User talk:Jmabel/Archive 43

Paid editing?

Discussions are currently happening at User talk:MyWikiBiz, Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest, and User:LinaMishima/PaidEditing. - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My own take on this is at User:Jmabel/PR. - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ricardo Güiraldes, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

About Wikipedia user William Mauco

Does Wikipedia and the people responsable for Wikipedia, find no interest in such facts? Greier 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the things you have said about me in the past, I have no interest in reading what you have to say about anyone else. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite.php changes to Neoconservatism

Your changes to Neoconservatism are losing the links to the references. Please read up on how to do Cite.php references - the full details of each citation should be given between the ref tags the first time (and a name element used if the reference is used more than once), so that the references section automatically displays all the details without needing two sections to do it. Argyriou 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do it that way. Because this article already had a large reference section, I didn't want to adopt that style, but no big. - Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think all the "References" in the article were actual references in the text, but if any are orphaned, they can be moved to "Further reading" or "External Links". Argyriou

Accents in titles

Hallo! I see you moved Luis Carrero Blanco to Luís Carrero Blanco. As the author of the German version I found out by interwikis. AFAIK in Spanish Luis is written without accent as the accent lies on the "u", not no the i. Chigliak 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I was just going by the orthography within the article. If the article was wrong, then it should be moved back and the article text should be changed accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We understand...

You wrote:

This remark of yours: hope you didn't mean to include me in the "we". I've never, to my memory, looked at our article on Vicente Fox or at its talk page. I was being entirely ingenuous in saying I hadn't the slightest idea what Freestylefrappe was talking about. - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly didn't intend to include you. I was just trying to tell Freestylefrappe that I'd read through his and the various other postings on Vicente Fox & its talk page and "got" his concerns. Mostly I thought you were on target—he was just blowing off steam. But my intent, just in case he was sincere, was to tell him where to take his issues for resolution if he wanted to. Apologize for not making it clear that it was Freestylefrappe’s comments, not yours, I was responding to. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-determination

At Self-determination - discussion you made a very good point. And when a person with expert knowledge on the Self-determination subject did carefully sort out the hash to retain the original revelent content and added the requested scholarly input quoting authoritative powers related to the subject. The work was "reverted". I have no desire to have more of my time wasted by Stevertigo, Jackes, or other sock puppets.

I suggest they start a Self-determination philosophy article if they truly want to write it.211.30.222.139 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting names with Christian and Jewish Orthodoxy

Hi Joe: I posted the following at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy#"Orthodoxy" alone is ambiguous. Thank you. IZAK 03:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello: This message deals with a number of issues stemming from the unclear use of the word "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy." In the past Wikipedia has tried to avoid confusion between the names of Orthodox Judaism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity by not using the word "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" alone in titles when other qualifying words, such as "Church" or "Christian" (in the case of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy) or words such as "Synagogue" or "Jewish" (in the case of Orthodox Judaism, would help to qualify the usage of the name "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" so that any reader or editor on Wikipedia should not be confused by a title and should know from an article's or category's name whether that subject deals with either Orthodox Judaism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Orthodox Christianity). In the past there has been no objection to inserting either "church" or "Christian/ity" where the Eastern Orthodox Church articles or categories are concerned and I have tried to move in this direction. It is for this reason that I have made the nominations to rename the ambiguous categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Orthodox Christian categories. Yet it seems that some editors are not aware of this and I am bringing this to your attention. I will cross-post this message to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for further discussion. The implications for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy is that it too should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Church or Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Christianity to avoid any confusion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Sincerely, IZAK 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piped_link: "Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on." I wrote that I "fixed" the link because I removed such an "easter egg" link. I should note also that you didn't "restore" the link, but rather updated it to reflect the merger of "Fascism (epithet)" and "Fascist (epithet)". Jlittlet 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you think I should have restored the link that simply redirects to the same place? That seems odd.

I don't think it is too Easter Eggy, but if you really think so, then there would be two ways to fix it: '[[fascist (epithet)|fascism is often used as a term of abuse]]' or 'fascism is often used as a term of abuse (''see [[fascist (epithet)]]'')'. I would not object to either of those edits, though I find them a bit heavyhanded. - Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was being heavy-handed with links that day--ironically, because another editor had just reminded me not to use piped links when they could be avoided. I worried also that readers might expect the link to direct them to "terms of abuse" or "epithet." But really, my interest in the matter is limited to performing the merge, so I apologize for my removal of the link. Jlittlet 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review: Liozna and Larger than Life (books)

Hi Joe: Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 19#Liozna and Larger than Life (books). Thank you. IZAK 06:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

I'm taking a short Wikibreak. I would appreciate if you can keep an eye on the article of the War of the Pacific... the last editions were made by an IP user and they are little disturbing. Thanks for responding to my comments. Messhermit 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep half an eye on it, but I'm pretty backlogged these days. - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, for the good of Wikipedia, can you review the edits made to the article War of the Pacific?. Can you verify if the ip address 147.70.124.109 was used by Messhermit?. Jespinos 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Eva Hesse

Hi Joe, Thanks for your input, I added some notes, mostly from Lucy Lippards bio of Eva. I did my best to answer your request, I appreciate your additions too. Modernist 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 21:32

Yet another Sendero

Another Sendero sympathizer is editing Shining Path, and this time I genuinely think that we could get a much better article out of it be simply supplying the sources that he's asking for. Thought that you might be interested. --Descendall 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I just realized that the title of my comment is somewhat of a pun on Hernando De Soto's book. Pretty dorky of me to even realize. I promise I didn't do it intentionally. --Descendall 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusing. Perhaps a sequel: Aún otro sendero? - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ay, Dios. I'm not sure that the official name is shared with several other parties. PCdelP-Patria Roja obviously uses a very similar name, though from what I've seen (which is pretty much limited to their murals), they usually call themselves Patria Roja and nothing more. Partido Comunista Peruano has a very similar name, but it's obviously not the same. I really don't give much of a damn about what these people call themselves, but apparantly it's a big deal to militant Marxists and militant Fujimoristas. I guess I'm just in a bad mood, but I fear we'll never hammer this out. --Descendall 06:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say I told you so, but... [1][2][3][4] --Descendall 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you intercede, please?

Sorry because of my poor English. User User:Satesclop insist to make several cross-changes in articles and categories related to Land of Valencia, changing to the name of "Valencian Community". Also he insist in changes he made on Valencia (autonomous community) wich are, in my humble opinion, clearly "officialist", "anticatalanist", and separates Catalan language for the Valencian one. There isn't yet an editwar but I'm worry that he's going to start one because I've reverted by second time his changes. In the other hand, he's a user from Spanish Wikipedia, he doesn't have good skills in English, and hates be simply because I'm from Catalan Wikipedia. Would you mind to intercede between us if you have time, please?. Thanks in advance. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on that sense on his talk page. I would appreciate if you, Joanot, refrain from criticising his English language skills and try to assume good faith. Hopefully things will calm down a bit. --Asterion^talk 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he paid any attention. Satesclop's still going ahead with unilateral edits. Asterion^talk 22:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Jmabel blocked by admin User:Jmabel Length: 1 week

lol - I've done that too! [5] :) - Glen 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I was in there trying to relax the severity of a block on someone else. - Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso

'Fraid there's nothing to understand. Amoruso is here as a self-appointed representative of Etzel and Lehi. He is not interested in Wikipedia rules or processes. --Zero^talk 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A. Leman photo

Sorry but I can't do more to enhance this photo : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Andrew_Leman_2.jpg

I had Gimp (like photoshop but opensource) but the photo is too black. Not enough color informations too change!

If you want to delete this photo, I prefer to leave you this choice. --82.229.80.150 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's an improvement. Grainy B&W is not inappropriate.

I was shooting in terrible circumstances (from about 15 meters in a not terribly well-lit room). But we con't have another photo of him. - Jmabel | Talk 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

House Made of Dawn analysis

My opinion of HQC is about at the level of yours. I just don't understand how he can have written such a good analysis and at the same time be such an idiot about this thing (coming up to three months of argument). But, to be honest, the main article is in good enough shape now, and it won't hurt anyone to find an article clearly labelled as analysis, so I just don't feel liking pushing the elephant any further along the floor. Someone else can transwiki it at some point and we'll all be happy. This sounds defeatist, but from your comments I'm pretty sure you'll understand! Vizjim 07:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Utterly. I don't want to drive out someone whose positive contributions are so positive, but it is clear that he must have and ego the size of Canada, and has no interest in accepting consensus about the nature of the project. - Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. The analysis article has been deleted, and HQCentral is back to his old bullying ways, trying to get the rubbish material re-inserted. Not wanting to break 3RR, could I please ask you to watch the article and help with reverts as and when necessary? I'm asking a couple of other people as well. If he doesn't eventually work out that he should be looking at Wikibooks, well, at least the article will be preserved in its good form. Cheers Vizjim 09:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello from 1.0

Hi, I just saw your post on the WP1.0 page (good point, by the way!), I was very excited to see one of the "1.0 pioneers" commenting. I see you've been on Wikibreak, but would you be able to join us back at 1.0 by the end of the year (not so long now)? Speaking personally I'd be thrilled if you could join us.

Hopefully we'll have Version 0.5 completely released by then, but I expect we'll be actively working on Version 0.7 - in effect an expanded V0.5 with more focus on balance & importance. I wanted to ask now if you had any thoughts on pre-production work for version 0.5, this is one area which is a bit hazy for me because I'm weak on the technical stuff, and I'm guessing that you probably have a few helpful ideas in that area. By all means join us on one of our IRC discussions - I think we'll probably have another one in a week or two. Finally, as a librarian you can perhaps appreciate the importance of us passing the 100,000 mark in our article assessment scheme - these assessments may be rather cursory, but librarians I speak to tend to think that we are definitely heading in the right direction. Cheers, Walkerma 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Internationalisation and Summaries page

Hi Joe. I just wanted to ask you for your opinion about a couple new ideas. FrancisTyers and myself have started a couple pages at WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation and WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries.

I put a note on the project talk page, but wanted to ask you if you would have a few moments to weigh in. The translation part of the idea is pretty straight-forward, and I don’t think we’ll have any real problems, but the {{Article summary}} has more potential for difficulties. I really like the idea, however it is a large enough change to the format of articles that it will attract some attention.

What do you think? Thanks. Chris --Bookandcoffee 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Eponyme

Oh. I did glance at his page, and suspected something along those lines, but apparently missed the money quotes. Ick.

Anyway, thanks for the warning. Good to know if he/she starts editing the article heavily. NoahB 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

thanks for the heads up. I have reverted to Zora's version. This is insidious and subtle POV insertion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

asking for comments regarding the exclusion of women in List_of_major_opera_composers

Hello

I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music [[6]], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.

A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.

I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to the issue you raise, I'm not weighing in in area where I do not know much. There are probably less than a dozen composers of operas with whose work I am familiar, and they are pretty much "the usual suspects". I get into quite enough disputes with other editors in areas where I do know what I'm talking about. - Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

template:expert

G'day,

I don't know what happened (i just checked the template:expert history and like you said it did exist when i deleated the link). I can assure you that when i edited the article it was showing up as a red link and that i tried to go to template:expert and it returned a "this page doesn't exist". I have no idea what happened or how. Anyways, i have now restored the link to the template.

paz, The bellman 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I would be glad to help in any way I can. While the National Review is a creditable source, there is no basis for the fact in the article. Even if there was, it doesn't make sense on that page. If it was better worked into the article, but since this option seems unsatisfactory to Psychohistorian, I suppose this is the route to take. Now, I'm not really sure what I do, so just let me know and I'll pitch in.Minidoxigirli 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Psychohistorian responded to your suggestion of mediation on the talk page by writing "As for an RfC, I'm open to that", I'm not sure how well he comprehends the difference between WP:RFC and other Further dispute resolution options. Assuming that he really prefers RfC to the others, I have a "devil's advocate" question at this time; do we agree that the evidence will support a claim that "Second step: Disengage for a while" of the WP:DR process was attempted and was unsucessfull?

Two additional questions:

• were you suggesting informal or formal mediation?
• where is the following requirement documented? "To start an RFC requires that at least two parties say that they have tried and failed to work out the problem with the person" --Wiley 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Informal is usually simpler, no?

From WP:RFC: "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." I suppose the others don't have to endorse, but I've never seen that happen. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As for disengagement: I feel I've done quite my share of that by not editing the article itself. But given that he followed up to my objection to including the material at all by expanding on his use of this single, weak citation, I don't see how disengagement is supposed to work. - Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer into the policy. I see that Psychohistorian says on the talk page that he/she is "open to a mediator as well." Are we agreed that informal mediation is the next best step? --Wiley 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, if he will do informal mediation that is certainly the simplest way to move forward. Are you willing to be the point person on this? I'll certainly sign on. I'll be the point person if you aren't willing; it's just that I don't have a lot of time to give this. - Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've two meetings and two classes that I have to prep for and attend in the next several days. I've left myself a reminder to check back in here on Friday. --Wiley 18:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not concerned so much with whether a misleading statement is there for a few extra days one way or the other. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical list...

Thank you. It's a direct translation from the French Wikipedia; that's all I know. If it deserves an {{unreferenced}} tag, then by all means put it in. Also, do see my question here; it's good that the image is now straight, but some sharpness was lost in the process. Biruitorul 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kinda what I guessed. In general, when translating something unreferenced, if you can't find references for it yourself, I really recommend trying to get hold of the person who originally wrote it and encourage them to provide their sources. - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll do that forthwith. Biruitorul 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the author, Polmars, who said that writing the list (which is incomplete) is a slow process because there is no single source that gives all the names that should be there. He noted that his main source is the site of the French National Assembly, but that there are others. He does seem to be a very reliable contributor. So, what should I put in the bibliography section? Biruitorul 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. And you should really suggest that if there is no one place from which his French-language version could be referenced, then it certainly should be citing its sources. How on earth is it supposed to be verifiable? - Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reply sooner but didn't think of checking your talk page. I did put that link in and will try and find out more. Biruitorul 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Güiraldes

If I had to thank for every single of my corrected typos! :o) Mariano(t/c) 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Other people catch mine. Especially in Romanian. - Jmabel | Talk 07:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Hello Jmabel! I wondered if you would give a look at Colonialism's talk page? Thanks, (PS: the Herero and Namaqua Genocide issue seems to have been solved, for the time being...) Lapaz 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Added some remarks. - Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks J! Let's forget about his attitude (calling me vandal, etc.), but he's intent on deleting these parts he doesn't like. After a quick look on his talk page, I'm starting to wonder if this is not just simple censorship. I'll refrain from immediately reverting, this is getting tiring... which makes me want to congratulate you for your calmness in all these tiring conflicts (la paz, la tranquilidad y la serenidad!!! eso si que es importante!!!)... Cheers! Lapaz 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

7 Year Bitch

Hey there. Excuse me for not discussing getting rid of the citation request. I took a look at the article, and it just seemed glaringly obvious to me that any Seattle-band active in the early 90's, especially a punk rock band, would be grunge-influenced. Both Seattle and grunge wikilinks reference eachother very early in both articles. To me, citing what (I thought) was obvious didn't seem necessary. Again, excuse me for not discussing it. --EndlessVince 01:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Barry Gurary article

Hi Joe: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content. Thanks. IZAK 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

EVA HESSE

Hi Joe: I wrote the name exactly as it appears on Lucy's book - all capitals as above. I think that's what she meant. Thanks Modernist 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You wanted this?

Template:Contradict is the tag you were looking for. --tjstrf 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

THANKS! - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wonder if he's gone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GoDot Or maybe he's on a long vacation... --Lukobe 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias of Mikkalai

Mabel, again Mikkalai blanks valid text. You're known as a neutral contributor. Can you watch his edits and eventually open a mediation/block him for several months? We're tired of his anti-romanian edits.--201.6.71.138 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely not going to take my time "watching" another editor for you. If you have a valid complaint (and if you are not a sockpuppet of a banned user!), start an RFC. - Jmabel | Talk 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly just for Anti-Romanian edits you can't start an RfC. You should calm him down as you did once with him. Due to his orgolious ego he will leave for good this time, hopefully. --201.6.71.138 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A valid referenced edit cannot be reverted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but how long will this mikkalai will spread his Kremlin propaganda in all the articles related to Moldova/Transnistria/Romania.--201.6.71.138 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a specific complaint, make it in the appropriate venue. If this doesn't rise to the level of an RFC, bring it to Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Otherwise, the above remarks constitute a personal attack on Mikkalai ("spread his Kremlin propaganda", for example). Take your venom elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a general and a specific complaint. You have the credibility to run such an approach. You should do it due to your non-involved approach. Let's reformulate in your view: mikkalai's edits aren't personal attacks but my edits are? Supporting his Kremlin propaganda you don't help Romanians at all.--201.6.71.138 18:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

1. You have not pointed to any specific problematic edit and, as I said, I am absolutely not going to take my time "watching" another editor for you.
2. Again, my user talk page is not the place to file this complaint. If you are not a banned or blocked user trying to get around your block/ban, then go through normal channels. I strongly recommend taking an account if you want to be taken seriously. If you are a banned or blocked user, then stop editing Wikipedia while you are blocked/banned. End of story. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

99% sure this is Greier. He got blocked for a while and came back twice already under these similar looking IP's. I have tried to clean up after him (including today), but it is the same old story ... Sigh... - Mauco 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen here dork, this is not the time when you use my name in this manner. You also claimed that on the Transnistria talk page. For you info, I am not baned: I quited wikipedia due to, among other things, people like you. If I want, I can easily edit the articles in question, but I don`t. I see no reason why sould I hide behind an IP. Please stop trying to discredit me. I know that the last week has been particulary difficult for you, as you may now loose your income (you know what I`m talking about). And since whe`re talking about sockpuppetry, I would also like to say that you`re not fooling anyone with this kind of sharedes...And who is User:Jamason after all, which is now the newest expert in Trns history, along side his excelency William Mauco? And to continue our discussion about sockpuppetry, I have to say that I particulary like this monolog: anon and mauco. And this was a killer: anon and mauco`s incredible answer :)))) It was good to know that Radio Free Europe is a CIA propaganda radio. Thanks God that there`s still you and Tiraspoltimes.com to enlingthen us... :))))) Now go on and work hard. And don`t feel insulted by this comment. After all, we both know it`s true. Since I started, why don`t you tell us about you. Who are you William Mauco? What do you do "for a living", to put it like that? What does a housewife like you do every day in front of the computer editing Transdniester articles from dawn to dusk? Most of the users here are either students who use wikipedia as a references, either work in the IT industry, or are the 16-17yo kids editing for fun. What exactly is you bussines? Is is all a big coincidence all those articles in the The Economists? Is it a coincidence that ICDISS is in care of all of those propagandistic sites, including the oficial site of the Transnistrian goverment? And is it a coincidence that those sites are so zealosly defended by you? Ok, let`s assume that it is all a BIG coincidence and that I am conspiracy theorist. For the sake of the discussion, I admit I`m paranoid: I have a lock on my fridge, and I sleep with a foil of aluminium around my head! Now spare us just one time from all that cheap manerism on how you are opened to NPOV, that you had "intelligent conversations" with the reporters, that you don`t break wikipedia rules, and all divertionst talk, typical for spies and diplomats rather than for wikipedians, and instead show us that you really have cojones, and you`re sincere in your claims, by telling us who you are. Where do you work? What do you work? What company? What institution? What does it say on your pay-check, mister William Mauco? What are you going to do know? Lay low for a while? Say again that you do not feed trolls? Wait for Khoikhoi to delete this post? Or is it yet another typical ricochet answer, trade mark of William Mauco? Greier 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you certainly have a very interesting perspective. (Sorry about the defacing of your talk page, Jmabel)--EndlessVince 01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

None of this seems to have much to do with me, unless you are suggesting that I am William Mauco. I don't think you are suggesting that (I'm not, by the way), so can you please take your arguments somewhere other than my user talk page? And, for that matter, could you please keep your personal attacks out of Wikipedia entirely? - Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. edit

Apologies but on the diff view, it looked as if the anon had removed the comment by Mauco. Asterion^talk 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Your thoughts and input would be welcome. Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front#RFC. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the honesty, and I will take you advice to heart. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Argggggh

I just stumbled across this. Note "Si tienes algo contra el ex-presidente Alberto Fujimori bueno, aya tú. Despues de todo peruano no eres." Looks like we're in for another fun round of "Only Peruvians should be able to edit articles that pertain to Peru." --Descendall 04:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not be surprised, that's what Fujimori is about. As long as that compulsory sterilization thing remains in his article, voy a dejarlos en este periodo de elecciones... (Pardon me Jmabel for polluting your page!) Lapaz 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Elia Levita -- Shemot Davarim

Hi. Check [7], which references this book. My source, however, was the Junior Judaica (1982). If that's acceptable to you, you could replace the text? Thanks. Dfass 04:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I take it the spelling was from the Junior Judaica? In any case, could you (in general) be more specific about what you are citing from where? You're doing a lot of good stuff, but you are also going to create a lot of work for other people if you don't cite clearly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I should have cited the Junior Judaica then? Will try to do so in the future... Thansk. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfass (talk • contribs) 28 September 2006.

DYK

On 30 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Circus Maximus (U.S. band), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.