User talk:Fat&Happy

Here's a Call Someone Who Cares

Carpetbagger

Hello, it looks like you deleted the addition of "parachutage" carpetbagger claiming there is no source. Did you check the link? It is mentioned in the titled. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Parachutage, or "parachuting", is in the title; "carpetbagging" is not. The article is about the term "carpetbagger". You presented no evidence of that word being used in France. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, "parachutage" is the translation of "carpetbagging". That's why you will arrive on "parachutage page if you click on the French version of the article "carpetbagging". D0kkaebi (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, it looks like Wiki English link to carpetbaager in the French wikipedia, but French Wikipedia Carpetbagger Fr AND parachutage link to carpetbagger En [1]. Do you suggest it is a mistake of the French wikipedia? D0kkaebi (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Google Translate – which is absolutely horrible for idioms in languages I know a bit about, so probably for French also – the actual translation of parachutage would be "parachuting", "drop" or "parachute drop". It's rather easy to see how this could be used as an equivalent of the English "carpetbag", and it's not unlikely that the usage is related to the World War II operation discussed in the article.

If I felt in any way qualified to edit the French Wikipedia – which I'm not, so I don't – I would probably make "carpetbagger" and "parachutage" mutual "See alsos" of each other, while interwiki linking carperbagger, but not parachutage, to the English article. Unfortunately, since I know of no standard way to create a cross-wiki "See also", I still don't think the inclusion of the French equivalent but different term in the English article is appropriate. But I'm one opinion out of a world of wiki editors. You may want to ask for other opinions on the article talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. I will modify this link on the French Wikipedia. Thank you D0kkaebi (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, here is another thing, Parachute candidate lead to carpetbagger/modern Use. Maybe the redirection page "parachute candidate" should be removed? D0kkaebi (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. It's getting late here and both my eyelids and my system are acting a bit balky, so I may expand a bit tomorrow, but in the meantime look over Talk:Parachute candidate (the actual old talk page, not a redirect to the Carpetbagger talk page)and Talk: Carpetbagger, as well, maybe, as the last version of Parachute candidate before it was merged and/or redirected. Taken together, these give the impression that a parachute-based term is used in Canada and the UK as well as France; the carpetbagger terminology is pretty US-specific. IF there are a few good sources out there that actually describe the terms instead of just denigrating one particular candidate, it mght be best to try to fill out the article again. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok here is the source that explain about the politician parachutage: Bernard Dolez et Michel Hastings, Le parachutage politique, L'Harmattan, 2003 (ISBN 9782747549370). Here is the interview of Michel Hastings, author, who explain why it does not make sense to talk about parachutage for legislative election in France. [2], here history of parachutage in France [3] D0kkaebi (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet

I believe the book by James Whelan corroborates your edit "...tacitly supported by the United States" as opposed to "supported by the American Central Intelligence Agency" as restored by Abhimanyulele. (Whelan, James R. (1989). Out of the Ashes: Life, Death and Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile, 1833-1988. Regnery. ISBN 978-0-895-265531.) The CIA has also provided a reasonably detailed and credible accounting of its activities before, during, and after the coup at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/index.html. Claudeb (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are obviously differing views of the actual level of involvement. My main objection is to taking one particular view, substantially different than the overall tone of the main article, and placing it in the lead as established fact. But at the moment I'm flirting with 3RR on the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm relatively new, so I'm not sure of the best approach, but if you want support on the article's talk page let me know. I agree that a disputed account shouldn't be presented as fact, and certainly not in the first para. Claudeb (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Again thanks. It's not one of my areas of primary interest, so I need to do a bit more research and regroup before pursuing this. I wouldn't want to run afoul of WP:CANVASS, but if the article is on your watch list anyway, you will be aware of any talk page discussion that ensues, and any support is always appreciated. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reform of the United Nations Security Council

The Japan section presents a "happy talk" listing of parties which have supported Japanese permanent membership, but somehow fails to mention the inconvenient fact that some of Japan's closest neighbors oppose such membership, and so is overall unbalanced. AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the "happy talk" listing seems to be par for the course in that article, and I'm not surprised that – based on history alone, not to say current economic competition – Korea is uncomfortable with anything that would further empower Japan. But you're certainly aware that you still need sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

PPACA edit

Hey! Can you please show me the relevant MOS on pull quotes? I can't find any (searching with WP/MOS/HELP quotes/grab quotes/pull quotes). I'd really like to revert (because I like how the quote marks look and signal) but I wanted to check with your first? Thanks. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 08:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:Blockquote (it's not exactly in underlined boldface , but it's there) and the documentation of the {{Centered pull quote}} template itself. Fat&Happy (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

lol! Damn - seems a bit of a silly restriction, imo. *Sigh*, oh well. Thanks though. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 12:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Italian-American actors

Hello Fat&Happy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Italian-American actors, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Significantly different enough category to one deleted 2 1/2 years ago - discuss first. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the Criteria for Speedy Deletion prior to tagging this page, but thank you for your suggestion. Since the definition of Italian American is a U.S. citizen of Italian ancestry, I fail to see the significant difference between this category and the thrice-deleted – the most recent a G4 on 19 September 2013 – Category:American actors of Italian descent, especially when an equivalence is drawn between the two by the Nominator at the latest CFD in an unlinked statement that Category:Italian-American actors had also been deleted four times.

May I ask what rationale you used to decide the two categories were "significantly different"? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi F&H.

The deleted categories were "American actors of [n] descent", which included [[Category:American actors of Italian descent]]. In my opinion, there is a difference between this and Category:Italian-American actors. The "American actors of Italian descent" category seems to me an arbitrary categorization relying simply on ancestry (see Category:American people of Italian descent). I think it was rightly deleted.

On the other hand, Italian American is rather more well-defined, with arguably a distinct identity within American society. By analogy, I would argue there is a case to be made for the retention of Category:Italian-American actors.

• Should Category:Italian-American actors be deleted? That's a very good question, and one that I think should be discussed.
• Should Category:Italian-American actors be speedily deleted? In my opinion, definitely no.

That is the rationale I used to decide the two categories were "significantly different", at least enough that the latter category should not be speedily deleted. Feel free to put the category up for speedy deletion again: another administrator may have a different view. This is a promise: if that comes about, I will have no problems with it. I would however ask that you do consider listing it as a category for deletion.

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)