with agendas find it one of the most important and (potentially, at least) effective places to push their agenda, and (of course) many people acting with extrinsic motivations don't play fair.
 * There has been increasingly inadequate mentoring of inexperienced but well-intentioned contributors. Partly this is because Wikipedia has become so big that new contributors are simply less noticed; partly it is because there is such a growth of articles, guidelines, WikiProjects, etc., that it is much harder than a few years ago to find one's way around, so an amount of mentoring that might have sufficed in the past no longer will.
 * With more participants, Wikipedia is (inevitably) less of a community where people know each other. It is less a community of people, and more one of rules. Unfortunately, some people apply these rules foolishly (or even, at times, malevolently). This is especially exacerbated when people lack a toleration for ambiguity: both in the facts around certain topics, but also in our own processes. For example, our policies and guidelines are not, and never can be, completely mutually consistent and comprehensive, nor can they magically make everyone capable of writing articles in every area, regardless of what they bring to the picture. Nor, for that matter, can they make everyone a good judge of what constitutes notability, one of the most contentious areas.
 * All of this is terribly exacerbated by trolling, wikilawyering, etc., which have been abetted rather than discouraged by what I have characterized before as an emphasis on "statute law" rather than "case law" in our internal affairs. For example, when it comes to deleting articles, we don't accumulate a series of similar cases and try to use them as precedent: in fact, some people seem convinced that precedents are entirely irrelevant. So we have to argue each individual case from first principles every single time, no matter how similar to previous cases. This does not make for a collegial environment, nor does it enable the community to learn collectively over time.
 * - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there's a 5th force: long-term editors who believe that they need to/can/can only counter particular editing behavior by altering the policy. This is exacerbated by their apparent utter unwillingness to see that the effects of the policy they insist upon go far beyond correcting the unwanted behavior.  (They also are or become blind to the fact that the objections raised are due to this unwarranted and disruptive side-effect.)  Actually, the policy probably almost is ineffectual against any behavior: the policy is invoked when the long-term editors challenge the edits.  That the policy says anything about source (or material) types is scarcely noticed by those doing such edits.  We can be virtually certain that any policy wording can and will be used/misused by those with an agenda.  Policy needs to be crafted very carefully.  The overal Wikipedia policy includes "Be Bold" and "Ignore All Rules."  The overall policy was crafted very wisely.


 * It's also true that, not seeing the supposed offending edits, we can't really be sure the edits were improper. --Minasbeede 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "not seeing the supposed offending edits": are people deleting them from the history?


 * As for trying to change policy to deal with bad edits: yes, this is part of what I mean by 'an emphasis on "statute law" rather than "case law"'. - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. I feel disgusted by the increasing number of folks who think the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law and espouse this silliness that there has to be a rigid formula for the writing of every article.  These folks are not inclusive of any ideas or innovations unless they themselves came up with it.  Un-necessary merges come to mind as an example of this. Highonhendrix 06:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be grateful or any mentoring that either of you would be willing to give. I agree, as a new comer, direction would be useful and productive. Perhaps a mentoring program could be initiated whereby experienced and mature editors could offer to be paired with new users and then could be involved with them on their discussions about edits and generally shield the biting wind from the shorn lambs.  A voluntary program like that would improve the project, help retain new editors that would otherwise run off, and teach the principle that you both seem to feel are now lacking.Die4Dixie 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm active enough these days to do any extensive mentoring, but I think it is a good idea in general. - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Essay
This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

I've made no changes but I have made a comment on the discussion page for it. What do you think? --Minasbeede 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied there. - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Joe, thanks for the head's up! (And I'm glad to see that you haven't left Wikipedia yet.) -- llywrch 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

that seems impossible
On Talk:Electronic voting you asked several excellent questions. Does my post make the answer clear, or just lead to more questions? What can we do to improve the article for readers who will have the same questions you had? --70.130.47.149 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dead Air Fresheners
A tag has been placed on Dead Air Fresheners, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Realkyhick 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have requested AFD process; at least as of this writing, it looks like it is leaning toward "keep". - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiram M. Chittenden Locks
Hi. Sorry for being a bit cheeky. The 'fact' tag was in the wrong place, really, as there were several facts that might have needed citing in the one sentence. I hoped my removal would prompt the originator to replace it... So, thank you for doing so!

EdJogg 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

saying hello
hey there! thanks for your edits here. I have been wanting to learn about portal creation for a while and Seattle seems as good a topic as any, besides being a good way to show off all the good articles we have... if you have any favorite articles, etc., do add them; I'm just browsing around right now.

Sorry to hear that you are participating less, though your reasoning and writing on the topic is clear-headed and a pleasure to read. I am curious generally what long-term contributors such as yourself think of the future of WP; that is, are these problems 'fixable,' or will the project simply shift into being something different from what we knew a few years ago? We had a long all-hands discussion about this very topic at wikimania this year; no conclusions though, of course.

At any rate, I hope things are going well for you. I miss Seattle, and Seattle meetups; I'm trying somewhat successfully to get a group going down here in SF though :) -- phoebe/ (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily think Wikipedia is becoming less valuable or lower quality, just less fun. Routinization of charisma, and all that. And I really think WP:IAR is getting lost in the shuffle. - Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 04:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm an administrator with over 60,000 edits. I take it I made a mistake somewhere. If you give me this message without indicating where, it is not very helpful.


 * There are several places where I have been maintaining a work-in-progress list on a talk page. Perhaps this was mistaken for something needing a sig? - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced your image of a GRS pistol grip interlocking machine with that of a real CTC machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmovik (talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alt Emporda Arms.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alt Emporda Arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been superseded by an SVG file. I don't care whether the PNG file is preserved. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alt Emporda Flag.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alt Emporda Flag.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been superseded by an SVG file. I don't care whether the PNG file is preserved. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NHRP photos
Cool, I've got free time tomorrow, so I'll make sure to go do it tomorrow, kinda been busy in "real life". I'll let ya know when it's done. Cheers! Murderbike 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So I'm about to go take those pics, but I'm curious if you know if the 14th Ave South Bridge is the one that looks on google to only be a train bridge now. Murderbike 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but can't swear otherwise. If I remember correctly, it's not actually 14th that goes over it. I had a printed map of the city & it was pretty clear which bridge it was, but I don't have that handy right now.
 * Anyway, to be on the safe side, if there are multiple bridges near one another take multiple shots! I typically find myself taking about half a dozen shots of a bridge from various viewpoints, anyway. - Jmabel | Talk 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's just weird 'cause it appears to be right next to the Spokane St and West Seattle Bridges. The wiki at archiplanet.com had the point right on the railroad bridge that sort of veers southwest from harbor island into west seattle. I'll go nose around and see what happens. Murderbike 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's the South Park Bridge, which I got a pic of several months ago. Off to Boeing! Murderbike 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so I got pics of a bunch of NRHP buildings in Bellingham, and started making a list with pics like the one you made for Seattle's list. I'm curious though, if you think I should just spin off a List of Registered Historic Places in Whatcom County, Washington, or just work it into the Washington list. Murderbike 07:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish

 * Hey, by the way, I notice your userboxes indicate a higher level of proficiency in spanish than mine. Last night I started translating sections from the Spanish version of Spanish Maquis (I think I have two sections left to do), and wondered if you might wanna look at it and see if I messed anything up. Murderbike 04:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Ping me when you are ready for my review. - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just finished translating the last section of this, so it's all there if you care to take a look at it. Thanks! Murderbike 07:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed

 * Thanks! I'll leave this here briefly, then move it to the page where I usually place barnstars and the like. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR notice
Seattle, Washington has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.  Lara Love  17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Great South Bay
Sorry, but the Great South Bay is NOT the south boundary of Freeport, New York. The reason I described the south boundary vaguely is that it is vague, being really salt flats belonging to the Town of Hempstead, thus not any particular community. So you might want to change your edit. ThanksStepp-Wulf 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

Commons:Image:Extrait toccata kapsberger.png
Thank you for your message (I can understand english, so no problem). Well, this image was first uploaded on wp:fr, and someone put it on commons, and as it is a scan from a scan made by an editor (this can give him new rights, even if the original is PD for a long time), I suppose (but not sure) it cannot be put directly in Public Domain ; anyway, it cannot be fair use on wp:fr now either. So, I really don't know what to do, any idea is welcome ;-) (including deletion if needed) Pe.nataf 04:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (fr:user:P-e)
 * Done. Could you check if it is OK please. Thank you Pe.nataf 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Xueta
Is it time to delete Xueta/old? `'Míkka 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Florida maps
The maps are quite straightforward; Image:FLMap-doton-LeisureCity.PNG, for instance, is a map pinpointing the location of Leisure City, Florida (the city name is the last part of the image name, and all are named similarly). Since I created them over three years ago, most have been replaced by better, GIS-based maps. You're welcome to do with them what you like. - Sethant 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the name of the image indicates the state and the name of the town/city/community. I would have thought that was obvious. Like I said, it was a project I worked on three years ago, others have picked it up and created better maps, so I have no strong proclivity to either defend it or do more with it. -- Sethant 05:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hello
Hi, good to hear from you again, and it's also nice to see you back to editing on a more regular basis. I too have cut back on my Romania involvement from the glory days of late 2006/early '07, not for lack of interest (heavens, no!) but mainly because other projects keep sidetracking me and I have limited time. However, I did churn out these two articles just in the past few days, so I'm still kicking. Happy editing, Biruitorul 00:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

seattle help
any particular thing you'd like help on? just got some freelance work so not as much free time as I'd hoped, but if there's something specific, I might be able to take care of it.. --Lukobe 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK--I'll try to concentrate on the awkward writing, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukobe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Grunge and Seattle
I can rewrite and cite the references to grunge in the Seattle article. The main problem is actually how it's written. "Seattle is often thought of as the home of grunge rock" is rather weak and imprecise. It should instead say something along the lines of "Grunge arose in the Seattle music scene in the 1980s and was popularized in the 1990s by bands such as Nirvana and Pearl Jam" or something like that, which is much easier to reference. Also, as Grunge music itself has recently passed FAR, we've thoroughly updated and improved the referencing; you can go through the web references in the article yourself and see if you can find anything suitable to use. WesleyDodds 01:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it may need to be reworded, but somehow one wants to say that Seattle is famous for its music scene and its coffee. - Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can still say that in the lead without reference, but only if it is backed up with citation in the body of the article. WesleyDodds 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why I'm trying to find a citation for fame, as well as origins. - Jmabel | Talk 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was rephrase it in the lead, but otherwise the essence of what's there is fine. However, in the body of the article where grunge is discussed, it shouldn't just say "Seattle is known as the home of grunge". WesleyDodds 02:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tismăneanu
Hi again. I don't know if you still want to be involved in assessing the claims made about the Vladimir Tismăneanu article, but I personally would welcome any feedback or mediation on your part. For starters, I would appreciate it if you would care to expand on your earlier points, and see if and how they stand for the article at the moment. As it turns out, of the claims made in the article back when I first asked you to intervene, several had been retracted by the source cited, and many others are currently subject to a lawsuit. In the meantime, I have added information on the fact that Ziua is identified by several as a biased source, and that VT himself has made a point of singling out that bias (which would make at least part of the controversy reflect back on the paper's reliability and standing). Not in the article at the moment, but available for sourcing, is the fact that at least one Ziua contributor (Bedros Horasangian) took a stand against his own journal and in favor of VT and the Report.

I should add that, significantly, the article has since been edited by a Ziua-related IP, who introduced a reference to yet another source - an sort of internet forum maintained by Victor Roncea, himself a Ziua journalist and a person singled out by third-party sources for his glaring anti-Tismăneanu bias and his controversial (far right) political choices. The forum itself has stood accused of disseminating false information, which it mixes with essays it republishes from uncredited sources, in an attempt to cover its agenda. All accusations against VT and his supporters, which are currently implicated in the aforementioned lawsuit, are authored by contributors to that forum (and popularized there) and, amusingly, its biographical info on VT is a mirror of... wikipedia.

That said, I would like you to clarify your position in respect to the text. You have said before that the info is not well-structured, and that not all of it is relevant. This has been interpreted as support for tagging a section in the article as "confuse", which, in my opinion, was wrong.

If I understood your point, you referred to the fact that articles with no merit other than being published were included in the text. I partly agree with that, especially in respect to the three main Ziua articles: the reprint from a Washington Post editorial section - which is borderline to WP:RS -, the one Ziua later retracted, and the claims made by a person whose very identity/existence is in doubt. I should add that Victor Gaetan is himself suspected of shaded connections, ,. There is a fourth piece: the Ziua Wałęsa-Bukovsky interview, which does not seem to have any sort of relevancy. If you read the article in question, you'll perhaps agree with me that the context is fabricated by Ziua (the additional comments made by the interviewers, one of whom is Roncea, are venomous), at least one of the persons interviewed is being led on (as one respected user has also noticed) and the background is an appeal to authority (without even establishing for the readers if the two had intended to but failed to familiarize themselves with who VT was, or if they were implying that he is a non-entity). In this latter case, however, I do not think the argument is set in stone - as we stand, Ziua 's bias is clearly stated in the article.

However, if those pieces are to be kept in the text (and I remember a lot of determination from various editors in relation to that), then they should be compared to other sources, in a NPOV manner. Yes, Gaetan's claim should be compared with the scholarly assessment of a book he calls all sorts of names. Yes, the early claim that Liiceanu did not support VT should be compared with the fact that he came to support him to the point where he was also attacked by VT's detractors (I left out the fact that he was threatened with physical harm by Vadim and his supporters when he endorsed the Report in Parliament; I also left out further detail on how Cristian Tudor Popescu, who argued with him over the Report, was actually one to endorse it, albeit not as radically as Liiceanu did). Yes, when Gallagher is cited in detail in reference to his criticism of VT, one should make it clear that they not only left their differences behind, but that their political opinions in respect to the present-day situation are both similar and expressed in tandem. Yes, when Ziua goes on to speculate about various details of VT's biography, one should quote third-party sources, coming from some of the most respected periodicals and journalists, arguing that these are manipulation, and indicating that the boy who cries Securitate is himself a proven Securist, as backed by the man himself (I left out the discussions surrounding the fact that Ziua also published medieval and puerile ad hominems about VT being biased in favor of Jews and having "discarded" his "actual name" - as you may remember, this was also the nature of some comments on the article's talk page; indignation over these "points" is present in the quoted articles, as well as in Horasangian's pieces and in various other respectable venues). Yes, when stuff claimed to form part of VT's file is brought up, it should be compared to the version of that file as presented to the public, and it should be clarified that VT was cleared of all suspicion by the state authority charged with looking into such matters. And yes, Goma's claims should be placed next to the fact that he changed his mind about VT, that he made public personal exchanges of letters, and that he attacked VT largely for the alleged actions of his father.

If it should result from these that the controversy is largely a soap bubble, then maybe that is because it is: the reliability of sources making various claims is either completely debased (the Greater Romania Party newspapers, which, thankfully, are no longer cited in the text) or contested by the very people they target (Ziua).

As you have stated elsewhere, if I remember correctly, an article getting "too big" is a marginal issue. This is especially obvious here, since this one is still nowhere as big as any FA. I don't know if you made this point yourself, but the fact that the controversy section is larger than the biographical section is indeed problematic at first sight. However, the latter can be easily expanded in the future (even though some users have attempted to erase basic information about his life).

In conclusion, I do not think that we should take into consideration removing/curtailing info or moving it to another/its own article. To what I have said above, I will add that the issues are, especially given the circumstances, very hard to separate. For one, I have always found that summarizing one article as a section of another one is an always problematic step - unless the section is itself thoroughly detailed. In this case, I think that a special article can be developed only by adding to this section elsewhere, while keeping the section largely as it is. This is because all statements that have been contradicted should be lined up with the arguments brought up against them, and I simply find no way of reducing the present form without giving advantage to one of the sides in the conflict. Secondly, since this issue was a battleground and some anti-VT users will go out of their way to have VT portrayed in a negative light, summarizing will imply that all unchecked facts and allegations are likely to be reintroduced - which, at best, leads us back to where we started (for comparison, note that the claims Ziua conceded to retract and apologize for were present on the article here for months on end, without any mention of the fact that they were retracted; also for comparison, the rowiki article is a sandbox for VT-bashers, where no claim is confronted with its reaction/counterargument, and where the few edits showing how "nu tot ce zboară se mănâncă" have been carefully removed; also note this series of edits, and specifically this edit summary). Thirdly, various arguments need to be placed in context: for instance, I needed to introduce info on the whole impeachment affair and do it somewhere at the top of the section, because at least two debates referenced it and the nature of it least one relied on going through that series of events.

What I am asking is for the article to be evaluated by as many third-party users as possible, in an attempt to have the tags removed as bad-faith editing, or in the hope that serious and well-constructed, reliable source-based arguments be brought in favor of keeping them. I am also considering asking for an official course, starting with a third opinion and, if need be, ending in an RfC against users who have pushed what I can only describe as "propaganda".

I am looking forward to any form of feedback, and I apologize for taking this much of you talk page space and time. Regards, Dahn 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Addition: Briefly touched in the text is this protest, signed by 18 intellectuals (academics and journalists) denouncing Ziua 's attacks on VT alongside the continuous exposure given to Goma's brand of Holocaust denial and Roncea's various ambiguous incitements to violence, and outright accusing the newspaper of promoting antisemitism and an ideology based on that of the Iron Guard. Right of wrong as they may be, I do believe their message adds extremely relevant insight into why Ziua 's articles should certainly not be left floating as if they enjoyed the same level of trust as any other newspaper. (IMO, Roncea's reply to it is equally telling.) See also Bogdan Cristian Iacob's comments in Observator Cultural. Dahn 03:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Squirrels
This is how I came to your talk page, through the photo you uploaded. May I say I entirely agree with your cogent arguments about the freakery & almost impossibility of getting anything done around here because of all the bureaocracy. I've only been here since August but I've already almost thrown in the towel on more than one occasion. It can be like swimming through treacle sometimes. That you are sill around gives me some hope that I am not alone. Thanks. PS When are The Squirrels going to cover "Sergeant Pepper" or has Frank Zapppa beaten them to it? -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I gather that a wealthy fan in Denmark paid for the Not So Bright Side of the Moon recording session on the Squirrels' behalf. And I'm sure that they would be quite happy to get another similar "grant". Right now, I gather they are finishing off an album but are somewhat at a disadvantage because ace lead guitarist J.T. now lives elsewhere than Seattle (Denver, I believe) and so he has to record separately; he's only played one live show with them in recent years (he happened to be in town). If you want to reach Rob, he's easily reached through the band's web site. As a sometime music journalist himself, he's pretty forthcoming. - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On being "back"
Hey, darlin'. :) Your greeting took me by surprise.  Did I go away?  Am I back?  I almost never sit down at my computer with the intention of editing on Wikipedia. I use the site as "recess" when crunching deadlines. It's my way of (believe it or not) releasing stress, goldbricking -- a form of resistance/protest, I suppose, against my crappy, slavedriving boss (me; I suck).  And I've had a seemingly never-ending string of projects lately, so I guess I've also been taking more Wiki breaks (as in "lunch breaks" -- I suppose even my syntax is contrarian when it comes to this damned place ;p).

Anyway, good to hear from you. I hope you are warm and happy and well. I visited your page briefly and saw you in your purple "pimp hat" with the leopard band. I don't know a single black person who'd be caught dead in that. lol (Huggy Bear lives.) Peace 2 u. :)deeceevoice 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On a middle-aged white guy, the hat comes with a built-in dose of irony. - Jmabel | Talk 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dealul Mitropoliei
Right around the time I did that, I received a couple other notices to the same effect, and I plan to heed them the next time round. But thank you for your suggestion too, as well as for the ideas you mention on the talk page. Should anything come up on the subject of Easter I'll write it in, and as time permits I'll also write about its location within the city (though we likely need no more than a map, so by all means do so yourself if you wish). Biruitorul 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nepotistic Admin Actions: Cabal
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin2 is the reason why User:Rangerdude left. You proved to him that User:Hephaestos, User:RickK, User:Mintguy were right, but in the sense that this fault lies squarely with the Wikipedia administration (per User:Lir) and they were legit when you were not. Your action, one of many like it by sysops to stifle complaint about abuse, is what sacrificed those types of "heart of gold" editors, whom are now long gone, being the facade for your own corruption inside. They could only hide it for so long, from altruism you yourself lack. Yes, I know all these people from experience and have been at Wikipedia longer than you, although under pseudonyms. I appreciate their willingness to do their damnedest, although it is so sad that you have remained and they have left. This speaks for the integrity of Wikipedia as it is, rather than how it was supposed to be when it was just Jimbo and a few dedicated people. Thanks a whole lot, to you and yours. Wikiblastfromthewikipast 11:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is about a matter from two years ago. Anyone who cares is more than welcome to read my comments, which have been helpfully linked by the person who left me this nastygram. As you can easily see, if the above is true, someone was driven away by my suggestion that they "'put up or shut up': either request mediation/arbitration… or consider [the] matter put to rest." If being told to either substantiate one's accusations or drop them drove someone away, I think that speaks for itself. - Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Economics
Thank you for doing the obvious at the above article. Ignoring such earlier Edits sets back improvement of an article. The same user did a similar effort earlier, which it was my unpleaasant task to remove after too long. --Thomasmeeks 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

University Playhouse + Seattle FAR
Hey there, Couple of questions for you... 1) Do you happen to know what they're doing with the University Playhouse @ 41st & the Ave.? Looks like some sort of demolition, which surprises me.... 2) How do you think the FAR is going? How do we know when it's over? --Lukobe 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Surprisingly, they are apparently demolishing it. I have a friend who works across the street in the Admin building: she was also very surprised, but apparently confirmed this is what is happening. Amazing that this happened with little fanfare. I had thought it was just being rehabbed.
 * 2) I think it's going pretty well, but of course they keep raising the bar on FAs. It's certainly a stronger article now than when it was first made an FA. It frustrates me a bit that there have been almost no comments from any of the people who were critical of it after the initial batch. I'd really like to see an assessment of whether anyone thinks there are outstanding issues. I did my part (in that all of the requested citations are dealt with, even ones I thought were unnecessary).
 * I don't know if there is any clear process for closing a FAR, especially when the person who first raised the issue "goes dark". Maybe you should ask Raul, he presumably knows everything about how FAs work. - Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Wow, very surprised.
 * 2) Thanks! --Lukobe 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Back on the Playhouse: I just went by, and they are pretty clearly preserving some (but not all) external walls. So I suspect that my friend who said they were "demolishing" it had an oversimplified picture: looks more like a radical rebuild that will use some elements of the old structure. - Jmabel | Talk 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hey there. I've done a GA review for Century 21 Exposition, which you nominated long ago. It's currently on hold, pending some repairs to prose style and minor structural items. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol  •  Tok  01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good news on U. Playhouse, and yes, I'll take a CE pass on Century 21.



 * Done. Still haven't heard anything about the Seattle FAR, though, despite leaving messages on the nominator's and Raul's talk pages. Guess we can consider it closed for the time being.. --Lukobe (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the em-dashes. --Lukobe (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like the article passed FAR--congrats, and thanks for your hard work... --Lukobe (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

NHRP Lists
Hey, I was looking at the Illinois list, and really like the way the listings are put into a table with the date built/listed, and all that. I was thinking of putting that into Washington's, but I really like the photos, and don't really know if it would be possible to just add another row to the table to stick photos in. Do you know how to do that kind of stuff? Murderbike (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know how to do this. Adding a column is trivial. The problem, though: how many columns are practical (as decent layout) depends on the width of people's screens, a variable. So there is a tradeoff for how much information you get into a table.


 * I think the picture, where available, is more valuable than the other information, insofar as there is a choice.


 * We've already arranged our pages by city, so there is no need for a "city" column. "Date built" would be informative (where relevant: doesn't really apply to districts, for example). "Date designated" seems to me wonky, and relatively low priority. If we are going to do something wonky, I'd be more inclined to include the ID#, which is useful when people are searching for more information.


 * Given that we are keeping pictures, and given that pictures are taller than one line of text, another approach (not mutually exclusive) would be to put multiple pieces of information in the same column as the name, and then possible bold the name so it will stand out. This would allow us, for example, to add addresses.


 * Back before I started adding a column of pictures for the Seattle stuff, I asked on the talk page if anyone had issues about what was added; at the time, I got no response at all from anyone, so I did the images, because they struck me as the most valuable thing to add.- Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely good points. What about something like Name and ID#/Date built/photo, or maybe address in there? It's too bad there isn't a standard for this yet, they few lists I've looked at are all fairly different from each other. Murderbike (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm open to pretty much anything that doesn't lose the photos: I think we should be moving toward having photos of as many of these as possible. - Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. I think the lack of photos is the biggest deficiency in the official lists/resources, so the best way we can make a better alternative. I'm most concerned with making at least a bit more info available on the lists, since it seems doubtful that most entries will ever get their own articles. Would it look too awkward to have Name and ID#/Date built-added to list/photo in the table? Does that seem like relevant info balanced with a useful/unobtrusive table? Murderbike (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll try to restart this discussion at the list to see if anybody else will pipe in with good suggestions. Murderbike (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a related WikiProject, but I don't remember offhand what it's called, so you can find it as easily as I. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe I'll bug those folks too. Murderbike (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, after looking at this, I came up with this. What do ya think? Murderbike (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Decent direction. I'd go for a more open-ended "Comments" rather than specifically "Description" (after all, the most important comments are things like "This ship is now in Bellingham" or "also known as the Hartley block"). Again, I'm not so sure "Year designated" is of interest to the general reader (and is certainly of less use to a serious researcher than the official ID), but I won't argue with it if you think it's useful. - Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reworked it with your suggestions (of which i had kinda just spaced out before), though some of the buildings will definitely need more interesting "comments" or just a blank space for someone else to comment. I'll probably through it in the list tomorrow. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is good; don't hesitate to leave the comments blank when you have nothing to say (use an &amp;nbsp; - non-breaking space - so the columns don't look funny on some browsers). - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen the nbsp thing before, but don't know how to use them, or what they do. Where would they go? Murderbike (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * &amp;nbsp; is HTML for a non-breaking space. The main use is so that you can, for example, write things like "1&amp;nbsp;January" and know that you won't get a linebreak between "1 and "January". But the use here is just to put &amp;nbsp; all alone as the minimal text where you would otherwise have an empty cell in the table. Voila! The cell now "has some text" (which keeps certain software happy) but the text is invisible to a human. - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, I stuck em in the comments sections, but couldn't decide if it would be necessary for the few empty photo boxes. Is it? Murderbike (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it is the last column it shouldn't typically be a problem either way. It might display slightly differently, but not badly. - Jmabel | Talk 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Murderbike (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Help build Debatepedia
Jmabel, you're looking for a job? I'm actually from Seattle and founded Debatepedia.org (basically the "Wikipedia of debate"). Love to get your help and maybe meet. I'll be back in Seattle between Thanksgiving and Christmas. http://wiki.idebatee.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21 -- Debaterx (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)