User talk:Jmabel/Archive 2

Tlon, ...

Objections removed; meant to do it sooner but got bogged down this weekend. you can move this up to the 'uncontested' section of FAC at your leisure.

I do still hope that the article eventually

1. references more than one source of 3d-party analysis; (should be a collection of the analysis of others, not original analysis by the article's authors)
2. puts the work in the context of the author's life and other works

- +sj+ 04:19, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Civil Constitution of the Clergy

Since you wrote this article, would you have enough information to write one about the 1905 Law on the Separation of Church and State? :-) David.Monniaux 23:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Iron Guard

(Re your edit)

I personally find the changes you made to be the perfect reflection of what really happened at that point in Romania's history. It's still a very touchy topic even in Romania however, let alone the dissenting external views, so I think it's going to be contested one way or the other sooner or later (i.e. either "the Legion is the way" or "you would've had choices, it's Antonescu who was evil"). Whatever; anyway, I'm really happy with the current version, thank you! Paste Fericit! :) --Gutza 20:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Left-Right Politics

Could you take a look at the changes TDC has been making? I think it's garbage, but I think I've used up my reverts and want more opinions. Thanks. john 01:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ISBN for 'old' books

Jmabel,

I can't find that anyone has answered your query about ISBN for '40s books from Argentina. There won't be one for any such edition, though perhaps for a newer edition there or somewhere else. The ISBN system developed much later, and wasn't retrospective. And, it's being revised (more digits, and so more coding space -- the reasons are rather similar to those which prompted the (current) change from IPv4 to IPv6)).

Perhaps this helps? ww 14:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Joe, Just a quick thank you for restoring the vandalized link to my site at search engine optimization. Despite the fact it is repaired by many users, the same user constantly re-edits it. Thank you. Serps

I think I am a bit upset by the insistance of Stewacid to remove reference to altermondialism in the article. Yes, I am a purist as well. We have two words, altermondialisation and antimondialisation, and we do not use them in the same context. If you search en, for altermondialism or words similar, you will find two stubs on the topic. They appear to recover the same thing to you, but they do not for us. These are two words, with different implications. So, if this may not be explained in the article, and english people prefer using anti (which means against, different from what is normal) while other have decided to have two different words, with the one we use most being alter (which means a different path) that is up to you. But these are not similar and antiglobalization should link to w:fr:Antimondialisation, not w:fr:altermondialisation for purity. Yes, there is a point. We use different terms, these are not equivalent. So either we explain this in the article, or we properly link articles. Altermondialisme is NOT a proper link :-)

Post on cleanup page

(=Ridiculous cleanup request= like trying to edit the contents of a blender while it runs.)

Fantastic imagery. Just thought I'd express my appreciation. -Seth Mahoney 23:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Henri Coandă

"You changed "the world's first jet plane" to "the world's first thermojet aircraft." Was there an earlier jet plane? If not, this should become "the world's first jet plane, a thermojet aircraft," or it really diminishes the accomplishment. Please reply either on my talk page or on Henri Coandă. -- Jmabel 19:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

Hello! Yea, it was just an attempt to be more precise and npov. While very notable, his 'thermojet' was a hybrid between jet and piston engine technology-not a 'jet' engine in the common sense of being a 'turbojet' or 'turbofan'.

The later success of jet turbine engines lied in harnessing the energy of the exhast stream to compress the air (in addition to power or thrust). Its misleading to say he had the first 'jet' plane, as it thereby insinuates his craft incorporated this critical breakthrough- which it did not.

I was quite impressed when I first heard of him, as I still am, but later let down upon discovery of the details of what the rather furtive title obsucured. Its like claiming a horse-drawn glider as the first powered aircraft flight- perhaps true and also interesting, but not quite what is expected or deserving of the general title.

Does it diminish the accomplishment?- well it brings it to a level commensurate with what was actually accomplished. Greyengine5 06:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Hi, if you have time could you voice feedback on the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style , the Country and City Sovereignty item. THanx for your work.Daeron 13:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nihilartikel translation

Hi there, thanks for cleaning up the Nihilartikel entry. I had already given Jwrosenzweig a note, since I feared my translation would not be good enough. I tried to stay very close to the german orignal, but even the original isn't easy to read (typical for german science works).
So I see that you have already changed much since you wrote at my talk page - is there still something left that I should take a look at? You did good work there I think.
One thing: The word "dictionary" does not equal the german word "Lexikon". A "dictionary" as I understand it is a book where you would look up translations - or maybe how to write a word (called "Wörterbuch"). A "Lexikon" is a book where you look up meanings and facts about things - well like in the Wikipedia. So I think "encyclopedia" is closer - or even "Lexicon"(if this is a common used word in English). I let the choice up to you of course.
I like your chapter about "Motivations for the creation...". Very interesting. I will take it to the german version I think. :-).
Have a good time --Thomas

By the way - I just realised that you know have the "The character and nature of Nihilartikels"-chapter twice. And the "Classification"-chapter is out.

The first sentence in the classification-chapter (in the german version) says nothing more than that Eco's work is a good help for classification. It does not go into specifics - and since I dont know what it really means, I just translated it word to word.

The second part of that chapter begins with a confusing sentence. But it realy says "The definition of fakes is characteristic for Nihilartikels". Then the indeted part tells that the intention of these fakes are often more than jokes - they have a philosophical thought behind them (about the "communication process"). Was it too confusing in the translation. Should I try to take it in again?--Thomas 01:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A note here so Thomas and Jmabel will both see it :-) Thomas, "Wörterbuch" is a dictionary that translates between languages (this is what I was always taught). "Lexikon" is a dictionary that simply offers meanings within one language. The difference between a "Lexikon" and an encyclopedia is pretty significant: a normal dictionary's entry for Berlin, for example, would be something like "Berlin (noun) 1. The capital of Germany, located in such-and-such a province, population a-certain-amount" or something similar, while an encyclopedia would have five pages on its history, demographics, etc. I haven't ever heard "Lexikon" translated as encyclopedia -- only as "dictionary". Jwrosenzweig 18:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

I have nominated you for adminship. Please indicate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship whether you accept. Maximus Rex 19:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Ultimately, being an admin means a few things. You can revert the most recent edit to an article with one click -- helps fight vandalism. You can protect pages (according to guidelines) and edit protected pages (useful if you ever play with the main page). You can delete pages, again, according to guidelines. And you can block the IP address or username of vandals.

I encourage you to accept the nomination unless you have strong feelings against it. If at any time you wish to revoke your admin status, you can simply leave a request on a developer's talk page and they'll do it no (well, few) questions asked. :-) And the questions would mostly concern whether or not they could do anything to help you (if they suspected you were leaving in a huff). I became an admin and never thought I'd do much with it. As it is, I find it very convenient that I can delete or quickly revert vandalism when I stumble across it, and I meet more people as an admin (they ask for help, say, deleting a redirect so that they can move a page to a new title). It's basically additional abilities (and some increase in status) without any necessary increase in responsibility (some admins never ever use their new abilities, and it's not a problem in the slightest). There's my best explanation. :-) Ask me if you want to know even more, or poke around at Wikipedia:Administrators. Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I would say that no one would _expect_ such a thing from you. :-) I understand your desire to avoid such things. Many admins do avoid them, entirely successfully -- an advantage to having 200+ admins. There's always one around who's happy to block a vandal, and no one else needs worry. I've almost never been asked to block someone, and if I didn't feel like it (or didn't notice), the situation was always dealt with by someone else, usually fairly quickly. If that's your main concern, I'd say accept, but of course I don't want to make you feel pressured to do so. On an unrelated tangent (which I'd been meaning to raise), I work in the tech field in Seattle, and I've pointed a couple of people at your resume -- don't know if it'll do any good, but I thought you might appreciate knowing that at least one Wikipedian is helping spread the word. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Ack

Thanks for the heads up. -- Viajero 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

Some preliminary notes: Support of capitalism doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article now. It ought to be prominently featured. The contemporary Libertarian movement with its roots in Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas stresses freedom but classical conservatism stressed traditional rule by the propertied class, first aristocrats, later capitalists with a strong role to be played by the church. In practice this translated into an authoritarian government, a situation fascism seeks to recreate by imposition, as in Spain. Nazism doesn't fit neatly into the right wing slot as it incorporated an enhancement of the status of lower and middle class Germans although the war negated fulfillment of those promises. Fred Bauder 13:33, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Fascism

Could you please check out the TALK page for Fascism? We need some help with WHEELER. Thanks. AndyL 19:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Peer Review Please

Hi, you were kind enough the other week to give comment on the Manual of Style : Talk page; could you review the article that John & Wik keep reverting over at Papua (Indonesian province) : Page history -- My version speaks for itself; different maps, more content, and honest facts not twisted racist non-sense. Their version paints Papuans as dumb blackmen lead around by a Reverend with a sing-song (please compare that paragraph to mine). Their version also removes the vital links to the US State Dept. document & the letter from JFK, without which US readers may have difficultly understanding why their government did what it did at that time.

Also they keep reverting over West Papuan Genocide - a perfectly good article that they apparently hate because the Yale University uses the term West Papua which they have expunged from their version at [[Human rights violations in western New Guinea]]. I'm hoping some peer review may stop Wik and friend.

They accuse me of POV, which I feel their article is loaded with where-as my article avoids any POV by simply listing known facts and allowing readers to form their own thoughts. Even Tannin explained that to them but it goes in one ear & out the other apparantly. Also English language users can really only search the Internet for the country title "West Papua", as Papua would only return PNG & New Guinea pages. The current Indonesian name of the region is actually Propinsi Papua. The name issue is discussed on the talk page for a waste of time, and the meaning of Papua is even in dictionaries, sometimes even West Papua is.Daeron 14:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note that I have apologies for lossing it; and found and responded to John's most recent statement on the article discussion page; I did at one point write a critique of the current silliness and a conclusion, I really do not know, or care, why they have fixated upon West Papua, but I am greatly concerned about the damage they can cause by promoting the Indonesian military's (West Papua is the main source of money for the military, and in Indonesia the military holds 38 seats in government as well as influnce meaning no-one can form government without the supoort of the military) line to the exclusion of know facts, not only to the article but also to the West Papuan people who's only hope IMHO is for the American public to become aware of West Papua and get the world's media to keep a light on the activities there. Hopefully without the after affects which East Timor suffered. Look at my selection of external links, I care about NPOV, because it helps the truth.Daeron 07:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I see that Daeron's been talking to you about the Papua issue. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what Daeron is talking about much of the time in this dispute. Some of his accusations are utterly bizarre, and speak more to his own prejudices than to anything I've ever said. Like his accusation that the current version of the article paints Papuans as "stupid black men" because there's a mention of a reverend who wrote the Papuan national anthem. Or his accusation that I was somehow belittling that report by the Allard Lowenstein Foundation because I referred in passing and in jest to its namesake as a "crazy student leader", which he was (at that point I was still trying to be friendly with Daeron...his response to that bit made me realize that this was useless). Or his accusation that my discussing some things about the article with Wik at Wik's talk page somehow consists of a secret attempt to collude together to get around something or other. At any rate, I will admit to having very little background knowledge of the question of Papua before I got involved in this dispute. I have done some research on the internet since, and have found little to back up some of Daeron's claims. Anyway, I'm sorry you got dragged into all this. At this point, I kind of wish I hadn't been dragged into this, but here I am. I do see that at some point Daeron decided to make major additions, which were immediately reverted by Wik, and which I did not notice. So I will admit some culpability for that. Ah well, if you'd like to come in and have your say, I'd love to hear your opinion - I think this article needs some new blood more than anything else. As long as it's just Wik and Daeron and I, I think the low level reversion war is going to continue. john 07:42, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Not crazy crazy. I was, rather imprecisely, using crazy as a stand-in for eccentric or radical. I've always been bemused by his existence, because my mother's name, and my middle name, is Lowenstein. It was certainly not intended to be insulting. john 07:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I was joking around, and not being very serious, because I thought at that point that some sort of agreement was fairly close. I meant no insult to Allard Lowenstein. It was a complete filler remark, generated by my surprise at seeing that the quoted source was associated with a man with whom I share a rather uncommon name. I was not saying that Allard Lowenstein was crazy in order to discredit a study done by a center named after him. john 07:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

It must be my fault then, after all I am a 'raving lunatic'; or perhaps when you told Tannin that I was a 'raving' whatever, you meant that in a nice way; or when you told 172 that I was a 'lunatic' you meant that in a jesting fashion; I am very stupid and thought you probably meant the obvious meanings. Obviously Allard Lowenstein foundations legal opinion could not be trusted; though the page did list eight other reports and two speeches by US Congressman Faleomavaega about the forty years of killings and denial of rights. Indeed it could not be considered 'colonization', and you should immediatly tell Mr Faleomavaega off for citing West Papua (there's that name that doesn't exist again) throughout his opening speech at the UN Decolonization Committee, 2001.

Indeed after reading your various comments at Wik2 I am in awe of your NPOV; I even understand your reasoning that East Timor & West Papua are totally different and that the Papuans do not have a fraction of the East Timorese claims for independance, after all Timorese have breed out their primitive nature with superior Asian genes. And a 'Province' certainly, no doubt that it's just as safe for journalist and Papuans to walk the steets of Indonesian Papua as it is the Province of Bali. Don't worry, I'm just jesting.;-)Daeron 23:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

For context, my entire comment was "I don't think one study (by the Allard Lowenstein foundation, no less! That crazy student leader shares a surname with my mom, oddly enough) is enough for us to say definitively, in the article title, that this was genocide." It was complete filler. john 07:54, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought I've made clear that I didn't mean anything much at all. It was a complete throw away remark, and I was more expressing a familiarity with the existence of Allard Lowenstein than any judgment of him. I was using the word "crazy" in an utterly imprecise, vague sense. What I've read of Lowenstein (largely in books on the 68 presidential election) gave me the impression of eccentricity, but that's about it. But it's probably more personally idiosyncratic than anything. I grew up, before I had any knowledge of much of anything, having heard an occasional story from my parents about the existence of Allard Lowenstein, of how they had (I believe) on one occasion met him, and of some discussion of the possibility that he might be related to my mom's family (which has not one, but two Lowenstein branches). Beyond that, I only had a vague sense of who he was. Later on, reading about the aforementioned 68 election, I came across more detailed and coherent discussion of Lowenstein, and mostly was just surprised that this individual was of such importance, having before only had the vaguest sense of the whole thing. I recall from said readings, as I said, getting some sense of him as a rather strange figure - Teddy White was particularly patronizing, iirc. So, my use of the word crazy was certainly unfortunate, and I assure you that I meant approximately nothing by it, beyond, as I said, this vague sense of eccentricity and my own bemusement at the sight of my mother's surname. Re:your article on Lowenstein (man, I really jumped into a can of worms, huh?), by the way, I notice that you say he was gerrymandered out in 1970 - but the redistricting would not have gone into effect until the 1972 election. So what's up with that? john

Two guys I don't really know argue about Indonesia on my User talk page

Please see my responses on the Talk page first. Also, Province is defined in Wikipedia (unless reverted by someone) as having its own regional ghovernment; which West Papua does not. I included a statement from the US Government about Indonesian regional governance.Daeron 08:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Huh? The Province article says: "Province is a name for a subnational entity of government usually one step below the national level. In some countries an alternative term is used, e.g. state or department." And that's about it - no requirement of a "regional government." And what do you mean that it does not have a regional government? Surely there is an Indonesian governor and bureaucracy. According to [1], J.P. Solossa is the Governor of Papua. And here's a news article from 2002 referring to the "regional government" of Papua [2]. At any rate, JMabel, can I assume from your most recent response that I've satisfied you with respect to Allard Lowenstein? john 09:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've been known to go off half-cocked, too, just wanted to know what I was dealing with here. -- Jmabel 19:40, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Correct John, in your country or mine, even a territory would have a 'Governor' or similar, and a bureaucracy; but as that US excerpt says that doesn't happen in regional Indonesia -- West Papua is even worse than that though. West Papua was one propinsi with the standard four regencies; then Megawati signed into effect an order to split it into three sections with four regencies each, except only one of those has actually been implemented and has even the pretense of 'government' which the US document refering to; the other two thirds don't even have that pretense.

In short, the country is not integrated into Indonesian society as a 'Indonesian Province' is, as sites like survival-international point out "soldiers generally view the Papuan people as little more than animals"; and the military is the government throughout the western half of Papua. To call it a province of Indonesia, would be to grossly mis-lead the reader into believeing Papuans share Indonesian law or other functions of society, they don't. That Swiss journalist story at the bottom of your page should have made that clear, and he was lucky, others have disappeared. It's why the entire Papuan population boycotted the Indonesian election last month, they are governed by the military.

What I came over to mention was a cute looking page that gives a one page 'snap-shot' of Indonesia propinsi that you'll hear of as trouble spots Indonesia after Suharto it's one of the many people who thought thing's have got to get better.Daeron 15:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Can you guys please argue the facts on the relevant talk page rather than on my user talk? Thanks. -- Jmabel 19:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I had no intention of discussing this further on your user page. Thanks for the update on the gerrymandering - that certainly makes sense. john 20:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I was quite upset when I saw that John had without permission or goodwill, lifted entire sections of my work onto his clipboard and pasted them into his re-incarnation of the West Papua page. Then I discovered when he did it, between his two above edits (07:42 and 07:48, 9 May); at 7:45 he quickly pasted my work into the page with a note inferring he was doing so after carefully making it NPOV. In fact, what he did was add his POV by again expunging any mention of the words West Papua, and inserting the term Province wherever possible -- to re-enforce his & Wik's views that Papuans are lucky to have an Asian government take care of them and that anyone mentioning West Papua must be out of the ordinary and a separatist.

These views are completely dis-honest. Fact, Indonesia invaded West Papua because it declared independance 1/Dec/1961. ; Indonesian invaded East Timor because it declared independance in 1975.

Indonesia killed a third of the East Timorese population; Indonesia has killed a third of the West Papuan population so far.

Neither East Timor nor West Papua were lucky to have their independance replaced by the Indonesian military (TNI); and especially West Papua did & does not enjoy the benefits of being an Indonesia Province like Java or maybe Bali does; people are not dancing in the streets of West Papua; Journalist and Papuans are put into jail and beaten by TNI soldiers. It is completely John's POV that he wants people to think of West Papua as enjoying the benefits of law and order. Read any of the reports which John & Wik keep reverting over at West Papuan Genocide, both the independance movement and the TNI killings have been on-going since 1962. The TNI is not only cruel, it's bizzare in it's cruelty.

---

When Wik first came to the West Papua page, I first thought he just didn't read the discussion page before he edited; then John came along and I thought good another person, but then John started playing tag with Wik in being obtuse to anything Tannin or I explained to them; I soon discovered that Wik had a history at Jerusalem against the local government, but at West Papua he was extreme pro-government just like John. Then last night I scanned what John was writing & having written to him at a Wik2 page. Then I checked the Jerusalem history page and found the only edit he did to the article itself.

That's when I realised what could cause, say John, Wik, & Stan, to be anti-government in Israel and pro-government in West Papua.

Sorry for posting here; but it's the only place his sudden need to look more reasonable & the timing of that at 07:45 9/May plagiarism, can be seen for what it is.. I suspect your question regards the Lowenstein foundation rattled him. It's all subsumption, I'm no mind-reader, I don't 'know' what's in another persons mind; but there does seem to be something there.Daeron 08:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks you for leaving me a message! No big with me either. :-) I've answered on Talk:Socialism. Kim Bruning 21:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator after getting 100% support on RfA. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 00:08, May 11, 2004 (UTC)