User talk:Jmabel/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Cough

• Political machine (AfD discussion)

Have a look at how Safire addresses the subject. Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Protest tactics

Category:Protest tactics, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Hi Jmabel, it's been quite a while since our paths have crossed. I well remember when you departed Wikipedia (and the circumstances), so I'm glad to see that you've resumed activity (at least to some degree). As it happens, I'm arguing against the CFD proposal for Category:Protest tactics, but I like to notify creators whenever possible if the nominator hasn't done so. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm (Re: your remarks on my talk page)

I didn't realize certain users' opinions were more valid on Wikipedia than others. Sounds kind of counter to your mission. I'll have to remember that the next time you all ask for money. Prell (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume "you all" means the Foundation, since I've never asked you for money. I don't remember ever commenting on any of your opinions, but feel free to point me to somewhere I did so. I did comment on your incivility to another editor, and I stand by that remark. I also commented on the requirement to provide sources and that the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to add material, not the person who wants to remove it. Neither of these had anything to do with your opinions. One had to do with your conduct, and the other had to do with how the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not someone's blog. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Seattle has been nominated for FAR

Seattle has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Music

Well, the problem is that, whether an artist represents a particular genre is 100% opinion. If what you're after is proof that a group of professional critics support a given genre claim for an artist, then I guess you're right, and I won't bother trying to contribute that information anymore.

My edits were from my own experience, and I didn't even add anything; I just restored something that someone else added because a bunch of artists that were favorites of that genre were deleted. So if the encyclopaedia requires third-party validation of a given claim, it seems to me that it was provided. As I understand it, this is an encyclopaedia of the people. If that claim only extends to editorial capabilities rather than providing new information, then I don't see the value, because all that's been accomplished is that a group of amateurs are doing things that other people get paid to do. Prell (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

None of that has to do with your making abusive remarks to another editor, which is the main reason I stepped in.

Other than that, sorry, I don't recall the substance of the matter you were initially arguing about. It doesn't matter who added something initially. What matters is that the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to keep it in. From your description here, if you have citations from generally reliable sources that some artist is part of some genre, cite them explicitly. If not, the rules are on the side of the person who wants the statement removed. I personally think that Wikipedia puts too much emphasis on citability, but it's a policy that the community agreed upon, and I'm here to participate in this community (and, as an admin, to enforce its policies). If you (or I) want to change policies, the policy pages (or, more precisely, the talk pages of the policy pages) are the place to do that, and I've certainly fought a few battles there and won some of them (notably that foreign language sources are acceptable, that online sources are not inherently "better" than print sources, and that old pages in the Internet Archive are exactly as citable as current pages on web sites). - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comet Lodge Cemetary

• I don't actually have time to review your edits but wanted to take a moment to say "How awesome are you to have responded to my issue?" The last time I got tagged for notability I asked "why?" (as it felt it was CLEARLY notable) and no one responded. For you to take the time to say, "I did this, removed tag and hope it is enough" was very appreciated. I am still finding my way through Wiki, and as a Seattle resident I question a number of entries that have a "spam" feeling to them...I have lived here for nearly 50 years and been very active in history and culture and cringe when there is something that seems petty. I would ultimately like to find names of important people in Comet Lodge Cemetery, and may indeed look myself because I want to advance Wiki and make it informative and useful...but for now will not contest article further. I just think existing in Seattle with minor ties to significance diminishes the true rich history this city has to offer. I hope people do not go to pages like "X- park" or "X- Cemetery" or "X- parking lot" and think..."what a crock of shit, this is boring" because I think there is a lot out there that needs more. I have not written many articles, but each one I have is filled with sourced details because I think any article worth writing is worth writing well. I want to stimulate interest...and frankly the single sentence about some cemetery I never heard of was of no interest...so I thank you for adding more, tis all I thought it needed. You rock! OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

PM and Ingersoll

Greetings JMabel - we meet up again (PM (newspaper)). Happy editing! --Technopat (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The embarrassment of having cited the wrong source added wings to my fingertips... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Vince Mira

Apologies for taking so long to reply to you (I have been off wiki for two months). I have restored the Vince Mira article as you requested on my talk[1] some time ago so that you can develop it further (I have added a couple of references to help it along the way). Kind regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette

Thanks for picking up the edits to Lafayette. I usually watch over the article; but, I've been inactive for a few weeks. Thanks for the notice, and I'll look into it. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Elinor Smith

On 22 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elinor Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Surveys at Talk:Valencian Community

Hi! I'm addressing you because you had participated in some way at Valencian Community article. I've started several surveys regarding to naming conventions about the Catalan language, the Spanish language, and about the name of the country of Valencia. I think there's no a real consensus about that and (also because of it) it may help to stop endless polemic disputes. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Graciasland.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Graciasland.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Circus Maximus 1967 album.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Circus Maximus 1967 album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Circus Maximus Neverland Revisited.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Circus Maximus Neverland Revisited.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

reorganisation of 10 August (French Revolution)

Courtesy call: I have today moved the above article from 10th of August (French Revolution), as being a title more consistent with WP's acceptable date formats. In the same vein, I have created the following redirects:

• August 10, 1792
• 10 August 1792

Ohconfucius (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think that this issue isn't how Wikipedia writes dates, but what historians call the event. As far as I know, "10th of August" is pretty universal, just as "18 Brumaire" is for Napoleon's coup. Surely we aren't going to remame the latter 9 November or some variant on that? (but as long as the redirect works, this move is not that big a deal. Moving "18 Brumaire" would be.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. 18 Brumaire is a well-known date even in English, and what's more, there is no conflict in terms of entries or style, so it's best kept. The universality of '10th of August' means that the other redirects you put in for the article will stay, regardless of how often or seldom these terms are typed. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pssst

Talk:Pike Place Market/Archive 1#Back to work. I began gutting down the history section, and asked SandyGeorgia, the FAC coordinator, about the citations thing I was worried about. No worries at all, there. rootology (C)(T) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for History of the Pike Place Market

On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of the Pike Place Market, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma as a Romani group

There are some discussion for the creation of an article about Roma as a Romani group, but there are some problems about the best way to do that. Can you take a look, if you have the time, please? The discussion are mostly at Talk:Roma people. Thanks! AKoan (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Microcredit

Dear Joe: Thanks for your very constructive edit yesterday microcredit. You are precisely the type of person who could make this article -- which acts as an edit magnet for many people with extremely narrow interests -- work for the general reader. I believe it is a common search term -- at least in the context of international development in which it functions. Last year I fixed microfinance which had until then simply been a hodgepodge of promotional remarks by NGO people who wanted the world to know that their NGO was doing way better work than the next one. It has subsequently been considerably more stable, though still occasionally spammed. The same disease is still afflicting microcredit, and yours is the FIRST constructive edit I've seen on it in months. It is not, and never has been, an article. It needs someone to make it one. Can you do it - please!?Brett epic (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It's not a topic where I'm particularly expert. I simply happened to read a good article from a source I trust. It seemed to provide some criticism from a source not wholly opposed to the idea, which is usually stuff I find useful: non-fanatical, but skeptical. - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yuri Rytkheu

Although it falls outside of your usual edits, could I interest you in reading my translation of this article? Particularly for bad English and illogical statements? The various wikipedia articles were not all in agreement on some things, so I've left comments in the text and taken out other conflicting elements. But a good read-through by someone like you would be extremely welcome. Thanks if you decide to! -Yupik (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Afrofuturism

Hello Jmabel. Your comments would be appreciated on the Talk:Afrofuturism. --Loremaster (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenerife

I see there's still one untranslated passage in this article's text, in the Museums section: <<un fondo museográfico integrado por more than 2,600 registros de elementos of the Guanche culture>>. May I suggest: <<a museological [or research or archival] collection comprising more than 2,600 specimens of items from the Guanche culture>>? Unconventional (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly something like that. Feel free to go for it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Thank you very much for improving the text of the section "Representation" of the Empire of Brazil article.

It was I who wrote the portuguese version and translated to english, although I mut admit that sometimes, is quite hard to find comparable words and expressions in english that match the original in portuguese.

You wrote that some words or expressions you couldn´t quite understand. I´m going to try to help you out so that you may use what better fits you.

1) For comparison, the civil employee with the lowest wage at the time, the utility maid of service public

Utility maid of service public: the word in portuguese is "servente de Serviço Público". It means those employees that works cleaning the walls, floors, bathrooms, taking care of the public buldings, etc... The most similar term in english are "keeper" or "janitor". I´ve used "utility maid" because that what was written in the Dictionay.

2) Beyond these new features, it was forbidden that public officers concur in its own districts

It means that judges, policemen, secretaries, anyone who was a public officer could not campaign in its own district.

3) as a measure to prevent them from using the public machine

In the portuguese original text, it meant that it was a measure to stop those public officer of using their influence, or public money, or public workers to help on their campaign. It´s like a Dean from a School that uses its employees, or print panflects from the school´s print, or use money from the school to help them campaign.

4) What happened was that many presidents of province, as well as provincial secretaries, military, judges and chief of police had been hindered to be elect or at least in its districts of origin

It means that they were not allowed to campaign anymore at the districts where they lived or worked. So, if they wanted to campaign to become Senator, for example, they would need to do it in a town other then its own.

5) when the expressive reduction of the election of public officers was seen

It means that before, public officers were the majority of newly elected politicians at the Parliament. But, as the time went on, and new restrictions were made, their numbers diminished considerably.

6) allowing that the "real country" could enter “directly in the Parliament"

Its an expression that says that electoral frauds were diminishing and at least, the politicians that were being elected were truly the people´s representatives.

I hope I´ve helped a little bit! - --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, that helped a lot. I've rewritten that paragraph accordingly. I also had flagged some issues in the next paragraph, similar help would be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

entrepreneurs of public works and vicars and bishops in their own parishes could concur

Trade “concur” with “campaign”. It means that these people could not campaign for political positions in the places where they lived or worked, so to preven them from using any inluence to change the outcome of the elections.

and established that elect public officers elected in other districts that not yours could not exert their positions, receive wages or be promoted while their mandates lasted.

It means that, for example, if a Judge was elected a provincial deputy, he would not exert his position as a judge, neither receive wage or be promoted until his term as deputy had finished.

Again, thank you, --Lecen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.172.83.132 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Hello! Here goes another tips to the article:

Overview

1) Between them, these facilitated better commercial exchange and communication between the country's distant regions.

This is not totally correct. Not only the roads helped the economical exchange and communications between distant brazilian regions, the ports helped doing the same with other countries.

2) International trade, that is, the sum of both imports and exports, amounted to a total value of 79.000:000 $000 between 1834 and 1839 and increased every year until it reached 472.000:000 $000 in 1886

You should put “Brazilian internation trade” to make it clear that the numbers are related to Brazil´s international trade, and not the world´s internation trade.

• I think this is already clear from context, but it would be OK to be more precise. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

3) For the purpose of comparison, between 1850 and 1900, Brazilian export of agricultural goods varied between 73% and 83% of the United States' total exports.

This is a mistake. What a did was compare both Brazil and USA´s exports at the period. What it means is that the USA between 73% and 83% of all north american exports were agricultural goods. I was trying to show that both countries relyied on agricultural good´s exports at the time.

• Ah. Then the previous wording was so confusing I didn't even understand it! I'll fix. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Industry

4) Other incentives arose, such as the decree on 8 August 1846 that exempted manufactured products from the direitos''

You´re correct, the word “direitos” is related to taxes in this context. It means that the factories did not need to pay taxes for the transportation of their products.

• OK, I'll write accordingly - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

5) The Alves Branco tariff underwent modification in 1857, reducing by 15% the tax on imported products

It is not “by 15%” but instead “to 15%”. Before the law, taxes to imported goods were 40% over its price, after this change, it became 15% over their price.

• OK, I'll fix accordingly - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

6) Ao iniciar a década de 1850, havia cerca de 50 fábricas com capital superior a 7.000:000$000 This sentence is not translated. It means “In 1850, there were 50 factories with a capital superior to 7.000:000$000”

The currency of the time was called “Real” (in english it would mean “Royal” and not “Real” from “reality”) and when called “Réis” in the plural (“Royals”) which is the archaic portuguese to the modern “Reais”. This is also the same name of the modern currency of Brazil, but we do not call “Réis” but instead “Reais” in the plural.

• OK, I'll fix accordingly. Yes, I knew about the currency, but if we don't currently spell this out in the article, we probably should. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

7) devoted to estamparia and paper, by a decree of 26 June 1826

Yes, the correct is “stamping”.

• Yes, but stamping of what? "Stamping" is very vague. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, you wrote the name of historian Fernando J. Devoto as “DeVoto” like in “McCain” but the correct is “Devoto”.

• I'll fix. Interesting, in the U.S. that is almost always “DeVoto”.

- --Lecen (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The word "estamparia" is related to "estampa" wich in english it would be something similar to printing, engraving, etc...

About the point raised by you at the article´s discussion, about the possibility of the existence of another view about the Empire´s economy, it happens that the matter is realted more about the history of the Empire´s historiography than with the history of the Empire itself.

From 1890 to 1920s, the republican that ousted the Emperor out of power "re-imagined" Brazil´s history. Names of streets, parks, towns and others were changed for "republican" names. Instead of a "Rua do Príncipe", there was a new "Rua XV de Novembro" and similar. The same happened with history, facts were changes, new "heroes" appeared. As Pedro I was an Emperor, they needed someone else to represent the country´s independence. At first, they choosed José Bonifácio, but he was a monarchist and a friend of the Emperor. So they picked a very obscure character called "Tiradentes" that lived at the end of the XVIII Century. As a hero of the end of the Slavery, they replaced princess Isabel with another very obscure character, "Zumbi dos Palmares", and african that lived in the XVII Century. And so and on.

The problem is that the First Republic (1889-1930) also known as "Old Republic" was a very problematic period. Revolts, coups, military uprising, dictatorship (1889-1894) and others occured. The country deeped itself into debt as the economy went down too. What happened was that the politicians started to blame the Empire for what was happening at the time.

But, from 1920 to now, historians have shown that the Empire was a very progressive period for the country, not only in matters related to economy, but also related to freedom of expression, elections, politics, military, etc...

- --Lecen (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about how I understood it (but more concrete). In that case, perhaps the article as now written "doth protest too much". If the historiography being confronted is nearly eight decades old, we don't need to so often suggest that it is the conventional view. And where we do write in that mode, we should probably be clearer that the counterpoise is to historians who wrote during the First Republic or to those who sympathized with the governments of that era. - Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

> The word "estamparia" is related to "estampa" wich in english it would be something similar to printing, engraving, etc...

• So perhaps we would do better to say "paper and printing" than "stamping and paper"? - Jmabel | Talk 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep! Anothr issue: wouldn´t be a good idea to make an article only for the economy of the Empire: it´s quite long, and a I believe it would be better to make a simple resume and a link to the actual article that would contain the text that is presently there. Oh, and one last thing, there is a small topic on the article called "Coffe and Industrialization". It has quite a few mistakes in there and I believe it should be erased as the the one about Economy already talks about the same subject and with much more details. - --Lecen (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say you should feel free to remove redundant material yourself. As for factoring out an article specifically on the economy of the empire: my usual approach in these cases is to get things sorted out in one big article, they work out what is best factored out to separate articles. - Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jmabel, I´m now on Rio de Janeiro and I´m going to return to Fortaleza only on next saturday. As soon as I get back, I´ll look at every issue. Don´t worry! - Lecen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.248.237 (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)