User talk:Jmabel/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Category:Midian et. al

Hello, Joe. I would like your opinion and feedback regarding a discussion I am having with Briangotts here about various categories including Category:Midian and Category:Edom. This issue is whether the categories themselves should be subcategories of Category:Torah people and Category:Torah places, or whether just the articles which actually are about Category:Torah people, such as the parent article Edom and Esau, should be tagged. Further explanation and a place to both voice your opinion and vote may be found on the talk page of Category:Midian. Thank you for your time and input. -- Avi 19:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Athénée Palace, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe

Hey. I know you are a busy guy but I understand that you seem to be a well trusted Wikipedian, who could possibly have a look here and comment? These are part of the incidents reported here.

I would really appreciate it if you could have a look and comment? Thanks --Kash 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if you have noticed ...

Hello Jmabel -- I understand you are very busy with other things now, but I thought you might be interested to know, if you haven't already noticed, that the CG article is currently on the FAC list. Polaris999 00:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Satu Mare

Hello Joe,

I have a small question to ask you. Could you take a look at the article about Satu Mare in the history section. There is this phrase which I find puzzling:

Despite the many casualties and discriminatory measures, the bulk of the Jews of Northern Transylvania, like those of Hungary as a whole, lived in relative physical safety, convinced that they would continue to enjoy the protection of the conservative-aristocratic government. This conviction was shattered almost immediately after the German occupation of Hungary on March 19, 1944. As a result, the fascist puppet government began deportation of Jews in May of 1944.

I do not know anything about the situation of jews in Hungary during WW2 and I can't say if it is right or wrong, but it sounds like ideeas that circulated in Ro, stating that there was no Holocaust in Ro, the germans did it all. Mihai -^talk 09:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know specific details, but that sounds about right. Northern Transylvania was, of course, precisely the portion of Transylvania under Hungarian control after the Vienna Arbitrations. Horthy was an anti-Semite, but did not sign on to the Holocaust (although 20,000 Jews were deported in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia). As long as he retained actual power, it looked like the Jews of Hungary were going to make it through the war intact, or nearly so. Things changed radically once the Germans took over in March 1944. See [1]; also [2] and [3]. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you say that it is OK, then it is OK. I am no specialist in WW2 history, but what seemed wrong was that it sounded very much like public opinion in Romania at the beginning of the 90's - a period of Holocaust denial, at it is in line with the Horthy artcile, which in my pov is more gloryfying than it should be. That's why I wanted to ask for your oppinion because I've lost track of the edits over there. Thx Mihai -^talk 20:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The Exile (1931 film), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good comments on 'Economics'

Maybe the article will be allowed to mature someday. Best, --Imagine&Engage/Talk 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Including planned, or would-be events in Wikipedia

Dear Joe, I have reverted the following paragraph by User:VinceB in the Hungarian minority article, because I considered this to be too actual and I was afraid that would cause a heated debate:
A peaceful assembly is under organization in Odorheiu Secuiesc by the Szekely National Council, backed up by the Hungarian National Council in Romania, and some hungarians in Hungary too, to protest peacefully for the autonomity of Székelyföld wich will be held on 15th March 2006
(Me and another Hungarian user reverted some other edits of User:VinceB too, because he tried to include false data about the number of Székelys (1,4 million).) Now I am not too certain if my last action can be fully justified. What do you think, should Wikipedia deal with events just folding out, or it is better to wait until we can look at them from a safe distance? --KIDB 07:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it really varies, and there is no firm rule. Certainly we cover upcoming elections, and we would write about plans for a major international conference. But both of those are things that we are pretty certain would still be relevant in a year. I don't think it's a matter of whether the event is very current (by the way, "actual" does not have this meaning in English); what matters is whether the event is of encyclopedic importance. This one doesn't sound likely to be. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Francisco Franco

I'm not sure if the edits made ny an anon are . . . accurate. Don't know the subject well enough to revert on my own. Dlohcierekim 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

About link from Adrienne93

Thank you very much Jmabel. I read and answered the address that you indicate to me.Talk:Charlotte_Corday#Recently_linked. With regard to my contributions to wikipedia which seem to you little provided, certainly, they are more important in the French wikipedia because I am not very gifted in English. I can read it rather well, but it is difficult for me to write it. Thank you for your comprehension. Adrienne93 17:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

[4] Geeps, can't believe I fell back to the wrong form of its. I thought I'd trained myself out of that. SchmuckyTheCat 09:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians

I've only known a few libertarians, and they were all of the doctrinaire variety, but, as you say, it isn't fair to judge the whole bunch by the few I've known. It just seems to me that unless you close your mind to criticism, you will quickly see why libertarianism won't work. It assumes that human nature is something quite other than it is. Rick Norwood 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics

It was a long (but great fun project) but I have now completed the translation requested of the French Wiki article on hieroglyphics. NaySay 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Messianic prophecies (disambiguation)

Hi Joe: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messianic prophecies (disambiguation). Thank you. IZAK 11:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Small request

Hello,

After a quite long period of work at ro.wiki project or doing other unintresting tasks around here I've decided miself to create another article from the scratch. It's about the ASTRA National Museum Complex Sibiu. If you have some time, I would be grateful if you could have a look at it. Thx! Mihai -^talk 14:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff. I copy-edited and recommended it for WP:DYK. Please see my half dozen or so questions at Talk:ASTRA National Museum Complex - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing the article and for nominating it for DYK. I've answered your questions and I've explaned why I've used some terms, and if you have the time could you please chose the one that is more apropriate in English. Mihai -^talk 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sandinista article

I realize you don't have much time at the moment, but I would like to draw your attention to an edit yesterday by TDC to the Sandinista article. [5] Given earlier evidence of his shabby "scholarship", notably with the Neruda article, these edits need to be rigorously examined. Could you lend a hand? Viajero | Talk 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics?" What utter crap. This looks like TDC is again using a tactic he has used before: writing a version that even he knows is not neutral, by way of staking out a negotiating position. Which, in my view, is a waste of everybody's time, including his.

It will probably be Sunday before I get a chance to take a real look at this. And, I should add, it's not a topic where I can really claim to be an expert, though I certainly know quite a bit. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics?" What utter crap. This looks like TDC is again using a tactic he has used before: writing a version that even he knows is not neutral, by way of staking out a negotiating position. Which, in my view, is a waste of everybody's time, including his.

WTH? I would be more than willing to defend every edit I have made on that article, and I am glad you will be joining us, because you have been more than fair to me in the past. But I seriously have to disagree with what you wrote above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As you will see from the talk page, I took a look at TDC's citations by virtue of Amazon's "view this" function; some I could confirm, others I couldn't. The larger problem seems to me to be, however, the veracity of the information contained in these raw intelligence archives. I much prefer secondary historical sources in which intelligence secrets are compared with other information to confirm the facts. Given the US's own "intelligence failures" due to everything from bureaucratic inertia to ideological blinders, it is hard to take words of spooks at face value. Did the KGB have influence among the Sandinista leaders? Or was some officer just exagerating his achievements? Based on a cursory glance, clear and reliable picture does not emerge from this book. Viajero | Talk 15:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Ok, I confess: I watched Our Man in Havana a couple weeks ago. Viajero | Talk 15:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:1911 and 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi -- the article 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica is going to be renamed, per discussion discussion to rename eb1911. However before the move I'd like to co-ordinate with an admin to update Template:1911 at around the same time, since there are thousands of redirects. The new article name will be Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Can we set a time window to coordinate the change to the template? -- Stbalbach 17:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, if you just want to do the move of the article and template at same time, and I'll clean up the remaining redirects. -- Stbalbach 17:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The simplest way to do this is just to do the move (which will make the current page into a redirect), then to change the template at our leisure. I'll gladly change the template once those who are working on the article make the move. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I just moved it. If you could please update the template ASAP that would be great, thanks. --Stbalbach 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, all looks good. Nice work on the optional params. --Stbalbach 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wayland Young

From what I remember, I had done a quick Google and the results hadn't connected the two with the one person. My apologies for the inconvenience. --Mal 07:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your reply on my talk page, I wonder (without having looked first) where the author Nancy Friday is categorised. --Mal 01:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Article history

There is a talk page here Talk:5th Avenue Theatre, which indicates there may have been an article there, a sorely needed one. Can you check to see if there is a deleted history there? If there was a copyvio problem leading to it's deletion the talk page looks like it clears that. If there isn't a deleted article then that jumps pretty high on my to-do list. SchmuckyTheCat 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

RE:e-mail

Joe, I got your e-mail. I have been delayed in responding by computer and health problems. Thanks, Jay

Around Tanase's Death Story

Hi Mr. Mabel !

I am the author of the report about Tanases death from the website of Mr. Scherz (Karpatenwili), which you courtly cite in your article on Tanase. How the world is small !

I know this story since i was a kid. I have been told it by my grandparents. Later, i heard the same story from the grand aunt and uncle of my wife and from several other persons of same age. It seems that very many of the genuine Bucharester, who were adults in the 40', knew this story. As i can remember, the accounts were remarcably identical among all reporting persons. I have no reasons to doubt the story.

Interestingly, there is an aftermath of the dramatical death of Tanase.

In the 70', the regime, in quite desperate search of legitimacy, tried to recuperate some popular symbols or figures. One of them was Tanase: a popular, quite legendary figure, who in addition, had been quite critical with the prewar regime - a circumstance which could be exploited by the communists.

Thus, 1975 a film have been made, named "Actorul şi sǎlbatecii" (the Actor and the Savages), with the remarcable Toma Caragiu (dead in the earthquake 1977, eversince himself a legend) in the role of Tanase.

The film was supposed to show the tragic end of this great "clown". Showing this however, was not without some intrinsic difficulties, since you couldn't openly blame the Red Army of killing Tanase, even in the "independent" Romania of the 70'.

They solved the problem in a typical way, rewriting the history: in the screenplay the actor was assassinated on the stage by some fascist hooligans, after repeatedly irritated them with antifascist satire.

Everybody should have been now satisfied: the public had his Tanase back home and the regime its propaganda film.

Needless to say, that for the new generations who saw this production, THIS was the story of Tanases death.

Quite fascinating this entanglement of true facts, propaganda and urban legends in the rewriting of the (hi)story.

A quite multilayer story.

Best regards

--Vintila Barbu 15:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Besides: years ago i read your "Letters from Romania" and i was very, very impressed. I consider it as one of the best pages ever written by a foreigner about postcommunist Romania.

--Vintila Barbu 15:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

It is true it was my assumption, but I guess that if you hated it, you wouldn't have been interested in Romanian subjects, you wouldn't have made an effort to learn the language and keep translatin... Sorry if I misinterpreted all this. I like your Bucarest travel diary a lot and this is the wholesome impression it gave me. --Vlad|-> 17:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, it is definitely not "love", but it is more like "like". And it is more like part of an expression: "a prinde drag de ceva / cineva" it shows that it is nothing sudden (like a love a first sight), but something that developped in time. And for the rest, I agree with you (what you said about Romanian nationalism in Romania and on Wikipedia.) I think that all americans know at least about Nadia Comăneci and... Nicolae Ceauşescu!... --Vlad|-> 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, is there a chain named after Carol? How come? Do you have more info about it? It sound very interesting... and bizarre at the same time! :) --Vlad|-> 18:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

your visit in Romania

Hello Joe, when do you come back in Romania? You will enjoy this time Romania's integration in EU. Regards, your buddy.

Sure, troll Bonaparte longs to enlist you into his friends. mikka (t) 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually hoping to be there (on business) in April, but nothing is firm. And, mikka, I'm not easily suborned. - Jmabel | Talk 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Now looking more like early May - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Kabbalah practitioners

Hi Joe: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 20#Category:Kabbalah practitioners. Thank you. IZAK 09:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

between Bucuresteni  :))

Loking in on your articles about Bucharest, i see that you've become meanwhile a true Bucurestean...

Now, between us, true Bucuresteni, i'd dare to ask you a favor, of course, within the limits of your time: could you throw a look on my small article Decree of Turda to check if it's tolerable English ?

no flattery: I really appreciate the topics you choose to write about Bucharest...only genuine Bucharester would do that

Regards, --Vintila Barbu 10:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

me again (usually I'm not a nag...): I'm practically bilingual Romanian - French. If and whenever you need whatever linked to French, I would be delighted to assist

--Vintila Barbu 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

French to English Translation Page

Hallo, I've sort of adopted the above page--cleaning it up and the like. Hope you don't mind? It's small but useful enough for a noob Wikipedian like myself to start getting the hang of it all. Thanks! Tamarkot 23:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen

The three of us, Rjensen, yourself and me, have worked on Labor unions in the United States.

Funny, but I didn't see the connection until today between Rjensen's edits on Business Plot and Rjensen's edits on Labor unions in the United States.

If you recall, we first heard of Rjensen when he deleted all the content that is now on Labor Unions: International comparisons. This caused a big stir. I later apologized on his web page, welcomed him back and comprimised to allow him to move all of the information I wrote to Labor Unions: International comparisons, despite your protests, because I thought he may be an expert on labor.

Well, my opinion of Rjensen edits has now gone down, way down, after I realized that the same Rjensen at Labor unions in the United States is the same editor which I caught several times stating things which were simply not true on Business Plot. Rjensen quoted books, which when I researched a little bit, I realized he was making up, and which actually conflicted 100% with what he was saying. On Business Plot he makes a lot of statments which simply are not true, when I have called him on this mistakes, he denies them, fervently. He keeps waiting for several months when he thinks that I am no longer watching the page, then will add his very slanted POV to the article. All the evidence of his tactics are on Talk:Business Plot.

We are in a middle of another feirce argument, where I have had to corner him several times to admit in a round about way, that he is incorrect. I just wanted to warn you about his edits. Based on his mistakes and patent falsehoods at Business Plot, I seriously question how much he really knows about labor. From my expereince at Business Plot he has this thin layer of authority, which is very convincing, but when you dig a little deeper you realize that he is a POV warrior, who will manipulate and even invent sources to support his own POV.Travb 14:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

email

Hey, I sent you an email. Have a look at it. thx. --Candide, or Optimism 16:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead Politicians

Hello,

I was the person who asked the question about 'assassinated' v. 'murdered' politicians. Here are my thoughts:

I believe once a politician, always a politician (and that’s another issue altogether). In common usage, the term, or occupational category, of ‘politician’ covers everything from Dogcatcher to President (there’s another issue best left alone). And, once a person leaves office they are still commonly regarded a ‘politician’. And the term ‘assassinated' is most commonly used to refer to their death if it is under violent circumstances. I don’t want to make this sound like an issue of apocalyptic proportions. My only concern is: if we proceed with using only the ‘Assassinated politicians’ Category from now on, since this is a sub of ‘Murdered’, will those already listed in the ‘Murdered’ category be left out of the master list. I’m struggling to make sense here, please bear with me. The mechanics of Wikipedia are still somewhat foreign to me. Bottom line: I think we ought to abandon the ‘Murdered politicians’ Category altogether in favor of ‘Assassinated' regardless of the circumstances of their death, or whether or not they were still in office.

You appear to be much more experienced with the mechanics of Wikipedia than I. Would you consider putting this issue to the Wiki community for their thoughts on it?

Regards,

Michael David 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yasser Seirawan

Thanks very much for catching my error and restoring the categories and external links; when I pasted the succession box from a Word doc, I inadvertently removed them. Joe 04:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

ack

Yes, I saw your comments on the talk page, but I felt that the ball was now in TDC's court; I had posted a list of issues I had, you followed up with some helpful comments and suggestions, but there was no further word from him. This morning I decided we had waited long enough and, when I read your note, I was about to remove all his material until he has time to add the citations and attributions to the article.

As an aside, I will freely admit that Amazon's "Look inside" feature is not the ideal way to verify citations, as it doesn't actually enable to you jump to a specific page, the way you can, for example, in Adobe's Acrobat reader. On the other hand, searches on surnames pulls up the relevant index page as well, and in at least one case I could see that there was no index listing for the citation TDC presented.

Thanks for your help. Viajero | Talk 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Racial discrimination

I leapt in, especially to the lead. Have a look. I'd be interested to know what you think. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I tightened the tentative language but it still needs more specifics. I stopped at the discussion of the twentieth century due to (my) time limitations. Will try to revisit it later. Thanks for working on it. skywriter 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Menard

Why the link to Infinite monkey theorem from Pierre Menard (fictional character)? I could see the theorem being relevant to the The Library of Babel, but it seems to have little to do with "Pierre Menard". There is nothing random about Menard replicating Cervantes: his enterprise is to become so immersed in his understanding of the time and place as to be able to recreate exactly Cervantes text. It's like the difference between a single laser-guided missile and a barrage of shotgun blasts. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Library of Babel would be relevant to. The connection that jumped out to me what the similarity of monkey's trying to reproduce Shakespeare verbatim and Menard trying to reproduce Cervantes verbatim. The differences that you point out are correct, and I don't think a see also link implies that Menard was an exercise in randomness. To me at least, Borges's contention that Menard's Quixote is "infintely richer" than Cervantes's is analogous to the question of whether the works are Shakespeare would be as meaningful if they were typed at random by monkeys. Bascially, I think both Pierre Menard and the Infinite monkey theorum call into question whether the meaning of a text is tied to its author. This hermeneutical similarity was enough for me to add a see also, but you are free to remove it if you disagree. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like quite a stretch. I think both points (Menard and the Monkey) might be relevant to the article on Reader-response criticism or something else in the realm of critical theory, but the connection from the one to the other is too tenuous for a "see also".

Here's a suggestion: rather than the infinite monkey theorem, why don't we stick with a comparison to another work by Borges himself, and instead of a "see also", why don't we put in a sentence explicitly contrasting Menard's richer reproduced text with the less rich reproduced text of the "The Library of Babel"? And "The Library of Babel" should, indeed, link to the infinite monkeys, if it doesn't already. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. You are free to act on that suggestion, but I am hesitant to add literary analysis to wikipedia because of WP:NOR concerns. I'm going to look into a template of Borges's works as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse

Please note that I have now referred User:Jacrosse to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration, and will be referring to your trouble on the Socialist Party of America. Let me know if you would like to be a party. You can find the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jacrosse. If you wish to, please append to the "Statement by DuncanBCS" heading. We must keep our response to 500 words or less, or it may be removed without warning by the Committee clerks.--Duncan 10:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Nationality vs. ethnicity

In the leads of quite a few articles, you have changed [[France|French]] to [[French people|French]] ... when someone is from a nation state and their ethnicity is the dominant ethnicity of that nation state, we normally leave that to go without saying...

I must admit I'm not that sure when a distinction between "Xish people" and "People from X" is intended on Wikipedia – not just in articles, but in category names too – so I am also not sure how inclusive the "we" above might be. I'm not on some crusade, though, so will happily leave such descriptions in place, unless I do recognise a conflict between an ethnic and national description. Thanks for your concern!  David Kernow 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)