User talk:Jmabel/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Livonians vs Livonian people and People in Livonia

I am no native English speaker, and do absolutely not hold strong opinions on this matter, but as you made one change, I wonder if this change maybe ought to be done in more cases. Consider:



(Placed here, because its a general topic.)

"Besides the grammatical issue, I can't imagine the basis on which someone denies that [people P and Q] form separate ethnic groups. I would simply revert this. Do others agree?"

  • On what basis are [people X] "separate" from a larger "ethnic group," or the even larger "human ethnic group?" Even among those who agree with where the "separations" are, the actual importance or value placed on those distinctions will vary with opinion. While some may prefer to emphasise the "unified" particular ethnic group, others will prefer to emphasise "unfified" even more particular ethnic group. I and many other younger people prefer to emphasise the larger human ethnicity, and here we may attach this to our operational concept of NPOV, with the understanding that things are only going to get less and less "separate." The only problem lies in that (for our definitions) distinction and exclusion (rather than inclusion) are inherent to our very concept of the term "ethnicity." Therefore what is "ethnicity"? What attached value for it do we emphasise here, in the spirit of NPOV? Regards, -Stevertigo 01:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Annotated Vicar of Bray

Jmabel, thanks for the greatly improved formatting on Annotated Lyrics to The Vicar of Bray. Over in IRC, it was suggested I not use HTML formatting for the footnotes, but I think your solution looks much, much better. orthogonal 14:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've (rather radically) changed the gloss of "pudding time"; please check to see if you agree with this. orthogonal 14:51, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I'd be happy to work on the French Revolutionary Wars stuff, but my ability to access the internet for the next few months is highly questionable, as I'm going to be in Europe. So maybe I'll do it, but quite likely I won't have much time for Wikipedia until the end of August or so. john k 05:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi Joe, the name comes from somewhere in the earlier chapters of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy -- he jokingly alludes to the patriarch Nestorius as a "wily heresiarch". Bad enough to be a heretic, not to mention a heresiarch, nor even -- dare I say it -- a wily heresiarch. Naturally all of my opinions are quite pedestrian. "Heresiarch" is certainly a word that Borges would use, although no quotes come to mind at the moment. If you come across a Borges quote, I'd be interested to hear it. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Learning project

Hi there, as I see you are into software and languages - except for Romanian/French the same as I - maybe you would like to help me with this. There is some discussion on my talk page. Get-back-world-respect 17:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I am just a newbie, only my first day as a registered Wikipedia user, so I don't know what's the appropriate place to discuss Ruthenia entry. I believe I can prove to you that the sentence about "separate Belarusan ethnicity" (and implied "triedinstvo" of the Eastern Slavs) is just a myth, invented by imperial Russian historians (for well-known reasons). I think that sentence should be removed. -- [User:rydel|rydel]

Thank you for your note!

Thank you so much for you kind note and advice. I will do what you advised me regarding getting my name and time-stamp up.

A typical American, I don't read all the instructions -- I glance at them and think I know it all!  :-) I fear this is where my problem lies.

I am used to being deleted, however. When people do not want to hear/read about the type of childcare I advocate, I have been deleted before.  :-D If they can't delete me, they just stop talking. After two children, two stepchildren, and eight grandchildren from them all, I know that it works!

Once again . . .

Thank you!

Raina Raina 05:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eth =

Thanks for the note, too. Ill get to looking at it later today or tomorrow. -Stevertigo 19:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Anti-globalization movement

Thanks for the note of encouragement... it's good to see some positive feedback and I'm glad to see I'm on the right track here :-) I'm a bit worried about making some changes to an article I know virtually nothing about... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


This recent (anonymous) addition goes strongly against most of what I have ever heard, and cites no sources. I don't claim expertise on this, so I leave it to someone else to edit or delete, but I do note that no sources at all or cited for something that goes against most of what I have ever read about Islam in the Middle Ages. It is hard to reconcile this with the high positions to which Jews at time rose in (for example) the Muslim kingdom cenetered at Toledo. -- Jmabel 03:17, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

"In addition to the above examples, one must review the historical record of the destruction and persecution of the Jewish communities throughout the Islamic Empire. As the empire expanded during the centuries, the status of the non-Muslim communities remained precarious and subject to dhimmi laws. The Jewish communities were not second class citizens, they were not considered to be citizens of the larger community at all. Repressive measures against their persons occured with regularity as the Muslim majority massacred them with impunity. There was no protection under the laws and the word of a Muslim was sufficient to subject any Jew to harsh punishment."

My bet is Bat Yeor in Dhimmitude or another of her works. She is perhaps the expert on the living conditions of non-Muslims under Muslim governments. (sig added -JM): User:

Left-wing politics

Regarding your comment on my deletion of the Leftism and Neo-leftism in China section, you were completely right. I was editing the Leftism, Pacifism and "War on Terror" section and by the time I fixed everything up, someone had edited the page, making an edit conflict. So I opened the current revision and clicked the section edit for what I thought was the right section and went copy/paste as I was running out the door. Then MathKnight merged the sections and it would have been hard to notice the China section was gone. Now I have more copyedit and npov to fix; I think I'll leave a message on his user page. Thanks for seeing it wasn't vandalism :) Telso 04:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


You are missing one bracket from each side in your Mini-CV section.--Josiah 04:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that wasn't exactly the problem, but thanks for pointing it out. -- Jmabel 10:51, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Good evening. You recently weighed in with an opinion on the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Tim Starling/Password matches. On the basis of that discussion, I have proposed some changes to our privacy policy at Meta:Draft privacy policy. I would appreciate your thoughts if you have time. Rossami 22:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


You raised a concern about the bot's changes to what users write. My concern is with changes made to Talk pages, and I've cited a couple examples where the bot changed a user's meaning. This discussion is on User talk:Guanaco, though, not the bot's page. JamesMLane 06:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for your help. My english is not so good. Mrfinch 12:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Powers that Be

Wouldn't that fact that the show was about A US senator imply it's American origins?...Just a question? --Scorn 04:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel. Your response makes a lot of sense. Any advice is helpful.--Scorn 00:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Political liberalism

The new pages can be found at Political liberalism in Germany, Political liberalism in the Netherlands, Political liberalism in the United Kingdom and Political liberalism in the United States. I deleted the remark in the Dutch page on Belgium. Sorry that I didn't mention this before. Gangulf 05:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that you made links to the pages on Political liberalism in Germany etc. I plan to make a list of these kind of pages at the Worldwide liberalism page. I would prefer that over having a list in this article. Please visit also Liberal parties. (sig added: Gangulf)

I am planning to integrate the pages on political liberalism and on liberalism into one page, whereby I would try to integrate also the text of the talk page liberalism. I would also merge the talk pages. Gangulf 11:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to have as main article the new article on Liberalism, this would be the top article in a series on Liberalism. The article Political Liberalism would be deleted. Does that fit in your ideas? From articles like liberal parties and worldwide liberalism a direct link should be provided to the new top article. Gangulf 17:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How do I make and add a series template as you suggested? Gangulf 18:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. I will study the and might improve it further. The article is growing and I like that. Gangulf 13:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer the usages to remain in the national sections. It was a limited list of countries and the usage is so different per country. What we could do is to make a short paragraph giving some examples of different usages in different countries. Did you plan to do it in the article Liberalism or in the article Liberalism in countries? BTW, You can find the old text in talk:liberalism/old version usage liberalism - (Gangulf)

Party designation in early United States Congresses

Hello, I'm leaving you a message because you were one of the people that suggested the above article should be merged and redirected when it was debated for deletion. The consensus appeared to be to merge this material elsewhere but no indication was given by anyone who suggested this where it should be merged to. Could you please either suggest a location or merge the material yourself: if it's still on VFD/Old this time tomorrow it will be deleted. Thank you. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion or text

Why do you prefer Discussion over text in the new texts on Classical liberalism and Political liberalism. Gangulf 06:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So according to your answer at user talk:Wilfried Derksen discussion is just better English. Thanks. Gangulf 20:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Greetings. I don't think Acadian should be in Canadian history. Acadian is a people, not a historical event. The Grand Dérangement or an eventual History of Acadia page could be in history categories. The Acadian nation still exists and is still strong and proud in present time. I think this is how we should do things if we want history categories to mean something and not be a mixed-up free-for-all where anything that has history (which the case of most subjects) is included. --Liberlogos 20:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

French Revolutionary Wars

Thank you for your notes; the main source of the material is actually the copy of Mignet you linked to -- I prefer paraphrasing it into my own words because Mignet's focus is mostly domestic and the military bits are scattered throughout. Other than that, I find that using google on a battle name mentioned but not detailed by Mignet adds a little detail, and as with so many topics on Wikipedia, the material is already on the servers, just not in the article a reader might look at first. For example, the bio articles on generals are a pretty good mine. -- Willhsmit 19:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Communard's Wall

I just wanted to let you know that I am going to translate page into English. I'll inform you when I'm done, so you can edit it for me. --Frenchgeek 03:13, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

It's all finished. There were a couple of rough spot during the translation, but let me know if things seem unclear to you.--Frenchgeek 20:44, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


I will reconsider changing the templates on liberal history into articles, but first I go for a holiday. So it will take some weeks. Gangulf 21:00, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did allready France and the Americas, see Timeline of liberal and radical parties in the Americas, I will try to do some in the upcoming half hour, but it costs some time to delete the table function, to move the page to the new title and to check the links to the page. If you change the templates into pages, would you please keep the content and the scheme intact? Gangulf 21:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I finished Asia and Oceania too. I added at all the pages at the start the template liberal_party. I will go on with Africa now. Gangulf 21:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Now I finishes Africa too. Gangulf 21:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Troll policy

I noticed your "sceptical" comment on the latest troll policy proposal. Since that was posted, however, there's been a much simplified proposal put up at Wikipedia:Dealing_with_disruptive_or_antisocial_editors/simplified_draft.

Would you be prepared to consider changing your vote? It'd only take a couple of people doing so to send this back to the drawing board, and though I didn't write it, I think the simplified proposal would fix many of the problems with the current one. If the current one fails to pass now, then we don't have to wait two months to improve on it. Ambi 11:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that someone had come up with a new, vastly shorter proposal, after the current one was put to a vote. Ambi 00:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's not at present, but it'll most likely go up for one if the current vote fails. Ambi 00:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Just thought you'd like to know I translated your request into English at Prussian three-class franchise Saintswithin 19:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anti-War Movement

I have been following your commendable efforts to build consensus on left-wing politics page for some time. I only intervened to edit in what I felt was a justified way, and in accordance with things you'd flagged on the talk page. It occurs to me, however, that by acting unilaterally I may have jeopardised your attempts at consensus. If so, I apologise.

I'll admit that I'm completely mystified as to why all this stuff on the anti-war movement can't go into a dedicated article. Lacrimosus 23:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will pay attention to the talk page, and attempt to play as constructive a role as possible. Lacrimosus 23:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I seen you have done major work on "criticism" and also written long answer in left wing Talk page. I'll try to go over it all through the following days but since I will have busy time, I think I only be able to go through it seriously on the weekend. MathKnight 22:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, Please vote in the Arb Comm elections! +sj+ 03:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing out my edits on Witchcraft. I made some changes, and I would like you to check them out if you have the time. I added a note about Maran (belove the picture of a wich riding a bloomstick), and changed the sentece you had notified me about into a own section, almost in the end of European wichcraft.

§5: Witches are usually known for their ability....
§8: Before the pre-Enlightenment era, it was by some held that the realm of Satan was up in the Northmost....

French Revolution

I apologize for not first proposing my restructuring on a talk page. It was probably a bit hasty on my part; unfortuneately, it has been my experience that conversations on talk pages, interesting though they may be, rarely yield useful restults.

Yes, I can guarantee that I have removed no major (non-redundant) content on any of the pages involved.

The reason for the restructuring is that major historical events should have their own pages. The Estates-General of 1789, for instance, was described in no less than three articles (Prelude to the French Revolution, French Revolution up to the storming of the Bastille, French States-General), but didn't have an article of its own. Because the event is significant, it should be often linked to; however, because there existed no article which gave a detailed description of the event in the context of the French Revolution, all links went to French States-General (there was not a single link to either Prelude to the French Revolution or French Revolution up to the storming of the Bastille outside of the main French Revolution page or the template- are you familiar with the "What links here" feature?). Now that a separate article about that topic exists, it can be appropriately linked to, and a user searching for the subject will be more likely to find it. As an additional benefit, much of the redundancy of having the same events described thrice has been removed. The same reasoning applies to the other pages- all references to the storming of the Bastille, for example, linked to Bastille, which offers virtually no information about the context of the storming within the Revolution.

And no, I was not planning to leave the tedium of re-linking things to other people; if you look at my contributions, you'll see that I was doing that just prior to receiving your message.

Once again, I apologize for making drastic changes unilaterally. I'll try to be more cautious in the future. -Didactohedron 00:35, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the restructuring for the time being. I'd like to know what you think about it. I think that removing the redundancy inherent in having multiple articles about the same topic is beneficial, and I'm certain that significant historical events should have their own pages, if only so that they can be linked to- check What links here on Estates-General of 1789, National Assembly (French Revolution) and Storming of the Bastille to see how many pages now link to them that were previously linked to less relevant articles. What do you think? Should I continue restructuring in the same vein? -Didactohedron 18:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier- I haven't had the ability, time, or inclination to access Wikipedia for the last month. I'll slowly return to wikiing soon, though.

The primary rationale behind my partial restructioning of the French Revolution articles was to create articles for discrete historical events and entities which had no articles before- the Estates-General of 1789, the National Assembly (French Revolution), and the storming of the Bastille. Each is meant to be an independent encyclopedia article that could be read with minimal background if one were so inclined; at the same time, I have tried to preserve the continuous narrative in such a manner that one could read the articles in the order that they appear in the navbar and encounter minimal redundancy (in fact, I have reduced some of the redundancy that previously existed). I think that I have been at least moderately successful in both endeavors.

There are a few possibly confusing side effects. For one thing, cutting information on the Estates-General out of Prelude to the French Revolution left behind a rather small article, so I merged it into Causes of the French Revolution. For another, the French Revolution from X to Y format that previously contained the entire narrative up to the Legislative Assembly and the fall of the French Monarchy now only contains the latter part of it. In addition, I have expanded the article on the National Constituent Assembly to make it more than a stub, and added it to the navbar because it's an important entity, even if the article itself isn't all that formidable.

That covers my changes to the articles themselves. I have also added a few links to the navbar (Legislative Assembly, Reign of Terror, Directory, and Consulate) because I thought they were too important to be left out. I have organized the navbar in such a way that all of the main bullet points (with the exception of Causes and Storming of the Bastille) correspond to legislative bodies.

I confess that I am slightly puzzled as to what confuses you. I have cleaned up after myself- to the best of my knowledge, I have left behind no links pointing to redirects or anything of the sort. The continuous narrative has been preserved, and no information has been lost or duplicated. If you are puzzled as to where to insert new information, select the most relevant article out of those that appear on the navbar and put it there, or create a new one if nothing sufficiently relevant currently exists. The articles French Revolution from the abolition of feudalism to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, French Revolution from the summer of 1790 to the establishment of the Legislative Assembly, and The Legislative Assembly and the fall of the French monarchy may be edited as before; they may need to be restructed at some point in the future, but may be added to for the time being as before. -Didactohedron 04:53, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


Copying here just for convenience, and because I hate to have misunderstandings linger.


Could you please see my question to you at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Affairs? Thanks -- Jmabel 17:13, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

    • Answered. Sorry for writing in such stark terms. I was just trying to outline a little hierarchy that, in my own mind, I follow when determining notability. People and nature|Cultural artefacts| cultural activities (e- and i- stuff)| commentaries upon people/nature| commentaries on cultural artefacts| commentaries on cultural activities. I thought this particular subject was a well written commentary on an electronic group's actions. This sort of hierarchy then gets, again in my mind only, a kind of amplifier or divider based on numbers and prevalence. So this article hit the bottom of my hierarchy and then had only a medium multiplier of people involved in it.
    • I got a Ph.D. in English literature, so I love fiction. Geogre 17:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I was actually not sure about the Umlaut. I just saw the Ä somewhere and it reminded me that I had written something with an Umlaut in Nümbrecht, so I corrected it. I am not a computer scientist, so I trust you know better if it could be a problem or not. And I agree - it's better not to confuse anyone. So I just changed the Ö back in Nümbrecht.--Fenice 18:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


The activity that there is now in the Catalan comarques is only in the municipalities. Nothing important. But now, the politics are speaking about create more comarques. See this article for more information. Maybe the next year. I'll tell you if they change the comarques.

Maybe (or maybe not) you are more interested in the new articles in the Catalan mythology. See the category: in the Catalan Wikipedia Llull 19:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

¡Oh! ¡I forgot!
In the Asturian version of the project ( now there are articles about the Asturian Comarcas (cotarros). Maybe you are interested. And in the Catalan version now there are boxes about the Balearic Islands. All the maps are created by me and are free. Llull 17:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Greetings, I'm hoping we can work through this, but to be very honest, it is a controversial topic because of the heavy over representation of err... "classical liberals", to use their word for themselves ... on the internet. The article as it is written now violates Wikipolicy in three key areas:

POV - it is clearly written favoring a particular POV. The section on political liberal would have given Mortimer Adler a fit of apoplexy. Not a pretty sight I assure you. Modern liberals don't regard themselves as ad hoc and without a system - the assertion borders on bad faith and is certainly an inaccuracy. Others may not agree with, or accept the validity of that system - that's controversy - but the assertion that it doesn't exist is beyond the range of the documentable.

Documentation - the phrase "classical liberal" is used almost exclusively by adherents, it contians a POV - namely that modern liberalism is not the intellectual heir to the previous train of liberal writers - which is not generally accepted outside of "classical liberals" as they call themselves. In the top 1000 google hits one finds mirrors of this article and citations which use the phrase in the manner here written by adherents. Non adherents use the phrase as it is in the "Liberalism" link I provided, namely "pre-welfare state liberalism" or perhaps "pre-John Dewey liberalism". Original work - "political liberal" is a phrase which documentably is not used in the manner of this article. I can find "modern liberalism" - sometimes as an insult sometimes in praise.

The fundamental conflict to be documented here is that there is a broad mainstream of usage of the term which regards itself as part of a continuous intellectual tradition, and a vocal and influential minority which disputes this. Within the context of documenting this controversy it should be possible to craft an article which provides a clear statement of each sides POV, and their relative commentaries on each other, while focusing on the mainstream of thinkers which are part of the tradition.

For an example of what guided me catagorization there was, in 1997, there was an exchange between Murray and Sandel. Murray tried to advance the classical liberal usage, Sandel rejected it, described "libertarianism", which Murray accepted as a good description of the intellectual program. This is the mainstream usage, which, when not in the local majority "classical liberals" accept when dealing with the outside.

As to the splitting of libertarian and classical liberal - I am unable to find one recent citation which draws any distinction between them not written by an adherent. What I wrote - namely that outsiders call it libertarianism, while insiders call it "classical liberalism" is, I believe, accurate. If the view of the insiders is that there is a significant distinction, by all means it should be documented within that frame of reference.

The socialism issue is, to some extent, at the heart of the matter. Libertarianism regards the collective right as purely negative, where as modern liberalism asserts that community membership bestows positive rights of access and participation. Hence to a libertarian all socialism is intrinsically wrong - at least any thing they chose to call socialism is intrinsically wrong - to a "liberal" socialism is not intrinsically wrong, but is merely a policy choice in a particular instance.

The reason this is important is that there is not one government, nor one major opposition party anywhere in the world that is remotely close to implementing "classical liberalism". However vocal and active it is, it is not a governing ideology anywhere. Where as modern liberalism is the governing ideology in a number of states, or the major opposition party. However vocal libertarians are, they aren't in charge of any where. The closest they come is being a major third party in a few American states. From the perspective of documentation then, libertarianism is a minority position, and wiki policy is to give minority positions their due weight, recognizing of course that some will be abundant because of the author pool of wiki.

Stirling Newberry 01:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound good to me, and I agree that documenting the differing use of "libertarian" in other languages is an exccellent idea. As for "classical liberals" that's what they call themselves, so it should be documented. Stirling Newberry 22:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Just so long as we make it clear that pretty much no one else uses this term for them. -- Jmabel 22:52, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)"

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough, because that is exactly what I intended. Stirling Newberry 22:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please Review Pat Robertson article

I believe this article is the worst case of sytematic bias I have ever seen on wikipedia. This article is almost entirely negative information with no contradictory point. Even worse most of it seems to be from a single soure, written by a reliable author comparable to Ann Coulter or Al Franken. The criticisms are not the problem the problem is that there are virtually no postive points made and those that are used in phrases such as alleged, and no counterpoints to the crticisms. As I said many of these critisms come from only one source. What kind of article would the John Kerry article be if Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were the primary source?

I'm asking you to review this article because you have experience in dealing with such biased articles. I'll also try to help if you decide to help but I'm currently locked in battle with an increasingly slow serve that makes simple category edits taken a minute to save. If you cannot help I'll have no choice to drop what I'm doing and edit the article unilateraly. The article is a discredit to wikipedia and if it were ever jumped on and ran with by the press would be a major embarassment. -JCarriker 08:57, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

About the Asturian Comarcas

See this page:

Cuts to liberalism

I'm about ready to cut the whole damn article and start over. Stirling Newberry 05:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having had the time to sleep on it, I would like to outline my view of the problems on liberalism.

First, the original article is POV beyond accpetability, it contains rants about social democrats wanting to control everything, gives inordinate coverage to a well organized, vocal and well funded - but distinctly minority position in practice - definition of liberalism. The original article gave extremely short shrift to the coverage of the use of the word in the English speaking world and had for its source material a POV essay whose author referenced himself a great deal.

Second, the discussion on the talk page is simply unacceptable. Posting edits, particularly of material which should not have been on a wiki page to begin with, and certainly should not have been allowed to survive scrutiny, on a page where there is clear lack of undertanding of NPOV writing - "our definition"? - and basic collegiality is impossible. To cooperate with an edit proces which has both produced, and defends, substandard material is not possible.

Finally, I wouldn't be here if links to this article weren't spammed all over wiki. The claim to tenure on an article of a a particular series of discussions is, in this case, null and void, because the article is now a much larger part of wiki.

From this vantage point, the article needs to be rewritten completely, or treated as a rewrite, with the previous efforts carrying no particular weight since they neither followed basic wiki conventions, adhered to NPOV standards or followed reasonable standards of documentation. I don't care how many sock puppets say "liberalism is laissez-faire minarchism in the mode of Fredric Hayek", it's a view point which is held only by adherents, and it is realatively easy to trace back. For example the book "Liberalisme" by Pascal Salin - almost every single link to the book or reference to it is from a fellow member or member of a similar related organization.

I'm happy to get better work done and make sure that all reasonable - broadly defined - points of view are covered. However, I am not willing to slog it out with an echo chamber, or with the kind of inane povianism that was present on both the page and the talk page. I was initially very angry at what I still perceive of as your demands, and your general attitude of high handed superiority, particularly in light of the poor quality of the material that you are placing your approval on, and the poor quality of discourse which you seem, and I say seem, to be supportive of.

Stirling Newberry 15:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Dear Jmabel,

you have recently supported insertion of the reference to "Ruce" in the Ruthenia article.

First, I would like to cite Talk:Ruthenia:

1. "Ruce". This is a very inaccurate insertion. Just read it: "In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared." Do you understand it? Just for your information - New England is a region in the US, and a city. "Old England" sounds like a territory either. Then, it doesn't belong to this article. It belongs to the Etymology of Rus and derivatives article, and I've included the mention of Ruce there: "In the Middle English, the Ruce form was used (f.e. in The Canterbury Tales)."

Second, I would like to mention that it was just a one of numerous spellings. Ruce has nothing with scope of the Ruthenia article. On the other hand, it is worth to be mentioned in the special page, Etymology of Rus and derivatives, where other spellings and versions are mentioned and explained.

Therefore, I remove it from ther article, together with other inaccurate Genyo's changes (reasons are explaned in the Talk:Ruthenia page.

If you suppose I'm wrong, please write me in the Talk:Ruthenia or in my User_talk:Drbug.

Thank you!

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The subject Tudor

Haaretz April 5, 2004 --Vasile 21:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi, I don't think you were out of line, but I also think Wetman didn't seem to be accusing of being out of line. Perhaps you should check with someone else, but I don't really see there is much of a dispute. Angela. 16:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

References for the "List of Dacian words"

Hello, Mr. Mabel

You're right, I'm new around here - and the "List of Dacian words" is one of my first articles I've been contributing to. Thanks for your welcoming message. I've just added my references to the above-mentioned article. Please note that some of the words I've listed there may NOT be of Dacian origin (some of them are described as having an "unknown etymology", abbreviated "Et. nec." - Etimologie necunoscută in the DEX online, or as "probably an indigenous word"). It was my personal choice to add them there - of course, I might be wrong. Please let me know if I forgot to add some other useful links or references. Thanks again for your comments.

Best regards, Radu

PS Your site about Bucharest was amazingly accurate. I relived some good ol' moments by reading it :-)


Greetings Joe,

I would like to chat with you a bit about coordinating translations for an upcoming vainglorious Wikimedia newsletter; would you be interested in helping oversee translations in the languages you read best? Drop me a line here or on meta. August cheer, +sj+ 12:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am glad for your interest. (: What I need is not, help in doing the translation -- we have 150 translators who can manage that -- but help in basic reviewing ("here is the original. is the translation up-to-date? [check latest revisions of each doc, compare paragraph structure & highlights]") and in leaving simple notes of the form "please translate section 2 again: it has changed". +sj+ 09:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) (again, leave translation notes on on meta)
Please see m:Translation requests. Original german content on De:, and original french content on Fr:. Most original content is (at least roughly translated, with a link to the original) on the En: page. 00:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Totalitarian democracy


Since you were instrumental in ensuring I kept in line POV-wise, I thought I'd let you know I have this article back in RfC, hoping to place it in Featured Article Candidates eventually. It hasn't undergone a lot of modification since you last edited it - a bit of tweaking - but your support would be most appreciated. Denni 21:14, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)