User talk:Jmabel/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks for alerting me. I've already reverted a few of his changes and left a note in his talk page advising him to cool down. I hope that that may make him realize how thin the ice he's skating on is. Comments in talk pages are another matter. You can't punish someone for expressing bizarre views in a discussion. You can punish them if they insult you, blank or maliciously alter your comments, or otherwise disrupt the process of getting to a consensus. We'll have to wait and see if he gets the idea. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your note: you can't discuss with someone who consistently holds bizarre views, who is fully aware that they're bizarre, and is so convinced of them that he'll refuse to accept any reasons to the contrary. State your views and keep the articles watched. If he comes around and civilly agrees to disagree, it'll all be well. If he changes or reverts content without consensus, he'll be dealt with. There's nothing else you can do.
Bear in mind that there's a huge difference between an ill-tempered content dispute and sheer disruptive behavior, and though Mike hasn't crossed that line, he's definitely on the brink. Three blocks for 3RR and several others for personal attacks are proof that he's aware of the consequences. There are admins who would, for a long time, treat this kind of user as they would a child who throws a tantrum now and then, which works to keep potentially good (but oversensitive) editors from leaving out of spite; others (like me) prefer to treat them as adults once they've had time to learn the rules and the etiquette. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked Mike18xx for 48 hours. You'll at least have the time to explain your reasons for restoring the NPOV tag. Maybe it'd be better to just work on the article directly. To be sure, the block was not for the edit war, but for disruption and incivillity; an edit war is a content dispute and must be solved through discussion. I suggest you do what must be done and avoid confrontation outside normal discussion (that is, disregard personal attacks, bizarre POVs like "the Bush administration is socialist", etc.). If Mike comes back with the same attitude, he'll earn another block soon enough. I won't hesitate to apply it, since he has managed to exhaust my patience in record time, and Lar is watching over him too now. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First French Empire

There's a lot wrong with that article (honestly, it's atrocious). You're right I should bring this up at the talk page, and I will now.UberCryxic 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. I'm hoping you can help me out. I notice a lot of editors sign their Talk comments with varying "signatures" of sorts; as in yours, "Jmabel | Talk", with respective emboldening, superscripting/subscripting, parentheses, etc. Is this something that has to be manually formatted for each post or is there some way to designate the four tildes to show a pre-written format; perhaps a Signature preference or similar? Thanks in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dishwasherrat (talkcontribs) 20 August 2006

For starters, you get a basic sig by just typing ~~~~. But, yes, signature is on the preferences page. I don't know what skin you are using, so I can't tell you visual navigation to get there, but you can access that at - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


I addressed some of your concerns on the strawpoll for communities. I was still working on it upon your voting, so I apologize for the incompleteness. Ericsaindon2 07:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A Brilliant Move

Hi Jmabel. Your move of the popular references for Oscar Wilde to its own page was a great idea. Having read some of the concerns expressed on the discussion page about that section I had been meaning to leave a note suggesting just what you did, but just hadn't gotten around to it. One other question, do you think that it is time to archive the discussion page? It is fairly long and I have thought about attempting it, but I have never created an archive page before and am afraid that I would botch it up. It is just a suggestion and if you don't think it is needed yet that is fine too. Once again GOOD JOB!MarnetteD | Talk 06:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm all for archiving the talk page. I suggest only archiving sections that haven't had any activity in a month or so. Less likely to get anyone's back up. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Camera (disambiguation)

It was just a misspelling. -- Kjkolb 06:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Constantin Tănase‎

[1] I'm afraid I'm that non-Wikipedian correspondent having given you inaccurate information: not having seen the film (I systematically avoided communist propaganda, be it in the form of a movie), I wrongly supposed "Caratase" had a violent end, similar to that of Tanase, being shot or so by Legionari or some other fascist hooligans. Mea culpa for having spread this wrong information.

As for the construction "Caratase", almost every conjecture should be permitted. Personally, I'm tending to the version of merging Caragiu and Tanase, because:

- Caragiu himself was a popular figure, somehow evoking Tanase (similar strong presence and charisma, similar way of acting, using quick changes from crude humour to subtle undertones)

- by merging Caragiu and Tanase, the screeplay authors signalised that the film is not realy a true story about Tanase, but rather a story about talent, dignity and courage in front of primitivism and blind hate. Hence, they kept the freedom to change essential elements of the true story - see the end of Tanase - Caratase

- phonetically, "Cără-buş" is less plausible to merge in "Cara-tase", than "Cara-giu" is

--Vintila Barbu 10:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. - Jmabel | Talk 16:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger

This arbitration case is close and the decision has been published at the above link.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Catiline Suggestions

I know you have been obsering the development of this article, so I figured I would ask you. As you may know, I have been editing the article off and on for the past 6 months. However, I am still a fairly new user to Wikipedia as this is the only article I have edited seriously. Recently, the article was rated A-class by the WikiProject Biography. I feel that the article can be eventually brought up to the FA level, but I am a little unsure on how to pursue this. I have discovered that editors can submit an article for peer review. Is that something I should pursure? I have also been slightly confused about the ranking of articles. I noticed that some articles are both A-class and GA. Are these independent of each other or should an article hold both before becoming an FAC?

Thank you for your time. Cmcentee 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Replying on Cmcentee's talk page - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Nietzsche-Petrejo

Hello, I offered my opinion on this issue on the case page and would like your input on my suggestion. --Marinus 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden Age

Hey, do we have any progress on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pictureuploader (talkcontribs) 24 August 2006.

I said in my comment at that time "Real translation from the corresponding German language article would be welcome, but this was a liability." I then made a request at Wikipedia:German-English translation requests, but it seems no one has acted on it. If you want to move it forward, and your own German-English translation skills aren't up to the task, that would be the place to ask, or you might recruit someone at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi Jmabel, I have requested a page move for Spanish Foreign Legion. As an English native speaker and a person with an interest on Spanish issues, I would appreciate your input in the talk page. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, unfortunately this (adding the suspect number) is not simple. And I'm sorry I re-added this article to the category after you had fixed it, that was a mistake on my part. However if you look at Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs you will see a pointer to Rich_Farmbrough%5CInvalid_ISBNs where you can look up most of the articles currently in the category and find that in Vilna Troupe the problem ISBN identified was ISBN 973982722 1 Invalid ISBN whose check digit computes to 5 (as corrected by you). Thanks for fixing the ISBN and sorry again for re-adding the article. Rich Farmbrough 16:54 26 August 2006 (GMT).

replying on Rich's page. - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, I've already created a template which I could alter, or perhaps use an html comment. However the main bulk has been done, in future it's just new errors which I suspect will be less of a problem (and may even be few enough to be worth fixing straight away, myself. Lets hope.) Rgds. Rich Farmbrough 18:06 26 August 2006 (GMT).


I don't appreciate being referred to as a dick. I told him not to abuse wikipedia, and then provided the URL of a perfectly useful starting point for questions about specific aspects of Judaism. I also recommended he read the wikipedai articles. Being a dick would have been more apporpriate had i said something like 'hey newbie loser, i'm deleting you cause you're a dumb dumb.' instead, I said 'wikipedia isn't used like that, but here are two ways to get your answers. that's NOT being a dick. Further, as the WP:Dick article states, misusing it can come back to bite you. This time, it has. ThuranX 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that what you said was almost indistinguishable from "hey newbie loser…" His question really wasn't off-topic, even if his motivation for asking it was personal. - Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Yes, that was a "holy crap that guy removed a lot of content; rollback vandalism" revert. Ryūlóng 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zulu

Thanks for your message on my talk page -- I did the Dinuzulu changes myself, having gotten a little more up to speed. Also, it appears that my sig problem had something to do with the Safari browser I was using, Foxfire seems to work better. thanks again Ngwe 02:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (Cclowe)


Hi Jmabel.

Well, I do hope your optimistic view on the ending of ETA comes to fruition, however, let me insist in the "to date" part when we are talking of the last of the assassinations, since actually we are only in a "ceasefire", like there were others in the past which suddenly ended when new terrorist actions (killings) were carried by the band. I strongly feel like, until there is no "official" statement from ETA that they give up violence, the "to date" part should be there and this "official" statement is, as for now, just a hope.

Anyway, feel free if you want to revert your own change yourself: I don't want to start one of those stupid fights when I change it, you change it, I change it's up to you if you want to consider to my opinion or not.

On the other side, I would sincerely appreciate if you know the English term for "draconian" in this regard. I mean, which English term would suit well the ETA demands of not releasing and not killing (as they eventually did) Miguel Ángel Blanco unless all ETA inmates were brought to jails within the Basque Country in a matter of two days. The only term trying to describe these demands I know is "draconian", therefore I'd appreciate it if you knew the correct one and post it by yourself (same reason as above for not doing it myself). Another solution would be simply explaining these unreasonable demands which I guess they speak by themselves, without needing further adjectivation.



Hey, got your message, I restaured "to date" and, regarding the draconian thing, well I just explained which was the actual demand, as I said, looks like it speaks for itself that the assassination was decided beforehand anyway, since they were asking for something impossible.

Thanks for your feedback and understanding.



I think that this addition to Serbs article is a copy from one web site that I recently saw. However, it is only one theory about the origin of Serbs, and much of things from that edit are already mentioned in this article: Theories on the origin of Serbs. Since there are more than one theories about this, the proper place for all of them is that article, not Serbs article. PANONIAN (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like someone has now reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish in Catalonia

User_talk:Error#Knowledge_of_Spanish_in_Catalonia: I have no idea of where to get numbers . Have you looked around at the Instituto Nacional de Estadística site or its (probable) Catalan equivalent? --Error 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music

Whats up? Hi, I'm trying to gather some more interest and support for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. Please check out the topics and lets get our WikiProject to function better. I've taken an interest in the Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop and I consider that WikiProject to be better developed. Hopefully we can all work together to improve articles relating to punk. Also, I am trying to gather support and opinions concerning the punk house article and specifically the Theta Beta Potata article which is currently in AfD (x2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second nomination). Please check it out and voice your opinion. Xsxex 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nadir of American Race relations

Hey Jmabel. A couple people (or maybe just one person) are disputing the neutrality of nadir of American race relations. If you'd like to weigh in on the discussion I'd appreciate it. NoahB 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu

Hi. You may want to look into what's happening in that article. I'm growing tired of such brainwashing POV, especially when it is based on a contemptible and abject source such as Iosif Constantin Drăgan. Dahn 08:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Citing that a book exists

Thanks for not wanting to blindside me. However I don't think that was the point I was trying to get across originally. I was trying to make a more general point but the discussion descended to a very concrete level and ended up being ridiculus, as I am perfectly aware. I'm an academic, so I'll never get used to the standards here. I'm not interested in defending anything, my position or anything else, or even entering into a discussion about it on the link you sent -- unless I'm up for some kind of Wikipedia punishment or something. And even then I don't care. Frankly, I'm no longer interested in what Wikipedia's standards are. The afd's are not meant for serious discussions, I realize now. I've been a professor too long so my attitude and my academic standards are out of place at Wikipedia GBYork 14:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where you are coming from here. You claimed that something was a consequence of WP:V; I believe you are wrong; I took that matter to the relevant talk page. If you don't want to engage, that is your prerogative. Certainly I have never seen an example in academic writing where someone was expected to cite for the existence of a book beyond providing publication information, unless there was a well-founded basis to doubt the existence of the book. - Jmabel | Talk 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Legend

Hi there; I answered your post in the article Black Legend. Cheers! Tonyjeff 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Taraful Haiducilor

Hi. Answered on the talk page for the article. Dahn 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Czech Jews

I have set the lists of Czech Jews, Czech-speaking Jews and Jews from Czechoslovakia, with their talk pages, to redirect to List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews‎; a cumbersome title, but it reflects what the contents should be.--Newport 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's happened to the history either, I'm afraid. I only did the cut and paste because I couldn't find correct versions to restore. I couldn't do it by renaming because that would have meant renaming to a page that already exists.--Newport 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(after restoring the history) You're welcome. The current title is just where the edit history ended up after I repaired the copy&paste move; I don't understand the issues well enough to choose an appropriate title, so I left it at that location. Feel free to move it; the other titles are now redirects without edit history, so anyone should be able to move the page. Eugène van der Pijll 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Howdy, not that this is important, but... regarding this - which academic literature do you read? I've never seen it used either in books or in the formal literature. Ellipses are used to indicate when when words are missing from a quoted phrase, I've never seen it used to indicate 'oh, there was stuff before this too!' and 'oh, stuff follows this!' - everyone knows that already. Check out the Chicago manual of style's recommendations: [2]. Mikker (...) 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message... oddly enough, I use ellipses all the time in informal contexts, but they're one of my pet peeves when used unnecessarily in formal contexts. Maybe I should just chill out and leave you alone... :) -- Mikker (...) 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade

Hi. Can you please have a look at what is going on on that page and the talk page, and share your opinion on the matter? I believe I am facing widespread historical revisionism, and an IP keeps pushing a wording that, to me, translates as "being a Jew is having a bias". He is also moving information on Eliade's activities as a nationalist (not even a fascist one early on), which were highly influental on a section of his work, to the section on "controversy about his fascism", and at the same time complains that his work and ideas are not paid enough attention (as if I would have recommended restricting additions on them, when in fact I had added just what I could reference, in the hope that at least a section would be exhaustive).

In a separate incident on the same page, a user has deleted a whole paragraph of what I had added on factual inaccuracies in Eliade's own version of the story about his Iron Guard allegiance, all of which were referenced (the reference specifically indicates not an opinion on how lame the excuses are, but proof that Eliade's version is highly dubious from a historical perspective, that the facts do not match, etc.). Dahn 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like your version is the current one; I'll watchlist it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. There is also the matter of a previously deleted paragraph, which I had not re-introduced in the text based on the belief that, if contested, it should be discussed (and, if indeed problematic, it should be dropped). The reason given by User:PelleSmith was that it constituted "original scholarship", but his initial explanation did not make clear what he meant, nor why he should be right about the verdict. I had started explaining it and demanding to hear what specific problems others see with it, but I have received no reply as yet. The deletion of the paragraph is here. My attempt to discuss it is here. Let me know what you think. Dahn 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Bucharest in World War II

I think those were good edits you made and I see no reason to revert. Thank you. What do you think of the article as it stands now? The Jurnalul Naţional article linked to at the bottom has a couple of good images, but those are probably copyright. Other than that, if you know of any way to improve it, please do so. Eventually, an article on the WWI bombing should also be written.

On an unrelated point: I posted a version of this message to User:Angr's talk page but he appears otherwise engaged at the moment, so perhaps you could offer some advice:

An IP editor keeps changing this template. I'd like my last revision to stand, for reasons that I've enumerated in the IP editor's talk and on the German noticeboard (where I received User:Carabinieri's support). If you'd like me to restate my reasons, I can do that. However, what I don't want is a long revert war. Do you think semi-protection might be justified? Biruitorul 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the template: I went in and tried to split the difference. I'm not the least bit wedded to what I'm proposing, just trying out a possible compromise.
Personally, I'm quite happy with that; we'll see about the other fellow. It's all about the flags, you know! Biruitorul 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
On the Bombing: why is it called Bombing of Bucharest… when it's really Bombing of Romania? Other than that, I think it's a good start. We could probably go into more detail about what was lost (wasn't this when the National Theatre was damaged beyond repair?); we could certainly say more about how this fit into the war tactically and strategically; there is a lot more to be said from the Allied side; and there's a question I put on the talk page, but I think you have gotten this off to a really good start. We should get this one onto WP:DYK, if we can find a good "hook". - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I called it what I did is in order to conform with all the other articles linked to here. However, you are correct that there is scope for a title with a wider focus. I can see two possible solutions: either move it to "Bombing of Romania" and re-word the introduction, or make a "Bombing of Romania" article, expanding on the bombings of other cities, and putting in a short paragraph on Bucharest which will link to "Bombing of Bucharest" as a child article.
To my discredit, I hadn't heard of the bombing of the National Theatre. Luckily, an article was published in Adevărul on August 23 this year on that very subject. That bombing actually took place on August 24-25 and was done by the Germans. Obviously, this information should be added in as soon as possible, and I'll do that if I have the time.
And yes, more is definitely needed regarding the Allied side and what effect the bombing had on the war effort. After all, it was against this backdrop that Barbu Ştirbey was sent to Cairo to negotiate with the Allies for an exit strategy; even Antonescu wanted out by this point. Despite his defiant statement, the destruction of part of his capital city probably intensified that desire–but one which his alliance with Hitler effectively meant he had to leave the scene before that took place. As always, it's a matter of finding good sources.
I have tried to answer your talk page question. Biruitorul 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say we should have both articles, Bombing of Bucharest… & Bombing of Romania…, with a summary paragraph in each leading to the other. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good–I was leaning that way myself. I will do that at my earliest convenience, unless of course you do it first. Biruitorul 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Martha Chávez

Things seem to be heating up at Martha Chávez. Truth be told, they are getting much more hot that I would have wished. I mention this because I know that you know a great deal about modern Peruvian politics, and may wish to weigh in. --Descendall 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I know "a great deal" about modern Peruvian politics, but I will say that unlike the average norteamericano I at least have been paying some attention & have half a clue. I promise I'll take a look. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Mix-a-Lot

Actually, the explanation is pretty mundane: I like to look at the recent contributions some of the more active Romania-connected users, trying to improve on the pages they've just edited, because we usually share similar interests (though I must confess to having zero interest in hip-hop, even of the Romanian variety). I hope that doesn't constitute Wikistalking. Biruitorul 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, glad to hear it. Biruitorul 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name California

You have been heavily involved in this article, so I wanted to alert you to the fact that I am working on a major rewrite, which should be up by tomorrow. Please check out the talk page and let me know if you have any concerns. Lagringa 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I was just wondering if you had read my reply on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_4 about the Darger category. If so, could you respond on the CfD page, please? Thanks. --Storkk 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ezebuiro Obinna

It looks like the IP editor removed your comments from the talk page again, removed the tags, and inserted more POV praise about the guy in the talk page. I don't think the editor's learned their lesson. ColourBurst 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Eva Hesse

I noticed your copyediting and expansion of this article, as I had it on my watchlist. Immediately, I checked fr:, de:, es:, and it: for interwikis, and am surprised none of them had any, because, well for the obvious reason, that they should have them. Sorry to bother you, continue, you're doing a terrific job. DVD+ R/W 06:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. See you at the meetup? - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup. DVD+ R/W 06:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC: The discussion took place here

Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive10#Intermediate_sources Andries 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jmabel, You have more experience with this article than I do. Is the Request for Comment suggestion completely hopeless? Do you think the parties involved would take this seriously? I find the last edit war on the population figures quite disruptive. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary response: no time to look into this right now, but I'll try to get to it within 24 hours. - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It is 2 am over here. I am off to bed now. Thanks, E Asterion u talking to me? 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of experience with RFCs about pages. In this particular case, most of the people who have actual knowledge about the matter are probably at least aware of the controversy over whether Molodovans should be counted as Romanians and that it has been repeatedly fought over in several articles. I can't see what we would lose by the process, but I doubt we will get much informed opinion that we don't already have.
I find the whole thing a bit bizarre. I have to say, I doubt the intellectual honesty of people who claim that there is a change of ethnicity at the River Prut. I can see the case that says that all Moldavians are ethnically distinct from Wallachians, but the one that says that Romanians in Transylvania, plus Wallachians, plus those Moldavians who live in Romania are of one ethnicity—Romanians—and those Moldavians who live across the border are of a different ethnicity? This is sophistry. Now, it happens to be sophistry that a national government, that of Moldova, engages in, so it is notable sophistry, but it should be noted and moved past. I guess I'll also add roughly these remarks to the talk page of the article, with suggestions on how I would handle this. I don't really care either way about whether we do an RFC. - Jmabel | Talk 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve

Hi Joe: Take a look at this please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve. Be well. IZAK 17:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I lurk semi-frequently, but am overwhelmed at work (plus vandalizing schoolchildren mean my work computer's IP is usually blocked), so I don't have as much time as I used. I hope to contribute more again sometime, but goodness knows when. Thanks for inviting me to the meetup on the 9th despite my absence...sadly a friend's wedding will intervene. My best to those few who still remember me, and keep up the excellent work. :-) Jwrosenzweig 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hope you are back more some time. And a friend's wedding shouldn't be too sad… - Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Frontul Renaşterii Naţionale

Hi. I wonder if you can help me here, seeing that you are interested in topics related to Carol II and have provided references from Eastrman: what would you say is the preferred English equivalent of "Frontul Renaşterii Naţionale"? "Front of National Rebirth", "of National Renaissance", "of National Renawal"? Thanks in advance. Dahn 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A.L. Easterman, not Eastman. But I don't own a copy. Got it from a library. Could turn it up if really needed. I think he called it National Renaissance Front. In any case, I believe that's what I've seen in several sources. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I see. I should have asked earlier, because I have added a red link for Front of National Rebirth in several articles, and I hate having to review each one of them. Would you say that my red link will be a sanctioned redirect, or do you believe that I have to change all into "National Renaissance Front"? (In my defence, I did not call the man "Eastman" - I called him "Eastrman" :)). Dahn 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"Eastrman": So a typo, not a misspelling. Sorry, didn't notice: "Eastman" is a rather famous family (Eastman Kodak, Linda Eastman McCartney).
Hmmm. "Front of National Rebirth" gives far more Google hits, but only 15 look distinct from one another). "National Renaissance Front" gives fewer, but only 14 look distinct. So the Google test is useless here. All look relevant. Most look like they may have gotten it from us. And I wouldn't be surprised if you and I are the actual origin of most. So despite my preference, it looks roughly 50-50. I'd say to go either way, and use a redirect. I don't really care which gets the article, until we can turn up some authoritative print sources. I have one thought: I'm going to check the New York Times index. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Only two New York Times references to "Front of National Rebirth", Sep 25, 1939 and Oct 17, 1939. Five New York Times references to "National Renaissance Front" between Nov 13, 1939 and Jun 23, 1940; one more on Oct 22, 1945. All on topic. So it looks like at first they used "Front of National Rebirth", then changed over to using "National Renaissance Front". So I'd say "National Renaissance Front" has the better claim, unless we can find a different pattern in a comparably important English-language paper, like The Times of London.
Here are the article titles; let me know if you think any of these are likely to be particularly worth a look for their content. I can get PDFs, but they are copyrighted, so I cannot post them.
  1. CAROL IS GUARDED AT PREMIER'S RITES; King Disregards Government's Wishes by Risking Life at Funeral of Calinescu IRON GUARD PURGE GOES ON More Terrorist Leaders Slain, With Executions Now Said to Total About 340 Only Leaders Are "Executed" Near-By Windows Kept Closed More Iron Guardists Slain - Sep 25, 1939. p. 5 (1 page)
  2. ONE-PARTY SYSTEM ADOPTED IN RUMANIA; Front of National Rebirth to Purge Nation of Dissidents Nicaraquan Exports Limited - Oct 17, 1939. p. 11 (1 page)
  3. RUMANIA MAKES BID TO APPEASE MINORITY; Administration Posts Are Held Open to Transylvanians - Nov 13, 1939. p. 9 (1 page)
  4. 34 IRON GUARDISTS FREED; Rumanian Government Carries Out Pact With Former Fascists - Mar 29, 1940. p. 3 (1 page)
  5. CAROL LIBERATES IRON GUARDISTS; A New Rumanian Cabinet Is Expected With Freeing of Pro-Nazi Political Group NATIONAL UNITY HELD AIM British Oil Companies Fight Order to Pay Royalties in Refined Product To Repatriate Others Light on Export Ban Protest Order for Oil - By EUGEN KOVACS Apr 19, 1940. p. 5 (1 page)
  6. RUMANIA IS SWUNG INTO REICH'S CAMP; Carol Forms Party of Nation to Rule by Pro-Nazi Policy Under His Dictatorship RUMANIA IS SWUNG INTO REICH'S CAMP Victory for Nazi Iron Guard Any Opposition to Be Punished Iron Guard's Dead to Get Honor Effect of Nazi-Soviet Trenid Seen - Jun 22, 1940. p. 1 (2 pages)
  7. RUMANIAN PEOPLE TOLD TO CONFORM; King Carol Over Radio Calls for 'Sacrifice' to the State Under Nazi-Type Rule APPEALS TO IRON GUARD Youth Has Major Part in New Totalitarian Party That He Heads, Sovereign Says Youth Urged to Join Action - Jun 23, 1940. p. 23 (1 page)
  8. RUMANIAN DEFENDS PRE-ARMISTICE ACTS; Vice Premier Tatarescu Says He Backed Carol's Policies but Did Not Aid Nazis Tatarescu Answers Charges Stirbey Called Accountable- Oct 22, 1945. p. 7 (1 page)
Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. This is exquisite reseach. I guess that, when I create the article, I will add "Front of National Rebirth" as a redirect (I will change it to "National Renaissance Front" in the articles where it is a red link, but just in case I miss one - as well as for potential readers who may have heard of it under the former title). I will keep in mind the list, because it is highly interesting; for now, could you provide content for reference no.8? I have recently expanded the article on Gheorghe Tătărescu (mainly because the man's transition from liberalism to pseudo-fascism to travelling companion is superbly interesting to me), and it may come in handy. If you want to write it there yourself, feel free to do so. Thank you again. Dahn 07:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Joe, I'm sorry I missed the meetup. I thought I knew which place it was and so I didn't take the address with me, but when I got there it wasn't the place. The neighborhood has changed so much and I was confused, I looked all over, and now feel stupid. I drove all the way from the suburbs for naught. Anyway, I hope to be at the next one. Regards, DVD+ R/W 03:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seattle Meetup 4

Thanks for taking notes; they look great! --Alan Au 19:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it is the second statute. There was a previous one during the second republic. This is why there was no need for a referendum as for Andalusia, which could not get its own statute approved because the start of the civil war. Best wishes, Asteriontalk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Capital market

Hi. I have looked on one of the links, and could tell that it belonged to a fim which has some ellusive connection with the market itself (wheter they assess it as a business, or are involved in dealing, or simply host info, I can't really tell). See the "about us" at The other... I don't know how to describe it, but I suppose the current description is accurate enough. Dahn 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Barry Gurary

Hi Joe: what is your view about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Gurary? Thanks for your time. IZAK 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


I hope you see my reply on the manual of style page. Believe me, I mean no harm, it's just "X American singer" in the first sentence doesn't make sense. The real problem we are facing is User:Bellbird, who is systematically removing all mentions of the word "Jewish" from articles and removing the categories as if it's some sort of stigma. This is the only thing he (?) has ever done on Wikipedia since his arrival here this August, and he should probably be stopped. Cheers, Mad Jack 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your other examples elsewhere, Jolson's birth place should probably be under early life too. Was he known for somehow playing Jewish characters? If so, that could be mentioned in the header. As for Sholem Asch, the fact that he was a Yiddish-theatre actor is mentioned in the header. If "Polish-born" is pointless, that could certainly be removed. But certainly him being Jewish is mentioned repeatedly in the paragraph right after. Hope that's ok... Mad Jack 06:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • He himself was the son of a rabbi. His (unquestionably) most famous role—Jakie Rabinowitz, the title role in The Jazz Singer, the first talkie—was as a cantor's son who wants to do "jazz" (really, blackface minstrelsy), and who ultimately reenters the fold of his family through singing the Kol Nidre on Yom Kippur. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What should be in the public venue? Ethnicity in header or Bellbird? Agreed for ethnicity in header, but as for Bellbird, dunno if he's everyone's problem yet. Mad Jack 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ethnicity in the header? Ethnicity in the article. I wasn't planning to go to such a public venue over just the issue of the header. If you didn't mean to actually eliminate all mention of Clurman being Jewish, we are perhaps less far apart than I thought. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't bring up Bellbird, you did. Offhand, I've never crosssed paths with him. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, I definitely support (properly cited) ethnicity in the article. That's for sure. I'm interested in that and if I can find it, I include it (even to the point of slight awkwardness, i.e. my FA Mandy Moore). So - no argument about that. Just the header thing is something that needs to be consistantly done across Wikipedia. Technically, a header should sum up the article - so - if we spend a lot of time in the article about the person's Jewishness, Italianess, etc. it cna be mentioned. Just the phrase "Jewish artist" etc. doesn't really make sense in terms of what we're trying to say about the person. I know that Jolson's most famous role was the Jazz Singer - but - Jason Biggs' most famous role is that of the very Jewish Jim Levenstein in the American Pie movies - but Biggs isn't Jewish. There is a big divide between the performer's on-screen role and their real life - often similar i.e. Jolson - sometimes not. But again, if Jolson's Jewishness is something we spend a lot of time on in the article, it should be mentioned in the header - just not in that awkward way. As for Bellbird, I brought him up because I am concerned about his edits, which indeed are all about removing all mentions of Jewishness from articles, and thought you would be interested. In fact, his edits have been escalating recently and I hope will de-escalate soon if enough people revert him. Mad Jack 07:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You asked "Was he known for somehow playing Jewish characters?" I answered. - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Going by the above, I will feel free to restore mention that Clurman is Jewish. - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I don't see why you shouldn't. The crucial thing here is, though, that all these arguments for saying, say "Al Jolson was a Jewish actor" are exactly the things you should be putting in A. his entry if they aren't already and/or B. the header. So, if you say he was known for playing Jewish characters, put exactly that in the header! But saying "Jolson was a Jewish actor" does not exactly translate to him being famous for playing Jewish characters. That's the problem with that kind of a header mention - it's hard to tell what we're trying to say. Mad Jack 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Crossing paths

For the record, I do not see how Al Jonson's father's profession would be besides the point. Here we are talking about the history of an immigrant generation, and about one of the main films that defined (stereotyped?) this experience. Bellbird 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish vs. Judeo renaming

Hi Joe: Your learned input would be greatly appreciated at User talk:ThuranX#Your past nominations to rename (Wikipedia:Undeletion policy). See my comments there please. Thanks. IZAK 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Shining Path

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Descendall 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

AAAAA edited my request for mediation several times. I want you to know that it has since been restored to its original. I hope that you agree to mediation. --Descendall 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

from WP:RM

Hi. I just want to check with you - is your history merge from List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews completely sorted out? I'm just working on the WP:RM backlog, but I don't want to delete that request (in the September 2 section) if there's anything still pending about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the histories are correctly merged. - Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:QDNDVN T-55c1.jpg

Hi, I got the picture from my grandpa's wartime collection. Can that be removed?Canpark 08:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying your grandfather was the photographer? Or did he just have a copy of someone else's photo? - Jmabel | Talk 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not sure, but I scanned the picture from what look like an original photo.Canpark 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to move that forward, then. If you can ever sort this out more clearly, and wish to put them under free license (I recommend GFDL or a CC license instead of public domain, that would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you;)Canpark 06:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. OK. That may be a different matter.

If your grandfather was in Hanoi during the war and taking pictures, and if you are the heir to the copyrights, of course these images would be great to have. Is there any chance of sorting out the actual history of these? I'm sure you understand how, on the one hand, these would be great to have (with clean rights to them) but, on the other hand, if they are someone else's intellectual property, and we don't know quite whose, we have to make a clear fair use justification if we want to use them. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. For that reason now I want to remove the picture because its quite rareCanpark 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to move that forward, then. If you can ever sort this out more clearly, and wish to put them under free license (I recommend GFDL or a CC license instead of public domain, that would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry I missed it, I've been on vacation for the past month. I look forward to seeing you at the next one, or possibly Portland if we both head down there (perhaps we should start discussing potential carpools). --Michael Snow 16:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Why, thank you! I would indeed be interested in adminship, but I agree that we ought to wait a couple of months before initiating an RfA. I should note that over 97% of my edits are in the Main or Template spaces – would this be a big problem, do you think? Biruitorul 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention to back me. You're right that admin tasks may not be entirely desirable, but someone does have to carry them out and I wouldn't mind helping to do them myself. In any case, my six-month Wikiversary (as a registered user; I'd been an IP editor since fall 2003) is November 8, so I'll hold off at least until then before re-assessing the possibility of an RfA. Again, thank you for bringing this up. Biruitorul 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Nice work on the refs, but please note the newspaper article title should be in double quotes (as it is actually a quote from the newspaper) and the title of the newspaper in italics. Tyrenius 04:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed italicizing a newspaper name. We don't usually put quotation marks on article titles in refs if they are linked. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)