Jump to content

User talk:Jmabel/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

ETA

Arbitration

Hello Jmabel. As you have noticed in the ETA talk page the situation is not very good recently. I am tired to have a "see no evil, hear no evil"-like discussion. It is not working and, in the meantime, the edits I believe are wrong keep in the article. I checked the wikipage about disputes and I feel we should go straight to Arbitration (I hope there is no need to try all the previous stages because I am afraid that "civil" manners won't work, since the positions are so different). Obviously the guy/s who go about this would be best if they have some acquaintance with the situation, but not enough to get influenced. I was only wondering if there is any advice or any comments you have about this particular procedure, for I have never been in one of these. Do you have any suggestions? I am talking about the procedure generally speaking. Once again, at the sight of your massive job in wikipedia, I'm just sorry to 'knock your door' again, we maybe are not be in line with our respective edits (I don't know), but I just thought you are the right person for your proven skills and knowledge...after all, if you have so many messages here it must be for something, right? Thanks Mountolive 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Why would you not want to seek mediation before arbitration? Under mediation, assuming that the person or people with whom you are in conflict will agree to mediation, you will get a mediator who will engage with the parties active in the article and try to work things out. Under arbitration, you will get a panel drawn from the small group of official arbitrators. They will be focused exclusively on conduct, and will not comment at all on article content. From what I've seen of the article (which I don't follow super-closely) no one has been behaving in an egregiously inappropriate manner, but if you really think that someone has been breaking the rules, and you have some evidence of that, you might get the arbitrators to take the case. Still, I think it is very unlikely that the arbitrators would decide that anyone's conduct with reference to this article demands a ban from working on this subject matter, or even limitations short of a ban; and, as I remarked, they won't comment on content at all; so it's hard to see what you'd expect to get out of it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand now. Before I thought that Arbitration would go there and assess the factuality and act like some sort of executive committee who would finally close the dispute by assessing the factuality of the edits, but it looks like that is not their task, but they focus on manners. Indeed my point is not manners, but heavily biased edits, which looks like they are out of the Arbitration scope.
Thank you for the advice: I will request mediation then. My concern is that a mediator as a "peace man" won't work if the other part stubbornly refuses to accept the mediator's decissions. Does a mediator take decissions at all about the content of the article? because that is what is needed there: someone whom submit different views and he/she deciding and closing this for good once for all.
Actually....Would you mediate? Probably Sugaar would also accept you as a mediator. I guess this is not the official way to ask for mediation, but since you are familiar with the page and the situation, I can't think of any other person. Actually there is also Error...would it be possible that you two guys make a dual mediation? (of course if any of you agrees, that is to say).Mountolive 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither Error nor I are officially mediators, and I don't know how much time I have to give this (and I bet similar remarks apply for him), but if Error will also participate (and, of course, if Sugaar is also willing) then, sure, I'm willing to see if we can help work it out. It's worth a try, and we can always bring in someone from the "mediation cabal" later if it doesn't. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for considering it. I know you are damn busy and, yes, I'm afraid this will take some time indeed. I have already asked Sugaar about mediation. If he is positive, then maybe you could contact Error and we could all hopefully work something out. Mountolive 05:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: I have replied to Jmabel in my talk page and to Mountolive in the article's talk page. I am generally open to any kind of possitive DR and I do encourage that more neutral users take a more active role in shaping the ETA article (as much as they can). --Sugaar 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you bother yourself to mediate. I've been -and continue to- rather busy in real life, but I will certainly post my comments soon.Mountolive 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be quite busy at the moment. --Error 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Elisabeth Young-Bruehl

I've responded on my talk page. You can comment there if you want. Sofeil 08:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your additions to User:Messedrocker/Stablepedia

While I definitely appreciate your addition of two articles, unfortunately I had to remove them seeing as they had unsourced statements. All articles listed have to be fully sourced. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

Hi Jmabel. In Transnistria article is difficult to edit if rules are not followed and one part is allow to break 3RR. Please look at this and apply Wikipedia policies. Thanks.--MariusM 12:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism

Hi Joe: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page [1], and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." [2] and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." [3], and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Main categories: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer

I already made a report [4], before I asked your intervention. However I made other 6 reports in other cases which were ignored. This is why I asked your intervention, to be sure that at least now wiki rules are enforced. You were not involved in the dispute.--MariusM 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Surrendered wife and BDSM

Please see my response on my talk page; I've given some links to a (rather alarming in places) website that endorses the "surrendered wife" movement, with explcit Biblical rationales for this (see my talk for the cite), that itself makes the comparison with BDSM, and in particular TPE.

A sample quote, from [5]:

"Since Taken In Hand is about male-led relationships and real control on the part of the man rather than just play control, it is not surprising that some Taken In Hand folk consider themselves to be in TPE or “absolute power” relationships. Nor should it be surprising that some Taken In Hand folk consider themselves to be in a “master-slave” relationship."

I'm pretty sure I can find other cites for the connection, with a bit more Googling. -- The Anome 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA, Ştefănescu

Hey, if it's edit summaries they want, it's edit summaries they'll get. But yes, I see your point; I do want the function, so I'll try to follow the participants' advice, which has been quite constructive. It's been a useful experience and I thank you for taking the initiative. Tentatively, let's say I'll give a renewed RfA some thought in July or August, but I'll keep this one open until it closes, if it's all right with you.

I'll have a look at the Ştefănescu matter. His son wrote me lots of information too and I'll be translating and transcribing that. Biruitorul 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I wonder what you think about "oppose" vote number 6 (link for convenience). The whole issue of communicating with banned users seems a little esoteric to me, as it's never come up directly, and I must confess I hadn't read the official policy on that subject before. On the other hand, you've spoken with Anittas and Ronline has with Bonaparte (on his talk page, no less), so it seems that there's less than unanimous agreement on the matter. Biruitorul 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Year in poetry

At Poetry of the United States, you added a bunch of "year in poetry" links. So, I said to myself, OK, wonder what there is of interest there. And I clicked on the year of H.D.'s birth, only to see that her birth isn't even itself on the page (which would be OK if, say, it focused on what was published that year, which it doesn't), which only contained something like four items in all. So... are these "Year in Poetry" pages substantive enough to be worth linking to? - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, gimme a chance. I must have spent 30 hours over the past couple of weeks in buildng up the year in poetry pages from 1900 to present. If there isn't a lot of info there now, there will be later. I think if there are several other poets born that year and in other years, it may help people to understand who her contemporaries are (what else could it show that would be useful to H.D.'s birth, anyway?). I think more interesting might be links from years that a work was published to that year in poetry so that people could see other events, works published and awards sections of these years. That would show someone what else was going on in poetry -- and what's useful about that would be the links to those other works and poets. I see these pages as central terminals where you take one link in, look at what's available, and take another link to that topic. What's substantial about each page is where it links to. The links have grown enormously and they'll keep growing. Check back in a month. Thanks for the input, I do appreciate it.Noroton 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to barge in, as I really need to ask an obvious question: did the creator of the articles consider the existing years in literature articles? Did he or she even see them? How does she or she plan to relate the two sets of articles? Dahn 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense; the question then becomes, though (and I promise this is not hostile) is it useful to link from birth dates? I can definitely see linking publication years this way, and building up a good list of what was published; but, sure, have at it, I was mostly wondering if this was something you were building or if you were linking into a half-abandoned scheme that someone else had built. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Jmabel, maybe it isn't very useful to link from birth dates, now that I think of it, and I probably won't bother in the future. Actually it is both something I'm building (building up, that is) and a scheme someone else had built and did seem half-abandoned. I saw that a lot of the pages hadn't been created and a lot could be added to it, so I did. (I found a web page that had a lot of this information already on it and started importing it from there -- it was easy and seemed useful.)
Dahn, The poetry years were set up before I came to them. If you look at the recent poetry years (2000 and forward), you see that there's plenty of information in the poetry years to justify their own pages, separate from literature. I think there's a real usefulness to having a separate section, partly because it helps the reader who wants poetry information to get to it without weeding through other, non-poetry information. I wish I could provide a link to each poetry page at the literature page for the same year (the way each poetry page links to the literature page). Also, the literature pages seem to get filled with people sticking in any book that gets published. I'm fiddling around with 2005 in books, possibly as a model for a set of pages that might help remove some of those non-literary books.Noroton 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Edit to fix link to 2005 in books Noroton 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "year in poetry" and "year in literature" pages should certainly interlink; I suggest, though, that you link from "year in literature" pages to "year in poetry" pages only for examples of the latter that have some substance and are worth a click; as there are more of these, add more links. - Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's better to link after the pages have been filled out substantially. Hey, take a look at 1886 in poetry. Not the biggest page, but it's got more in it now. Noroton 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but I was not able to upload it. It is the image you can see on the infobox of the fr.Wiki's article. A similar problem is about the image of the logo of the Left Radical Party. If your able to upload them, I will be very grateful to you. If you could explain how you will have done these uploadings, I will be even more grateful to you. Thank you. --Checco 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regulamentul and templates

Hi. Greier has unilaterally replaced the History of Romania template, deleting Regulamentul Organic (and has created a but-ugly succession box in the process). Dahn 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I hope you never decide to contribute on Romanian articles, as you are a very valuable editor. I understand your point about Greier, and sympathize - all the edits he has ever produced are of questionable informative quality, and many appear to be plagiarism. I noticed for one that, aside from scholarship that has been irrelevant for some 200 years at best, he cites historians such as Mircea Dogaru (completely ignored by all academic sources, and who is in the habit of speaking about a Jewish-Hungarian conspiracy against Romania, as well as holding the opinion that all Ukrainians and Szeklers are actually Romanians...). As an administrator, perhaps you could start a serious debate about his habitual plagiarism. Then again, I'd understand if you don't want to risk hearing him spewing his inane attacks again. Btw, the "but[t]" thing was just a typing error - I knows how to spel tehm eesier words ;). Dahn 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
May I hope that you also typo'd in the second sentence of your follow-up and meant to put "not" before "to"?
Sorry. I was thinking of two ways to phrase that ("never decide to stop") and ("never stop contibuting") and I came up with this absurdity. M-a uitat dumnezeu. Dahn 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I have several times tried raising my issues about Greier, but to no avail. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It must have been his personal charm and warm personality that prevented administrators from investigating your requests. Dahn 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
He has those when he wants them. He has at times in the past dealt with me quite politely. Unlike with some people, I see no chance that when he is rude it is because he does not know better. - Jmabel | Talk 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Alas, I have to say yep. Dahn 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I, or just find an admin?

Hi jmabel,

What sould I do about User talk:70.88.224.253? Thanks --Ling.Nut 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. For the future: WP:VIP - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Uploads

The two images I would like to upload are:

Thank you for helping me. --Checco 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I converted these to PNGs (a preferred format) and uploaded them. You can now access them as Image:Logo parti radical.png and Image:Prg.png, respectively. - Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Checco 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Francoist eagle

Hola, Jmabel

No puse los datos que pides en la foto porque no estoy seguro de en qué ciudad española la tomé, ya que viajo mucho por España por asuntos de trabajo y tomo muchas fotos. A veces descargo una tarjeta de 1GB para preguntarme: ¿Dónde saqué esta foto?.

De lo que sí que estoy seguro es de que está (¿estaba?, las estan quitando) en lo alto de un edificio público del Estado (¿Delegación de Hacienda?, ¿Banco de España?).

Saqué también una foto con más definición que esta (que está muy croppeada, porque está sacada de lejos). Si la encuentro, la sustituyo.

Y si vuelvo a ver el águila (yo me fijo mucho en estas cosas), añado más datos.

Un saludo. Randroide 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


...ja, ja, ja. Yes, I know the movie. That´s the situation. Thank you for the laughs.Randroide 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Halakha

Hi Joe: Have you seen Talk:Messianic Halakha#Requested move? IZAK 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Deleting_List_of_ethnic_groups

I have no opinion. But you may: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Deleting List of ethnic groups.

I can kinda imagine that it might be useful. Just FYI, I was planning on doing LOTS of list-related work to the ethnic groups articles after Christmas.--Ling.Nut 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some time a few weeks from now we'll start a discussion about reorganizing etc. so we can coordinate our efforts. Maybe others will help too. --Ling.Nut 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ion Caramitru, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello JMabel and thankyou for nominating this article. It certainly is helping to spoil us for choice and creates higher standards on the front page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but not created by me. Entirely Dahn's doing, I just nominated it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi and thank you. He did however add a somewhat similar template (for which I thank him), only he did it in a very unusual place (almost at the top of my talk page). Dahn 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Biology & ...

Maybe the anon is too young to understand, and we should WP:AGF, or they understand and we should WP:NOFEEDING. Either way, maybe it's best that gets ignored, or deleted... Pete.Hurd 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

no worries, I was tempted to revert that edit as soon as it went up, but figured I'd leave it alone as long as everyone held fire. If it hadn't been an anon I suppose I'd have dragged out the lecture, but it just smelled too funky coming from an IP... Anyway, it's gone now. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia help

Hi there, I figured an admin who knows some Spanish might be able to help out (mine's a bit weak). Anyway, this article was created to avoid the block of Genmay. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on its talk page letting them know the status of it on en:. I'm not sure what else I can usefully do. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Every little bit helps. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Biruitorul RfA

Don't mention it (my support in your comment). I really wish there were more noms like the one you made. That would mean that more editors would be as worthy as him, and more editors would be as galant as you to fundamentally disagree, yet nominate. Bravo. NikoSilver 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Too bad the opposers can't realize the value of this.

Hmong people page

You've been a great help on that page and I hope you continue to keep an eye on it. I do watch it pretty closely, though (on a daily basis), and if you wanted to take it off your list, I will continue to keep it on mine.Nposs 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: on demographics

Hi, and sorry for the delay. Yes, I like your version, but I frankly have to consider why delve at all into the topic of ethnogenesis on that particular page? I know some contributors are obsessed about such matters, but don't we already have 1,000 articles dealing with this? If we provide the links, don't we trust people to click them? I suggest writing a paragraph or sentence using the key term Origin of the Romanians, Romance languages, Romanian language, and leave the rest to be figured out by the user who cares enough about the subject to click the links. I have quickly glanced over the article, as it is marginal in my interests (which is to say that, even if I eventually decide to contribute to it, I'm not going to invest enough time in watching over it). A minor suggestion I have is updating the links: there is no need for Tatars when we can have Tatars of Romania, there is no need for Greeks when we have Greeks of Romania etc. Dahn 06:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good suggestions. - Jmabel | Talk 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mariawald Abbey

Articles should cite their sources. I don't see any citations where it would be appropriate. Isn't that what the fact tag is for? ArmAndLeg 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. In this case, it would make more sense to tag the entire article with {{unreferenced}}. {{fact}} is more for either of the following:
  1. To point up one of the few statements needing citation in a basically well-cited article.
  2. To point up a particularly suspect statement.
In other words, the {{fact}} tag is to draw attention to a particular phrase, sentence, or paragraph that is more at issue than its surroundings. To mark up every sentence in an article with it is not much use: it's like saying that everything is high priority to cite, which effectively means the same as that everything is low priority to cite, because both simply mean nothing is more important than anything else. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak or read German. It would be hard for me to read the page and make citations. I'll add the unreferenced tag. ArmAndLeg 21:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Lowell

Would you like to take a look at the talk page if you have time? Two users - one of whom is a supporter of the party and one of whom administers the "Viva Malta" web discussion board (affiliated to Imperium Europa apparently are engaged in a dispute with me about the neutrality of the article. They are saying the new version (i.e. the one largely edited by me in the face of User:Drew88's attempts to whitewash the subject) is biased and I don't agree. A third opinion would be beneficial perhaps? I have your page on "watch" so please respond here. Thanks. --SandyDancer 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's way too late for me to come into this neutrally. I've tangled several times with User:Drew88 over matters related to Viva Malta (now deleted) & Imperium Europa. As far as I can see, these groups are about 3 millimeters from fascist; he presents them as somehow libertarian.
An article RFC might be in order. Or a multi-article RFC covering the whole area. In that context I'd certainly be willing to weigh in; I don't see much use to my repeating what I've already said about this. Feel free to quote any of what I said at User_talk:Drew88#Imperium Europa and Viva Malta. (Apparently, "List of Libertarian parties" in my edit was an error; I have admin privileges, and it appearst that this was never the name of an article.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Basque people needs neutral viewpoints

I'm not wading into it. I'm already trying to mediate (and approaching giving up) at Talk:ETA. There are editors on both sides of this who seem to feel that the only acceptable treatments are those that roundly endorse their own views on controversial matters.

My own view: it should be apparent to any objective observer that the Basques constitute a distinct ethnic group. To deny that amounts to denying the very concept of an ethnic group. Conversely, it should be apparent to any objective observer that the Basques are a Western European people: their native land straddles the French-Spanish border and their culture, like any culture, has influenced and been influenced by surrounding cultures; that they have long mixed socially and in terms of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples; and, finally, that there are no sharp edges on who belongs to a particular ethnic group, and that self-identification is a large part of the picture, though not the only part. - Jmabel | Talk 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • eh, I dunno why people can't see what is in front of their noses, sometimes.
  • yes, sometimes "not wading into it" is the wise response; I recently "waded not" into a dustup on Talk:Indigenous people. But I thought you might wanna know about Basque people.
  • I know nothing of the Basques except that they are the descendants of people either driven from their lands or assimilated by the Indo-European speakers [so they are the Taiwanese aborigines of Europe, or more likely vice versa, since the Basques were booted out of their lands before the Taiwanese aborigines were theirs].
  • later --Ling.Nut 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Ro issue revisited

Hi. Remeber the issue of where and what to link regarding the Holocaust in Romania issues (including the challenge of finding vague enough terms for vaguish poliicies)? Well, I wondered if we could perhaps direct and expand info about killings in Transnistria to Transnistria (World War II) (an article which currently has little purpose), info about the Iaşi and Bucharest pogroms to the respective articles, and use as History of the Jews in Romania and Roma minority in Romania as the "umbrella" articles (I wanted to contribute substantially to the latter, but kept postponing it given the nature of debates there) - with Wiesel Commission as a supplementary connection. It is a massive task, and all those articles deserve a lot more attention, but this seems a good guideline for reducing redundancies and other such problems in the future. What do you think? Dahn 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll need to think this one over; I haven't given it a lot of thought. My first reflex is that there should be a Holocaust in Romania article that gives the overview of what happened in territories under the control of the Romanian gov't and that everywhere else coverage should be relatively short (varying from 1-4 paragraphs, depending on the article) and should link to that. If that becomes unwieldy because of size, then we might want a separate Holocaust in Transnistria article dealing with the Romanian operations east of the Dniester. - Jmabel | Talk 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That looks like a good plan too, but I ask you to amend its last part and consider detailing information about the Holocaust in Transnistria on the "Transnistria (WWII)", which is, IMO< pointless and stubby otherwise. (There is not much to say about Transnistria in WWII without mentioning Romanian exterminations east of the Dniester.Thst is to say that, no matter how big the text about the Holocaust in WWII Transnistria will get, all the info about Transnistria that is not related to the Holocaust could fit in two paragraphs). Thoughts? Dahn 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
True enough. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SSNP

You are of course right, all three edits are either dubious or utterly wrong. The 90,000 figure was sourced and anyone who wants to claim that the SSNP has mass support in Lebanon these days should feel free to show us where its candidates did well in the elections. But personally, I'm inclined to ask should we really bother? Palmiro | Talk 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, I have easily enough confidence in your judgement to advise that where unsourced edits are made on this page, you should revert first and ask questions afterwards if it seems appropriate. Unfortunately the article attracts generally pro-SSNP edits of a fairly uneducated kind from time to time. I've been discussing the topic with User:Filius Rosadis who may be able to further improve the article. I'm afraid that I don't have any really relevant sources available to me, at the moment or for the immediate future. It's a shame, because it's a genuinely interesting topic. Palmiro | Talk 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only conclude that you are probably right here, although with some regret... Palmiro | Talk 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen

I agree, that was an important link I deleted. Thanks for reinserting it. It's sometimes hard to sort the wheat from the chaf. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Rock Coalition

Black Rock Coalition article started, per your request :) --Bookgrrl 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice start on it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ştefănescu

Yes, I was pleased to see that. I corrected your translation directly, though it was quite good to begin with. I'll do the earlier parts soon. If anything is still unclear, do let me know. Biruitorul 09:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, even Mr. Băsescu gets his verbs wrong sometimes - saying "vă udrerez" instead of "vă urez", and with the inset picture being of his adviser, Elena Udrea. (Though I suppose presidents don't necessarily serve as models of good grammar.)
By the way, I was wondering if you or anyone else had any further debate on the issue of communicating with banned users. I don't do it myself, so it's not of direct interest to me, but you were implicitly accused of violating official policy, so I would think that we should clarify the situation, unless you've let the matter drop. Biruitorul 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't really for me to pursue the matter: it was for the person who claimed I was violating policy. I overtly welcomed an RFC about my behavior. This has become my standard approach when someone complains that I am technically violating policy when I am doing what I believe to be the right thing (e.g. NorbertArthur's claims that I edit with an anti-Romanian bias). So far, no one has pursued the matter. I do truly wish there was a way to start an RFC as the party whose conduct someone has put into question: I think it would make the whole thing much less adversarial. I would really like explicit exoneration rather than just letting the subject drop. But letting the subject drop is second best, and that seems to be what happened in this case. It much beats Norbert's approach (potty-mouthed obscenity on my user talk page, which led to one of his many blocks).

I'm not sure I understand the particular "vă udrerez" / "vă urez" thing (Băsescu's Romanian may be flawed, but it is certainly far better than mine!). Tell me if I have it right: "vă urez" = "I give you" and he just crossed that with her name? Does "vă udrerez" have some further connotation that I'm missing? - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.
"Vă urez" means "I wish you" [in this case, a happy holiday]. My guess is that he wasn't thinking of her and his tongue just slipped, but the resulting nonsense word (which has no further connotations) did bear some similarity to her name, much to the joy of satirists. If only Ceauşescu had permitted similar lampooning of his Romanian, which was worse still. Biruitorul 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel/Archive_49&oldid=1146687671"