User talk:Jmabel/Archive 51

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.

Nooooo

Just saw your message on the user page. I'm sorry it has to be this way, and I sincerely hope you reconsider. It's getting rally hard propping the dam in front of vandals with valuable editors becoming less active, and you are one of the few editors I felt honored to work with. Dahn 07:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nooooo from me too. Please reconsider, you are one of our best editors. DVD+ R/W 08:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I've voted, and someone else had a merge suggestion - don't give up on the list and please don't give up on Wikipedia. There are far too few mature adults around here who can add some balance and re-inject some common sense, not to mention a sense of joy, into these pages. If you leave, they;ve won. And that, Joe, is simply unacceptable. Best wishes for a happy new year - come back with both guns blasting! Tvoz | talk 08:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I share your feelings of disgust at the turn this place is taking, but I hope that you can manage to throttle yourself back to a few articles that you can maintain without losing your balance. Hang in there; either WP is going to change, or someone is going to start a rival that works, with a better rule-set. I was there for the migration from Usenet to the web (LJs and blogs) and I imagine something similar will happen here. Zora 08:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia wouldn't be as much fun, or as good a project, without you. I know how you feel - this project can be disheartening. It's wrenching to watch cherished articles fall to AfDs because of editors who've barely glanced at the material. And that kind of thing happens on all levels. But know that your contributions are valued. If I may suggest, a one-month break can be rejuvenating. -Will Beback · † · 09:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very sad news. Our editing paths have crossed in a number of places (most recently at Edward R. Murrow), and I finally decided to take a look at your user page, only to discover your announcement of departure from WP. Your edits and comments had struck me as being those of a very sensible person, an impression which was confirmed by reading through your user page and the comments that people have left here. I hope things here turn around to your satisfaction -- for everybody's sake. Cgingold 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all. It will be nice if the article is saved, but it probably won't change my mind. The fact that my pointing at this trend might save this particular article is gratifying, but the issue wasn't really the article, except as an indicator of the trend. Wikipedia is doubtless still an absolutely great web site, but it is clearly no longer (or not at the moment) the community that I have been proud to be part of. The excessive application—the downright fetishization—of "No original research" and the rules on verifiablity, combined with the effective dropping of Ignore all rules, has added up to an epistemological failure, a war on scholarship, judgment and prose. I've been actively fighting the trend for at least a year, but it is clear which way the tide is running.

I won't go away completely, but I'll throttle way back. When I'm here, I'll focus on what I'll find fun instead of what I think needs to be done, and I certainly won't continue the pattern that I had started a week or so ago (and had planned to continue through January, before starting a job search in February) of treating this like a full time job. And I will reconsider some time in summer 2007. - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, Joe, about saving the article not changing the trend. You are absolutely right - and those of us who see the same trend, and abhor it, hope you will be back in the fight. Tvoz | talk 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaks are good for the soul; Refreshing and revitalizing. Have a great spring :) —Quiddity 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe, thank you for the thoughtful conversation about the project we had. I don't want to see you go; you're a valuable and insightful contributor, the sort we need more of. But if you need a break, take one and come back with a fresh eye; sticking around frustrated won't help. I'm sorry I don't have any better solutions to offer that would help counter the trends you speak of. Respect and regards, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Joe

Hey Joe, stay on the project. Don't give up now. Modernist 15:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. See remarks above. - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

what you said...

• I don't know about this Wikipedia thing either. Some people have quit because it isn't taken seriously enough. You are bowing out because it's taken too seriously. By strange coincidence, I was gonna quit WP:GA and maybe even Wikipedia today. I personally am one of a group of two or three people who has been called a semi-literate hack with a civil servant's soul. It seems the only people who are happy on Wikipedia are vandals, and those whose atmosphere-sized egos are impervious to any suggestion of mortality.
• Did that help :-P ? I doubt it. Sorry. But perhaps there is a lesson that might help you. WP isn't specifically tight-assed, it's everything-assed. It's just full of asses of every description. I personally am tired of wiping them... but maybe I should ignore them instead...? I don't know. I need to think.
• But of one thing I am sure: WP will have lost a high-quality contributor if you leave. WP will be diminished.. and thus, the info WP presents to the world will too --Ling.Nut 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not Neutral

I don't understand your last comment. So according to you, I'm the only one complaining about the neutrality of the article? Apparently, AAAAA and many others don't exist, or are intimidated by Bdean's disruptive behavior. I already know that you don't like Fujimori at all, but that does not mean that "neutrality = every single problem that Peru has is because of him". Apparently, according to you, I'm promoting POV. Very well, Just take a look at Bdean's contribution to realize that he has a Anti-Fujimori POV and that he is using Wikipedia to promote that. Do I have to show more? Okas, then what about using Wikipedia for Commercial purposes? Isn't that enough? Then what about the last video that he uploaded to Wikipedia? Sure 4 or 9 people protesting against Fujimori represent the 27 million Peruvians, right? Ohh, and let us not forget that he is promoting his own work in Wikipedia, quoting: "HUP's promotional page on the book". But that's Neutral, right?

One more thing: regarding my ban (that Bdean ALWAYS loves to bring up against every single argument or paragraph that I write), it was not imposed because of the quality of my editions, but because of the way of how I managed with Bdean's disruptive behavior. Here is a direct quote of the Administrator that imposed my:

My impression of bdean's edits is that he is not really doing what a Wikipedian should do. He does seem to be engaging in personal attacks. Please quote me on this. I am very busy on other (off-Wikipedia) matters but I do commend your case to the other administrators.

— User:Tony Sidaway

So if you want to be fair or "neutral", avoid calling me as the troublemaker. It is more than clear that Bdean1963 is promoting a POV, that apparently happens to be shared by "you" and because of that "you" do not criticize him. I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow Bdean appears here and start giving one of those pompous speeches Messhermit 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me that I shouldn't mistake the well-wishers above for being typical of what this community has become. - Jmabel | Talk 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But of course, if Descendall uses IP to promote his ideas, insults, and disregard anyone who opposes his POV, there is always an excuse for him.... I wonder why. Maybe because he is a leftist that can argue almost anything in the defense of the MRTA and Sendero Luminoso (because that's the name, more than 27 million of peruvians know it by that name and only because someone wants it to be called "Communist Party" is the main reason that the article has that name)? That's the real irony here. Messhermit 00:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Please note that this remark was placed here out of chronological sequence. - Jmabel

Oh, by the way: if there are any examples of me praising or even vaguely defending Bdean on any of the things Messhermit is complaining about, feel more than free to post them here. - Jmabel | Talk 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And after analyzing Bdean's contribution and his more than 100-in-a-row editions in Fujimori (obviously to state his POV), no criticism to him? Still asking if the article is "balanced" or "neutral"? You are present in the discussion, and the fact that you don't do anything to stop his behavior makes you responsible for his actions. Messhermit 00:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason for me to be here writing this is to end the accusations against my person and to defend myself from your claims that I'm promoting "Bias", as you stated in the talk page. Someone who attempts to use Wikipedia to promote a T-shirt (with a horrible and baseless analogy) and to promote his own book does not seem very neutral. That is why I'm asking you to stop attacking my person. Messhermit 00:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Messhermit, if you feel that you have a valid complaint about Bdean's conduct, start a proper RFC about him. If you feel that you have a valid complaint about my conduct, start a proper RFC about me, and I promise that even though I am largely withdrawing from Wikipedia, I will not ignore it, since I fully intend to be in good standing if and when I become significantly active again. But please do not continue berating me here. Got it? Two choices: proper dispute resolution process, or drop it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want as long as you don't insult me of start launching baseless accusations against my person. I demand you to erase those accusations in your last comment in the Alberto Fujimori talk page; nobody here has give you a "blank check" go around insulting people that do not think in the same way that you do. Messhermit 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Messhermit, I repeat, if you feel that you have a valid complaint about my conduct, start a proper RFC about me, and I promise that I will not ignore it, but please do not continue berating me here. - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On a different spirit...

Just wanted to point you to es:Primer revista Martín Fierro that might interest you. Best, User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now this is what I still want to be doing. Translated. - Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

I'm sorry. I was out of line. KazakhPol 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Balaguer coat of arms.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Charming

Apparently, according to User:PalestineRemembered, I am not a Jew [1]. I removed his remarks from my user page, which is where he quite inappropriately placed them. Clue: don't make hostile edits to people's user pages. I have given him a warning about personal attacks.

Would a few more people like to kick me today? Apparently it's open season. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Awwwww, Joe. There's more of us with ya than agin ya. Tvoz | talk 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

E-mail from banned users

I object to any editor posting material from Nobs anywhere on Wikipedia. Nobs was banned for persistent vicious personal attacks on me. I am horrified at this breach. I expect an apology. It is not a gratuitous kick when a mistake like this is made.--Cberlet 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested:

In the process of trying to get out of my active role here, I have been trying to clear up any loose ends I might have. I marked myself as inactive on over a dozen WikiProjects, let a few people with whom I was collaborating know that I would not be available, and I went through my Inbox looking for any Wikipedia-related email I might not have dealt with. I encountered an email fro Nobs providing a citation that someone had apparently requested, and posted it to the appropriate talkpage. Frankly, I didn't even remember that Nobs was banned, let alone why. Nor was my mind particularly on the matter. Nor, as far as I can tell, is there anything the least bit objectionable in the email I passed along, or I would not have posted it. By the way, it provides a citable source for an analysis with which I disagree strongly, but since the citation appears to be correct, I figured that the right thing to do was to pass it on.

I've had a lot of respect for Chip Berlet's work long before either of us was involved in Wikipedia, so Chip, I apologize for not having Nobs' history with you on my mind — at all — but I'll be damned if I'll apologize for not trying to leave loose ends on my way out of here.

Anyway, given that this is the third nastygram in the less than 24 hours since I said I'd be trying to reduce my role here, and given that this is from a contributor with whom I've worked on a least a dozen articles, nearly always agreed with, and up until now always worked cooperatively with — even actively supported in several disputes — but who is now ready to read bad faith into my effort at housekeeping, I'm beginning to think that my idea that I can scale back to just working on a few articles, doing a few translations, etc. may not be viable. I'm still going to try it, but I'm beginning to think that the atmosphere here has simply become impossibly toxic. Which is too bad. It did not used to be that way. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I only skimmed the email before posting it. I now see that it links to part of a request for mediation. I had not noticed that, and would certainly have looked closely at the target of the link if I had. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for letting my emotions direct my fingers on the keyboard. Please consider taking a short break and coming back. That's what I do from time to time. You are one of the best editors here. Please forgive me for being a jerk. Nobs just makes me crazy. Not a good excuse. So please reconsider.--Cberlet 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll admit that I was wondering if you had been temporarily inhabited by a demon. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe--I really do hope you decide to stick around, nastygrams notwithstanding. I've ratcheted back my own participation quite a bit this year--more because I'm way too busy at work than anything else--and have found that however toxic the atmosphere may be, when you keep your involvement relatively minimal, it doesn't smell too bad, honestly. (Though neither does carbon monoxide, and as we Seattle residents have been reminded recently, it can sneak up on you and then you're dead.) Anyway, what I'm trying to say is please stay. Wikipedia will lose a great deal if you leave--not so much if you stick around, even minimally. I wouldn't go so far as to say a Wikipedia without Jmabel is no Wikipedia I want to be a part of, but a Wikipedia without Jmabel is certainly a different Wikipedia from the one I first started contributing to, and might bode ill for its future... --Lukobe 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One unreserved apology and one explanation

[The following is an amalgam from various pages, placed here by User:PalestineRemembered ]
[copied by User:PalestineRemembered, I don't know from what context, but it appears accurate, it certainly reads like something I would have said. Originally placed by him on my user page, now placed here. - Jmabel]

I hardly know how to reply to most of this, but on some points:

1. "a Chasidic, most likely Germanic influenced, ashkenazi Jewish person's religion"? Are you saying that Karl Marx, Joseph Adler, Sigmund Freud, and I are Chasidim? Surely you don't believe that.
2. Are you suggesting that Karaites were very numerous in the 1930s and had a particular die-off in the Holocaust? or is your use of "Holocaust" (or "Karaites") as idiosyncratic as your use of "Chasidic"?
3. I assure you that "German" and "Germany" were common English terms long before Bismarck. They simply did not refer to a state. They referred, respectively to a region and to a people roughly as well-defined (or ill-defined) as the Jews.
4. "a Jew (the religion) is not necessarily a Jew (the people)…" Of course. Has anyone except the occasional anti-Semitic troll disagreed with that?
5. The existence of anti-Semites is no more a reason to stop calling ourselves Jews than the existence of racists is a reason for black people to start calling themselves mauve. Believe me, if we started calling ourselves "the Children of Abraham" or "the Hebrews" in common parlance tomorrow, it would take about 30 minutes for the anti-Semitic rhetoric to adjust accordingly.

If you feel I've missed your essential point, perhaps you could state it more succinctly. This was a bit much to slog through. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[end copied]
[comment originally placed on my user page by User:PalestineRemembered]

I despair about these people too. I think there's a serious problem with calling anyone a Jew (other than those relatively few case of a clearly self-labelling "religious" practitioner of Judaism).

In particular, I'm very concerned that the word is being used as a blunt instrument with which to bash people who fail to respect the "sanctity and superiority of Israel". That way lies madness. Nobody can justify the apartheid nature of the current Israeli regime. PalestineRemembered 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[End of what was placed on my user page]

[My perhaps intemperate response on his user talk page]

Personal attack warning -> You recently placed comments on my user page that I can only read as saying that I have no right to call myself a Jew because I am not religious. In general, editing other people's user pages is pretty damned out of line, and personal attacks are out of line, but this is both. Please do not write on my user page again. Please do not comment on my ethnicity again. There area quite a few other things I'd like to say, but WP:CIVIL prevents me. - Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[End of my response on his user talk page]

My apologies for placing that on your user-page, it should of course have been on your talk-page.

(Since you've told me not to touch your page I'll not remove it, but I hope you will).

And it may appear I worded my comments badly - what I meant to way was that nobody else should announce that you are a Jew. Whether they're friendly to you or not, such a label is an invitation to all to make generalisations about the Jews.

It's particularily nasty if its in relation to comments critical of Israel. Whether the crimes alleged against Israel are real or imaginary, either pointing out your origins or calling Israel the "Jewish state" seems calculated to incite hatred of the Jews.

However, my comments didn't allow for people like yourself who wish to self-identify as being Jews, while not being religious. It's not really for me to comment to what you call yourself. Though I'd have thought that, if you're unduly aggressive, other Jews might feel your comments were less than helpful to community relations. PalestineRemembered 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[End of what User:PalestineRemembered placed here]

Roughly a third of the people in the world who identify as Jews are secular. (I gather that the majority of us here in Seattle, where I live, are.) The Jews are what, before the rise of the nation-state, was called a nation and is now more commonly described as an ethnic group, though the latter model doesn't work too well, in my opinion, because it doesn't account for the fact that someone can become a Jew and also because anyone who actually bothers to look at us can see that we are more genetically heterogenous than the term ethnic group usually implies. Conversely, these days, those of us who are not Zionists have some trouble with the term nation, because it now carries the implication of statehood or would-be statehood. But that doesn't make us any less Jews. As I've had occasion to say before, and I'm sorry that my only way to express this really properly requires some Yiddish, an apikoros is not a goy. That is, as well as it can be put in English, a Jew who does not follow rabbinic Judaism does not thereby become a Gentile. Because the word Jew in English refers to both ethnicity and religion, this is difficult to express, but the matter is analogous to the fact that Cavafy not being Greek Orthodox didn't make him any less Greek.

As for "nobody else should announce that you are a Jew": why not? Why any less than "announcing" that I'm an American? Is there supposed to be something shameful in it?

And, believe it or not, I don't speak for anyone but myself. I am not speaking as a spokesman for the Jews, most of whom doubtless would not choose me for the role. But, as Hannah Arendt put it, "When you are attacked as a Jew, you have to defend yourself as a Jew." - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen. (And what Wikipedia needs is more Yiddish, if you ask me.) Tvoz | talk 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Threshing-board peer review

You may be interested to know that I've requested a peer review for threshing-board. Perhaps we will get some useful advice.-Fagles 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock

Hi Jmabel, can you take a look at this, and let me know your toughts? I'm open to suggestion on this, but my reasoning is that this format makes it easier to follow, and to add to. Thanks. + Ceoil 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a perfect example of the type of (perfectly reasonable) request that I will no longer be answering. - Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a great shame. Both that you're leaving, and that that article is up for deletion. Thanks anyway. + Ceoil 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Dear Joe, I'm sorry to see you're thinking of (more or less) leaving. I'm dubious enough about Wikipedia myself not to try to persuade you to stay against your inclinations, but it will certainly be the worse for your absence. You are one of the contributors I hold in the highest esteem. I hope that if you do go, you succeed in finding another, perhaps more pleasurable, outlet for your talents. Best wishes, Palmiro | Talk 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I've said, I'll still be writing some articles, doing some translations, and uploading photos, but at least for the near future, I'm trying to bow out of the role of being one of the people who holds this together. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, add my name beneath Palmiro's. I've been waiting to hear from you after the first of the year about the next Seattle Wikimeetup should be, & hope that your downshifting in duties doesn't mean that this important activity comes to an end. (Well, if it does, I'll try to pick up some of the slack by having another one in Portland -- on the weekend, this time.) But do what you feel is most authentic for yourself. -- llywrch 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone organizes one, I'll attend, but I have no plans to organize one. - Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has "left" several times, I understand only too well. However, your departure would lower the average intelligence and integrity around here by quite a notch, so we won't be happy about it. --Zero^talk 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this; although you should take whatever break you need. The present state of the AfD should confirm that Wikipedia does have a rational majority in general; the problem is getting their attention. By withdrawing, you decrease the rational majority by one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Alt_Emporda_Arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Alt_Emporda_Arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's {{symbol}} - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

uh. still sorry you're leaving; thought you might wanna see...

• Yet another "vote with your feet" editor. User talk:Bishonen. --Ling.Nut 13:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mala Zimetbaum and millions of Holocaust victims and survivors

Hi Joe: How notable is this person Mala Zimetbaum, and does she deserve an article of her own? There were millions of Holocaust so should they all get their own articles now? Doesn't that trivialize the event? Seems that if someone gets to write a book or gets mentioned somewhere, they then "automatically" become notable. What do you think? IZAK 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a perfect example of the type of (perfectly reasonable) request that I will no longer be answering. - Jmabel | Talk 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Messianic Judaism

Template:Messianic Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a perfect example of the type of (perfectly reasonable) request that I will no longer be answering. - Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

If I had any idea this simple AfD would set you off so, I wouldn't have started it. You are a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I urge you to remain with the project. Is there anything you would like me to do, such as withdrawing the nomination? If anything, this AfD is proof that your contributions make a positive difference towards improving Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably be remaining with the project, but about a year ago when we tightened things up after the Siegenthaler mess, I drew a line in the sand as to what I felt would be "too tight". It's now been crossed. You crossed it. If this had been nominated by some random user, I'd definitely have waited to see the outcome. But it wasn't: it was nominated by another respected administrator. I think that you nominating this for deletion is indication enough that the concern for citation rather than judgement has reached the point where I no longer fall within the consensus. And, again, this is not directly causal: your action was just a measurable symptom of a problem that has had me concerned for at least a year and about which several of use spoke at the Seattle meetup a few months back.

Aristotle wrote, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, "We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs." I've quoted this before at least once in Wikipedia discussion. I imagine I'll have occasion to quote it again.

Instead, Wikipedia seems to be drifting toward a scholasticism in which, rather than adopt such Aristotelian principles, we are applying to pop cultural trivia the standards appropriate to biographies of living people and important historical controversies. (And, yes, I see the irony of refering to scholasticism that fails to take the advice of Aristotle, but, in fact that is exactly what we have: the "unerring texts" faithfully cited by the Wikipedian scholastics are more often World Net Daily or IMDB.)

Again, I'm not necessarily leaving Wikipedia, but for the next 6 months at least, I'm going to go back to being a more casual participant. Since I was asked to be an admin 2-1/2 years ago (which I certainly didn't seek), I've probably responded favorably to 80% of the requests that have been made to me to do tasks for the good of the encyclopedia or the community, alghough occasionally I've had to say I'm just stretched too thin, and I did decide not to take on enforcing 3RR, because it seemed like sheer drudgery. I've hardly been finding time to write and translate articles, which is what I came here to do in the first place. Instead, I end up spending nearly all my time fixing vandalism, advising other people, informally mediating disputes, participating in policy discussions, recruiting participants, doing maintenace tasks, searching out citations because people were too lazy or too incapable to cite things in the first place, etc. It's one thing to do that if I'm feeling really bought in to the consensus as to what we are trying to do here. It is another if I'm feeling like I am doing this in support of an institution from which I feel somewhat alienated.

You ask if there is anything I would like you to do. I'm glad you asked. The answer it yes, but it's not going to get me to change my mind about what I feel is a correct decision on my part. I'd like you to remember that there is more than one process by which we can obtain a reliable article, that judgment enters the matter as well as rules. Other than in matters of potential libel, where the standards should indeed be very strict, if an article has several dozen obviously knowledgable contributors, and there is a reasonable amount of discussion on the talk page where people have had doubts, and so on, then there is a fair chance it is more accurate than a well-footnoted article written by one random undergrad with no broad knowledge of the topic in question. If you think that something is inaccurate in such an article, you might bring the matter to the talk page and see if either someone can cite for the material in question or we can get agreement to remove it. If no one is competently responding, then an AFD might be in order, but AFD is almost always a pretty blunt tool with which to begin work on an article of 3 years standing with over 250 edits by a wide variety of editors. - Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Say it ain't so, Joe! I mean that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jmabel, I will take your words to heart, wish you the best for the new year and the months you spend away from Wikipedia, and hope you rejoin us soon on positive terms. Andrew Levine 06:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Joe, Happy New Year. I think these last two or three months were especially difficult for you and in my real life, these last few months have been very difficult, too and I suspect these last several months have been difficult for lots of people. I hope the new year brings a change for the better for you and everyone else. I hope when you get some time to think you'll reconsider, because you've become an important part of this landscape. Modernist 00:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, the past few months have been pretty normal in my "real life". The only unusual issue was not all that unusual and in any event is nothing I want to write about for posterity. My recent frustrations with Wikipedia are not about something else, they are about Wikipedia. & In any event, a happy new year to you and to all. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

First, Happy New Year!
I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe

Sorry, but this is another example of the type of (perfectly reasonable) request that I will no longer be answering. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously leaving because someone nominated an article for deletion? Actually, scratch that, leading question. Is the reason given on your user page truly the whole cause of your departure? --tjstrf talk 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please seem my remarks above at Apologies. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jew

Hi Joe: Seems that the problematic user name User:Jew has not been dealt with. See User talk:Jew as this was probably a sock for a blocked user. Thanks. IZAK 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another example of the type of request that I will no longer be answering. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joe: Far be it for me to give you advice. But the few times I have called on you, I have always found your input and actions very helpful. So whatever you can contribute will always be appreciated. IZAK 02:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people

Hi Joe: Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that this has been deleted, which is fine, but IZAK, why do you keep leaving me these messages? Could I be much clearer that I am trying to pull out of this role? - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Frustrations

Wow, I bet it gives you a little uplift every time you say you'll no longer be answering this and that..! Thanks for your message, Joe. I'm not out of here yet; I'm out conditionally, iff Giano really is driven off. I don't feel like being in an environment that'll squeeze people like that. It's too hard to breathe here now. Bishonen | talk 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Uplift: yup. - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Alt_Urgell_Arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Alt_Urgell_Arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another {{symbol}}. - Jmabel | Talk 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't most heraldic symbols older than 1923, and hence public domain? Argyriou (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is strictly formal. They've decided that {{coatofarms}} is no longer valid, and needs to be replaced by {{symbol}}. I guess the issue was that people were using {{coatofarms}} on things that had the form of a coat of arms, but were copyrighted. Or so someone claimed. - Jmabel | Talk

User Dking

Would appreciate, since you saw fit to have me banned for my comments, to peruse the personal attacks in Dking's edit summary[2] and article discussion.[3] and the incessant characterization of editors who disagree with his (and Cberlet's) hostile views of Fred Newman as "cultists" and "totalitarian." This has been an ongoing, and an un-Wiki double standard. Berlet and King do not, by any stretch of the imgaination, approach anything remotely characterizable as a majority view, on Newman or any other subject and really should not be treated as infallible authorities who can violette Wikiettiquette with impunity. BabyDweezil 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a perfect example of the type of request that I will no longer be answering. And you are obviously not "banned", since you were in a position to write this on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake--I meant "blocked." However, if you see fit to uphold the double standard, thats your choice. cheers. BabyDweezil 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you see fit to see my departure from this role as somehow having something to do with upholding double standards, that's your choice. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

a NON-WIKI question about 60s NYC radio

Promise - this has nothing whatsoever to do with anything on Wikipedia - just something I can't remember and thought an old Alex Bennett fan might recall .... do you remember which NYC radio dj/talk show guy used to say "Namaste" at the end of his show? This is driving me nuts - was it Leon Lewis? Thanks, if you recall. Best wishes Tvoz | talk 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was definitely a WMCA jock, and it was late 1960s, but I'd hesitate to say which. I thought Leon Lewis was the one who finished his show with a longish rap the tail end of which was "…and you don't eat chicken on Sundays." - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

¿Cómo estás?

Me temo que no te agradecí bastante el trabajo que te di con mis quejas sobre la censura en la wikipedia hispana. Conste que no lo olvido. El caso es que la historia sigue, y ya tenemos otro "luchador por la libertad" en esta wikipedia. No sé si lo conoces. Puedes echarle un ojo a [[4]]. No espero ahora que te metas en problemas por estos motivos. Te lo indico sólo como curiosidad. Me temo que el talante poco democrático que se respira por la wikipedia hispana es algo que depende de ellos, y en lo que poco podemos hacer. La culpa de esto debe remontarse a Fernando VII :p --Gimferrer 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that I have largely ceased to be involved in such matters in the English-language Wikipedia, and have never been very active in the Spanish Wikipedia, it is hard to see why this should concern me. - Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-punk and sXe

Hi, would you mind taking a look at the section titled "Input needed at Anarcho-punk and Straight edge" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music. Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is another example of the type of (perfectly reasonable) request that I will no longer be answering. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from a newb

Hi Jmabel, I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome. It took stupid me to realize you gave me a message until now. I really appreciate it and the time you put in, and I hope some day I'll be as competent with Wiki as you...I really hope to contribute. :) So far my biggest contribution is the unholy amount of silly icons on my Userpage. :p

Thanks for your devotion! - CrazedEwok 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for translating my article about Primer revista Martín Fierro

Hola, supongo q hablas castellano asique te agradezco por traducir al ingles el articulo que redacté sobre la revista Martin Fierro de Alberto Ghiraldo. Te queria preguntar, que intereses te mueven hacia ese tipo de litaratura? como conociste sobre ella? saludos. matias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcervilla (talk • contribs) 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Puedo leer castellano, pero escribir puede ser otra cosa.

User:Ejrrjs me informó que existe el artículo.

Me interesa porque tengo un gran interés en la obra de Borges (quien estaba afiliado con la revista Martín Fierro de los años 20) y, a través de él, un interés en la vida intelectual de Argentina in el primer parte del siglo XX. - Jmabel | Talk 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanian BoNM

Jmabel,

I've noticed several times you mentioning that you've enjoyed working with editors on Romanian projects, so I made a Romanian barnstar of National Merit. Hope it's useful. {{BoNM-Romania}}

--Ling.Nut 22:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade

Hello Jmabel,

Could you come a bit to the Mircea Eliade article, where Dahn refuses to answer some of my concerns by simply saying "Cberlet and Jmabel had these concerns, this is why the article has the current form"? Dpotop 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my points, Dpotop. Dahn 12:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, for once I'll take a look. - Jmabel | Talk 17:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Link

Memories From Hell

Translation of the message received here from the user who left the above link (i.e. User:82.77.7.239 ): "You stink from far away. One can tell you are a stinking kike. Never mind, there's a place in front for you at the next holocaust you regurgitated thing you! You'll leave this message [on your page], as it is not maculature! You altered shit! I would make soap out of you, but you kike meat is stinking and unsuitable for soap!" This is perhaps the time to call admin's attention to the fact that this person and his acolytes roam free and untouched on Romanian wikipedia, and that they have authored hundreds of articles with demeaning and strongly anti-semitic content. Dahn 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jmabel for replying to this here, but I didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression. Dahn, if you have a problem with anyone on the Romanian Wikipedia (where I happen to be an admin), I'm sure you can raise the issue there, instead of complaining to random people here. I should mention I have no bias for or against either yourself or Daos, so please don't take this as taking his side, or having something against you, or anything else of that kind. I'm just standing up for the Romanian Wikipedia, which you seem quite willing to thrash around, for no good reason in my opinion. Please feel free to use my talk page to reply. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have answered there. My actual point is that a sizable part of [the Romanian] wikipedia is currently home to racism and deliberate manipulation, which has passed by the attention of admins (and has been encouraged by a few of them). I share this observation with many users on enwiki; I will not cite their names here, because they may not want me to, but the problematic status of rowiki is un secret de Polichinelle. Dahn 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think there's a solution to this: you (Dahn) becoming an admin at ro.wiki. You obviously have the time and the will that are needed, and your adminship is long overdue. This is a cooperative project, and the only way to change it is to take part in it. Closing ro.wiki just to please you is probably not OK. At the same time, asking other people to police it for you is a bit arrogant. Dpotop 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This left aside, the comment of Daos is quite unbelievable. Are you sure it's not a hoax? I've edited on ro.wiki for some time, and never saw such hate prose. Dpotop 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no will to go in there, and I have no will for an adminship anywhere. I'm was not asking other people to police: I was asking people who pretend to police it to do their job, and was about to raise a concern to their supposed supervisors (much less radical than what you were campaigning for regarding Moldovan wiki). Whether I think it should be closed or not is ultimately my business, and you are free to make whatever you want of my opinion, just as long as you understand it is an opinion I can freely express.

From my experience, there are very few admins that assume "policing" as they job. Generally, admins have their interests, and stick to them. Trying to drag them onto different articles often fails. This being given, how do you expect the policing you require to be done? Especially with few admins, as on ro.wiki. Dpotop 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Several of my few experiences with rowiki involve hate mail aimed at me. As I have evidenced before, racist and neofascist messages produced by the likes of Daos/Dacodava were commonplace there, and it is just now that I note some measures (far from satisfactory) are taken to deal with them. Someone has pointed out that Dacodava had actually celebrated the Holocaust on one page, without any real consequence. So, yes, I'm pretty sure it's not a hoax, and I feel insulted that we are even debating that possibility just because you never saw it. Dahn 02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you try to contact several admins? For instance, by posting on ro:Wikipedia:Sfatul Bătrânilor, which is the place where you should take your most important issues? Dpotop 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

D, I am not going to sit about and discuss this. I have presented my perspective to Gutza, and, at least in this in context, I was not complaining about this as much as was showing my disbelief that you are attempting to discuss whether rowiki is even capable of producing such crap (when, whether I want to or not, I cannot help but bump into blatant POV, factual errors, and tolerated attacks whenever I so much as look into a page on rowiki). Again, I am not discussing whether I should have done something or not, and I have better things to do with my time than to engage in arguments on a wikipedia version I do not yet respect (and, where it not for the constant supply of crap and personal attacks from some users who cross into enwiki - Bonaparte, Dacodava, Norbert Arthur and I could name some others - I would not be mentioning it at all). The fact that wikipedia in Romanian does not look substandard to you is bothering me (when the fact that an article with four citations in all is the current featured article is relevant enough). Dahn 09:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to explain is that standard and sub-standard are not official ro.wikipedia or en.wikipedia notions. Articles are as good as the effort put into them by existing editors. I happen to disagree with many articles on ro.wiki, and was frustrated at times by some editors and editing practices. But I did change some things by using a Wikipedia collaborative approach. Threatening to call on Jimbo on antisemitism-related stuff is not justified and, I find, a bit undecent, given the number of problems on ro.wiki, of which antisemitism is only one. What about the 1000 other problems Jimbo will never be interested in? If you are interested in ro.wikipedia, why not edit? On one hand you say "I have something else to do", and on the other, you say "I don't like it, change it". Frankly, you are good and efficient. Changing the 20 most problematic articles is nothing, given that you already have all the info. All you need is to explain first your problem on the representative forum of ro.wiki (Sfatul Batranilor), in order to get the support of 1-2 admins and editors. Dpotop 13:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, wikipedia has clear-cut principles and standards, and I'm genuinely sorry this is new to you. Efforts you put into articles are as relevant as the ability of editors to understand what an FA is and what it is not, and as relevant as the ability of admins to understand what is and what isn't inflammatory bullshit. This is what I am trying to explain to you. If you want to theorize here that Antisemitism is in the eye of the beholder or some other solipsism in respect to pre-convened and measurable standards, feel free to carry that debate on your own.

I see your problem with reading posts through is generalized. What I have said, and will not repeat, is that, given the widespread failure of admins on rowiki to understand and apply the guidelines of wikipedia, given the intolerable quality of rowiki on the whole, given the extreme examples such as Antisemitism et al, given the fact thaat all other problems I have pointed out there have remained unanswered, given the fact that some admins there have been willingly cooperating with users who were banned here for very grave misdeeds (which they continue to engage in over there!), and given signals by several editors here that they see the same problems on rowiki, the rot may be just as extensive as to call for a serious authority (and, let us not forget, this is basically happening on Jimbo's property!).

Faced with such widespread problems, the potentially endless debate, and the fact that good contributors have been driven away from there by some admins who are by no means neutral, I don't "need" to do anything that would involve rowiki. Especially since I do not contribute there. It is entirely my right to call attention to a problem as a spectator, which is what I intend to remain on rowiki. The fact that I am endlessly debating elementary issues such as this offers grim prospects for any debate there.

To end this: there is no "paradox", as you imply, in the phrase "I dislike it, but will not take part in it". It is like saying that, if you live in a poorly-designed quarter, I cannot blame the architect - I have to go and repair each and every one of your houses, because you don't mind living there, but you would like living in a better house... For Christ: if Romanians cannot complete proper FAs in the time they allocate themselves, why do they even have FAs?! So many wikipedias do not, for the same reason! This is a problem that should concern you. To solve it and others, I would need an energy and support I do not have, and which I would consider wasted as long as people have not even realized what is wrong about the articles Dacodava has edited there.

Thank you for the advices et al, not interested. Dahn 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dpotop has decided to edit my comment above. Jmabel, I'm truly desolated we ended up doing this on your talk page -- with any luck, Dpotop will erase this message altogether. I'm only joking. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually giggling as I'm writing this. Had a look at this talk page's history and realized Dahn has also decided to remove some of it -- it would be really funny if it wasn't sad. Guys, please accept that talk pages are as close to sanctity as Wikipedia has to offer: mortals just do not have the right to alter text here, period! --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you will not have my name dragged into this shit just because you (Gutza) were lazy enough not to read the post correctly. Dpotop 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record: the only reason for deleting was because those two post made absolutely no sense after Dpotop's rash move. One was mine; the other was Dpotop (and I assumed that, if he takes liberties with other posts, I can take one with his for the sake of clarity). Dahn 02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, folks, I did the one useful thing I could think of to do—I passed along to WP:AN/I a mention of the very nastily antisemitic remark left on Dahn's page here on en-wiki—and I'm really not at all active in ro-wiki, nor have I ever been. If you intend to continue this discussion, could you continue this somewhere other than my user talk page? Maybe one of your user talk pages, or the talk page of the Romanian Wikipedian's notice board? Just indicate here where you are continuing this, and probably copy or summarize what has already gone by? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I don't know whether you're interested in such things, but CJLL Wright will be on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship in a few days, or sooner. --Ling.Nut 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintila RfC

Is this issue resolved? If so I will archive the RfC. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's resolved for me. Which is to say, all I wanted was a clear denial. Whether it is resolved for Dahn is up to him to say. - Jmabel | Talk 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Israeli-Palestinian conflict

As you have helpfully improved this article in the past, I'd like your input in the debate at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Ancient_Conflict. User:Benjiwolf claims that the following assertions should be in the main article:

1. The Israelis and Palestinians "share much in common." I think this is misleading since they have two completely distinct cultures.
2. "The conflict has complicated ancient roots." I think the statement is misleading and suggests that there was an Israeli-Palestinian (or Jewish-Arab) conflict over land in ancient times.
3. The early Zionists "expressed their desire to re-create a state for the Jewish people." I think the word "create" was more accurate.

--GHcool 06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a another example of the type of (perfectly reasonable) request that I will no longer be answering. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright response

I responded at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Pre-1978 political posters. --NE2 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer

I answered you at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... —Angr 06:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)