User talk:Jmabel/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Notability

Responding to your comments at Wikipedia talk:School articles needing evaluation (copied here since you indicated that you would remove that page from your watchlist):

I'm sorry you feel that way. I actually consider myself more of a moderate inclusionist (I do not think everything under the sun deserves an separate article and I don't think WP needs to preserve edit history of semi-literate babble from every contributor and I have no problem with deleting substubs, even on valid topics, that do not contain any non-obvious information). I think the recent increase on VfD of radical deletionism reflects a fundamental betrayal of how Wikis work. It is imposing artificial and elitist values of "notability" in an attempt to filter out some classes of conributions. No one has been able to demonstrate exactly what harm is done to Wikipedia by having articles about schools (or the so-called "fancruft" for that matter). What is the threat that requires such militant deletionism? The main challenge that I see to such articles is organizing them and deciding how to manage them. My take is that as long as Wikipedia is a Wiki, then people will continue to attempt to add such information. What we should be doing is deciding how to manage, organize and improve the information rather than simply supressing it. older≠wiser 13:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Jmabel, Thanks for your thoughtful editing of the Jewish State article. Your edits have turned it from a stub into a full grown piece. Thanks again, Guy Montag

I've responded to your comments there, with full citations so you can see for yourself. I'd appreciate if you had a second to spare to go look; as it stands HistoryBuffEr is promising a revert war because he thinks I need to be taught a lesson. Jayjg 16:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to be ignoring you on the other page; there's so much nonsense going on right now I can't keep up with all the edits, questions, changes, etc. Is your question answered now? Jayjg 20:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my proposal

Jmabel, I want to apologize for jumping on your comment about notability. I took it too far and replied with a blanket statement, which was unfair of me. I want to let you know that I am not plotting to make Wikipedia:School articles needing evaluation into some inclusionists' collection of nonverfiable substubs. My prime reasons for creating this page were to divert the hostility of VfD away from these school articles, and to give us a better way of evaluating them. I am against school (or any) substubs in principle, and would not advocate keeping them as such. In fact, I think that merging schools into their related city articles is probably the best idea for most school articles. I do, however, think that there are some very well written articles about schools, (ex. Moanalua High School, Saint Louis School). and I don't want vfd to make it impossible to achieve that. Lastly, I do not support inclusion of articles about all people who have met thousands of other people. A person who has not had a profound effect on all of those people, an effect that has a verifiable paper-trail and possiblility for an encyclopedic article, rarely deserves an article, if ever. I don't support including unverifiable advertisments about businesses, products and websites either. I merely want to be able to give better evaluation to school articles than VfD currently does. Hope that helps to clear stuff up. —siro χ o 01:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I've copied the remarks to the project talk page as you suggested, and will reply to you there. —siro χ o 02:54, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki fact project

Hello, many people want to move forward with the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check project instead of waiting for 'smart' footnotes to be coded into MediaWiki. The first step is agreeing upon a formatting template used to fact check new articles. Several candidates are up for vote, and everyone is encouraged to vote and/or submit their own proposal. Comments on proposals are also very much welcome.

Thanks for your interest in our project, I hope you will vote :o). --ShaunMacPherson 10:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cuba

I did some more work on Opposition to Castro in Cuba. I still think it needs work to be de-POV, especially in the last two sentences of paragraph 2, but I'm not sure how to do it. --Improv 22:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to Castro

Thanks a lot for your help on getting the Oppossition to Castro in shape. Many regards SilentVoice 04:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've changed my vote to "keep". --*drew 04:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Four Freedoms - Hello!

I already added a note in reply on the Four Freedoms Talk page when I decided to have a look at your User page to learn a little more about you. Well, small world! My associate and close friend from Texas is currently teaching at the University at Sibiu and guess what? About six months ago he asked me to locate a reference for him to show that in the 1980s he had worked for the Four Freedoms Federation! (I noticed your own interests in Romania.) Rather than post too much personal stuff here I would be happy to send you an email with a reference to my friend who is still in Romania teaching American governmental studies. MPLX/MH 02:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent Olympiad discussion

Out of curiousity, I tried to find what reason there had bean to change that page, but I can't find the discussion you mentioned. Do you know where to find it? Aliter 14:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wesleyan Disambig Page

Hi Jmabel,
I noticed you were paying attention to the current discussions on the Wesleyan University article, and I'm wondering if you might take a look at what's going on at the moment on the Wesleyan disambig page. Another user and I are going around in circles in an edit war, and without a third party I fear we'll never resolve this issue.
The discussion is all on the Talk:Wesleyan page, but as a brief (and possibly biased) summary: I'm trying to have the page point to Methodism first, Wesleyan University second and Ohio Wesleyan University third. This user (who often fails to log in) wants to reverse this order. He has failed to give a reason beyond the fact that "he was there first." When I countered that none of the pages that originally linked to the disambiguation meant to go to OWU, yet several meant to go to WU, and that WU had many more links to it than OWU, he responded by deleting several links to WU and copying-and-pasting several articles from the web into Wikipedia in order to boost the number of pages linking to OWU.

If I shouldn't be bringing this to you, apologies, I'm no edit-war veteran and am unsure of the correct procedure, but know that we'll never get anywhere with just the two of us.

Thank you very much,
--Asbestos 23:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could Asbestos tell us what of the pages meant to go to Wesleyan in CT? Thanks.

(The previous remark was apparently written unsigned by Ranamim. I have no idea why a question to Asbestos was placed on my talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

THIS IS A QUESTION TO JMABEL, NOT ASBESTOS...

ALSO, I UNDERSTAND YOUR ASSISTANCE TO ASBESTOS. YOU ARE APPARENTLY BOTH ALUMNI OF WESLEYAN (CT). THIS MAKES YOU A BIASED EDITOR. COULD YOU PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE ENTRY UNDER WESLEYAN? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU IF IT IS WESLEYAN (CT) OR WESLEYAN (OH) THAT APPEARS FIRST? TO ME? WELL, THAT'S HOW IT APPEARED ORIGINALLY AND I BELIEVE ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE OPPOSITE IS NOT REALLY STRONG. AND SINCE IT IS NOT WELL-JUSTIFIED, GOOD MANNERS DICTATE TO LEAVE AS IT WAS. IF YOU WISH TO LEAVE THE REALM OF GOOD MANNERS, THEN I AM AFRAID IT MAY GET A BIT MORE UGLY. DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT?

(The previous threatening remark was apparently written unsigned by Ranamim). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

NOTHING IS THREATING. BUT I SUPPOSE FOR THE SENSITIVE COMPUTER PROGRAMMER'S SOUL IT COULD BE. IT WAS A DIPLOMATIC QUESTION IN THE NAME OF EFFICIENCY. AND IT WAS UNSIGNED BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE SIGNATURE COMES AUTOMATICALLY. --Ranamim

Apparently this is an assertion that messages written entirely in capital letters accusing me of bias, objecting to my editing an article, and ending "I AM AFRAID IT MAY GET A BIT MORE UGLY. DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT?" are not threatening. I'm not sure I want to know what this user considers threatening. I have replied to the substantive matter on his talk page. For the record, my reply is reproduced here as well:

That was a remarkably threatening note over a remarkably trivial matter. If you continue to address me in that manner, I will probably try to start a formal request for comment on your behavior.

Yes, for the record, I am an alumnus of Wesleyan University. You ask (without apparently wanting an answer), why should Wesleyan University be listed on the disambiguation page Wesleyan ahead of Ohio Wesleyan University? The answer is because "Wesleyan University" is commonly called "Wesleyan", just like "Harvard University" is commonly called "Harvard", "Williams College" is commonly called "Williams" and "Ohio Wesleyan University" is commonly called "Ohio Wesleyan". Normally, I wouldn't expect Ohio Wesleyan to show up on the disambiguation page of "Wesleyan" at all -- no more so than Bartlesville Wesleyan, Illinois Wesleyan, etc. I left it there as a courtesy because some editor (I take it, you) seemed to believe that it was commonly called just "Wesleyan" (if it is, I suspect it is a very local usage in Ohio). However, certainly in most contexts if someone refers just to "Wesleyan" they mean Wesleyan University, not Ohio Wesleyan University, just like if someone refers to "Columbia" they presumably mean the one in New York, not the one in Missouri. "First post" has nothing to do with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

IF YOU THINK THAT NO ONE REFERS TO OHIO WESLEYAN AS WESLEYAN, THEN PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO AND TALK TO PEOPLE. FOR EXAMPLE, AS AN ALUMNUS OF WESLEYAN, WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU GO TO WESLEYAN, JUST WESLEYAN...HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU GET THE QUESTION "WHICH ONE?". I BET YOU...THE ANSWER IS...A LOT! IF YOU COMPARE OHIO WESLEYAN AND KANSAS WESLEYAN OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU LISTED, THEN YOU SHOULD CONSIDER FOLLOWING MY PATH IN ACADEMIA AND GET A PHD IN A RESPECTABLE INSTITUTION AND SEE HOW MANY PHD STUDENTS AND WHAT THE ACADEMIC AND OVERALL REPUTATION OF THESE TWO INSTITUIONS IS ACROSS THE BOARD. I AM NOT SAYING THAT TO BOOST OWU'S REPUTATION OR ANYTHING BUT TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF AN ABSURD COMPARISON.

WHAT WAS THAT THREATENING?!?!?!? IF YOU PERCEIVED IT TO BE A THREAT, THEN LET ME TELL YOU IT IS A THREAT AGAINST THE EFFICIENT USE OF OUR TIME...NOTHING ELSE! I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT YOU ARE SMART ENOUGH TO CATCH THE NUANCE OF MY SEEMINGLY THREATING TO YOU QUESTION (BUT REALLY A RHETORICAL QUESTION)...

AND BY THE WAY...YOU WOULDN'T KNOW..BUT LET ME TELL YOU: IN ACADEMIA, CAP LETTERS ARE USED TO MAKE EDITS TO DOCUMENTS, NOT TO INDICATE ANYTHING AND CERTAINLY NOT TO THREATEN!

-PN

Meetup

Joe--Great to meet you today. Great choice on the restaurant--was that your idea? Hope I come to birthday party. I put up some pictures at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, including one of you. Best wishes -- Matt Decumanus 09:01, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Thanks for contributions

Thanks for alphabetizing the list over in the Chronicles article. [Last time I tried to add this note my browser crashed and I apparently blanked your page as a resuilt. My apologies - glad you could restore it! ]Pi9 18:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

wrongtitle or maybe not

Hi Joe,

I notice that you are entering a {{wrongtitle}} tags to a number of pages on the English Wiki. I applaude your attention to detail, but this probably isn't correct. As far as I am aware the manual of style recommends that an article be at the most common use of the name in English. Virtually every English reference I know would refer to Constantin Brancusi without Romanian accents. So the article is already at the correct title. It is still good to give the native spelling / accents in the opening paragraph though. -- Solipsist 20:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You know, you are probably right on Brancusi, who made his career mainly in the West and is therefore usually known by this simplified spelling of his name. I was going through and doing this on a bunch of Romanian names, for most of which these simplified spellings are not customarily used. Similarly Nicolae Ceauşescu is so well-known that similar issues apply, and Nadia Comaneci (for whom I didn't add one of these) actually changed her name from "Comăneci". Feel free to reverse my decision on Brancusi; on the rest of these, though (e.g. Ion Creangă, Ştefan cel Mare) I think my decision was correct. Do you think not?

For whatever it is worth, I was following the pattern of Panini (scholar), recently discussed on the Village Pump -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well my awareness of famous Romanians probably only covers Brancusi, Ceausescu, George Enescu and Angela Gheorghiu (oh, and Count Dracula) so I can't comment much on the others. However it looks like Stefan cel Mare would have a common English name, possibly 'Stephen the Great of Moldavia'. At least there is a redirect from Stephen the Great. I'll revert the Brancusi one for now. -- Solipsist 21:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how to use wikipedia

Hi Jmabel,

It was really great to meet you yesterday. I have started Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia, per our discussion at the meet-up. See what you think. DanKeshet 21:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, edit wars were taking place on both Guzman and Shining Path. I shouldn't comment now on whether or not the DoD classification of the group as a terrorist organization belongs in the lead, given my protection of both pages. Good luck resolving the dispute, though. 172 08:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Neil Young

Thank's for helping to bash the loose edges off Neil Young -- GWO

comment

Hey Jmabel,

You said: "I left it there as a courtesy because some editor (I take it, you) seemed to believe that it was commonly called just "Wesleyan" (if it is, I suspect it is a very local usage in Ohio). However, certainly in most contexts if someone refers just to "Wesleyan" they mean Wesleyan University, not Ohio Wesleyan University"

You will appreciate to know that CNN is your "very local usage" network: www.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/04/30/classroom.affairs.ap/

Cheers mate... (I don't have the time to try to find other examples. I surely hope that CNN.com is convincing enough for you.)

One misguided soul by the local usage,

Ranamim

Actually, this is CNN reprinting an AP story, probably without review. I would call this a screw-up, presumably on AP's part: "Ohio's Wesleyan University" instead of "Ohio Wesleyan University"? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ranamim

I endorsed your summary and added one piece of evidence. He also edits anonymously a lot, though he signs with his real ID when he uses the anons on Talk pages. Rick K 22:34, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I added my name to the users certifying the basis for the dispute, along with further explanation in this section (as well as on the talk page). If you think my added explanation should not be in that section (or if you think they should be rephrased), do please let me know how it should be changed (I would hate to have valid arguments invalidated). -- Asbestos 04:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Holy cow....interesting stuff. I had no idea the passions of Methodists ran so high. ;-) (I assume Wesleyan universities began their lives, at least, as Methodist seminaries -- perhaps mistakenly.) At any rate, I think you've assembled a remarkable amount of good evidence collectively -- there is clear evidence of personal attacks and "revenge editing" which the fellow openly admits to, as near as I can tell, not to mention the sockpuppetry for which reasonable evidence appears on the talk page. Officially, you are supposed to now request mediation with this person (and their various alter egos) -- I encourage you to try it. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is the place to go. Link back to your RFC and make it clear that you're interested in amicable resolution, not punitive damages (I know you know this, but some people have the unusual idea that "mediation" will be a chance to punish their rival, so I always include this piece of advice to help remind people in general to treat mediation as the last hope for reconciliation, not the first levels of our wikijudicial system). Advancing immediately to arbitration may well result in a few votes of "try mediation first", although I think many of the arbitrators would see this case is ripe for arbitration. I leave that up to you. If mediation fails or is refused (you are asked to notify the fellow that you're requesting mediation, and they're supposed to post acceptance or refusal), you advance to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. If you need any help on how to format said requests, let me know. As I noted above, I think you've made a good and detailed case at your RfC, so I don't think you need worry that you're not familiar with this process (I do envy you, by the way -- how have you avoided it this long?). I hope Ranamim can be reasoned with, but I think your comment at the RfC is apt -- if the fellow continues his pattern of behavior in the RfC itself, we cannot hold out much hope. Good luck, Jwrosenzweig 23:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RINO/DINO

I've noticed that people have a tendency to attempt to remove politicians that they have an affection for from the list. -Joseph (Talk) 05:45, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

U.S. embargo against Cuba

You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Sabra and Shatila Massacre article

Hi Jmabel. Viriditas has asked you what I think is a compelling question on the Talk: page there, I'm hoping you can respond. Jayjg 15:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Great observations. I have moved them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Editorial_arbitration. My response is on that page. Thanks. 172 01:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about my oversight. [1] 172 02:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anya Schiffrin

The criteria for inclusion of biographies quite clearly state that editors of newspapers with a circulation above 5000 are notable. Schiffrin edited the Turkish Times. More importantly, I just happen to be editing a book on marketing at the moment and I note that she is the editor of a new book on journalistic approaches to globalisation. Admittedly, it's published by her own uni's press but it looks the kind of thing that will be widely used and cited. She is a fairly notable journalist. Certainly, if she were a scientist with a similar track record, she'd be in. I don't have an axe to grind either way. Sometimes I vote on VfD if I see something I think should be kept or axed, and I noticed you said to ping. I think she scrapes in by anyone's standards.Dr Zen 05:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ranamim

Sorry, I don't participate in the ridiculous mediation/arbitration process. Hope somebody else will join you in it. Rick K 06:17, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I've made a comment on the RfC. I think RickK's attitude, as expressed here, rather helps Ranamim's case. It's very frustrating to run up against editors who think they are above the law, as it were. It certainly doesn't help lessen the tension in a dispute. But the same can be said of Ranamim, of course.Dr Zen 06:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add my name to the RFM, as I had already listed my arguments against PN on the RFC page. Also, I wasn't really sure what we would achieve, as PN certainly doesn't want to participate in regular polite discussion, let alone discussion with a moderator.
Ranamim seems to have slowed down now, which is good, but I can certainly add my name to anything if he starts vandalizing again. -- Asbestos 17:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hunyadi

Hunyadi are usually considered to be a 'magyarized' family of Romanian origin (they needed to learn Hungarian in order to enter the Transylvanian nobility). Hungarians consider them 'pure' Hungarians.

It seems that even the 1911 Britanica says that:

HUNYADI, JANOS (c. 1387-1456), Hungarian statesman and warrior, was the son of Vojk, a Magyarized Vlach. [2]

Bogdan | Talk 10:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amos Oz

Nice going on the expansion of the Amos Oz stub. Thanks for picking up the gauntlet, for the second time in 24 hours (California 4th grade mission project too). --Woggly 22:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

esTotW

howdy, i changed this weeks translation. It took me so long for two reasons, firstly ive been sick, busy, and involved in other parts of wikimedia (like wikijunior, and wikinews); secondly ive come to see a couple of quite serious problems with the idea behind esTotW. I just dont think that the quality or the quantity of articles on es.wiki are good enough to provide enough material for us to trasnalate. In conversation with another user (not an esTotWer) i came up with another proposal, to replace (or perhaps complement, if it was thus decided) here, i would appreciate your feedback on the idea. The bellman 08:18, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

a list like that would be great. The bellman 08:28, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

so, what do you think of the notice board idea?

Che Guevara heads up

(I do not believe he supported only the "Viet Cong", I believe he supported the North as well. If you have a good citation, I will gladly yield)

Just for the record, I'm perfectly fine with replacing "Viet Cong" with "Communists in Vietnam"; my main problem with "Vietnamese Revolution" was that for whatever reason, it is pretty much a non standard term. --Bletch 18:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Standards

Hi. I think you make a lot of good points at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. And it seems like we are sometimes online about the same time of day. Maybe it would be useful for us to hash out some things that we could then present to the rest of the group. If you're interested, maybe we could start with your idea about a mission statement. Maurreen 05:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and summing up the archives. It looks good. Maurreen 21:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did a great job overhauling those pages! I hope it re-sparks some interest. I was concerned that maybe I was overdoing it. I have added myself to the members list, as you suggested. Part of the reason I didn't do so initially was the emphasis on formal education. It's really good working with you. I also think your think tank idea is good. Thanks. Maurreen 04:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, just to say I most appreciate your work on the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. :ChrisG 18:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Category:Jewish Encyclopedia

Dear Jmabel: I have been meaning to ask you, why did you create Category:Jewish Encyclopedia? I am very puzzled by the need for a category about an encyclopedia which is only used as a source or reference for Jewish-content articles. Isn't it enough that articles using its material cite it as a source if and when material is derived from it (the Jewish Encyclopedia). You also mistakenly refer to it as the "Encyclopedia Judaica" (Template:JewishEncyclopedia "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (a.k.a. Encyclopedia Judaica). Please feel free to update like any other article.") which is problematic because the modern "Encyclopedia Judaica" exists and is copyrighted (a new hard-copy sells for around $1,350 see [3] for example) it's also sold as a CD, see [4] for example. Seems someone also started stub on it at Encyclopedia Judaica. My main point though, is that we don't need the "category" of an ancyclopedia as it serves no purpose that I can tell. I am thinking that it should be removed. What do you think? Thanks. IZAK 05:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Punk Rock

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your being circumspect about projecting your prejudices, but with your memories of the period and involvement in the movement, you are a primary source of Punk history, and likely to be more accurate than the majority of contributors here. And others will jump in to disagree if you go off the rails (I think we had a back-and-forth about the relationship between "New Wave" and Punk, didn't we?). More to the point, you know how to write, which is a less than universal attribute among Wikipedians. Even when the sentences are rendered clear and comprehensible, it seems to me that many contributors are anxious to annex whatever tidbit they know about a given subject, leading to excructingly repetitive and circuitous entries. The Punk Rock entry, though labelled an outstanding example, would be improved by cutting at least a couple of paragraphs, in my view. I think Wikipedia is a great idea, but so far the results often seems to suffer from the absence of traditional editors.--BTfromLA 06:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS: Small world: I was at that Roundhouse show, too, next to the stage in front of Johnny (I'm told that my young hippieish self is glimpsed onscreen in the recent documentary about the Ramones).

Ranamim

Just a heads up. Ranamim is now posting as User:Rananim. Rick K 21:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

You're right it's two different articles

There is a consensus article, and then a new version written by HistoryBuffEr. He's done that on several articles, and he refuses to use the Talk: pages to propose any of it. I empathize your position, since the POV warriors showed up it has been quite unpleasant on Wikipedia for me as well. That said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Jayjg 23:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you weren't doing anything. I'm frustrated with all this Wikipedia policy violation and POVing, and the few neutral parties willing to weigh in keep getting their heads bitten off [5], so there doesn't seem to be much hope. Jayjg 00:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Goddams Ches

Do you really think that "Che" is the proper (and only) place in Wikipedia to refer to a French mediaeval slur directed to Englishmen?

Best, Ejrrjs 09:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias oops

Thanks for moving me to the proper systemic bias project participant page. I was wondering why I was the only person to sign up for such an important project. :) BanyanTree 05:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I fixed it. If anyone has ideas for a better name, I'm certainly open. Maurreen 09:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FA references

Yes, any one of those would be. My idea was to finish that list then create a message to be pasted to all of the talk pages. Feel free to coordinate work on adding references to any of them - Taxman 12:28, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

CSB redux

Well, thanks for asking me. :) I've reduced my participation in WP:CSB because I'm tired of being shrieked at that whatever I do isn't good enough. I genuinely believe Xed started CROSSBOW/CSB as a vanity project, and even though it's an exceptional goal and a great undertaking, his recurring bouts of ego make it difficult for anyone else to join in. Wikipedia chose to change his pet cute name for the project and it's been all downhill from there.

Overall, we have basically two approaches to CSB. Laissez-faire participants believe the value is in having a to-do list and letting people work on articles as they see fit. You've also talked about the value of recruiting more diverse subject-matter experts, which I agree will be most effective in the long term. Activist participants place more importance on the COTF and in attacking every article on the to-do list, doing outside research to fill in our own knowledge gaps. I don't disagree that this would make me a smarter and better-rounded person if I were to do this. :) There's always going to be tension between those two approaches, but I think most of us are reasonable and perfectly happy to accommodate both.

The bigger problem comes when one ego-driven hyper-activist (as far as I can tell, only Xed is doing this) decides that the laissez-faire approach is worthless and that unless everyone is willing to put in the level of activist effort he deems necessary, the entire project is worthless and should be cancelled. I notice from the Talk page that other activist participants do not agree with him, and even he himself flip-flops... today he's back suggesting fixes.

I have two thoughts on trying to resolve this. One would be a writeup on the laissez-faire vs. activist approaches: codify as part of the project that either is acceptable and that lulls in activity are OK because the to-do list is always there when things pick up again. If we can get consensus on that basic principle, maybe we don't have to fight about it all the time. Two, if we wanted to be heavy-handed about it, we could list WP:CSB on WP:VFD and let wikipedia decide, once and for all, whether the community as a whole thinks the project is worth keeping. I'd vote to keep, of course, and I'd list the reasons we've discussed. That's probably excessive, but it'd be one way to get disinterested third parties to weigh in.

I'm glad you're involved, and I hope any of this helps. :) —Bsktcase 19:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please, please reconsider. The CSB project is such a good idea, but it's not going to go anywhere as long as we let Xed pull this sort of stuff - I think Bsktcase accurately summarises what's going on. It's a collaborative project, and he shouldn't be calling the shots. I think it's about time the rest of us took it back. Ambi 02:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's about time we just ignored him. If he wants to work with us, he's welcome to do so, but I don't think we're under any obligation to let him play overlord. If he reverts, we can always re-revert.

What would you think about moving CSB to the noticeboard format? It's probably more suited to that - WikiProjects were always more about enforcing standards across existing articles, and it might be easier to get people involved than having all that garbage that's presently on the front page. Ambi 03:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we need to come at this from three different angles - recruitment, retention and using the people we have to do as much as we can. Recruiting is important, but it's the hardest to do, and it rarely seems to come of anything. I don't really agree with your suggestion that it's only the privileged who are thick-skinned, either. In my opinion, the best way of tackling this is to move it to a subpage and really brainstorm the best ways of doing so - I don't think there's much added benefit in all that stuff being on the front page.

The same could probably go for the participants list - in most cases, I don't think there's a need to have a list of people to contact (and if there is, that purpose can be served just as well by welcome messages and looking at discussion pages). For places where this is necessary, such as translation, once again, I think setting it up on a subpage is probably the way to go, as it only applies to a subset of the people involved.

Retention, on the other hand, is I think the best way of going about this. Wikipedia gets bunches of editors who come along, make a few edits, maybe even register an account, and disappear off into the sunset. We've been very successful in solving this problem with the Australian noticeboard and such - new users editing related articles invariably get a welcome message dropped on their talk page that points them to a place where they can find like-minded people interested in working on the same articles - in this case, the noticeboard (or better, a specialised subpage). We've picked up numerous editors in this way that I don't think would've stuck around otherwise.

But just as important is making use of what we have. We've already got a bunch of interested writers, with some, such as Filiocht, being particularly brilliant. If we're to make any real impact here, I think we need to get all the interested regular Wikipedians together and come at this. After all, while local experience is certainly helpful, it isn't necessarily vital if one is to write something of even FA-quality. Once again, the notice boards seem to have been particularly effective in doing this. Six months ago, our Australian articles were wretched, and the Australian editors we had were working off in random places around the 'pedia. Now we're getting an average of ten new Australian articles every day.

What I'd like to do is set it up like these noticeboards (the UK and Ireland ones also having been very successful), with a brief to-do list not unlike the one we have now, but a bit longer, a full one with all the articles needing work (which I'll try and start, but will probably need some help, particularly with African and ethnic topics), a log of created articles, so we can see what others have been doing, and subpages for a list of participants list, translation and recruitment (which would all be linked from the to-do list, and could be mentioned in welcome messages). I apologise for making this so long, but in my opinion, this is the way to get things back on track. Ambi 03:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Effort at Consensus

Thanks for your contribution - I noticed your well put edit in "Who is a Pashtun". I think we have done our bit, and I will be ending furher discussion on the topic (hopefully). A collective action like this always helps.

Best wishes, Insaaf.

Culture

Hi, nice work on the "Culture" article. Thanks for your help! Maurreen 06:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar

I gave you a barnstar for your work on Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. But I don't know how to add this info and put it in a box and make it pretty. Maurreen 02:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the edits I did are what you have in mind. If not, well, then I tried *shrugs* --Josiah 03:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haute Couture

Joe, I inserted "haute couture" back into the Culture article. If you really feel it's inappropriate then I won't keep re-inserting it, but my reasoning is that many men and women (the group that also goes to the opera, buys expensive art etc) have it as an article of faith not to buy clothes off-the-peg. Haute couture doesn't only refer to high-fashion designer clothes. It refers (I believe) to the very best tailoring (the phrase means "high sewing"). So even the Queen, though it doesn't always look like it, wears clothes of that quality. That's why I thought it would be classed as part of that "high culture", but if you still feel it's wrong, by all means remove it. Slim SlimVirgin 03:18, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

spanish page of the week

I was working on the spanish page about the explorer, when i realized that you were working on it at the same time. I didnt want us to step on each other´s toes, so i backed off. Contact me if you need any help. --Handel 03:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Addendum

What if we are both working on the same page, and you edit a page X into version y, but then I, still working with version X, edit it to version Z? My changes to the article would not record your changes if we both open the ¨edit¨ page before either of us makes a change.

As of

Mr. Mabel, based on the Wikipedia policies you showed me Re:United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, I have gone back and revised the pages for the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st thru 8th Circuits and the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you. — DLJessup 03:21, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

On systemic bias

Joe, what you say is very interesting, but I have one objection and one query. The query is: how do you know that most editors are men? How do you know that most are white? Are you inferring this from the subject matter covered or not covered? If so, you're begging your own question.

The objection is that I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word "systemic". There's nothing about the way Wikipedia is set up that discourages certain groups of people from joining, or that treats them differently if they do join -- unless you mean the fact that it's online discourages people with no access to computers, but then you'd have to argue books portray systemic bias because not everyone can afford equal access to books. But if you're not referring to the online nature of Wikipedia, what do you mean by "systemic"? Slim 09:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:SlimVirgin -- Jmabel | Talk

CfD confusion

Hi! You expressed some confusion about the listing of Category:National Bolshevik topics at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, but its listing has been there for one week and is due to removed, so I thought I'd respond here.

I listed Category:National Bolshevik topics for deletion because it's not a very good name for a category. (It's basically redundant. A category is assumed to contain articles related to the topic of the category. You could have a List of National Bolshevik topics or a Category:National Bolshevism, but Category:National Bolshevik topics is just plain unnnecessary.)

Some well-intentioned Administrator deleted the category and moved it to my suggested replacement before the CfD period was over. This caused some confusion, but Category:National Bolshevik topics was the only one of the two that was ever listed for deletion. As far as I know, no one is challenging the existence of such a category, just its name. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:47, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

If you are concerned about attribution, then paste the {{MultiLicenseWithCC-By-All}} template into your user page and save it. This will allow licensing under the GFDL (which requires attribution) and all of the Creative Commons licenses that require Attribution. By no means will it release anything into the public domain. -- Ram-Man 17:49, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Blind Uncle Gaspard/Cajun man

Yes, you're right in your critique of the edit. Thanks. Is the Ethnic Groups Wikiproject still going? User:Bennmorland 1226 EST, Nov. 30, 2004

Very well. I would have been interested in joining the project. Benn M. 10:32, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Marriages

Joe, I'm laughing at you saying Wikipedia is easier for single people, or for people with good or bad marriages. To which I might add: and for people with good marriages going bad, thanks to Wikipedia. :-) Slim 23:31, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

Since you seem to be involved, would you be interested in signing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 23:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)