User talk:Jmabel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Schiessbefehl

Thank you for copy-editing the translated article schiessbefehl. It looks really nice now. Olaf Fritz 06:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saintswithin has done some more editing. I think it's cleared up now. Maybe 'off-target' is more exact than 'astray', but see Talk:Schiessbefehl. - Olaf Fritz 06:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seattle: featured article

Hey there, regarding WikiProject Seattle, how much further do you think we have to go until Seattle is worthy of (self-)nomination as a featured article? Thanks--Lukobe 06:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, so I looked, made an edit, reverted it, and made another that I hope is seen as "friendly". It's a good article. I myself would be neutral on making it a Featured Article. Plus side: it's dense as all get-out. This must be one of the most link-dense long articles we've got. It obviously is the tip of a well-researched iceberg. Minus side: Consequently, a lot of it reads like lists instead of prose. That may simply be inevitable. Maybe some of the more list-y sections could use an introductory sentence or two of prose? Or maybe not.

Anyway, the quality is high, but Featured Article tends to go to more interesting pieces of writing, and we simply have too much material to make our top-level article all that prose-y. -- Jmabel 07:44, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

So, the listy sections used to be actual lists, and what we currently have was an attempt to turn them into prose (though a pretty basic one). What I hear is that you think that is the weakest part of the article, and that the listy prose needs to become even more prosey! Makes sense to me. I'll add that to the WikiProject page. --Lukobe 18:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175

Thanks for all your hard work on translating Paragraph 175---it's much appreciated. Good job! grendel|khan 14:04, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, here's the translation you requested:

Im vorgelegten Reformentwurf sollte zusätzlich zum Paragraphen 296, der sich weitgehend mit dem alten Paragraphen 175 deckte, der Paragraph 297 geschaffen werden.

In addition to paragraph 296 (which extensively overlapped with/corresponded to the old paragraph 175), in the proposed reform draft paragraph 297 would have had to be created.

...was to be created...?

That's what I can make of it ... I hope this helps. Cat 09:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I presume that "Ders." in its context means "Derselbe", "the same" i.e. Elmar Kraushaar is both author of an article and the editor of the volume in which that article appears. I've edited the article and simply repeated his name. Cat 19:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello

I responded to you at Talk:Political correctness. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Schiessbefehl

Thank you! -- Itai 14:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Romaniotes and the Holocaust

See Talk:Romaniotes. Etz Haim 21:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Argentinean

Well, I always found it spelled that way, so I checked the spellcheck on Microsoft Word for Argentinian, and during spellcheck it said that it was spelled wrong, and that the correct way is Argentinean. I then checked spellcheck.net for Argentinian and also found it was wrong on that database and the correct from was Argentinean. If you would like to change it back, thats fine with me too. Yono 15:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discusión:Bombardeo de Guernica

I have posted an explanation about it. The violation was introduced by only one person, the article was reverted to the last version before the violation. --AstroNomer 19:30, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein Defense

In response to your question in the discussion to delete this article, the basic principle Saddam Hussein argues for in his defense is called sovereign immunity. --Michael Snow 22:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CPA - CPUSA

Please see: Talk:Communist Party USA#Merger_proposal -- Davodd 18:43, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

International Labour Organization

I apologise for incorrectly moving this article, I will use the move feature in future. Darksun 18:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Looked over yr fix, mostly to see if you adopted my keeping-copies-of-former-hxes scheme. It looks to me as if you decided it wasn't a merge-needed problem bcz one of the histories was insignificant: IMO you treated it as a no-longer-reversible-move problem.

That's not how i would have done it, but that's probably more bcz i'm unusually literal-minded, than bcz others would agree the merge was needed. So really this note is just to check that

• my first impression (you forgot the final step, undeleting) was wrong, and
• my second impression (the system was not yet showing the effect of the undeletion) was wrong, and
• you realized you saw no need to merge in order to "fix the cut-&-paste move".

Sounds like the info i pointed at helped, even if i was answering the wrong question, and i'm glad of that. [smile]
--Jerzy(t) 00:01, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

French Revolutionary Calendar Peer review

Hi, you have made a listing at WP:PR. Other editors have made comments that could use your help in resolving. The new peer review policy is to remove listings with suggestions that have not been responded to after a reasonable time. This is to make room for better discussions and more collaborative editing. Thank you. - Taxman 04:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Specific es: request

Was it you who left another note on my meta:talk page yesterday? If so, here is a specific translation request: translate the first two 'pages' (that is, the first two divs) of m:Translation requests/NL-1/En: to m:Translation requests/NL-1/Es:. A very crude translation, enough to allow a monolingual Spanish speaker to clean it up, is totally fine.

Cheers, +sj+ 07:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175

<discussion moved to Talk:Paragraph 175>

Hi Joe, the Image:Burning of Sodomites.jpg has already existed before you uploaded it a second time (under Image:sodomie.jpg). Perhaps we should delete either. --Amys 02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Gestapo_anti-gay_telex.jpg

(discussion moved to the image page in question)

talk pages

Why did you just delete comments (not all of them yours) from Wikipedia talk:Cite sources? Pending an explanation, I am restoring. This is usually not done: you've effectively edited out someone's response to your comment. -- Jmabel 19:27, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

The comments was double. You can check it. It is double again now. Andries 19:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

I've been putting articles that relate to a specifically clinical view of homosexuality and those that deal with opinions on and views regarding homosexuality (along with the people who express them) in Category:Homosexuality (which would otherwise be pretty much redundant with Category:LGBT), including those on people who have public views opposing GLB issues and people. I've put a few other people in the category, including Laura Schlessinger and Fred Phelps as well. I've been thinking for a while that they will need their own category, but Category:People opposed to homosexuality is all I can think of, and it sounds absurd to me (how can you be opposed to homosexuality?), so it hasn't happened yet. -Seth Mahoney 18:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175 and legal references

• Excellent work on Paragraph 175, I've changed to support. Also, good info on German legal references! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

You wrote: "The ACLU emphatically deny being "on the left"; given that (among other things) they defended the right of the KKK to march through Skokie and oppose most campaign finance reform, it's hard to argue."

Whether campaign finance reform is liberal or not is debatable, but the Skokie thing is pretty unarguable. Freedom of speech is a liberal value, and if you're not in favor of freedom of speech for views you don't like, then you're simply not in favor of freedom of speech. AaronSw 00:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other evidence the ACLU is on the left: in cases where civil rights conflict with civil liberties, they often take the side of civil rights (e.g. gays in the boy scouts, sexual harrassment, etc.).

Thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship, and for your subsequent assistance and valuable advice. Jayjg 16:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Socialism

Firstly, thanks for the democratic socialism thing. I'm such a dingbat w/ links sometimes.

Perhaps my edit wasn't the best way of going about it, but I still feel that second paragraph is terribly disjointed. About all we can say with confidence, at least this early in the article, is something along the lines of "some people claim to be socialist, but this claim is disputed by some; other people claim that others are socialists, but these people for their part dispute those claims". Perhaps I'm not really grasping what the paragraph itself is trying to say. But it doesn't appear to be much. Maybe leaving it out altogether is the best approach (but hey, it's probably the least of worries with that article . . .) Anyway, do you have any general ideas on how to improve things?

On another note, I don't know if you're interested, but I'm planning to redo Social Democracy. I've got the beginnings of a plan up at User:Lacrimosus/Drafts/Social democracy. If you feel you have the time, I'd love if you could give me some feedback. . .

PS. Excellent work on consensus-building on left-wing politics. I'd make an effort to be more involved there, but the discussion is so intricate, I'd be fearful of stepping on toes. . .

Cheers, Lacrimosus 10:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The revision is much clearer. Thanks. Lacrimosus 08:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Joseph

Why would it be against he manual of style? I don't see anything about it there.

There's also ample precedent... there's also Saint Peter, Saint George, Saint Nicholas, ... heck, there's dozens of them at Category:Saints.

--Joy [shallot] 12:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And there's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). That "Saint Joseph" is the most common name should be pretty evident... --Joy [shallot]

Just saw the update (and though the link is broken I found it :) The answer is that it falls exactly under the exception clause in the third section of the biographies manual of style. --Joy [shallot] 12:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

protected pages; you've misunderstood me

Hi Jmabel, you've misunderstood my comment. I haven't protected any pages since that first time which we already talked about. That, in fact, is the protection I was talking about. Jayjg 03:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that's still not clear. I'll try again. I've never protected the Occupation of Palestine article, nor am I involved in any disputes there. All I've done is put it on the VfD page, and put the notice on the article itself so interested parties can have their say. The only protections I've ever done were several days ago to the two articles you already know about. Jayjg 06:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dan Savage

OK, I was wrong ... at least mostly. See the talk page for my reply. --zenohockey 17:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, so I fully reverted -- but I think "undoubtedly" should be left out for NPOV. --zenohockey 19:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175

Sorry, Joe - I haven't been able to give the usual time to Wiki I did in the past. Being employed really gets in the way of a lot of things I used to do. Sigh. Your revised lead is excellent, and I'll be striking comments on the featured article page. Denni☯ 01:08, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Vote

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

Joe, mea culpa for vandalising History of Romania; my net connection went down as I was trying to commit the page. Thx, IulianU 21:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frederick II

No, I mean regular Britannica - I derived some information, but no text, from the article (I have online access through my school). Most of the information I added was from my own knowledge, probably largely derived from Runciman's History of the Crusades, but I wasn't looking at it while adding. I tried to look at 1911, but I couldn't find the Frederick II article in the crappy online version (Has a better online version appeared yet?). john k 23:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Allende's last radio message

Hello, jmabel, I saw your message on Talk:Salvador Allende. The Spanish text is available here, but I'm not sure how unpolluted a new translation of it would be, since it was published in 1975 in Salvador Allende, Discursos, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana. If the texts in this book are copyright, as seems likely to me, any unauthorized translation of Allende's last speech would be a copyvio too (compare my message and link on Wolfman's talk page). Please see my comments here and here for full details and concerns. --Bishonen 00:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much for the translation. Will wikisource it. Wolfman 01:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good comment on VP re Systemic Bias

That was a very good summary / comment on the Village Pump about Wikipedia's systemic bias. Quite inspiring, in fact. —Morven 06:01, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Looks good to me. TDC 08:00, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section opened

See User:Xed/CROSSBOW. Please feel free to add to the discussion. --Xed 12:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

your crossbow list

I think your crossbow list could be pruned a little. The subjects contain plenty of North American and Euro pop culture, something which the systemic bias has already contributed. Whilst PJ Harvey, Joan Jett and Stokey Carmichel etc are all worthy of articles, they don't fall far outside the systemic zone, if at all. A lot of the figures you mention have more detail than Joseph Kabila. It might even be useful to ignore all American and European figures (which make up 95% of your subjects) for crossbow.--Xed 23:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Translation into English

Hi Jmabel - see my response at Wikipedia_talk:Translation_into_English#Split_up_this_page.3f. --HappyDog 01:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much for your translations :-). Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time till at least January. There are some untranslated articles at es:Usuario:Ruiz/Pruebas. I think that Ruiz made good contributions to Vicente Fox (there are some untranslated information on es:). He wrote also many articles on Nuevo León (the Spanish article is larger) (see es:Lista de artículos relacionados con Nuevo León). Some interresting articles: es:Historia de Nuevo León, es:Gobernantes de Nuevo León (just a list but interresting, so easy to translate), es:Política y gobierno de Nuevo León. Sorry for not giving your more precises answers. Have a nice weekend. --Youssef 18:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

village pump confusion

That was my fault. I put the original question in both VP and VP policy since I wasn't sure where it should go. Now fixed - all in main VP--Xed 19:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

regarding Bela

On en:, the titles of Hungarian rulers are rarely accented AFAICT, mostly because they're written in anglicized/latinized forms. The one Bela that has an article has it on Bela, and so do Stephen (István), Ladislaus (László), Geza (Géza), Andrew (András) etc. The few that have a native name are Árpád and the two Álmos, and these articles were created by non-English speakers (Grin and myself).

Also, until the article for Bela IV comes to existence, the links should point to the single place so that it ranks higher on Special:Wantedpages :) and that is also more often Bela rather than Béla. --Joy [shallot] 20:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Notice the same pattern in the short-form links to Bela and Béla (all without/before my intervention). --Joy [shallot] 20:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyhow, all this is void now given that I noticed that we actually have a page :) --Joy [shallot] 20:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Filling the holes of Wikipedia

I want you to know that I think your approach to working against systemic bias, as outlined in the Crossbow page, was well thought out, well put, and a really good starting point for something that did have the potential to substantially contribute in filling some glaring holes in Wikipedia. And I certainly agree with you that those coverage holes are not limited to physical areas with poor internet access or a lack of general media coverage. It would be really sad if the positive energy of this got lost due to some individuals' attempts to narrow the scope of the effort down to their individual fields of interest.

I firmly believe that in order to be successful, any attempt to make people contribute to broadening Wikipedia does have to encourage rather than limit their enthusiasm, giving examples of undercovered areas, rather than listing specific, "allowed" subject matter, be it specific countries, minority groups or academic diciplines. Myself, I have quite a limited grasp on African issues as well as African-American and Native American issues, and don't think that I could contribute very much in those areas without doing extensive research. I might be able to do a bit more in the area of women's history and women in popular culture. But I'd also like to add a new subject to the list of undercovered subjects: Labor history and labor organizations (as illustrated, for example, by the many red links in List of trade unions, the shortness of International Labour Organization and the lack of articles about major ILO conventions). My hypothesis is that this could be the results of a systemic bias due to the demographics of Wikipedia. Others, while acknowledging systemic bias in general, might claim that this is not the case, or there are other more important "coverage holes". But whether or not they do, I'm sure any work of mine in this area would benefit from collaborating with anyone aware of and willing to work against the systemic bias as such.

What am I trying to achieve here? I'm not sure. I would like to hope that people agreeing on the fact that there is a systemic bias and resulting "coverage holes" could find ways to work together, regardless of their individual focus. I also believe that an "infrastructure" such as the one proposed by you could increase the effect of any and all such work. So basically, I guess I'd like to urge you not to give up on some kind of effort similar to the one you outlined. I would really like to join such an effort and try to bring other Wikipedians that have indicated an interest in this along with me. Alarm 13:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175

Hi Joe, I think the German-language article about Paragraph 175 is still not ready (I will add some minor aspects in the future). But I will tell you, if everything is accomplished, and will post the paragraphs that have changed. The section about East Germany has been completely redone a week ago, and I think it can be considered as finished (at least I don't know of any aspects that are missing). If you want to, you can re-translate that section (it's now much larger). --Amys 01:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Conservative Novelists

Well, Joe, I finally did the deed on conservative "novelist" T. S. Eliot. He probably should be mentioned, but where? In a few days, Calvin Coolidge is probably going in somewhere (but NOT as a novelist). What do you think about T. Coghnessan Boyle (sp?) as a novelist in there? When interviewed, he sounds pretty conservative, as does Batchelor, another younger novelist.

Rlquall 22:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term "writers" might be an improvement. With regard to those authors, I haven't really read enough of either. "Writers" could include P. J. O'Rourke, who's really an essayist, also. Batchelor, I believe, wrote a history of the Republican Party entitled, Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?, the title a supposed quote from Lincoln, and made a case for that propostion on his book tour promoting it. When a page is edited as much as "conservatism" is, I usually defer to the judgment of others, but may cease to do so again if this takes as long to get addressed as the "Eliot" mistake did.

Rlquall 22:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Annual

Hola Jmabel: Bueno...antes de nada un cordial saludo, te escribo en español porque se que lo conoces perfectamente. He visto que has traducido el artículo "Annual" de la wikipedia española. Pero como puedes ver la casi totalidad del texto se refiere, no a la localidad de Annual, sino al denominado Desastre de Annual, por lo que he trasladado toda la parte referente al citado desastre a la página Desastre de Annual. Te lo digo por si quieres renombrar la página en esta wiki. Saludos y enhorabuena por tu seguimiento de los hechos históricos españoles. PACO 00:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- Jmabel 22:22, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Seattle meetup

Hi, Jwrosenzweig and I are organizing a Seattle meetup and wanted to let you know in case you're interested in attending. See our talk pages for the discussion so far. We're tentatively planning to have the meetup on November 6th, so if you want to come but that date is problematic for you, please let me know. --Michael Snow 21:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Michael is going to add a subpage to Wikipedia:Meetup soon -- once either he or I has done so, I'll make sure and tell you so you can watchlist it. I'll let you know -- probably in the next couple of days, we'll have enough of an idea to be able to post a page. Jwrosenzweig 22:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to check out the 10th floor too and see if it's suitable. I just don't want to be stuck in a part of the library where we need to be overly concerned about noise. And we'll definitely create a dedicated page soon so people can watchlist it. --Michael Snow 22:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle is now a live page, so we can make that the focus of our planning. I've copied the initial discussions to the talk page there as well, so basically everything we need is there. --Michael Snow 22:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)