User talk:Jmabel/Archive 6
 | 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. |
May I ask where the data for that page came from? I assume it must have been from a printed source, since searching for "UNESCO nomenclature" turned up nothing particularly relevant. Maybe it's called something else? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
feedback thanks
Hello JM, thanks for all your feedback on meta re: the newsletter, and for helping out despite your annoyance. I am curious to know whether the final version lived down to your expectations of it. If you are not already tired of the subject, your input on how to write translation-friendly copy would also be much appreciated. Regards, +sj+ 12:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Catalan language
Hi, what i wanted to mean is that El Periódico de Catalunya has two releases either in Spanish and Catalan. Both of them have the same identical news but translated in one or other language. How do you think this idea is best shown? Regards User:Nosoccomtothom
Thanks
Thank you very much for your translations. Merci beaucoup.--User:Youssefsan
Shining Path
A link, [1] was added with the description "Peruvian web page of "Bandera Roja", the Communist party of Spain, registered by Edith Pena Dominguez, in Leon, Spain." The link appears relevant, but the description was actively misleading. I'll changed it to something more accurate. Yes, the home page of that site claims it to be the "Organo Central del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de España", but it clearly is not. It's the site of some Maoist party, but almost anyone referring to "the Communist party of Spain" means the PCE, whose website is at http://www.pce.es/. I'm not sure if this was an active attempt to mislead, an innocent confusion, or what. -- Jmabel 01:03, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Honest mistake. Your correction is perfect.--AAAAA 01:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
reversion of vandalism
Hi Jmabel--oops. After looking at the history I see what happened: I had clicked on the last good version, and since it is still highlighted for me I know this is what happened--and another person reverted at the same time, a few seconds earlier than me. For some reason, my edit saved the vandalized version over the good version. This is the first time I've seen this happen in six months here. Oh well. Sorry! Word to the wise, always look at what you have reverted to be sure. Best wishes, Antandrus 02:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Multi-Linking
Regarding your message...
Yes your were right, I am new to this. Please take a look at the updated entry and let me know how it looks now.
I was a bit frustrated when I first read the section on right-wing vs conservative, because the writer was using terms that I knew had wikipedia entries, and I didn't know the exact meaning of them. So I decided to add links where appropriate, but I did overdo it. Thanks for correcting me.
-- Chad
Systemic bias project
Hi Jmabel,
Just seen your poll. Couple of things:
- I don't think there is a need for a poll. I think there is already enough interest that we could start a wikiproject and work out what we are doing with it as we go along. There is already copious commentary and ideas; and so the need and interest is clearly established. I would have got started on the project already, but out of politeness I was waiting for either you or Xed to take the lead. A poll would have been necessary to sort out differences between the two of you, but since Xed is dropping out there is no need. Polls should take place, but they should be set up as part of the project, not before it.
- Name of project. Previously the discussion was between CROSSBOW and Countering Systemic bias. Adding Addressing Systemic bias just confuses the issue. I think there was already agreement behind Countering systemic bias; and certainly for including systemic bias in the title.
I've produced a draft version of the Wikiproject main page here.. I would envisage keeping the CROSSBOW page as an archive. What do you think? :ChrisG 13:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think what you've done is a good start. Is it OK with you if I
- mark this as a draft
- move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
- edit as I would in any other WikiProject
-- Jmabel 18:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly what I was hoping you would like to do ChrisG 18:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The direction taken is fundamentally wrong. See my comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_countering_systemic_bias--Xed 12:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure we can come to an amicable agreement on Systemic Bias. --Xed 17:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The project is nearly in place, so there is little for us to argue about anymore. --Xed 23:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Olympiads
You asked why I duplicated the Olympiad reckoning in the Olympiad article, while it was already in the Attic Calender article. The short answer: Because of the world away from the keyboard. The long answer: I have the impression the Olympiad reckoning would be better placed on the page on Olympiads, since it isn't specific for the Attic calendar. While it obviously has a place in the Olympiad-article, because of matters in the world away from the keyboard I didn't have the time to add the suggestion to move it there entirely. As I was editing the Olympiad article anyway, I did already put things in there. As the two versions do not agree, I styled the version in the Olympiad article like in the Attic Calendar article so they could be compared more easily. Aliter 14:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Congo Civil War
Just why (and by whom) was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Congo Civil War deleted rather than (like other failed VfD debates) archived. Yes, it was clearly made in bad faith, but why is the evidence of such behavior now hidden? -- Jmabel 07:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I believe it might still be in the September 2004 archive of VfD, but that page is too large for my browser to load. I nominated it when it had 4 paragraphs to draw attention to it. The deletion notice was removed by User:DJ_Clayworth, who subsequently put the subject on CotW.. Now it has 40 paragraphs. If you like, I'll propose deleting Joan Jett--Xed 17:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade
Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 09:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nice choice of phrase but let us use the more accurate need of translation tag. The description of the problem was accurate and note its placing in the mostly translated section. The act of marking a page for translation makes it deletable automatically, something I did not desire but could not control. I am gladdened that you found a better way to indicate the problem without the terrifying delete statement at the start of the article. This method should probably be suggested in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English or somewhere appropriate if it is not already. If it is then I plead ignorance as I did not spot it. This is the first article I have put up for translation whereas you probably have more experience of this situation judging by your umpteen contributions. Have a nice day. --Cfailde 20:37, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
Good to know. Not explained anywhere :( --Cfailde 20:57, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
Armenian People
This is the guy who did the Armenian edit. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused, but I am new to this (that was my first edit ever). I didn't know I should've posted the other material in discussion. But I have an account now so if there's anything else you need from me, it's easy to reach me. Sorry again. BSveen 08:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
UK vs United Kingdom
[[UK]] is a disambiguation page. As Kiand pointed out (on my talk page) [[United Kingdom|UK]] can look better than [[United Kingdom]] in some circumstances, indeed some changes were to that. Please feel free to change any that you wish to what you think looks best. I have disambiguated all references to UK (and they were all to United Kingdom:). Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Recent Protections by User:Michael Snow
The anon user is actually Turrican masking his IP. Since it is impossible to ban him by blocking his IP, I suggested all articles he is involed in changing should be protected till he leaves permanetly. TDC 21:43, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Chilean coup protection
I decided to simply protect the articles in the state I found them when TDC made the request, since protection is inevitably The Wrong Version. Admittedly, I did notice that you and VeryVerily were on the same side here, which gave me pause to consider. However, I am also reluctant to treat anonymous contributors as inferior. Sticking to a strict interpretation of protection policy, the only basis for preferring a particular version is if one side has complied with the 3-revert limit and the other has not. Initially, I counted VeryVerily as having 4 reverts, but on closer review of the history I have determined that his first change should be considered an edit, not a revert. I am willing to assume that the IPs are all the same person, in which case that side of the dispute violated the rule, so accordingly I have now reverted the protected page to your version. --Michael Snow 21:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Both Azana (who put the PF together) and Barrio lead parties that were centrist, in the context of the political spread in the Spanish Republic and, I think, in the sense we'd use today. Azana's party, which included Quiroga, inclined to the left in terms of who it was willing to work with, but was (classically) liberal in its beliefs; Barrio's party was formed by members of the main right-wing republican party, who had split when Lerroux formed a coalition with the CEDA. It's possible that there were other centrists parties, but I'm not aware of any. Do you think it would be useful for this article if I added a list of the PF parties, leaders and policies? -- Gregg 10:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've made a start by adding details on the members of the PF. I've got information on their later allies (the groups that joined them during the Civil War), and on the Nationalists, but I don't have any knowledge about the parties that didn't pick a side - in fact, to be honest, it never even occured to me. I'll do some digging. Am I right in thinking you speak Spanish? Because the Spanish wikipedia might actually be the best source for this. A starting point could be Portela Valladares. I've got a couple of references to him forming a political party for the 1936 election, designed to be between the Popular Front and the National Front (presumably he hoped to win the support of Republicans who objected to alliances with either the Communists or the fascists, but he seems to have done very poorly). I can't find a name to it beyond "the centre", but it would seem to be the best bet for centrists who didn't support the PF. -- Gregg 22:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I wasn't clear above - I meant not only picking sides between the Nationalists and Republicans during the war, but also between the PF and the National Front (the coalition that supported Lerroux) before the war. Apart from the parties whose Cortes deputies were in one of those two voting blocks, the only ones I know of are the two in the Nacionalistas de Derecha: the Lliga Catalana and the PNV. The PNV voted in support of the PF government, whereas the Lliga continued to oppose but did not support the NF, which had taken on the aspect of an anti-Republican alliance, opposed to the constitutional democracy itself. Apart from that, the only groups I know that didn't support the PF government before the civil war were the anarchists. The socialists found the Azana and Quiroga ministries too moderate, but they supported them in the Cortes. As I say, I've discovered Valladeras attempted to create an alternative between the Popular and National Fronts in the 1936 election - after this failed at the polls he apparently had no hesitation in resigning, rejecting calls by the National Front that he stay on (and, presumably, enter the same territory as Germany had in 1930, with government ruling by Presidential decree rather than legislative vote). I'm sure Valladeras' party must have had some seats in the Cortes, and I think that's the most likely group to have opposed the PF government before the war but supported the Republican side during. But during the war, the Cortes was suspended (meeting only every six months, IIRC), so I don't think there was a functioning parliamentary opposition (though there were plenty of disagreements between partisan groups within the government). I shall dig further. -- Gregg 00:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On languages, I'm generally very bad. I'm starting to recognise a few words of Spanish from working with the names of parties and government positions, but that's about it (though I can order drinks in Catalan, thanks to a school trip to Barcelona). I will let you know if I find anything in Spanish that might be useful, that you could look at. Actually, you could just check my translations of the party names that I've listed in the article - some are standard, but others are based on guesswork and application of what seem to be the rules on word order (Republican Anti-fascist Military Union, for instance). -- Gregg 00:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've no idea why I used wrote rump - I actually did it twice, and both times I meant bulk. Well spotted. -- Gregg 00:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
French translation
Hi, if I have time I could try to work on some of those articles...I keep an eye on that page in case anything interesting comes along, but I don't really want to translate something if I don't know much about the topic in English. I usually stick to translating history articles from French. Adam Bishop 15:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Of course, I'll translate some articles... I'll take a look on em.--euyyn 10:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
template(s) for limited geographic scope
I'd very much appreciate your comments on [2]. Its perhaps the most critical thing we still need to sort out about the project in the short term :ChrisG 22:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Palace of the Parliament
The reason why history was lost on the page Palace of the Parliament was because it was a new page, in fact a redirect, therefore it had no history, and it was moved manually. The original history of the article can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palace_of_the_Parliament_%28Romania%29&action=history, which is on the page for Palace of the Parliament (Romania), now a redirect. Finally, thanks again for all your contributions on Romanian subjects at Wikipedia and Wikitravel... it's great to see someone from another country interested in Romania and its culture. Rronline 11:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a cut and paste move. Not initially, but as you know, you can not automatically move an article to a page that already exists. Palace of the Parliament already existed as a redirect. Therefore, what I did was: automatically move the content from Palace of the People (Romania) to Palace of the Parliament (Romania) (not a cut and paste move), then tried to move it automatically from Palace of the Parliament (Romania) to Palace of the Parliament as I realised that the (Romania) ending was redundant. It wouldn't let me do this because of what I said before. Therefore, I cut-and-pasted the content to Palace of the Parliament and manually inserted a redir in Palace of the Parliament (Romania). I didn't want to do it this way, but there was no other way. I don't understand why cut-and-paste moves are so problematic though... why is the page history of such importance to this article, especially when it hasn't been deleted, it's still maintained on a certain redirect page. In any case, merge the histories if you want. Thanks, Rronline 07:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Politics of Nuevo León
Hi! First of all, thanks for giving us a hand with the Spanish-English translations. Regarding the question you posted in here, the two independent deputies were representing two of the four political parties that were part of the winning alliance. After the victory, the alliance was dissolved, but it didn't prevent them from getting their seat by means of "proportional representation" of the alliance as a whole. Now, in those elections their parties failed miserably at a national level, an internal struggle followed, and long story short, they became independent. One of them is now green by the way, so I'll update the table and the numbers in the body of the article. I hope everything makes sense now. If you have further questions please let me know. Cheers, Ruiz 03:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I wrote some comments in the disc. page regarding your interpretation of the constitutional clause, which was basically right. Hopefully things are clearer now. By the way, I've noticed you translated most of the articles about that state. That's awesome! I'll read'em and I'll do my best add some content, although in the last days I've been a bit busy with school stuff, that's why it took me so long to reply. Anyways, if you need further help w/ the Spanish translations do not hesitate and drop me a line. Cheers, Ruiz 04:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
CSB
Since I thought the WP:Bias project was so important, I was rather brusque in my comments towards you. For that, I'm sorry. I hope you can contribute more than occasionally to the project, since your contributions have been valuable. - Xed 16:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm both surprised and sorry you feel the need to defend someone who has said that WP:Bias was started as a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" -- Xed 18:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I haven't wasted time in dialogue about why I don't enjoy working with you. The opposite is the case - I have reached out to you, three or four times. All I get in return is you saying that I should be happy working with people who have accused me of starting a project as a "socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" - Xed 18:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Last word" - Well, I tried to reach out. WP:Bias seems to be a failure so far anyway. -- Xed 19:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)