User talk:Jmabel/Archive 44

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

References vs. Further reading

A "References" section refers to works actually consulted in the writing of the article. A "further reading" section is simply recommended further reading, often works that probably someone should be taking on in order to improve the article, also sometimes fictional works that might shed light on the subject. So in effect by this edit you are asserting that other editors were lying about what works they consulted in working on the article. I doubt that was your intent. You might want to go back to the article and sort this back out. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Isn't "lying" is a bit too strong of a word? I'm not asserting anything, and, actually, I prefer a neutral "bibliography" (under which you can probably list both used and recommended works). But, if something has been cited or referenced, there should be footnote to a specific page, don't you think? Anyhow, I don't really care how you call it. Wanna change it, you're welcome to do it. —Barbatus 00:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Might be too strong a word. I didn't dwell on choosing it. The thing is, the article in question didn't cite inline (which only became common in Wikipedia quite recently), so the references section stands as the only clue to what works were actually used. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Portland Meetup

I've been trying to get some more information out of Jimmy Wales about his visit to Portland, but I haven't heard anything back from him. Maybe I don't have the right email address to contact him about this. -- llywrch 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I just learned about this link. This may be where the actual information will be announced. -- llywrch 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So is he planning to talk with Wikipedia people at all? Because I frankly have no interest in getting involved in Wikia Campaigns, I have plenty I'm already doing. - Jmabel | Talk 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I haven't gotten any responses to my emails to him. (I learned about this from someone else who is interested in a Portland Wikimeetup, so I don't know how this actually fits into his plans.) You're welcome to contact him & see if you can get a quicker response. (And if that sounds as if I am disappointed, well, I am.) -- llywrch 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Well, things have finally started moving, & I have a tentative date of Wednesday, 1 November at 6:00pm. I hope this works for you. -- llywrch 03:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation reuqest on Jacob Pavlovitch Adler

I apologize, I did miss the in-line cites that were in the article but I have to say that I most impressed with the work you have done since then. It looks really good. Agne 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

African American & other things

Heh. I hope the cheese was to your liking. If I may bring up a couple of unrelated points, though: first, thank you for including the Neruda death citations. However, I wonder to what extent, if any, we should mention possible regime implication in his death. The three sources I found became progressively more sinister, so to speak, with the third claiming up-front that the doctors had been ordered to stop his treatment. I wonder if there's a more absolutely authoritative work on this, or if the cause of his death remains a matter of speculation to some extent.

If I do find a more comprehensive biography of his, I'll let you know what it says.

The other matter has to do with King Michael's title. If we take these coins as accurate, then it would appear that he (and possibly his predecessors) was King of Romania until 1930, and that his father changed the title to King of the Romanians when he came to power, which Michael kept when he was restored. I suppose the article should reflect that, but I'll wait for your opinion. Biruitorul 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see extra significance to the change, but I will look into it further.
And one additional point, which I forgot to mention earlier. I've probably slapped too many {{cn}} tags here and especially here, but is my general idea correct? Already, the pieces seem to have a Catholic POV, and while uncited claims of fact are bad enough, I'm rather alarmed when I see "critics say...", "biographers say...", etc. with no citation. Biruitorul 03:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at those particular articles, but: WP:WEASEL. - Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Digit ratio and phrenology

Yeah, digit ratio research often gets compared to phrenology, in fact I think the comparison is made in the lead section of the digit ratio article... Pete.Hurd 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups

HI jmabel,

I posted three project ideas on the talk page... But I have taken a hard look at my semester and am declaring a wikibreak for about 6 weeks or so. I sincerely apologize for being unable to follow through. I hope to be back... in 6 - 8 weeks.--Ling.Nut 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


is etymologically incorrect. The Latin stem for "woods" is "silva" spelled with an "i". I take it the English spelling is preferred (re Music of Romania). Yeah, I'm new :) merry (really) 15:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. When there is an English name for a place, the English Wikipedia uses it. (For example, Munich, not München, Bucharest, not Bucureşti.) As it happens, "sylvan" is a word in English, meaning wooded; it shows up in English-language place names, such as Pennsylvania, so Transilvania looks a bit odd to a native English speaker, even though it is correct Romanian. - Jmabel | Talk 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Fair use

Hi jmabel,

I think I've fixed the Talk:Fair use page. I'm not sure what happened -- that particular edit was a very minor edit to the "see also" reference at the top of the page. I definitely didn't try to edit out all the other material, which included a paragraph in the middle of the page, and a LOT of material (including yours) at the end of the page. Perhaps I had a caching issue in my browser...? Or a conflict while someone else was editing ...? Or I was sleep-typing ...?

At any rate, thanks for catching it & calling my attention to it so politely. If you wouldn't mind double-checking my recovery on it when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it. There had been edits since mine, so I just went back to the edit prior to my problematic edit, and added in the missing text. (If there's another way to do this that doesn't fully revert, I'd like to know.)


LQ 12:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex pistols

There's been some more comments on the review for this and some progress. Perhaps you could take another look at Sandy's more detailed concerns. Marskell 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Eliade revisited

I need to apologize for my part in the misunderstanding about Eliade's pre-war activities. I realize that my posts might have sounded a bit harsh, but I assure you this was not in fact aimed at you, but rather expanded on issues that need to be made clear all trigger-happy would-be deleters. I realized you might have forgotten an essential word or two in your post, but I answered (in the first part of my reply) just in case this was the reason (I could picture someone quickly glancing over the text and not noticing where different fragments fit in time, and I could not resent anyone for doing that). My comment about "before everyone had even heard of him in America" was, consequently, not irony aimed at you (as I realize it may be read), but an answer to a sophistic argument alluded to by some users I was replying to originally (the "I have never heard of that, so it must be irrelevant" one - coupled with "he was not really alive until he came to America"...). Dahn 17:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's Joe?

As discussed at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attack by User:Arisch, User:Arisch, after I reverted his edit saying (among other things) that "members of the Ku Klux Klan who masked their identity and used "terror" to protect themselves from marauding African Americans who, angry and resentful about slavery, wished to exact revenge on their former owners by murdering them and raping their women" and referred to the remark as "racist", responded by calling me "such a typical Jew" and a "spewing kike". As the person who has been attacked, I am the one administrator who cannot block him for this, and after several hours, no one else seems inclined even to acknowledge the situation, let alone block him. So, until something is done about this, I'm out of here. If he's blocked (and I don't mean for a few days), I'll be back. Let me know either on my user talk page (which I will check at least daily) or by email. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I am not willing to be part of any community where this person is welcome as a member. - Jmabel | Talk 00:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Until the end of 2006, I will be less available to Wikipedia than I have been at some times in the past. I am on contract writing functional and technical specifications at Active Voice (in Seattle) for their next several major product releases.

  • It looks like they blocked him indefinitely. Oh, the poor li'l ol' KKK. So misunderstood. They're good ol' boys who just want to get along. And they hardly ever lynch anyone nowadays. Wahkeenah 00:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm glad someone did it. Joe, Wikipedia would suffer without your presence. --Lukobe 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Steady on, Soldier

Your last ANI edit

Four hours isn't long, and everyone is pretty busy. Give us a break, mate. - brenneman {L} 00:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want words of consolation, I want him blocked. - Jmabel | Talk 00:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Blocked indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If Slim hadn't beated me to it, I would have done it too. Raul654 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have your email provider block them too. Sorry for not responding quicker, I would have done the same as SlimVirgin. DVD+ R/W 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see this has been taken care of. I don't follow ANI very closely, so if you have problems like this in the future, Joe, feel free to post on my talk page. -- BrianSmithson 01:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, all. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Shalom. (:-) Wahkeenah 05:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You're very welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I sent you an 電子メール. I'm happy you're back. DVD+ R/W 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you aren't getting a rapid enough response on AN/I in the future, feel free to post on my Talk: page or send me an e-mail. Best wishes. Jayjg (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Joe, I read some old conversations on AN/I. Sorry you got such a nasty mail.

-g SchmuckyTheCat 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lubavitch vs. Barry Gurary

Hi Joe: Please take a look at the Barry Gurary article and the talk at Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content in particular. Your views would be greatly appreciated in the discussion. IZAK 09:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I already commented when you asked me this 10 days or so ago. I have nothing to add. - Jmabel | Talk 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Computer accessibility contribution

Hi Jmabel. Thanks for editing the piece I added relating to remote assessment. It reads better now. I'm new to this wiki editing and still finding it difficult to write material without offending the rules. I'll try harder next time. Kind regards. Abilitynet 09:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. In relation to comment about the AbilityNet link (it being a business). AbilityNet is a charity and is also a registered company. As a charity, they provide free services to the disabled when appropriate. As a registered company, they charge for professional services when appropriate - in order to fund the free services. They are regulated by the charity commission just like any other charity. They also get donation funding. AbilityNet is similar to organisations like the RNIB, only serving a wider audience. Please don't misinterpret what I have written here. I'm merely trying to explain the relevance of the link. Regards. Abilitynet 09:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


People in the United States generally do not speak Spanish. As a result, their familiarity with the term "ista" in the context of fashionista, et all, likely comes from the Sandinista term. And it certainly does in the case of Colbert's comments. J.J. 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


We're obviously talking about a very fluid period in German history here, but I'll try to sort this out. As Chancellor of Germany and de:Reichskanzler show, Ebert was the last Imperial Chancellor (for a day). Then the new republic, proclaimed November 10th, was ruled by a Council of People's Delegates (de:Rat der Volksbeauftragten - an article someone should translate). Until December 29th, the Council had three Social Democrats and three Independent Social Democrats. Ebert and Haase, as heads of their respective parties, were Council heads and de facto heads of government. The Council continued functioning until February 13th but with just five members, all Social Democrats, and Ebert sole Council head. The template, then, is an oversimplification. Biruitorul 02:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

Re: Walk on the Wild Side. Alas, poor trivia, I didn't need to know thee that well.  :) — Catherine\talk 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Very poor trivia.
BTW, do you know (better trivia here), the line from Hamlet is actually, "I knew him, Horatio", not "I knew him well." - Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I did, actually, although in the main my Hamlet is pretty rusty. I'm halfway through watching the movie Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead this weekend, though, which is great fun in a mind-bending sort of way. Have a great weekend yourself! — Catherine\talk 20:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
A good movie, but arguably a better play. Here's how old I am (compared to the average Wikipedian): I read the playscript of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead before it ever had a U.S. production. - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it's much better on the stage, but I don't think it's likely to be performed anywhere near me soon, so I'll take Roth and Oldman and enjoy what I can. I see our article looks like it has a chunk of homework in the middle -- maybe you could polish it up a bit? I'm running out of time online... — Catherine\talk 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Joe, I'm being personally attacked, I'm not sure what to do. Modernist 14:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thanks I appreciate your help. I've been attacked by Marika Herscovic (ip she's edited since Sept. 13. She blanked all her talk pages, and overreacts to things she doesn't understand. Two of her articles have been sent to deletion, not by me and I did vote to keep one of her articles to help her. She voted multiple times to keep her articles, then started a new article and voted to delete her own article with her third vote under a pseudonym - "protector." I would like this person to stop accusing me of things I haven't done. I also want my privacy respected. [1] One of her attacks is in Art articles on Akradecki's talk page. I am mindful that she will overreact to anything. Modernist 21:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Thank you for your comments on Marika Herscovic's talk page. I see that she has added something on Akradecki's talk page - She has created a new identity - Salmon1. I hope this person stops her attacks on me. Thanks again Modernist 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) She said on Akradecki's user talk page she is going to use the anonymizer to protect her new ip number. Hopefully things will stay calm. Modernist 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your response. To see the quality of my contributions (which started on September 13, 2006 on wikipedia) please look at 9th Street Art Exhibition; Albert Kotin; The Art of This Century Gallery; and contribution to Art criticism-on the post World War II era. My two books are available at under my name Marika Herskovic. I hope to continue to contribute to wikipedia. To describe myself: I earned my Ph.D. in 1979 at NYU Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. I have edited 27 art videos which were shown on cable TV and were listed in "Art on Screen,-A joint venture of The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Trust." I have spent the past two decades documenting the New York Painting and Sculpture Annuals, the participating artists and their art. To be collegial is necessary in all endeavors. In this field maybe the freedom allows for more contention. I must admit that in this short time I came in contact with some dedicated and well meaning people and I am grateful for that. I did change my user name to Protector and now to Salmon1. Thank you for your interest.

Sincerely Yours, Marika Herskovic, Protector 03:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC), Salmon1

Hi Joe, It pains me to say that she has just changed her remarks on Akradecki's talk page to once again include my name in violation of my request for privacy and in defiance of the message she was sent by you earlier. Modernist 05:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If she is accurate that you are writing about yourself on Wikipedia without identifying yourself, she has a perfect right to call you on it. You can't really both write about yourself in an encyclopedia and expect anonymity. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I told her my identity. I would appreciate anonymity, but I do not want to be attacked by this person. I've worked hard writing and editing. Modernist 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been tracking this in detail. I warned her earlier today not to make personal attacks. Are you saying that she has continued to do so? What exactly is the personal attack in question? (And, I'm sorry, but if you are writing about yourself, you should be listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles. Again, once you write about yourself, the claim to anonymity is pretty much gone.). - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Thank you again. I listed myself there as you suggest. I appreciate your guidance, I'm trying to do the right thing. She has made many erroneous claims, about me she accused me of using her ip address, she doesn't understand that the time of those edits were probably 10:00 pm eastern time, and she made them herself. She thinks I'm doing things that I'm not and I can't do anyway. Concerning my edits, I've worked on many pages as my contributions show. Modernist 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure. I've run into you on several different pages.

As far as I know, there is no way to fake an IP address. If she doesn't have a fixed IP, it's perfectly possible that someone else sometimes has the same IP she has at other times, if they have the same Internet Service Provider. If someone wants to avoid confusion on that, the only ways to avoid it are (1) edit only from a fixed IP that is exclusively yours (not, for example, through AOL or at a public library or school) and (2) be consistent about logging in when editing.

But, again, you still haven't pointed me to what you consider personal attacks. If you want me to try to address the matter, I need something substantive. Alternatively, if you want to let it slide and try to disengage, that's fine. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I'll let it slide, thanks for the help, hopefully it'll straighten out. She's accused me of various things like initially being Akradecki, It's hard to actually understand and describe, I'm calling it a night too. Modernist 06:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Unfortunately on her talk page these attacks are continuing. I mentioned helping her with her edits, I did so anonymously by simply adding usable information, I'm also refering to form not necessarily content when I mildly commented in support of her page not being deleted. She puts out of context a statement I made, after she attacked me the first time. The incident can be seen here [2] in Help needed w/duplicate pages. I'd like this matter to slide and not continue to get worse. I hope it doesn't get out of hand. As to posted pictures I've posted what I can safely copyright so far. I'm doing my best, Thanks again Modernist 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

talk:Mountain Jews

I replied, and would be interested to hear your response. If you need to see some of the image issues that I referenced in my comment, I can dig them up. I think that legally, you can "use" it is very different from being given permission to "re-license" it. IANAL, though.... If you reply, please do so on my talk page. Thanks! --Storkk 15:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

... or of course on the mountain jews' talk page.... --Storkk 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
likewise. --Storkk 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ted Haggard

My edits to this article where not an attempt to “rehash” the Root of all Evil program, they were merely put there to mention other instances of Haggard in the media. If you believe the amount of information in the article was unnecessary in the context of this section (i.e. talking too much about what happened in that program when the section was merely about Haggard in the media) then edit as appropriate. Thanks.Miller 11:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)