User talk:Jmabel/Archive 58

Master Juba
Hi, Jmabel. As one of the only other editors I know who is actively editing any minstrelsy-related articles, I hoped you might drop by Master Juba and give it a look. I've recently put it up for review at Featured article candidates/Master Juba. So far, I've met with opposition based on the uncertainty behind the identity of the various dancers who went by "Master Juba", "Boz's Juba", and simply "Juba". People seem to either expect me to do away with the ambiguity and call them all the same person, or to make it clearer that it is possible that the lives of a few different dancers have been conflated in the historical record.

So, if you get the chance, would you mind dropping by and checking things out? A full review would be best, but in the least, I would appreciate your input on how to tackle the problems outlined above. Much thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the article now? Any further suggestions? I'd like to ping the two folks who are currently opposing the FAC and ask them to reconsider, but I want to make sure you don't have any more concerns first. Thanks again for your help. — Dulcem (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only large thing I'd consider (thought it will probably have no effect on the FA process) would be to use Harvnb in citations, the way the Blackface article does. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation templates make my head hurt, so I'll leave things alone for now. I won't stop others from making the change if they wish, though. Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One reviewer has brought up concerns with some potential point-of-view problems and overuse of jargon in the article. Would you mind taking a look at Featured article candidates/Master Juba? I'd value your input (either there, here, or on the article's talk page). Thanks, — Dulcem (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

street articles
Look at the footer to Broadway_%28New_York_City%29. I remember us deciding before that probably only the Ave. and Lake Washington Boulevard deserved their own articles in Seattle, but there are articles on some comparatively obscure New York streets... thoughts? --Lukobe (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems excessive to me. I think a lot of this is better handled at the neighborhood level. But I'm sure we could do more than these two. Cheasty Boulevard South and Queen Anne Boulevard are landmarks and should certainly have articles. But, for example, while I could certainly write an article on Madison Street that would pass muster, I doubt it would be much more than a collection of near-trivia: "Madison Street is the only Seattle street that extends the full distance from Elliott Bay to Lake Washington. It passes from Downtown over Interstate 5 to First Hill and the Central District (including what was once known as Renton Hill), then through Madison Valley to Madison Park." Etc. Is there anyone who really would want to read this article? - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably not. The landmarks would be good, though.. --Lukobe (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start stubs. --Lukobe (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll do another stub.

Numerous apparently related deletions
I was blindsided by this. Please see my remarks at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_11. - Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:GFDL-presumed-ast
Template:GFDL-presumed-ast has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Catalonia_comarque_Alt_Camp.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Catalonia_comarque_Alt_Camp.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the other images listed here. Kelly  hi! 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging
I understand you're probably frustrated by the flood of image tags...if you'll bear with me for just a little while, I will go back and consolidate all these script-generated messages into a single message. Basically I am replacing the Catalan maps with Commons version that have good licenses, as opposed to the ones that are tagged with the questionable license GFDL-presumed-ca. I'm really sorry for the hassle. Kelly hi! 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll revert them as I send them, but basically all the images here are being nominated for deletion in favor of images with better sources. Kelly  hi! 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, then, that's fine. I thought all of these images were going to be deleted without replacements, just because the license trail was slightly imperfect. - Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried finding the original images in the Catalan Wikipedia, so I could fix the sources and licenses, but it looks like they've been deleted for some reason. So I switched over to the maps that are currently being used in those same articles on Catalan Wikipedia - they all happened to be on the Commons already. Sorry again for the hassle! Kelly  hi! 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was only one image that used that Asturian Wikipedia template, and that image is on the Commons. The rest all used the Catalan license template and had descriptions that stated they were from the Catalan Wikipedia. Kelly  hi! 02:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There were more before. They probably had already been dealt with one way or another. - Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ondine
May I alert you to a discussion on merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze)! — Robert Greer


 * Thank you! — Robert Greer (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashton / Henze / Ondine / Undine
I regret to inform you that the party who wanted to merge Ondine (Ashton) into Undine (Henze) has been unable to accept Wiki. administrator DGG's determination that the two articles should remain seperate. Your comments on Talk:Ondine (Ashton) would be welcome! — Robert Greer (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Social
I'll be volunteering at UD street fair again this year. I'm managing 43rd street food vendors, stop by and say hi. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Compare Akahi Nui article
Seems to me the tone of this article is very different from that of Akahi Nui. I think the problem is probably there, not here. It starts right out with Quentin Kawānanakoa being called a "claimant" while Akahi Nui is called a "pretender". Both terms are equally valid for either, but "claimant" has more positive connotations. In any case, though, I'd expect the two to be handled more or less symmetrically.

I don't know the topic well. I came to this by way of WP:BLP issues in the Akahi Nui article. It would be much appreciated if someone who is working on this and has no ax to grind might come look at that other article as well. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now edited the Akahi Nui article to also use the term "claimant", and added each article as a "see also" in the other. - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Owana Salazar
Do you think she or her son should be included? I personally think Akahi Nui should be listed as a false pretender as he has no geneological prove of his descent from Liliuokalani's sister or Kamehameha. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no way to evaluate independently anyone's claims to royal descent. Again, this should all be based on citable sources. I know nothing about Owana Salazar. I know just enough about Akahi Nui to know that there seem to be some serious Hawaiian Sovereignty people who consider him the legitimate claimant, and that by his own account he is a (presumably illegitimate) descendant of Kamehameha. As I've said before, this is totally outside my expertise. I don't think any of the articles are citing great sources. Clearly, to call someone a "false pretender" one must cite which article says so. And, in any case, "pretender" and "claimant" have the same denotation but different connotations, and we should not be rendering (even implicit) judgments of our own in matters like this. I happen to think Prince Paul of Romania (Paul Lambrino) has no legitimate claim on the Romanian throne, being the product of a morganitic marriage, but in that article I believe things have been left to let the documented facts speak for themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I see that the Paul Lambrino article has now become a largely uncited mess, heavily edited by his partisans. I'll do some work there: that one I know more about. - Jmabel | Talk 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alt Urgell Arms.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Alt Urgell Arms.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've asked repeatedly: why haven't we "grandfathered in" images like this that serve an obvious purpose and that predate our new, stricter policies on justification of non-free content? - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, this is superseded by Commons:Image:Escut de l'Alt Urgell.svg. Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Balaguer coat of arms.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Balaguer coat of arms.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bart Blitz Album.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bart Blitz Album.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Speculative text
Hi, you restored a section of newly added text to Verifiability. I have opened a discussion on what speculative text refers to per the context in which it is being used. If you would like to join in its at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You made Crosscut.com!
They used one of your pictures...congrats :) --Lukobe (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And they did so without permission. I would have granted the permission, but it's kind of arrogant for them to presume so, don't you think? They are not GFDL... - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well--I don't think it was arrogance; I think it was ignorance of the rules. The Washington State Democrats did that to my map of Eastern Washington once. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that my ex-girlfriend was their Web coordinator at the time :) By the way, I've written an article about my experiences at Wikipedia for Crosscut: --Lukobe (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good piece, especially your response to Steven Walling. - Jmabel | Talk 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't come across him before--or perhaps I had and didn't realize it--have you? --131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey now
This edit summary was a bit much. No need to get heated over a simple issue like citations. Please try to be more cordial. I think if you look over some of the WP:FA material I have worked on you will see that I make a good faith effort to source as much of the article as possible with WP:RS/WP:V citations. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit summary is saying, precisely, that I'm glad you actually plan to do some of the work and aren't just telling other people that you will wipe the article if they don't do it. That's what I had originally thought you were saying: usually when someone goes about adding a bunch of tags like this to an article they didn't write, that's what's going on. It is, precisely, an acknowledgment that you are acting in good faith, which up to that point I doubted. And if you read the rest my comment, you can see that now that I see that this isn't a hatchet job, I was offering to track down anything that you actually find difficult to verify. I'm just very tired of people who are "cleansing" Wikipedia of quite useful articles that simply predate our current standards of citation. Many of them seem to have no interest in doing the heavy lifting themselves. You apparently do, which is entirely good. - Jmabel | Talk 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what I'm "heated" over isn't citations. It's the recent pattern of mass removal of uncontroversial but somewhat undercited material. (I have no problem at all with the removal of uncited material where anyone who knows the topic has genuine doubts about its accuracy.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and your offer to help with adding more cites. It appears from your explanation that a good healthy dollop of good faith is needed all around. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Catalan comarca Garrigues.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Catalan comarca Garrigues.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. BJBot (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No longer being used. Delete it. - Jmabel | Talk 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix free sheet
Fair enough. :) raining girl (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seattle meetup 5
Hi Jmabel, I see that you've attended the previous Seattle meetup. I hope that you can make it to the next Seattle meetup on June 19! Bestchai (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seattle meetup this thursday (6/19)
Hi Jmabel, just a reminder that you've signed up to attend the Seattle meetup this Thursday (6/19). This one's going to take place at 7:30PM at Thaiku -- a restaurant\bar in Ballard. See the meetup page to add more agenda items, see attendees, etc. Hope to see you there! Bestchai (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Wilhelm Liebknecht 2.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Wilhelm Liebknecht 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thraco-Roman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Thraco-Roman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Thraco-Roman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Bluehunt (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agrarian reform and Ben Cousins reference
Dear Jmabel: Back in August 2006 you inserted in Agrarian reform some very detailed and useful material based on a working paper by Ben Cousins. These references have survived the test of time and still appear in their (almost) original form in the article. Unfortunately, the link that you accessed back in 2006 is no longer active (at least I cannot access it in June 2008). Do you have any idea what URL Cousin's paper can be accessed on at present? --Zlerman (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now linked to the Internet Archive for a copy. That's always the first place you should look for an old web page that's gone missing. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jew GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Jew and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Paragraph 175
Paragraph 175 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. —Angr 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements necessary to keep Rosa Parks as a Featured Article
As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured Article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.

I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was a pretty minor contributor. - Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now gone through and evaluated the existing citations, but it will be up to someone else to really work on this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Brainerd
Heh - it's the wonderful folks at Google Books who scan this stuff in for us. See here - there's some rich detail on his life up to 1899. Biruitorul Talk 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I think not. Darky is a slur for a black. Coon is a slur for a black. Nigger is a slur for a black. Some people may not usually hear coon or darky, whereas nigger is instantly recognizable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.113.13 (talk • contribs) 17 July 2008

Context: this was presumably with reference to the Blackface article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but "darky" and "coon" are specific archetypes, not generic insults. The "darky" archetype is a Southern plantation slave (or ex-slave, or, later, sharecropper or smallholder), usually portrayed condescendingly but benevolently; the "coon" archetype is a sharp-dressing, usually Northern, a schemer, usually disparaged for unmerited pretensions but also sometimes (especially before the mid-1840s) a blackface surrogate for the Irish immigrants in the audience. - Jmabel | Talk 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But I'm perfectly ready to believe this was not intended as vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Late
Well, it just had no article. Anyone would have considered it as some kind of spam. I'm just used to seeing editors self-promote a band of their own and such. It just got removed. I never deleted the article. -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So I take it that if I write the article, that will be fine. - Jmabel | Talk 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Managed Code
My, this was fast! (But your edited version is better :) ) --bonzi (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply.
Check the dates, I was blocked for that incident for a week. - Gennarous (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say, that was pretty lenient. - Jmabel | Talk 15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have photo of Irv at the Last Exit
he allowed me to take. I was there with Ralph-Ralph, Eve, Tex, Ned, Kristin, "Frenchie" the cook, Don. Summers of 83, 84, 85. I came in from Alabama. I think Irv hired me because of my accent. maxcassady@gmail.com

New NRHP photos
Hey, good job on these. I was just at Snoqualmie the other day and totally forgot about that district. Hope you're well, Murderbike (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * by the way, i saw you started the table for Snohomish County, and thought i'd point ya (if ya don't already know about it) to the Elkman NRHP infobox generator here. it's not just good for creating infoboxes, but for finding addresses and coordinates for sites, as well as listing dates and reference numbers. cheers! Murderbike (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh. I was just up to Everett today & decided I'd take some pics while I was there. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

St. Mark's Place (Manhattan)
Yes, this is quite better. Just that, I wouldn't've exactly known where to start, due to my lack of ability to verify much of the information. - Tajik24 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

my Commons cannes pictures
thank you for your congratulation. Oh, these pictures they deleted was really not taken by me. I've found some old photos I thought was already free of copyright, and uploaded to Commons... Al Capone etc. I abandoned my professional photographer carrier. Nyikita (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 175 Assessment
Paragraph 175 lost FA status on August 7, 2008. Please see my comments on it's talk page Talk:Paragraph 175 about assessment. — Becksguy (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Northwest School
I agree with your comment about the page Northwest School (art) that Northwest School was not exclusively linked to the Skagit Valley as the article claims.Chesterct (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

50
Thank you. So if your count is right & I can sneak in 3 more by December I can catch up with my age. - Jmabel | Talk 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Building out a Market template
Would you mind peeking at User:Rootology/Sandbox 2 and letting me know if I've missed anything obvious? I found what I have based on a dirty "whatlinkshere" search. rootology ( T ) 03:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Watson seems obvious--whats Tobey's market connection (I'm probably missing something obvious)? rootology  ( T ) 03:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * His Market Sketchbook was a key in the movement to preserve the market. - Jmabel | Talk 03:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

saw your name on my watchlist

 * Hi JMabel, saw your name on my watchlist for the first time since forever. if you ever need any help on any articles, drop me line. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)