Jump to content

User talk:Jmabel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
wizard (fantasy)
Re: Link pruning
Line 228: Line 228:
==Wizard (fantasy)==
==Wizard (fantasy)==
Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: [[Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment]] [[User:Goldfritha|Goldfritha]] 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: [[Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment]] [[User:Goldfritha|Goldfritha]] 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Link pruning ==

Three thoughts:
* Plainly too many. The section has 50 external links divided in 10 subsections. We are going to modify the external links guideline to use ; instead of third level headings to make it slightly harder for people to add their own links in the section, between [[Wikipedia talk:External links#Bold edits|other]] rationales.
* This is the English Wikipedia, existing English external links with the similar contents than the hebrew ones, these last ones could not be included.
* Many external links can be moved to other articles. In example, the ''Orthodox/Haredi'' ones could be inserted into the [[Haredi Judaism]] article, the ''Traditional/Conservadox'' ones into the [[Conservadox Judaism]] one, the ''Reform'' ones into the [[Reform Judaism]] one, the ''Conservative'' ones into the [[Conservative Judaism]] one, etc. This will greatly decrease the amount of external links in this article, and seems a reasonable petition. Please forgive me if, in any of my examples, I associated an external link section with the wrong branch, my knowledge about the topic is pretty limited (which is why I tagged the article instead of stripping the section myself).
Hopefully it made sense. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 05:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:06, 25 October 2006

Archived

Stray barnstars

I've moved my barnstars, etc., to User:Jmabel/Barnstars. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Ioan Sterca-Şuluţiu (and unrelated matters)

Good edit; thank you. It does preserve what I meant to say. And thank you for backing my 1907 idea; we do have a few months, so we can do this slowly and comprehensively.

If I may do a bait-and-switch, what do you think of this new article? Personally, I'm not a big fan, given that we have this already and that the term "accused" is pretty vague (who does the accusing--a prosecutor, or can press accusations also land someone on the list?), as is, in fact, the term "crimes"; George W. Bush might be guilty of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", but so far, few people have accused him of actual felonies or misdemeanors committed in contravention of federal, state, or local law. And so on. Biruitorul 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Accused" seems awfully vague. The standard ought to be at least indicted or impeached. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll consult with the list's originator and see what he has to say. Biruitorul 04:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNŢ

I did some cleanup there. I removed the link on total victims of Communism because, while it's an important fact and should be mentioned in an article of its own, it's not directly relevant here. One thing the new edits have done is further blur the line between the pre-1948 and post-1989 parties, again raising the merger question. As for the Ziua link, what it does is quote Ioan Mureşan, a disgraced former agriculture minister; the party platform makes no mention of monarchy. I did e-mail the party in hopes of getting a clarification on their position. The Cotidianul link has more specific figures that I inserted. Biruitorul 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradict

I made a mistake reading it the first time... accidentally linked two unrelated incidents from the Nikita Kruschev page. My apologies. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline page-number refs while reusing citation templates

Take a look my the example on the page, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives -- I only hand-created the superscript on the citation-talk page as an illustration of the example. I think I'm doing it the way you're telling me to.... Sorry I wasn't clear: my question is about having a ref link at the end of an inline link -- stylistically that seems odd, but it does what I want, which is to have a page number inline, with a full ref in Refs. But stylistically it seems like I'm footnoting a citation and there should be a better way...????
thanks,
Renice 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of editing it myself instead of trying to explain. Hope that what I did is OK with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an improvement. It's too difficult to tell that all the references come from the same source. I'd rather leave it the way I had it. But thanks. --Renice 17:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to see the Ethnic groups sidebar on (not updated) version of page

Go here to see the Ethnic groups sidebar on (not updated) version of page: User:Ling.Nut/NewPageSandbox. --Ling.Nut 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks basically good. I think we should probably do something (like surround it in another layer of invisible table, just for margins) to get a little bit of space around it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

time to remove the "Individual nationalities, ethnic groups, etc." assessment table...

On WP:ETHNIC, I was randomly clicking on links in the assessment table, and the assessments are outdated.. (see for example Ethnic German and Ethnic Japanese rated as stubs). The table is supplanted by the new ratings system, altho the latter is not really ramped up yet.. and the table takes up a considerable amount of vertical real estate on the project page.

I suggest retiring it. There's a copy of it on User:Ling.Nut/NewPageSandbox that we can refer to while updating assessments.--Ling.Nut 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any general problem with this. How, though, do we generate some type of assessment remarks that can be found without having to look at each individual talk page? - Jmabel | Talk 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a comment option of some kind when I was setting up the categories for mathBot/Wikipedia 1.0 etc. I'll look into this and see if it suits our needs.--Ling.Nut 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I've taken a first look at the page, and what I think the immediate disagreement is about, and have commented on the Talk: page. I hope I'm talking about the correct issue, please take a look and let me know. If there are other content or other kinds of issues where you would like me to try to assist, please let me know, and I'd be happy to help. Jayjg (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ethnic groups sidebar

The sandbox for the Template:WPEthnic groups Sidebar still has some red links... I don't know if you want to leave them there as a "to do list" or "wish list." I commented out a few things (portal, automation, etc.) because they seemed a bit further down the road...Which (if any) of these do you want to keep as redlinks or even begin developing:

  1. New articles
  2. Articles up for deletion
  3. Collaboration
  4. Outreach
  5. Peer reviews
  6. Translation
  7. Vandalism

--Ling.Nut 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all worth keeping, they'd all be worth starting in the near future. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I moved the sandbox to template space, then you edited the sandbox.....
--Ling.Nut 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are here--Ling.Nut 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cults in Our Midst

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Can you honestly tell me (or tell yourself) that this is a neutral article? Almost your entire focus is on her disparagement of a Landmark, and it is all effectively from the point of view that she was right to disparage them. You are focused on publicizing a possible reading that was, in fact, clarified away in a lawsuit.

Smeelgova: this is an encyclopedia. It's not a soapbox. There is nothing wrong with writing about this topic, but you are basically writing in a partisan manner, and there is something wrong with that.

I suggest that you might take a look at something like Abortion debate to see that very controversial material can be handled in an evenhanded manner. And I'd also suggest a quick read of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy, which is very short. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Duly noted, read the essay, thank you. However, that section was taken from another article in which it was duly cited. However, thank you for the advice and I will try to take it to heart. Yours, Smeelgova 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  1. Why are you cutting my remarks from your talk page?
  2. I'm not saying it was poorly cited. I'm saying that the net result was an unbalanced article: that you took material entirely from one side of a controversial matter, made no apparent effort at balancing it, and most likely (though I could be wrong, I haven't followed up your source) took the most inflammatory portions of what you found in the sources. - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to contain a discussion on one talk page. I hate having to go back and forth to reread the response and follow-up response. Okay, okay, I get your points above. Thanks for the advice. Yours, Smeelgova 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

we'll move this page, when we both agree it's done

We'll move this page, when we both agree it's done: Sandbox here for page to be moved to:

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Cleanup]]

--Ling.Nut 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"pages needing attention " section; midterms

Hi Jmabel,

Yeah, I've always wondered about that "pages needing attention" section too. There was never any text under the highest-level heading, then the section below is about archaeology. I think this and a few other sections can easily (and fruitfully) be removed from the project page... it will make the page crisper, cleaner etc.

I have midterms now, then papers to write. This afternoon I will put up a wikilink to the page on Wikipedia 1.0 that discusses having "Articles about blahbahblah with comments" structure. Beyond that, I may need to stop for a while. I will be checking my talk page for messages.--Ling.Nut 11:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tesing "comments" option

Testing the "comments" option tonight. Cross your fingers. Please note that Talk:Rukai people is rated class=A as part of the test. It should be returned to class=Stub after the test is completed.--Ling.Nut 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edits to the Asessment subpage of the Ethnic groups projects. There is a redlink marked "this article's ratings summary" in the Ethnic groups template of every talk page; clicking that link creates the /Comments page...the person does not need to create it him/herself..--Ling.Nut 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

Hey Joe, thanks for looking into those Chernikhov images, the guy who uploaded them and wrote a really great article with them constructivist architecture doesn't seem to be around anymore. Your reasoning makes sense to me should we add the template you suggested? Also do you have any more photos of the EMP like this Image:Sky Church 1.jpg? And finally, are you going to Portland and could you point me to a page with the info about it? Regards, DVD+ R/W 23:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A 3RR case

Hi Joe. I've been asked by User:MariusM to block User:William Mauco over a 3RR violation. I personally believe that no such violation took place. The case was reported at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:William_Mauco_reported_by_User:MariusM_.28Result:.29. As another admin, what do you think? Ronline ✉ 09:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bojaxhi

I noticed on an article i have edited a bit was voted previosuly for deletion. Since I do question the notablility of this person and since you voted to delete the article in the past maybe you know what should be done with this article. Dwain

Assessing importance for ethnic groups

  • OK, I believe it's set up. Tomorrow the "Rukai people" should appear as mid-importance. Would you please change it to whatever importance you prefer, if the test works?
  • You may wanna watch all the categories for a couple days. Assign at least one article to every class and every importance and see if they appear.
  • I'll let you be in charge of moving stuff from my sandbox to {{Ethnic groups}}.

--Ling.Nut 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The test failed. I tweaked the categories; see if it works tomorrow night.--Ling.Nut 06:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it failed, I meant that "Rukai people" didn't show up on the summary as a Mid-Importance article. Perhaps I didn't get all the categories right; I tweaked them a bit.--Ling.Nut 06:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Test=success. One article ranked mid-importance. Please see the bulleted comments in the top of this section for more stuff, esp., I'm asking you to take care of the move from my sandbox to the project template.--Ling.Nut 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi. I'm a little concerned that maybe your signature won't work in tables, and will break tables if it's trancluded (e.g. a /Comments page transcluded into the WP1 assessments table). That's because it contains the "|" character which is a delimiter in wiki table syntax. Have you tested your signature in tables? --kingboyk 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kingboyk, our table is a bit hosed in one spot. I dunno if it's cause of a sig or a deleted /Comments page or a test template or what. I left more details here--Ling.Nut 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Bugeac image

Ok sorry to answer so late. The map was originally created by Anonimu and he based his map exclusively on the Soviet census of 1989 if I am correct. He did not post it on the article, he just suggested it as a possible map, however everyone sort of ignored it. I contacted him and inquired about it. I took the map and changed it in areas where i knew for sure from census data from 2001 that there were mistakes. Besides the census, the sources I used were [1] and [2] as well as this site for the actual map [3]. Dapiks 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later

I'm not sure I'll be on Wikipedia much longer, Joe. It's been nice knowing you. SchmuckyTheCat 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over and out!

Hi Jmabel,

I feel like I've followed through on the cluster of tasks that I began & saw them to their end... all that's left is a few minor mopup details, all mentioned in bullet points in the section above. This time I'm really really really outta here. I look forward to working with you further, starting in December or perhaps Jan. Later!--Ling.Nut 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Fujimori

Because you edit Alberto Fujimori, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messhermit, which I just filed. --Descendall 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you made a comment on that page. Do you think that this is a stong case? I've never made such an accusation before, and I'd hate to be wrong, especially in light of the fact that AAAAA recently made a false sockpuppetry claim against me. I really hope that I haven't made a mistake. --Descendall 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right. I really hope that I'm right. I'll be embarrassed if I'm not. Well, the die is cast, I suppose. If they are are totally different people, it's a hell of a coincidence. If that's the case, I hope that they at least meet and befriend each other, since they all live in the same area, and even go to the same community college. --Descendall 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-portrait

Hi Joe, I would like your opinions (or edits) on something. I just translated User:DVD R W/Автопортрет from ru: because we didn't have a self-portrait article before and this was just a redirect to portrait with only two lines mentioned there. Could you take a look, edit as you'd like, and tell me if you think it is ready to move into article space? Thanks, DVD+ R/W 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the French version, which has even more info. I'm into trying to translate things right now, so I'll probably try this one too and then merge them. Thanks for taking a look and agreeing to help, I'm especially insecure because I'm new at translating, DVD+ R/W 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha you understate your abilities! Using the direct terms from Galina Vasilyeva-Shlyapina was a good idea, but maybe that section should not be in the lead later. Also, good idea to bring up Cindy Sherman early. Of course edit that article any time you want. I'll move it out of my userspace so I don't seem possessive. DVD+ R/W 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (fantasy)

Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment Goldfritha 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Link pruning

Three thoughts:

  • Plainly too many. The section has 50 external links divided in 10 subsections. We are going to modify the external links guideline to use ; instead of third level headings to make it slightly harder for people to add their own links in the section, between other rationales.
  • This is the English Wikipedia, existing English external links with the similar contents than the hebrew ones, these last ones could not be included.
  • Many external links can be moved to other articles. In example, the Orthodox/Haredi ones could be inserted into the Haredi Judaism article, the Traditional/Conservadox ones into the Conservadox Judaism one, the Reform ones into the Reform Judaism one, the Conservative ones into the Conservative Judaism one, etc. This will greatly decrease the amount of external links in this article, and seems a reasonable petition. Please forgive me if, in any of my examples, I associated an external link section with the wrong branch, my knowledge about the topic is pretty limited (which is why I tagged the article instead of stripping the section myself).

Hopefully it made sense. -- ReyBrujo 05:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&oldid=83579589"