This 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. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Hi Joe: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently (sort of) mediating at ETA, but Mountolive who first asked for mediation has been a bit scarce, and I've been very busy. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Spylab is aggressively rewriting a number of the fascism entries, and seems unwilling to make small sets of edits in favor of massive multiple rewrites in a short span of time. I have been unable to get Spylab to engage in any meaningful discussion. The meat clever approach sometimes cleans up an article, but often at the expense of nuance and important details. I very much would appreciate any comments or thoughts here and here. -- Cberlet 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never crossed paths with NovaNova and haven't yet looked at the article in question, so I have no comeent there.
Spylab, Neo-fascism and religion, the only one of these I've really looked at, sure looked like a rewrite to me. But I'll admit that I didn't go one by one through your many, apparently well-summarized, edits, nor have I been through the talk page. From the skimming I did, I suspect that you did a fairly good job, but when articles are thrown in the blender like this, there is always a need for people to revisit afterward. Usually, when I do something like this (and I do), I try to then get out of the article for a week or so, so that it again becomes more of a collaborative effort rather than my personal work. Of course, some of what happens is usually crap, but much of it is improvement, and you (or someone else) can always come back later & clean up the crap. All of these articles have a few good contributors, so something like that might be a reasonable approach.
I'm really busy (both on Wikipedia and in real life) the next 2-1/2 weeks, so I'm not plunging into any of this myself. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to say thank you for writing the article about Jerre Noe, which I just came across. As one of his grandchildren, I had thought of creating an article about him when he died last fall, but I felt that it might have been inappropriate to do so myself. I'm really glad to see someone else thinking about him. Thanks, and take care, romarin talk ] 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is probable that he felt insulted, but I frankly could find no way to communicate with that person other than sarcasm (I still don't believe that the words I have said could be in themselves taken for insults). He presumed no good faith, did not check why the fragment of text was originally like that, and could not understand enough English to see my point. I had incidentally had a look at the ro article's talk page, where the most unimaginable arguments are still being debated. A user there, who uses a Dacian name as well and has filled up the entire ro wiki with ultra-nationalist POV of a greenish hue, and who has remained virtually unchallenged there, argues on that page in favor of mentioning how "the Jews took revenge through communist activity", and how "Woodrow Wilson had a protochronist (!) plan to colonize Europe with Jews" - all cherished points made by this user on said page (also note that the "template" applied to the page was "PDVN", Romanian for NPOV). He may still be a newby, but I doubt it.
What he did was trolling. I tried to answer him and explain my point, but he refused to even consider that he was reading what he wanted into it. When he finally understood what I had told him, it was my fault for telling him to read what I had intended to be an ambiguous text, because I am a con artist who disseminates propaganda and is paid for it. Dahn 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You never did answer my points about referencing on the List of political parties in Romania. I see no reason why we should over-reference that page, especially with citations for the major parties - btw, the PNŢ was founded on October 10, 1926, and that info is likely to feature prominently in an expanded article (I don't know why it should be on the list at all). If you want, I can add inline citations to the Peasants' Party (Romania) article (sometime in the future), where this info is present, but why would I reference the list with intimate details? Dahn 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joe, I was wondering if you would take a look at expressionist architecture and the talkpage for that article. Mcginnly and I have both been working on that article and are asking for other opinions about what to do. Regards, DVD+ R/W 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel. One or more administrators are needed on the Transnistria page, and I thought you might just understand te context. My oppinion is simple: there are two guys who try to spin information by all means. To give you an idea, I believe that even Node_ue on the Moldova page was more reasonable one year ago. But, of course, I'm not an administrator. Dpotop 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Jmabel, as I told you previously, for the Transnistria page admins are needed on a daily basis. So, if you could take a look there and try to explain ho editing should be done, it would be good. BTW: one of the problem editors (Mark Street) apparently left. Dpotop 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Lotsa people wanting to delete everything in sight on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Was the moon full recently? -- Ling.Nut 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wonder if you could give your opinion on the tag Anonimu placed there. The entire article (save a couple of minor details) is based on the linked piece, which comes from a respectable newspaper that we use in many Romania-related articles. However, he claims that it is not objective and has an "obvious ironic anti-ceausescu tone". Leaving aside the contention that there's nothing wrong with that, I wonder what more, if anything, I should do to assuage his concerns. I might also add that none of this stuff is exactly earth-shattering news - the family was not known for its refinement.
To help you out, let me translate a couple of phrases from the original: beţiile lui Andruţă - "Andruţă's drunken bouts"; Andruţă îşi bătea deseori nevasta şi copiii - "Andruţă frequently beat his wife and children"; dătorită poziţiei rudelor sale "due to her relatives' position". Biruitorul 19:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've nominated for deletion, but it sends me to the old discussion page - I don't know if this is what it should do, but I know that the person who created it again (Mr. Cerin himself, I presume), is in breach of wiki rules. Is speedy deletion the way to go, given that consensus was already reached? I would advise Mr. Cerin to find ways of promoting himself other than wikipedia and sending letters to the staff of Timpul liber (I happened to be reading the "Letters to the editor" when I had nothing else to do, and a propaganda message of the same original quality popped up on the page). Dahn 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorin Cerin is a notability.Why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Why you delete Sorin Cerin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Was "Deletion endorsed among established editors" the article was re-created much better.In 'Timpul Liber' nobody talk about American Wikipedia ,but Romanian Wikipedia!Again Mr.J.Mabel we re-create a new site about Sorin Cerin until we don't see " not re-create!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes!Again Sorin Cerin is not a garbage.WE wish to keep him.
Deletion endorsed among established editors! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
At this point, Wikipedia has at least THREE articles on the same subject: Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, Folkways Records, and the brand-new Smithsonian folkways records. As an aside, PLEASE check variant names and spellings (including capitalization) before creating new articles.
That said, there can be only one article, with the other titles redirecting to that page. Please go to Talk:Smithsonian Folkways Recordings for the discussion on what to keep, merge, or expunge. Note that Smithsonian Folkways Recordings appears to have an iffy copyright status. -- Calton | Talk 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel a bit inclined to reply "PLEASE check article histories before lecturing the wrong person."
It's a group message to all recent editors: PLEASE check my contribution history/ related user talk pages before launching into lectures yourself.
I presume that you are not telling me to check variant names and spellings before each time I edit an article.
No, I 'm advising you as a recent editor, who presumably has an interest in the articles, the exact nature of which I cannot discern as I lack mind-reading skills. -- Calton | Talk 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
...couldn't you have made your remarks on the article talk page?
There are THREE different talk pages now: which is the one that you are suggesting everyone interested has watchlisted? One message to everyone, pointing to one talk page, targeted to those who've shown an interest: this is a problem? -- Calton | Talk 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jmabel. I know I had suggested all winners to be in the SIFF page, but looking at how other awards are organized, I think Akcraver (who has created the Golden Space Needle article) does have a point (see my talk for the other half of the thread). Could we move the table of winners over to GSN award? It is done so in other awards. Also, since the table is very condenced, we could split it to several tables. If you agree I could contribute in doing it. Hoverfish 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be easy to find and all winners in one page. Thanks for your prompt answer. Hoverfish 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- llywrch 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I just saw some vandalism & got rid of it in a hurry. Thanks for pointing my mistake out on my talk page. The Doctor 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The option of making templates small seems to be gaining popularity. I put the option in the template {{ Ethnic groups}}. If the small=yes option is not set, nothing changes. If it is set, then you get what you can see on Talk:Popora people.
If we adopt this option, we may need to reduce the verbiage on the template.
let me know what you think. -- Ling.Nut 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
(undent) OK :-) Many of the text options still have not been changed. I'll try to get to them when I can. At the moment, since no talk pages are using the "small" option, the unfinished state of the changes isn't hurting anything. I'll let you know when I'm done. -- Ling.Nut 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! You changed my translation twice to kingdom, which is wrong. You probably confuse it with Rîche. Instead Reyen is a variant of Middle High German reien or reyge and corresponds to modern High German Reigen, which means "round dance", so Death commands the mortals to join him in a round dance. That's why the dance is macabre. See Grimm's Dictionary [ [2]] Teodorico 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe, I was just putting my name into the Wikipedian Languages page and noticed that we coincide on several languages-- I'm fluent in Spanish, advanced in Catalan, and learning Italian. The one that made me write to you was the Catalan. Did yoyu live in Catalunya? My wife is Catalana, that's why I speak what I do (other than just being a language geek). Anyway, glad to meet you. Timothy Chen Allen 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Joe. Sorry for the delay. The discussion your inquiered about took place here. All the best, El_C 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Two editors trying to insert publication from Hindutvadi small press, Voice of India, in list of references. They claim that it's notable. Would appreciate your comments. Zora 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made my relevant remarks on the relevant talk page. Please don't carry on your argument on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I need your input on a problem that has escalated. Yesterday, User:Vintila Barbu made, all in one go, this contribution to the Piteşti prison article I had just created.
The large addition was written in impecable English. I don't mean to insult the user in any way, but this, this, and this is proof of his usual English. There are other clues in the added text to point out that the text was authored by somebody else (such as tone and distance taken from the events described).
Vintila Barbu has admitted to have done this before, when I pinpointed the source he had copied from (see my request and his answer).
Not only do I consider plagiarism absurd (it does nobody any favor, it is easy to paraphrase, and one is informed about it every single time one opens an editing window), but I find there is no excuse for it. I received this warning, and much of the suspect text was restored to before a version I had taken the trouble to paraphrase.
To this is added the fact that the large new addition of text is a decrease in quality on one level - it does not feature enough inline citations, and I find it hard to source those exact claims (and, in any case, it should not be my job, but that of their original contributor).
Please look into this. Dahn 14:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Joe, there could be thousand reasons why someone doesn’t always produce texts of exactly the same quality. BTW, I briefly revisited my texts and frankly I cannot ascertain significant qualitative discrepancies (it’s true, the two biographies are quite simple a prose, probably I subreptitiously find biographies-writing boring). Now, to accuse someone of plagiarism on the ground of flimsy stylistic variations in his writing is somehow risky, don’t you think ?!
OK, I’m trying to take this absurd-amusing situation seriously and answer your question: “how come you sometimes write absolutely flawless English and then at other times, while certainly fluent, you are clearly non-native”. I never thought about it… If I look back at my relationship to your language, I see that this very year I could celebrate 30 years since I publish research in English, in the last 15 years in ISI-ranked journals. There is hence no wonder that I write considerably better than I speak (having never lived more than a few month in an English speaking area). Thus, I’m better off with more complex texts than with simple or colloquial ones.
This could be a plausible explanation. Maybe some times I am simply in a better shape than other times…
Don’t you at all feel this situation as a little absurd, Joe ? Asking a person why he isn’t invariable ?!
Actually, I don’t even feel offended by this accusation. Just a little amused and somehow…tired. Mach’s gut, -- Vintila Barbu 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Why should I defend myself Joe ? For having written a "flawless" text ?! Is this not absurd to you ? With "restoring common sense" I mean remembering basic norms of civilisation like the right use of "burden of proof".
Of course I didn't plagiate one single sentence, but why should I defend my self, for God's sake ?
I really cannot understand how you don't perceive the absurdity of this situation: without any trace of a proof, I am a victim of calumny and accused of plagiarism, and it's me who has to defend myself. Besides, I am quite intrigued by your reaction, I don't understand why are you reacting so aggresively. It wasn't my intention to offend anybody. I am the victim here. Please accept my message of peace and calme,-- Vintila Barbu 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
PS what's this, RFC ?
Jmabel,
I'm finally done with all my papers and tests. :-) :-)
I had sorta planned to go through various lists and add many more article to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. If you have other thoughts/ideas of "what to do" to improve the project, maybe you can put your thoughts on the project's talk page. I haven't been watching that page for the past few days, but will resume doing so. -- Ling.Nut 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe: Latest chutzpah at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide your opinion about this? I agreed with Greier on a certain issue, now Greier is banned and some users are claiming that is against Wikipedia policy to keep my opinion.-- MariusM 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article with Sorin Cerin is back after Deletion review with :"Speedy deletion overturned,AfD optional",because the admin Mgm said :"The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel)asserts notability by national news coverage ,which the originally deleted version didn't.All the peoples vote per Mgm.Now you are free to redelete the article or keep. Mircia 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this entire discussion is taking place on my talk page. And I (who am also a Jew, but not particularly a Zionist - nor particularly an anti-Zionist) don't necessarily agree with IZAK on this. One could certainly say "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Palestine", or possibly "…to what would later become Israel", but "…to the Land of Israel" for that date is at least as biased in one direction as someone who speaks of Tel Aviv now as part of "Palestine" is in the other.
Any time in the last several hundred years before 1948, most Jews would have had no problem with calling the region "Palestine", and view of that term as a Roman insult to the Jews seems to me to be of recent vintage (or recent revival of an ancient grievance). The revival of "Land of Israel" was not widespread until nearly the time of the formation of the Isralie state.
I agree, though, that one should be careful how one deploys those terms because of the connotations they have now gained. "Palestinian Jew" is archaic, especially when referring to someone who returned from diaspora. (I see no problem with it if it refers to someone whose roots there are from time immemorial and the reference is pre-1948.) "Jews in Palestine" should be fine, though, as long as we are speaking pre-1948. - Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you checked if this is a recreation? If it is it should go through DRV. By the way, I've been spammed by an anon about this. It appears to be the creator of the article. They are clearly clueless about policy. - Mgm| (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's best to just let it go through the process of AFD, now that that is started. - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding those edits, I don't really know what to do about them... My first impulse was to revert them because they are unsourced, but then the content of the previous version which was changed was also unsourced, and the current one is, as you said, not clearly wrong, and quite NPOV (with the exception of the wording about fascism). I'm by no means an expert on Peronism and I don't have good sources on me. If you feel you can do better, start a discussion in Talk:Peronism and invite the anonymous editor in question. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote the section on Macedonio and Borges. Then I got lazy and didn't put in any citations. Not very swift, considering I make my living doing this sort of thing. I'll insert the citations when I have a bit more time on my hands. Thanks for noticing.
Tsgarth 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I will know how to do it now. :) Tuviya 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history you'll see that this reader has repeatedly made edits and including material from and links to what appears to be his website. I added some comments to his talk page awhile ago. Perhaps someone besides myself should add some warnings so he won't think I'm the only one. At some point it may be appropriate to move toward the warning/blocking process. -- Shirahadasha 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if you're online, can you kill this one please? Brandon Bowman
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created [3] a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus#Problem with your user name. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, -- Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:
Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I hit the wrong edit key —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeewiz ( talk • contribs) 21 December 2006.
Hi Joe: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-- Jeewiz 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Hi, I'm new here, sorry if I messed up someones post. I don't see the button to create my own response.
Hello. The treaty of Pyreness' aticle shows events which took place several tens (or hundreds) of years before the Treaty and do not have a direct relationship with the treaty, but with Catalan language, Catalonia or French Rosillon's history. I'd like to see if we can reach an agreement, since you edited my previous edition -- 85.48.107.216 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (signed in Spanish Wikipedia as voj2005)
Hi. These two articles have been subject to POV attacks, and they should be protected. Please see their talk pages and histories, because, in at least one case, we are talking about potential libel. Dahn 18:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Just thanks really - I've been hoping that somebody might do just what you did, because I've been unable too :) Crimsone 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel. Could we have your outside opinion as a native English speaker on two issues in the aforementioned articles? The issues I see are:
My impression is that Dahn is artificially misuses the word in order to fit his classification purposes. From what I understood from non-wikipedian contexts, an "activist" is a dedicated party worker, which both Paunescu and Wurmbrand were not. In fact, I feel Dahn's concerns could be addressed through the creation of a special section for "Other notable party members". Dpotop 10:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You stated "The omission of women was implicit, but the recent wording here suggested it was explicit." If one does not know about the Declaration and reads that it was "a doctrine of popular sovereignty and equal opportunity" they would assume it included women and slaves. as this was not the case it should be clarified. Jessicanr 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, Systematization has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe ( Talk) 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
While the Webster dictionary has an entry for Systematization it does not have the sense of urban planning in English. The romanian Sistematizare simply means Urban planning. While there is no argument that what happened under the Ceausescu regime was, to say the least, a great urbanistic error, it is improper to define sistematizare as bad communist urban planning. It would be equivalent as way of thinking to apply this to any of the words which were misused during communism, such as liberty, democracy etc.
My objection concerned the first phrase of the article. "Systematization in Romania refers to a program of urban planning carried out under Nicolae Ceauşescu's communist regime" which is incorrect. Systematization (rumanian Sistematizare urbană as opposed to sistematizare teritorială) in Romania is any urban planning, regardless of the regime under which it is carried out. It is a discipline which is taught in schools of architecture. I don't think that there is any point in carrying out this discussion.
Afil 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
About the wikify and references, well there was so much content on that page I thought it was from pedia... i removed them when I saw it was a user page....
Other than that... odd fellow, I'd say.
I know a lot more people on Wikipedia who put up their own biographies. Some are accepted, others aren't. I know a musician whose bio keeps getting kicked off, and he's one of the forerunners of PowerPop music...
But this is the first guy I know who actually deserves to have a page of his own, but doesn't seem to want to...
Any idea why?
xCentaur | talk 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales. Really, it's totally ridiculous, but I thought you should know anyways. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like our friend User:Skookum1, who made all those colourful soapboxing remarks about Chinese people in Canada on various Talk pages, has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats [4] [5]. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your brief note. I always welcome criticism from a responsible source. Three points before we both (?) let this matter drop: 1. My note was not, in my view, at all anonymous, nor have I sought to "hide". The "editor" in question can find my user name by clicking on the "History" button, and there it is. 2. I don't think this was an "ad hominem" attack at all. I sincerely felt that it was sound advice that this "editor" needed to hear. If you think about it a bit, you should feel the same way. 3. The person who did the vandalism knows who he is. I don't think his fellow inmate (good guess) is likely to take offence. Writtenright 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright
"Namaste" (Sanskrit): "To you I bow." Writtenright 05:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright
This 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. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Hi Joe: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently (sort of) mediating at ETA, but Mountolive who first asked for mediation has been a bit scarce, and I've been very busy. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Spylab is aggressively rewriting a number of the fascism entries, and seems unwilling to make small sets of edits in favor of massive multiple rewrites in a short span of time. I have been unable to get Spylab to engage in any meaningful discussion. The meat clever approach sometimes cleans up an article, but often at the expense of nuance and important details. I very much would appreciate any comments or thoughts here and here. -- Cberlet 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never crossed paths with NovaNova and haven't yet looked at the article in question, so I have no comeent there.
Spylab, Neo-fascism and religion, the only one of these I've really looked at, sure looked like a rewrite to me. But I'll admit that I didn't go one by one through your many, apparently well-summarized, edits, nor have I been through the talk page. From the skimming I did, I suspect that you did a fairly good job, but when articles are thrown in the blender like this, there is always a need for people to revisit afterward. Usually, when I do something like this (and I do), I try to then get out of the article for a week or so, so that it again becomes more of a collaborative effort rather than my personal work. Of course, some of what happens is usually crap, but much of it is improvement, and you (or someone else) can always come back later & clean up the crap. All of these articles have a few good contributors, so something like that might be a reasonable approach.
I'm really busy (both on Wikipedia and in real life) the next 2-1/2 weeks, so I'm not plunging into any of this myself. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to say thank you for writing the article about Jerre Noe, which I just came across. As one of his grandchildren, I had thought of creating an article about him when he died last fall, but I felt that it might have been inappropriate to do so myself. I'm really glad to see someone else thinking about him. Thanks, and take care, romarin talk ] 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is probable that he felt insulted, but I frankly could find no way to communicate with that person other than sarcasm (I still don't believe that the words I have said could be in themselves taken for insults). He presumed no good faith, did not check why the fragment of text was originally like that, and could not understand enough English to see my point. I had incidentally had a look at the ro article's talk page, where the most unimaginable arguments are still being debated. A user there, who uses a Dacian name as well and has filled up the entire ro wiki with ultra-nationalist POV of a greenish hue, and who has remained virtually unchallenged there, argues on that page in favor of mentioning how "the Jews took revenge through communist activity", and how "Woodrow Wilson had a protochronist (!) plan to colonize Europe with Jews" - all cherished points made by this user on said page (also note that the "template" applied to the page was "PDVN", Romanian for NPOV). He may still be a newby, but I doubt it.
What he did was trolling. I tried to answer him and explain my point, but he refused to even consider that he was reading what he wanted into it. When he finally understood what I had told him, it was my fault for telling him to read what I had intended to be an ambiguous text, because I am a con artist who disseminates propaganda and is paid for it. Dahn 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You never did answer my points about referencing on the List of political parties in Romania. I see no reason why we should over-reference that page, especially with citations for the major parties - btw, the PNŢ was founded on October 10, 1926, and that info is likely to feature prominently in an expanded article (I don't know why it should be on the list at all). If you want, I can add inline citations to the Peasants' Party (Romania) article (sometime in the future), where this info is present, but why would I reference the list with intimate details? Dahn 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Joe, I was wondering if you would take a look at expressionist architecture and the talkpage for that article. Mcginnly and I have both been working on that article and are asking for other opinions about what to do. Regards, DVD+ R/W 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel. One or more administrators are needed on the Transnistria page, and I thought you might just understand te context. My oppinion is simple: there are two guys who try to spin information by all means. To give you an idea, I believe that even Node_ue on the Moldova page was more reasonable one year ago. But, of course, I'm not an administrator. Dpotop 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Jmabel, as I told you previously, for the Transnistria page admins are needed on a daily basis. So, if you could take a look there and try to explain ho editing should be done, it would be good. BTW: one of the problem editors (Mark Street) apparently left. Dpotop 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Lotsa people wanting to delete everything in sight on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Was the moon full recently? -- Ling.Nut 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wonder if you could give your opinion on the tag Anonimu placed there. The entire article (save a couple of minor details) is based on the linked piece, which comes from a respectable newspaper that we use in many Romania-related articles. However, he claims that it is not objective and has an "obvious ironic anti-ceausescu tone". Leaving aside the contention that there's nothing wrong with that, I wonder what more, if anything, I should do to assuage his concerns. I might also add that none of this stuff is exactly earth-shattering news - the family was not known for its refinement.
To help you out, let me translate a couple of phrases from the original: beţiile lui Andruţă - "Andruţă's drunken bouts"; Andruţă îşi bătea deseori nevasta şi copiii - "Andruţă frequently beat his wife and children"; dătorită poziţiei rudelor sale "due to her relatives' position". Biruitorul 19:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've nominated for deletion, but it sends me to the old discussion page - I don't know if this is what it should do, but I know that the person who created it again (Mr. Cerin himself, I presume), is in breach of wiki rules. Is speedy deletion the way to go, given that consensus was already reached? I would advise Mr. Cerin to find ways of promoting himself other than wikipedia and sending letters to the staff of Timpul liber (I happened to be reading the "Letters to the editor" when I had nothing else to do, and a propaganda message of the same original quality popped up on the page). Dahn 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorin Cerin is a notability.Why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Why you delete Sorin Cerin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Was "Deletion endorsed among established editors" the article was re-created much better.In 'Timpul Liber' nobody talk about American Wikipedia ,but Romanian Wikipedia!Again Mr.J.Mabel we re-create a new site about Sorin Cerin until we don't see " not re-create!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes!Again Sorin Cerin is not a garbage.WE wish to keep him.
Deletion endorsed among established editors! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 ( talk) 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
At this point, Wikipedia has at least THREE articles on the same subject: Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, Folkways Records, and the brand-new Smithsonian folkways records. As an aside, PLEASE check variant names and spellings (including capitalization) before creating new articles.
That said, there can be only one article, with the other titles redirecting to that page. Please go to Talk:Smithsonian Folkways Recordings for the discussion on what to keep, merge, or expunge. Note that Smithsonian Folkways Recordings appears to have an iffy copyright status. -- Calton | Talk 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel a bit inclined to reply "PLEASE check article histories before lecturing the wrong person."
It's a group message to all recent editors: PLEASE check my contribution history/ related user talk pages before launching into lectures yourself.
I presume that you are not telling me to check variant names and spellings before each time I edit an article.
No, I 'm advising you as a recent editor, who presumably has an interest in the articles, the exact nature of which I cannot discern as I lack mind-reading skills. -- Calton | Talk 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
...couldn't you have made your remarks on the article talk page?
There are THREE different talk pages now: which is the one that you are suggesting everyone interested has watchlisted? One message to everyone, pointing to one talk page, targeted to those who've shown an interest: this is a problem? -- Calton | Talk 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jmabel. I know I had suggested all winners to be in the SIFF page, but looking at how other awards are organized, I think Akcraver (who has created the Golden Space Needle article) does have a point (see my talk for the other half of the thread). Could we move the table of winners over to GSN award? It is done so in other awards. Also, since the table is very condenced, we could split it to several tables. If you agree I could contribute in doing it. Hoverfish 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be easy to find and all winners in one page. Thanks for your prompt answer. Hoverfish 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- llywrch 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I just saw some vandalism & got rid of it in a hurry. Thanks for pointing my mistake out on my talk page. The Doctor 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The option of making templates small seems to be gaining popularity. I put the option in the template {{ Ethnic groups}}. If the small=yes option is not set, nothing changes. If it is set, then you get what you can see on Talk:Popora people.
If we adopt this option, we may need to reduce the verbiage on the template.
let me know what you think. -- Ling.Nut 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
(undent) OK :-) Many of the text options still have not been changed. I'll try to get to them when I can. At the moment, since no talk pages are using the "small" option, the unfinished state of the changes isn't hurting anything. I'll let you know when I'm done. -- Ling.Nut 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! You changed my translation twice to kingdom, which is wrong. You probably confuse it with Rîche. Instead Reyen is a variant of Middle High German reien or reyge and corresponds to modern High German Reigen, which means "round dance", so Death commands the mortals to join him in a round dance. That's why the dance is macabre. See Grimm's Dictionary [ [2]] Teodorico 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe, I was just putting my name into the Wikipedian Languages page and noticed that we coincide on several languages-- I'm fluent in Spanish, advanced in Catalan, and learning Italian. The one that made me write to you was the Catalan. Did yoyu live in Catalunya? My wife is Catalana, that's why I speak what I do (other than just being a language geek). Anyway, glad to meet you. Timothy Chen Allen 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Joe. Sorry for the delay. The discussion your inquiered about took place here. All the best, El_C 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Two editors trying to insert publication from Hindutvadi small press, Voice of India, in list of references. They claim that it's notable. Would appreciate your comments. Zora 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made my relevant remarks on the relevant talk page. Please don't carry on your argument on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I need your input on a problem that has escalated. Yesterday, User:Vintila Barbu made, all in one go, this contribution to the Piteşti prison article I had just created.
The large addition was written in impecable English. I don't mean to insult the user in any way, but this, this, and this is proof of his usual English. There are other clues in the added text to point out that the text was authored by somebody else (such as tone and distance taken from the events described).
Vintila Barbu has admitted to have done this before, when I pinpointed the source he had copied from (see my request and his answer).
Not only do I consider plagiarism absurd (it does nobody any favor, it is easy to paraphrase, and one is informed about it every single time one opens an editing window), but I find there is no excuse for it. I received this warning, and much of the suspect text was restored to before a version I had taken the trouble to paraphrase.
To this is added the fact that the large new addition of text is a decrease in quality on one level - it does not feature enough inline citations, and I find it hard to source those exact claims (and, in any case, it should not be my job, but that of their original contributor).
Please look into this. Dahn 14:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Joe, there could be thousand reasons why someone doesn’t always produce texts of exactly the same quality. BTW, I briefly revisited my texts and frankly I cannot ascertain significant qualitative discrepancies (it’s true, the two biographies are quite simple a prose, probably I subreptitiously find biographies-writing boring). Now, to accuse someone of plagiarism on the ground of flimsy stylistic variations in his writing is somehow risky, don’t you think ?!
OK, I’m trying to take this absurd-amusing situation seriously and answer your question: “how come you sometimes write absolutely flawless English and then at other times, while certainly fluent, you are clearly non-native”. I never thought about it… If I look back at my relationship to your language, I see that this very year I could celebrate 30 years since I publish research in English, in the last 15 years in ISI-ranked journals. There is hence no wonder that I write considerably better than I speak (having never lived more than a few month in an English speaking area). Thus, I’m better off with more complex texts than with simple or colloquial ones.
This could be a plausible explanation. Maybe some times I am simply in a better shape than other times…
Don’t you at all feel this situation as a little absurd, Joe ? Asking a person why he isn’t invariable ?!
Actually, I don’t even feel offended by this accusation. Just a little amused and somehow…tired. Mach’s gut, -- Vintila Barbu 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Why should I defend myself Joe ? For having written a "flawless" text ?! Is this not absurd to you ? With "restoring common sense" I mean remembering basic norms of civilisation like the right use of "burden of proof".
Of course I didn't plagiate one single sentence, but why should I defend my self, for God's sake ?
I really cannot understand how you don't perceive the absurdity of this situation: without any trace of a proof, I am a victim of calumny and accused of plagiarism, and it's me who has to defend myself. Besides, I am quite intrigued by your reaction, I don't understand why are you reacting so aggresively. It wasn't my intention to offend anybody. I am the victim here. Please accept my message of peace and calme,-- Vintila Barbu 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
PS what's this, RFC ?
Jmabel,
I'm finally done with all my papers and tests. :-) :-)
I had sorta planned to go through various lists and add many more article to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. If you have other thoughts/ideas of "what to do" to improve the project, maybe you can put your thoughts on the project's talk page. I haven't been watching that page for the past few days, but will resume doing so. -- Ling.Nut 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe: Latest chutzpah at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide your opinion about this? I agreed with Greier on a certain issue, now Greier is banned and some users are claiming that is against Wikipedia policy to keep my opinion.-- MariusM 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article with Sorin Cerin is back after Deletion review with :"Speedy deletion overturned,AfD optional",because the admin Mgm said :"The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel)asserts notability by national news coverage ,which the originally deleted version didn't.All the peoples vote per Mgm.Now you are free to redelete the article or keep. Mircia 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this entire discussion is taking place on my talk page. And I (who am also a Jew, but not particularly a Zionist - nor particularly an anti-Zionist) don't necessarily agree with IZAK on this. One could certainly say "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Palestine", or possibly "…to what would later become Israel", but "…to the Land of Israel" for that date is at least as biased in one direction as someone who speaks of Tel Aviv now as part of "Palestine" is in the other.
Any time in the last several hundred years before 1948, most Jews would have had no problem with calling the region "Palestine", and view of that term as a Roman insult to the Jews seems to me to be of recent vintage (or recent revival of an ancient grievance). The revival of "Land of Israel" was not widespread until nearly the time of the formation of the Isralie state.
I agree, though, that one should be careful how one deploys those terms because of the connotations they have now gained. "Palestinian Jew" is archaic, especially when referring to someone who returned from diaspora. (I see no problem with it if it refers to someone whose roots there are from time immemorial and the reference is pre-1948.) "Jews in Palestine" should be fine, though, as long as we are speaking pre-1948. - Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you checked if this is a recreation? If it is it should go through DRV. By the way, I've been spammed by an anon about this. It appears to be the creator of the article. They are clearly clueless about policy. - Mgm| (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's best to just let it go through the process of AFD, now that that is started. - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding those edits, I don't really know what to do about them... My first impulse was to revert them because they are unsourced, but then the content of the previous version which was changed was also unsourced, and the current one is, as you said, not clearly wrong, and quite NPOV (with the exception of the wording about fascism). I'm by no means an expert on Peronism and I don't have good sources on me. If you feel you can do better, start a discussion in Talk:Peronism and invite the anonymous editor in question. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote the section on Macedonio and Borges. Then I got lazy and didn't put in any citations. Not very swift, considering I make my living doing this sort of thing. I'll insert the citations when I have a bit more time on my hands. Thanks for noticing.
Tsgarth 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I will know how to do it now. :) Tuviya 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history you'll see that this reader has repeatedly made edits and including material from and links to what appears to be his website. I added some comments to his talk page awhile ago. Perhaps someone besides myself should add some warnings so he won't think I'm the only one. At some point it may be appropriate to move toward the warning/blocking process. -- Shirahadasha 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if you're online, can you kill this one please? Brandon Bowman
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created [3] a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus#Problem with your user name. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, -- Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Judaism. Thanks, IZAK 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:
Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I hit the wrong edit key —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeewiz ( talk • contribs) 21 December 2006.
Hi Joe: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-- Jeewiz 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Hi, I'm new here, sorry if I messed up someones post. I don't see the button to create my own response.
Hello. The treaty of Pyreness' aticle shows events which took place several tens (or hundreds) of years before the Treaty and do not have a direct relationship with the treaty, but with Catalan language, Catalonia or French Rosillon's history. I'd like to see if we can reach an agreement, since you edited my previous edition -- 85.48.107.216 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (signed in Spanish Wikipedia as voj2005)
Hi. These two articles have been subject to POV attacks, and they should be protected. Please see their talk pages and histories, because, in at least one case, we are talking about potential libel. Dahn 18:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Just thanks really - I've been hoping that somebody might do just what you did, because I've been unable too :) Crimsone 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel. Could we have your outside opinion as a native English speaker on two issues in the aforementioned articles? The issues I see are:
My impression is that Dahn is artificially misuses the word in order to fit his classification purposes. From what I understood from non-wikipedian contexts, an "activist" is a dedicated party worker, which both Paunescu and Wurmbrand were not. In fact, I feel Dahn's concerns could be addressed through the creation of a special section for "Other notable party members". Dpotop 10:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You stated "The omission of women was implicit, but the recent wording here suggested it was explicit." If one does not know about the Declaration and reads that it was "a doctrine of popular sovereignty and equal opportunity" they would assume it included women and slaves. as this was not the case it should be clarified. Jessicanr 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, Systematization has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe ( Talk) 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
While the Webster dictionary has an entry for Systematization it does not have the sense of urban planning in English. The romanian Sistematizare simply means Urban planning. While there is no argument that what happened under the Ceausescu regime was, to say the least, a great urbanistic error, it is improper to define sistematizare as bad communist urban planning. It would be equivalent as way of thinking to apply this to any of the words which were misused during communism, such as liberty, democracy etc.
My objection concerned the first phrase of the article. "Systematization in Romania refers to a program of urban planning carried out under Nicolae Ceauşescu's communist regime" which is incorrect. Systematization (rumanian Sistematizare urbană as opposed to sistematizare teritorială) in Romania is any urban planning, regardless of the regime under which it is carried out. It is a discipline which is taught in schools of architecture. I don't think that there is any point in carrying out this discussion.
Afil 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
About the wikify and references, well there was so much content on that page I thought it was from pedia... i removed them when I saw it was a user page....
Other than that... odd fellow, I'd say.
I know a lot more people on Wikipedia who put up their own biographies. Some are accepted, others aren't. I know a musician whose bio keeps getting kicked off, and he's one of the forerunners of PowerPop music...
But this is the first guy I know who actually deserves to have a page of his own, but doesn't seem to want to...
Any idea why?
xCentaur | talk 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales. Really, it's totally ridiculous, but I thought you should know anyways. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like our friend User:Skookum1, who made all those colourful soapboxing remarks about Chinese people in Canada on various Talk pages, has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats [4] [5]. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your brief note. I always welcome criticism from a responsible source. Three points before we both (?) let this matter drop: 1. My note was not, in my view, at all anonymous, nor have I sought to "hide". The "editor" in question can find my user name by clicking on the "History" button, and there it is. 2. I don't think this was an "ad hominem" attack at all. I sincerely felt that it was sound advice that this "editor" needed to hear. If you think about it a bit, you should feel the same way. 3. The person who did the vandalism knows who he is. I don't think his fellow inmate (good guess) is likely to take offence. Writtenright 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright
"Namaste" (Sanskrit): "To you I bow." Writtenright 05:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright