Jump to content

User talk:Jmabel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.121.247.116 (talk) at 21:46, 27 January 2009 (→‎Peer review for the Spokane, Washington article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am currently only moderately active on Wikipedia. I've been uploading a lot of my own photos (and occasionally some other images) to the Commons, writing the occasional article, participating in other articles mainly on a "hit-and-run" basis, and maybe doing the occasional translation, but for the foreseeable future, that is my level of participation. I am not being one of the "mainstays", as I was from November 2003 to April 2007. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

Stray barnstars

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

DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seattle Public Library, 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.

Congrats on equaling your age! You are on pace to pass me on the list in the next few months. --Royalbroil 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lester Apartments, 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.

Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted killing of Wayback functionality

Some editors are trying to kill off this template

Notifying you because you helped add it.

DG and a few other exclusionists/deletionists have basically taken over WP:EL for months now (they just wear out anyone who tries to discuss things with them). We could really use some Wikipedians with more common-sense over there..... frustrated (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is incredibly foolish. I've responded at Wikipedia talk:Dead external links#No reason to link to an archive copy of a page. Feel free to copy or link my remarks wherever that might be useful. It's really hard for me to imagine a more wrong-headed proposal. - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the 2nd thread, they already decided to remove the language, and did so[1]. (Only the change at WP:DEADLINK was reverted[2].) DG has already replied to you in his usual way (he has multiple rfcs and an arbcom, all about civility, but he treads the line enough to not get blocked). (Being that I'm a sock account, I'll leave it up to you to copy your comments wherever needed. (See my contribs for the other 4 places I notified.) I'm trying to keep my real account away from his nastiness... but I do watchlist everything). Sincerely, frustrated (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westward and whatnot

Hey, yeah, I've been afraid of that happening as I re-table the lists. The only thing I could think of to try to keep it from happening is to count the number of listings in the old list and compare the number to the new list, that's what I've been doing as I've done the newer list tables. sorry for the screwup!!! Murderbike (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean vegetarian cuisine

Hello, could you kindly weigh in at Korean vegetarian cuisine, where an editor insisted this evening on the removal of the photo you took at the Seattle Korean festival of a dish made of ginkgo and ginseng, which s/he stated is not really vegetarian? It would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Badagnani (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump Comment

re this brief essay, you mention an 'executive summary'. if you elaborate as to what you are attempting to get, i may be able to provide it, not sure.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

200 words or less, summing up the general point being made. Like a good, tight lead in an article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see if this works for you:
The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia.
how's that? if you like it, do you think it should be prepended as a 'Summary' or something? thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If something is actually "esoteric," doesn't that pretty much preclude anyone with inside knowledge writing about it in an encyclopedia, in a citable manner? Conversely, certainly there is nothing to stop those people from publishing elsewhere, either in a wiki or in any other form. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re 'esoteric' -- see the Wikipedia org page which linked from that originally essay. 'small' or 'inner' as regards the terminological portion 'eso' is relative. some esoteric subjects are very well-sourced, even by unaffiliated individuals, academics, and are broadly covered by a variety of quality interests, pro and con. there is nothing consistently which makes esotericism secret, though some of it may be so. citation is strictly possible, but it will depend on interest in keeping supportable data in Wikipedia by those who aren't exercizing hostile cite tagging, hostile category/page tagging and the Weapon of Effacement to eradicate to stubs what they oppose, ideologically (there is already wiki-university interest in this matter, and i suspect that some portion of this message is getting through the hostile editors mentioned.
re elsewhere publishing -- very obviously so, but it is NOT in the interest of Wikipedia to see substance-contributors flee there based on hostile editing, and it is not to the public's best interest to see Wikipedia, which is given heavy weight by Google, show up above it with less substance and depth than third-party interests. we're not talking about function here but the application toward and against principles.

the substance of our discussion here is sufficiently pertinent that i am reproducing some portion of it, with additions, at the base of the Village Pump article posterior to your call for the executive summary, now that i am fairly convinced you are getting what you are looking for and are asking realistic questions in pursuit of clarification. thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MV Westward

Updated DYK query On 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MV Westward, 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) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African American ethnicity

Hello. You expressed an interest in the pictures in the photo montage in Template:African American ethnicity that appears in the article African American.

I'd like to settle on some new pictures in the montage, and I'd appreciate your opinion. Please join the discussion at Template talk:African American ethnicity#Malik Shabazz & Therock40756 Edit-war Discussion.

Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

El Lissitzky at WP:FAR

El Lissitzky has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Prg.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Prg.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just took it from the French Wikipedia. If their rationale wasn't adequate, c'est la vie. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Seattle FA stuff

If you've the inclination... I'm working on this right now, and should be done I think today or tomorrow on my end. Then:

  • Beecher's Handmade Cheese - needs copyediting, I need to redo the lead, and it can probably use a tiny bit more meat on the non-manufacturing sections, but I think I may be running out of sources that aren't pay to view.
  • User:Rootology/Pike Place Market - identical to the live section, aside from the Steinbruck Park image and the reformatting of the history layout.

As far as I'm concerned, as I'm in the Wikiproject, dead quiet as it is aside from us, the project should get credit too. Want to into the PPM one together? I'm itching to do the history section--the Soul of the City book I added on the live page is fantastically rich and detailed. I'm almost thinking I could do 3,000 words on just the history section just off of that alone! The Beecher's could be ready for an FA run (it's been peer reviewed) in a week or two tops. The market page... needs work, probably 200+ edits total for how big I'm thinking it could be. The subject is so rich and absurdly heavy with sources all over it could be as long as Seattle. I'm just thinking building it in user space (at least the history section) and then bringing it live will be better, since we're taking the car apart first. rootology (C)(T) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you working on the PPM in a separate page instead of in the article itself?
Yes, I'd be glad to help, but I'm pretty busy these days. I am sure I'll put some time into it, but not what I might be able to do some other time. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... mainly for now I was thinking of doing it in the sub page, rather than tearing apart the live version with all the new empty sections, until they're populated with new material. What Giano is doing with User:Giano/The Winter Palace vs Winter Palace gave me the idea. Once the sandbox is built up with all the new sections, those changed bits would just get moved over and we could pick it up on the live copy here. It's mainly so the live one doesn't look like a garage for a while. rootology (C)(T) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hyde House and consulate

Regarding the house it seems like it is the residence for the consul general and not the consulate offices themselves. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. But is it only a residence? - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mid.ru/zu_r.nsf/e0f3cd1a55ff248dc32571e7003f460b/2b851cbd6dc0ccafc32565e8003604f4?OpenDocument - this says that the consulate offices are at "2323 Westin Building, 2001 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA., 98121, USA" - that doesn't match the Hyde Building. This website http://www.netconsul.org/consularoffices/ mentions the same address. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know they have offices downtown in the Westin Building (I work nearby, often eat lunch there, and saw lots of protestors during the recent conflict in Georgia). But my question is whether they the Samuel Hyde House is just a residence, or also houses other functions. From the comings and goings I've seen there, it looked to me like it was being used for a lot more than a residence. But of course that is not citable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Obama and Ayers, I think you'll find this interesting

Top of the front page, The New York Times, October 4: Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths by Scott Shane. -- Noroton (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the key phrase is "conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda". If we were to cite any of this, that phrase should certainly be included verbatim. - Jmabel | Talk 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thelma Dewitty

Updated DYK query On 6 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thelma Dewitty, 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.

Keep up the good work! Bob (QaBob) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPM edits

Hold off a sec--getting that merged for us! rootology (C)(T) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, look at the PPM main article history now. :) rootology (C)(T) 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. - Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name name for Image:Leopard.jpg

I have reuploaded Image:Leopard.jpg as Image:The Leopard Signet 1960s.jpg to avoid conflicts with an image on the Commons with the same name and another editor's upload of a photo of a Leopard tank. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Thanks for letting me know. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for PK Dwyer

Updated DYK query On 26 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PK Dwyer, 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.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Goldfaden

I found two posters for Goldfaden's plays: Image:Goldfaden - a zecea porunca.jpg and Image:Goldfaden - poster.jpg. I'm not sure where to include in the article and how to label them (one of them is completely in Yiddish). bogdan (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put A Zecea Poruncă to good use; I don't read Yiddish, either, but I'll track down someone who does. - Jmabel | Talk 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I...ummm...read Yiddish without actually understanding much (being fourth generation American and having made little progress at studying the language), but I use good dictionaries and have almost daily contact with native speakers at my workplace. Being tremendously fond of Yiddish culture, I'd be glad to help out here and there, at least with captions and titles if not full-length texts. For example, in this poster (whose letters I can't make out clearly even upon enlarging), the texts on either side of the two illustrated figures are in Hebrew, while the verses and the two names (the lower is the artist V. [? or W.] Helmanescu) are indeed in Yiddish. With a clearer enlargement, I can provide a complete translation. Get back to me on this? -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Central Waterfront, Seattle, Washington

Updated DYK query On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Central Waterfront, Seattle, Washington, 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) 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for George F. Cotterill

Updated DYK query On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George F. Cotterill, 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.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Allied Arts of Seattle

Updated DYK query On 28 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allied Arts of Seattle, 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.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrived on my talkpage by mistake, it seems... :) —97198 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ye Olde Curiosity Shop

Updated DYK query On 31 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ye Olde Curiosity Shop, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Hey, thanks for cleaning up that article. Btw, whenever you encounter something out of place in my contributions (I'm painfully aware that my English has its many flaws...), please go ahead and work them into shape if you feel like it.

What I wanted to talk to you about was the Vilna Troupe article, which I know you took an interest in and edited a while back (quite a while back, in fact). I've come across a brilliant and quite recent source with significant details on its Bucharest period: Paul Cernat's Avangarda românească şi complexul periferiei. Primul val. They partly confirm what's already in there, but also look into it more thoroughly and contradict or at least nuance some data. I wanted to fit them in, but I found it very difficult: the sources are cited rather chaotically exactly were my details would go in, and one source at least appears to be unreliable (a mailing list, if I remember correctly - I think it was added after your edits). In particular, the comment you added within the reference (This is the primary source for the Bucharest material, and the source of the quotation from Integral nr. 6-7/1925 that begins "The wandering troupe...".) is awkward, because I can't really work around it. I also notice that some of the sources could be cited for more relevant info that is currently left out. (Btw, the article could use with some MOS copyedits, but I can deal with that myself.)

I'm not rushing on editing it right now (I may not do so for a while now), but I would welcome any input on how I should approach this when I eventually do. You could perhaps consider detailing the references you used, if it's still possible, by adding notes to the end of each sentence, with a more exact citation. That way, I could compare the sources ("both x and y say"; "x says, but y..." etc). It's weird, because I can tell that the reference(s) you used would also provide more relevant detail, and stuff that is not found in my source - so I would not leave them out entirely. I really think we can move the article forward together, but it would require some rethinking.

Many thanks, Dahn (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be tough, because I no longer have access to the Bercovici book (borrowed it through interlibrary loan from the University of Chicago). I'll try to look some time soon, but I'm busy both at work & on other projects, so no firm promises. - Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem: whenever you have the time. Dahn (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took a shot at what I could do without the book in hand. Take a look, tell me if it's OK. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks very good - I allowed myself some minor edits for now. I'm gonna finish editing another article and focus on adding there. I took another look over Cernat, just to see how it all fits there, and, yes, I think I can squeeze him in now. There may be some problems with consistency that I see right now: I presume Bercovici gives more detail than what he is cited with; this may or may not clash with what Cernat says, but, in any case, citing Cernat would add a layer of depth that may probably be found in Bercovici. For example, Cernat speaks about the trope being financed by Al. I. Zissu, the well-known Zionist leader (and, for a while, Arghezi's father-in-law). He also points out that there was an actual connection between Integral and the troupe: both M H Maxy and Ion Călugăru worked for the theater, and were in fact instrumental for reviving it. Presumably, these details, or at least this kind of details, can also be found in Bercovici. If so, it would be great if you could also source them from there. But, again, I'm not rushing you to do so - the article even as it is now is very close to GA standards, and this is all your work. Dahn (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Bercovici mentioned there being an actual connection to Integral. Also, he was very focused on the Romanian years: it was, after all, a section in a book about Yiddish theater in Romania. We're very short on material about the founding. Also, I gather there was a later revival of the troupe, which we don't cover yet.

What's there is good, but there is a ton more that could be written. I'm sure Luba Kadison's memoir would be very worth reading, but I haven't had the chance. Too many other projects. - Jmabel | Talk 18:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Also, I'm fine with this, at least for now - I feel that it would be best for names and citations to be integrated in the text, and then the final list would only work as a "here's all of them in one place".
Which gets me to another point. Before I begin adding from the source, I notice that Cernat himself starts off by mentioning a list of names, all of them transcribed into Romanian, but inconsistently so. All of them appear to be mentioned in the article (at a quick glance). However, aside from the transcription changes, there appear to be differences in how the names are read in some cases. Firstly: am I to understand that the Bercovici citation for the sentence immediately after is also the reference for the entire paragraph? If so, can I add it to the other phrase in case it should prove necessary? Secondly: how should I record the differences between Cernat and Bercovici? Should I cite both variants for those names that differ? Thirdly: was the spelling the one used in Bercovici, or was it also adapted into something Romanian-sounding? I can imagine one could verfy exactly who these people were and how they spelled their own names (googling all possible variants, I imagine), but that seems pretty tedious and I'm not sure I have enough familiarity with the subject to be entrusted with this. And ultimately: in this process of verification, it would be good if a criterion is applied between plain text and redlink (non-notable vs. notable) - and, as I said, I don't feel I'm in a position to assess that (the article does, but I'm not sure if that's meant to be definitive - the decision may be worth reassessing for all I know).
Without further ado, here's the list in Cernat (p.275): "Iosif Bolov, Iacob Weisliz, Hana Braz, Liuba Kadison, Beniamin Ehren-Krantz, Alexandr Stein, Judith Lares, Hana Mogel, Miriam Orleska, Haim Brakasch, Iosif Kalmen, Samuel Scaftel, Helene Gottlieb, Aizic Samberg."
It's these practical problems that leave me clueless, and I would welcome any input as I encounter them. But really, I don't want to seem like I'm imposing this on you. Whenever you have the time and feel like dedicating it to this article. You don't even have to answer to this post until such a moment - just drop me a note on my page if there is going to be such a delay (I almost failed to notice one of your past posts because it came right before your archiving). And a big thank you for all that you have done already. Dahn (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of Cernat's spellings are very Romanianized. No Jew outside of Romania (or a Romanian-speaking community) would write "Iosif Bolov". Buloff (as we would spell it in English) is pretty famous, and his acting career extended into my lifetime. Similarly for "Iacob", "Aizic" (our "Jacob" and "Isaac"). A case could be made for, say, the Yiddish "Yacov", but not the Romanianized version.
"Liuba" for "Luba" is an interesting choice: I assume it is a transliteration of Russian, turning the "soft mark" ь into an "i". If we were to transliterate that carefully into English, we'd write "L'uba", but since she lived in America most of her life and used "Luba" we shouldn't.
I don't think there is anywhere I took spellings from Bercovici if I also had an English-language source available.
Any time I provide a single citation at the end of a paragraph, it cites for the whole paragraph. I think this sentence-by-sentence citation for material all from the same source is ugly and provides no additional useful information. - Jmabel | Talk 23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your first: I'm certainly not saying that we should go with the Romanian transliteration (and, in Bolov's case, I could figure). The problem I pointed to is more subtle, and does not refer to the standard rendering of Iosif, Iacob etc. I haven't checked out all the names but there are two examples that stand out in the versions: Ehrenkrantz (article) for Ehren-Krantz (Cernat); Kamen (article) for Kalmen (Cernat). That's precisely why I need your input. It would be easier and much more reliable if I wouldn't be trusted to find details on these people starting from the source I have. They're mostly anonymous to me (this whole subject is novel to me), so I would have to start from the "completely blind" level - you presumably already have the insight into who these people were and what the preferred spelling is. And of course, if and when you say those are the English versions, then the differences that show up in Cernat are most likely mistakes. It's important because, mistakes or not, we could another source to the list (recording the differences in the note, or just referring to reader to both - either way, it is valuable).
Your second: that's what I figure myself (at least it's how the name is usually rendered in Russian-to-Romanian transcriptions).
Your third: good to know. If those are the standard version, then we need look no further in this matter.
Your fourth: I was asking because, as per above, I think in the end we could have two citations for the phrase listing actors; I needed to know if the list was already cited, or if the citation was just for the final part. I don't disagree with you on the "ugly" and "no additional useful information" issue (though I tend to use them where they seem to be required, just because in some cases it's hard to tell how they're used, and it makes it hard to add other sources in the same paragraph). Cernat verifies both sentences, I just needed to know if Bercovici does - I can surely add Cernat in the same note or the same place, but, in case Bercovici were the source for just that one phrase, it is only Cernat I would've had to add for the first phrase etc. That kind of complication - harder to explain than to solve. Dahn (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Let's do any further discussion (e.g. individual names) on the article talk page instead of here where others can't see it. If I don't get back to you on something within, say, a day, feel free to ping me here to get my attention. - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Since I suppose your last post is a confirmation that the names in the article are in the definitive version (and that Cernat's variations, other than sheer "Romanianization", are mistakes), you've clarified everything I needed to know for now. If any other things come up, I'll bring them up on the article talk page. And, again, thank you. Dahn (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? (And please do rework and rephrase anything that catches your eye.) Dahn (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first. "Manifestations". Well, it's "manifestări", not "manifestaţii", so it should be the exact equivalent of "manifestations".
Your second. Yes, and your variant sounds better. Dahn (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more issue: the citation system is still chaotic. We have references that are cited only once under notes, and others that are mentioned only in notes (using the "ref name" format); we have citations were several sources are cited together and separated by ";", and multiple, clearly separate citations for the same fact. Is it okay if I have a go at using one single format? Dahn (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: we should consider expanding the lead. Dahn (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. I wanted to add material, didn't have a bunch of time, just made sure I got my references in rather than worrying too much about formatting. - Jmabel | Talk 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Edgewater

Updated DYK query On 5 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Edgewater, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ralph Anderson (Seattle architect)

Updated DYK query On 6 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Anderson (Seattle architect), 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.

cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do admins actually do?

As a user who was reported to ANI by you for two reverts that you didn't like on Bucharest, I start to wonder what is the purposes of admins here on this site when they allow this kind of behavior: Special:Contributions/Azdfg (see the personal attacks in Talk:Romanians), is something like "wicked anti-Romanian hate" or claiming that I'm at fault for anti-Romanians mobs allowed? man with one red shoe 15:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm the appropriate person of whom you should ask "What do admins actually do?" On our first interaction, I personally decided I didn't like your style, decided I'd rather minimize efforts to work with you, and I handed an issue off to someone else because of that. I suggest you ask someone who is more happy with your style. You'll get a better answer.
On the other hand, if that was strictly rhetorical or if you posted to my user talk page only to antagonize me, please have a nice day somewhere else. - Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord's Day Alliance

Note to self: group that tried to ban theater on Sundays, ran into interesting conflict with Yiddish theater & vaudeville in 1923 in NYC and Freeport, New York. - Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pete_Seeger_Clearwater.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pete_Seeger_Clearwater.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolution

Hey Jmabel: Sorry in the delay in my response. I was working on the French Rev section, but have recently become much less active. Before I left I only got through the "financial crisis" and "Estates-General" sections. I should be getting more active here in the future.

As you saw, the "unprotect" experiment failed miserably (the page should be protected now; for some reason I have trouble protecting pages--not sure why). I actually thought I had semi-protected it a few weeks ago.

Anyway, I should be getting more active again soon; and would like to improve this page and the Marquis de Lafayette. What happened with the remark from the kid from MIT? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are referring to re: "the remark from the kid from MIT". But do let me know if there is anything specific I can help with, especially in terms either of structural issues or finding a citation for anything that may prove difficult to cite for.. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ohaveth Sholum Congregation

Updated DYK query On 24 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ohaveth Sholum Congregation, 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) 07:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mexican Revolution

I simply reverted to an earlier version, and did not look very closely at other recent edits. I have now removed the information in question. You are correct, it is appropriate for an article on the individual, not the revolution as a whole. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Prell

Thank you very much for the message you left for this fellow. I truly appreciate it. It saved me having to say anything to him, and I was tempted to say something I oughtn't. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD/L commando-at-large

Thanks for your message of appreciation, Joe! Doubly welcome for being unexpected, as I feared my annoyance at the phrasing of the previous remark would result in putting too much edge on my response. (A nasty tendency I must fight in real life, too, and not only about language...) Patrolling several of the Ref Desks (notably Humanities and Miscellaneous) is a task I slip into when lacking the concentration or self-discipline to do "real" work on mainspace pages or interwiki translating, so it's a manifestation of shirking, in a way. Otherwise, it does fulfill a sense of what we're doing here in sharing information and knowledge, and I truly believe what's written there does reach a far wider readership (and hopefully, generates influence) than indicated by the dialogue participants alone. So I'm glad you introduced yourself, as it seems we have some interests in common and perhaps can collaborate productively in the future. Nice to meet you! -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borges

Hi Jmabel, I was thinking of putting the Borges article up for GA review as it currently lacks inline citations, the lead is very short and there are a lot of external links. Its tagged with cleanup and citations needed tags. Separately, it could do with some more pictures added, there are a lot on commons. Do you have any thoughts on the matter, please? Tom B (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. I worked to Wikipedia's standards at the time I wrote it. Those standards have changed, and other people have no doubt at times done the article as much harm as good. If there is something specific someone needs - i.e. if there is something there than no one readily sees how to cite for, and I can be of help - let me know. But I have no interest in going back to the hundreds of articles I wrote before inline citations were encouraged and rewriting them all. I'm not very interested in chasing a moving target. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much, have listed: Talk:Jorge Luis Borges/GA1 Tom B (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cough

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PM and Ingersoll

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

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

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[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK for Elinor Smith

Updated DYK query 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Pssst

Talk:Pike Place Market#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)[reply]

DYK for History of the Pike Place Market

Updated DYK query 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Afrofuturism

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, the correct is “stamping”.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK for Marra Farm

Updated DYK query On January 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marra Farm, 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) 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for the Spokane, Washington article

Hi, Jmabel. I was wondering if you would be up to peer reviewing the Spokane, Washington article. The article recently reached good article status, but didnt do so well as a featured article candidate. Anyway, I know your busy right now doing the Seattle FAR stuff, so dont feel rushed; but if you are interested in reviewing the article sometime in the not-too-distant future, just holler back on my Talk page so I can stop scouting out reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not working particularly on the Seattle FAR, but I'm very busy on other stuff. Also, I don't particularly know much about Spokane, and I haven't kept current with the constantly shifting FAR standards. - Jmabel | Talk 15:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway Jmabel. Good luck with that other stuff! 134.121.247.116 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&oldid=266830642"