text:
User talk:Jmabel

I am currently only moderately active on Wikipedia. I've been uploading a lot of my own photos (and occasionally some other images) to the Commons, writing the occasional article, participating in other articles mainly on a "hit-and-run" basis, and maybe doing the occasional translation, but for the foreseeable future, that is my level of participation. I am not being one of the "mainstays", as I was from November 2003 to April 2007. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Archived

 * /Archive 1
 * /Archive 2
 * /Archive 3
 * /Archive 4
 * /Archive 5
 * /Archive 6
 * /Archive 7
 * /Archive 8
 * /Archive 9
 * /Archive 10
 * /Archive 11
 * /Archive 12
 * /Archive 13
 * /Archive 14
 * /Archive 15
 * /Archive 16
 * /Archive 17
 * /Archive 18
 * /Archive 19
 * /Archive 20 includes Jtkiefer's notes on message to leave on user page when blocking
 * /Archive 21
 * /Archive 22
 * /Archive 23
 * /Archive 24
 * /Archive 25
 * /Archive 26
 * /Archive 27
 * /Archive 28
 * /Archive 29
 * /Archive 30
 * /Archive 31 (This one isn't properly an archive. Looks like someone else created it & I didn't notice, so I skipped the number.)
 * /Archive 32
 * /Archive 33
 * /Archive 34
 * /Archive 35
 * /Archive 36
 * /Archive 37
 * /Archive 38
 * /Archive 39
 * /Archive 40
 * /Archive 41
 * /Archive 42
 * /Archive 43
 * /Archive 44
 * /Archive 45
 * /Archive 46
 * /Archive 47
 * /Archive 48
 * /Archive 49
 * /Archive 50
 * /Archive 51
 * /Archive 52
 * /Archive 53
 * /Archive 54
 * /Archive 55
 * /Archive 56
 * /Archive 57
 * /Archive 58
 * /Archive 59
 * /Archive 60
 * /Archive 61
 * /Archive 62
 * /Archive 63
 * /Archive 64
 * /Archive 65
 * /Archive 66
 * /Archive 67
 * /Archive 68
 * /Archive 69

Stray barnstars
I've moved my barnstars, etc., to User:Jmabel/Barnstars. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stray DYKs
My DYKs can be found at User:Jmabel/DYK - Jmabel | Talk 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding recent refactoring/deletion in my user space
Hi ,

 * [Perhaps and  might be so kind as to consider and take note of the following as well.]

Please explain what's going on with quote removal on my talkpage. It's my initial feeling that if someone has an issue with something left on my talkpage they need to be communicating such as a request—with context and explanation—to me directly in some manner (such as leaving a message on my talkpage and/or a 'pinging' me from another talkpage). I was considering transcribing the whole thread over to Commons ... So having the thread turned into a 'moving target' by others (without the courtesy of direct communication to me) felt disorientating and distracting. It seems reasonable to expect to have some input into how such gets handled on one's own talkpage, yes?

For example perhaps a bracketed "[A quote formerly in place here was redacted upon request.]" line left in place with the original signature and timestamp might have served to better preserve historical accuracy. But I wasn't given an opportunity in advance to suggest such—or anything else—and instead was just left to address the alteration (or not) myself after-the-fact ... ...

If someone else would like to copy the whole thread from my talkpage over to an appropriate thread on Commons and then leave a link appended to the thread on my page noting such ("Discussion continued at ...", etc.) please feel free to do so. As the thread deals with confirming and/or establishing Commons policy it likely should, in retrospect, have taken place there in the first place—perhaps on the discussion page of the file in question. I was planning to copy the thread to Commons with a neatly placed and titled 'collapse top/bottom' template preceded by an introductory line or few and then follow from there with further thoughts/replies/policy research (feel free to consider such as a suggestion at this point; I'm going to divert my attention elsewhere for awhile).

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Wikicology is apparently banned from the English-language Wikipedia. I'm the one who originally copied his remark there. He requested (on the thread I posted a link to right after I removed the copied remark) that I remove it, presumably because he doesn't want to be seen as trying to evade the ban by having someone else post his remarks on his behalf. - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 * , I don't see "presumably because he doesn't want to be seen as trying to evade the ban by having someone else post his remarks on his behalf" as presenting a problem on my talkpage. You clearly conveyed that you were quoting a public record from elsewhere and indicated that it was you who had done so by signing and dating your comment. If Wikicology wishes to ping me on Commons or leave a message on my talkpage there explaining why they wish me to refactor 'my'* talkpage they're welcome to do so. In the meantime, I'll be restoring your quote-comment that was removed as at present I prefer to let it stand for the record as originally posted. Oh, and, BTW, FWIW, User:Checkingfax followed having been tagged above by making yet another unauthorized deletion at my talkpage. At present I'm inclined to respond to any further unauthorized mucking about in my userspace by initiating administrative action.

 * *[note: I'm aware my oversight of the User:Kevjonesin namespace is technically a privilege extended by Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and to some extent the Wikimedia community at large rather than true 'ownership' per se; however, so far as I'm aware it's a matter of both custom and policy/guidelines to extend fairly broad authority to editors over their own user namespace excepting instances where other explicitly stated policy may supersede. At this time I feel inclined to exercise the authority I've been given, such as it is, rather than risk further erosion by rude indifference. I may eventually be open to considering written requests for future changes to be made with the understanding that such may only be implemented either by me or in some manner having received my explicit personal approval, in advance, on a case-by-case basis.]

 * [Also note: Hosting a Commons policy discussion on my Wikipedia talkpage was initiated by who also took it upon themself to invite others to come and join in. As I've already indicated, I think the relevant file discussion-page at Commons would have made for a more appropriate venue. Especially now that some of the guests to my talkpage have repeatedly shown discourtesy by 'failing to use their turn signals' – ie. by failing to offer me explicit cues and consultation before implementing anomalous actions on my page – and have done so apparently based largely on some dialog on another Wiki with another user, Wikicology, who has not chosen to communicate directly with me at all. Instead they've made use of proxies to extend their will from afar. Which seems quite ironic to me as fear of being perceived as 'using proxies to influence en:Wikipedia' has been presented above as an excuse for doing just that. A grand example of self-fulfilling prophecy!]

 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see commons:User_talk:Kevjonesin, where Wikicology has clarified that I understood his intent correctly. This is a situation where it is impossible to make everyone happy. You and he are making conflicting demands. My edits to your talk page did not effectively remove information from the discussion: they turned a copy into a link. That seemed to be the closest I could come to accommodating you both. When I made originally copied the remarks, I had no idea Wikicology was banned from the English-language wikipedia. Similarly, he presumably will not be following our discussion here, and certainly cannot respond here. I personally have no problem with you restoring the quotation from him (and certainly no problem with you restoring me saying he's dead wrong), but do be aware that in restoring it you are going against his express request. - Jmabel | Talk 15:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 * It's my understanding that one's contributions to Wikimedia sites (including to talkpage discussions) are by default considered contributions to the public domain. I'll deal with Wikicology on Commons when and as I see fit.
 * Hi, . No. Wikimedia contributions are not Public Domain. Wikicology requested that his words be removed and they were not. In good faith I removed them per his request to me. If you did not like the manner that I refactored things, you could have easily cleaned it up without making a federal case about it - and a huge mess. You still have that opportunity. Please remove my signature from your talk page, as I contributed no content to your page, and I do not care to be attributed for that which I am not responsible for. See my edit summaries for rationale. As always, WP:AGF and WP:TPG. Cheers!  00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 * as you yourself have indicated you were not acting upon the direction of when you originally posted the quote in question to my en.Wikipedia user talkpage. However; again as you yourself have indicated, you were acting on behalf of Wikicology – a user banned from en.Wikipedia for—in short—disruptive and erratic editing and deemed untrustworthy and inconsistent by arbcom – when you chose to refactor the comment on my en.Wikipedia user talkpage; as was  when he refactored the same comment previous to you (contrary to the very talkpage guidelines he linked in his edit summary wherein he offered vague 'acronym salad' rather than straightforward elaboration as to what had prompted his edit). You both performed an edit to my userspace at en.Wikipedia in response to a request from an indefinitely banned user made upon another Wiki without advance discussion with me or anyone else here on en.Wikipedia, correct? I am befuddled why you both seem to have felt such urgency to extend a courtesy to a self declared banned user speaking from another site, yet have not shown willingness to extend courtesy to me—an active en.Wikipedia editor in good standing—by by for instance including me in deciding how to respond to a request made elsewhere by a banned user regarding refactoring my own talkpage. Checkingfax made a third-party drive by edit without so much as a 'howdy-do', which I reverted, and then you, Jmabel, presumed to revert my reversion on my own talkpage without advance notice or consultation. Is it any wonder that I'm feeling abused and disrespected at this point? Would either of you appreciate it if I (or another editor) presumed to supersede you in your namespace? I reiterate, why have y'all held Wikicology's "express request" to be so urgent and important here on en.Wikipedia while brushing off my interest in being included in shaping my own namespace? I should hope it's clear by now that I feel I've been rudely disregarded in this matter; something along the lines of, "Oops, sorry I stepped on your toes, I'll try to be more careful in the future", would go a long way towards helping me put this to rest. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My initial edit was indeed not at Wikicology's request: it was an effort to comply with User:KDS4444's request at Village pump/Copyright "please respond either at the Village Pump or, ideally, on the talk page of one of the participants here rather than start another thread here at the copyright section of Commons." At the time, I had no idea why Wikicology nonetheless put his comment right there in the copyright section of Commons (in particular, I had no idea he was banned on en-wiki.), so I had no idea that anyone might consider my copying it to the requested location other than constructive. Once I was told (by Wikicology) about Wikicology's ban I tried to remedy my mistake. Again: I replaced a quotation with a link, there was no loss of information. And, again, if you want to leave the quote there despite his wishes, then that doesn't concern me. Of course I'll try to be careful in the future. - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 * (Goodness, all I was trying to do was create a centralized venue for a discussion— I did not figure it mattered greatly where it took place, so long as it did not take place in three different places. If that resulted in intrusion, then I am very sorry.  I did not consider the decision of where to hold the discussion as at all relevant, I just wanted to have the discussion!  KDS4444 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC))

 * Jmabel, you seem to have again missed my point. The quality of your rationale for reverting on my talkpage is not what I bring into question, but rather whether it was properly your place to do so on your own without consulting me in the first place, regardless of rationale. You lost sight of context, you forgot your surroundings (or so I give you the benefit-of-the-doubt, perhaps in fact you and simply hold no respect for en.Wikipedia customs regarding deference to users in regards to decisions about their own namespace). Whichever it may be, as I now feel you both have been rude guests, and  appear to me unapologetic for having done so, I say "Sully my doorstep no more!" (ie.  and  I,, formerly request that you have no more interaction with my namespace at en.Wikipedia; henceforth do not post to, comment on, or otherwise edit User talk:Kevjonesin without explicit invitation by me to do so). --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 * , "all I was trying to do was create a centralized venue for a discussion" ... about Wikimedia Commons policy-&-protocol on another's personal talkpage here at en.Wikipedia. By way of analogy, you chose to organize a party at my place, invited guests from another town, and never asked if I wanted to play host. Then after some of the guests you invited were rude to their host, presuming to rearrange as if they were in their own living room, you left me largely on my own to deal with sorting out the aftermath. "I did not consider the decision of where to hold the discussion as at all relevant, I just wanted to have the discussion!" ... Perhaps your desire got the better of your common sense (such has certainly happened to me before). I hope we all may learn to take better care when choosing venues in the future.

 * KDS4444, you've stated an apology, "If that resulted in intrusion, then I am very sorry."; something others have as yet not seen fit to do. Thank you, I appreciate the gesture. Perhaps you might be so kind as to put that sentiment into action by taking to heart the suggestion I presented at the start of this thread:
 * "If someone else would like to copy the whole thread from my talkpage over to an appropriate thread on Commons and then leave a link appended to the thread on my page noting such ("Discussion continued at ...", etc.) please feel free to do so. As the thread deals with confirming and/or establishing Commons policy it likely should, in retrospect, have taken place there in the first place—perhaps on the discussion page of the file in question. I was planning to copy the thread to Commons with a neatly placed and titled 'collapse top/bottom' template preceded by an introductory line or few and then follow from there with further thoughts/replies/policy research (feel free to consider such as a suggestion at this point; I'm going to divert my attention elsewhere for awhile)."

 * Please transcribe the text from the thread you started on my en.Wikipedia talkpage to the discussion-page of commons:File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png, give it an appropriate introduction (eg. "The following has been transcribed from en.Wikipedia and placed here on Commons as it addresses Commons policy in general and this file page specifically."), and then add brief notes elsewhere on Commons where appropriate (ie. where you've previously linked my en.Wikipedia talkpage; a link to the new target with a brief explanation directing folks to no longer use the previous link to my en.Wikipedia userspace should suffice). KDS4444, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd take responsibility for these 'mopping up' tasks (ie. help clean up after your party at my place) so that I may feel free to get back to addressing the actual Commons policy/protocol issues you've raised regarding file authorship and such. Thanks for your time and consideration, -- Kevjonesin (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will stay off of your user talk page in the future. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * [Frankly I'm sorry it's come to this Jmabel, but at present—lacking recognition a misstep may have occurred—it seems for the best. Out of respect for your space here, if others continue responding to me on this thread I'll make an effort to continue elsewhere.]
 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

AN/I Kevjonesin vs Checkingfax
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 05:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fiddler on the roof poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Fiddler on the roof poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Elisfkc (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Banana Boat

The article Banana Boat has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Programming Geek talk to me 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hackathon to help Wikipedia 1.0
Hello! You're listed as a member of the Wikipedia 1.0 team, so I thought you might be interested in this Hackathon on August 13-18 in my home town of Potsdam, New York, right after Wikimania. Let me know if you'd like to participate. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from Romanian
Hello,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from to English Wikipedia? This would involve evaluating a translated article on English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:
 * Ellie White – ✅; accurate, but barely 10% of the Romanian article
 * Pegas – ✅; cleaned up and should be fine; some contradictions with ro version, but refs support en version so prob. ok
 * Toate pînzele sus – ✅; basically accurate; English wasn't very good, now fixed. 2 paragraphs in original not translated.
 * Genoese Lighthouse – ✅; basically solid; I've fixed two minor issues
 * Gelu Barbu – ✅; "basically accurately translated," but incomplete

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates Pass and Fail may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty busy these days, but I'll do my best to put some time into this. - Jmabel | Talk 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I've written comments on the respective talk pages rather than just use templates Pass and Fail. In a few cases I did significant cleanup on the articles, as well. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Wow, that's great, thank you! I'm still searching for additional helpers for Romanian, in fact, if you can drop a few usernames here or on my talk page of users you know who might be able to help with Romanian (also other Ctrl European languages), I'd love to hear about it. In the meantime while I'm looking, can I pass you another five articles?  Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most days I won't have that kind of time to put into it; if you drop me more articles, don't expect anything like comparable response time. I'll get to it, but not necessarily promptly.
 * The problem in terms of contributors who can read Romanian is, unsurprisingly: most of them are native Romanian speakers who are not at a comparable level in English, so they can do a great job of translating English to Romanian, but not vice versa (much as I can competently translate Romanian to English, but not vice versa). I haven't been active enough lately in the English-language Wikipedia to name names of who is currently active and capable of going this direction, but I'd suggest that as this moves forward you just keep an eye out for who does the translations that turn out to be good, and try working with them. - Jmabel | Talk 14:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi, Jmabel. Understood, and I appreciate whatever assistance you can provide.  Your comment about the ro->en vs en->ro is a good one, I will probably go mine the ro-5 and ro-4 lists and double-check that they are high- or native-English (as opposed to:  for example) to make sure they're good in the ro->en direction.

 * If you do feel like looking at some more, we'd certainly appreciate it, here's the remainder of the list:

 * 2424. George Guțu ✅ 'titular'? reads like a cv. notability?
 * 2463. Filaret Barbu ✅ as far as translation, but missing major, major portions of who he was; should restart from scratch
 * 2475. Melania Ursu ✅ accurate as far as it goes (but incomplete)
 * 2516. Alexandru Vulpe ✅ okay, couple missing sentences
 * 2603. Marcel Budală ✅ accurate but very incomplete
 * 2619. Subcarpați ✅ overlaps, not exactly a translation, okay
 * 2740. Alexandru Lăpușan ✅ overlaps, not exactly a translation, no contradictions
 * 2778. Lot and his Daughters, with Sodom and Gomorrah Burning ✅ ok
 * 2790. Neculai Alexandru Ursu ✅ not quite complete; notability?
 * 2796. Art Museum of Cluj-Napoca ✅ ok
 * 2798. Vasile Duță ✅ ok now
 * 2921. Virgil_Hnat ✅ ok but only 25% done
 * 2964. Cornel_Patrichi ✅ ok, but < 25%
 * 2965. Márton_Balázs ✅ ok, but 1 sentence of a longer orig
 * 2973. Radu Mareș ✅ ok, but just 1 sentence + list of longer orig
 * 2995. Asociația_Grupurilor_Locale_de_Tineret n/a - the original was deleted from the Romanian Wikipedia for lack of notability
 * 3153. Nicolae Bocșan ✅? [you don't actually say it's accurate, but from the fact you "cleaned up one minor error" and some citations I infer that it's now a "pass", correct?]
 * 3184. Doina Florica Ignat ✅ ok
 * 3277. Ioan Vulpescu ✅ after fixes
 * 3285. Elena Albu ✅ was incomplete; now translated and ok
 * 3120. Mihnea Berindei ✅ accurate, but much shorter than orig

 * As far as spending time: it's much more important for us in the short term to get a Pass/Fail assessment, than to have the articles actually fixed. I assume that that would speed things up considerably for you since it's just a binary decision.  But we're all volunteers here, so you do whatever you have time for, and what you enjoy.

 * Thanks again for your help, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I only count myself as ro-2, en-N. I wouldn't presume to write anything in Romanian beyond an informal communication, but I read it pretty well. - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. - Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you! This is really helpful. I hope it has been enjoyable as well.  I will keep my eye out for any more. Note that I've repatriated some of your assessments from talk pages of articles where you wrote more at length, to the list above; if you could just double check briefly to ensure that they are valid restatements of your opinions (which I've quoted and slightly abbreviated) I'd appreciate it.   Adding   Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes (on the first 5, you seem not to have done this on the others). - Jmabel | Talk 15:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Partly because I don't want to misrepresent your assessments. For example, for Filaret Barbu, when I see a comment like, "′I suspect someone would do well to start this nearly from scratch" I want to call it a "Fail" because if it's easier to delete the article and start it over from scratch, this for me is the very definition of a "fail".  But I'd rather hear that from you directly, and not make interpretations.

 * Do you think you could propagate your assessments from the second batch to your talk page above and assess each as a pass or a fail? I realize that in some cases trying to summarize what may be an extended discussion on that talk page or capture it in just a few words maybe problematic, but it's the nature of the beast. Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My assessment for Filaret Barbu, which I think I stated pretty clearly, is that someone should start over. What is the use in knowing whether it is an accurate or inaccurate translation of a poor article in Romanian? What matters is that it needs to be rewritten. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 * This project has a narrow scope and attempts to answer the question, Should this article be deleted because of a worthless machine translation due to a misconfig in a provided tool? Any of these articles, even if the translation is accurate, may be deleted for any of the numerous reasons that any article may be deleted, such as those listed at CSD, and others.  So you're right in a sense, if the original is poor, the worth of an accurate translation is low, and one might better spend one's time calling out that fact, like you have done.  If you think it's poor enough to be deleted (i.e., that starting over from scratch would be simpler) then by all means nominate it for deletion if you like, or Prod it (a much easier process) and see if anyone comes forward to deprod.  Having said that, the X2 deletion criterion is limited to a specific type of translation problem, and that's what we are trying to address, but that doesn't stop anyone, anytime, from deleting any of these articles for another reason; or even better, fixing them up so they are worth keeping.  Nevertheless, you raise some good points which this project doesn't handle well, such as this article, and as you say, what's the point of keeping a good translation of a bad article?  The answer, is probably no point, but we can't use X2 to delete it, we'd have to use some other criterion, or fix it up. I hope this answers your question, at least in part. Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * None of these are poor enough to be deleted. Where they were inaccurate, I've fixed that. However, for Filaret Barbu, what should be the heart of the article is missing in both the Romanian and the English. It's almost as if you wrote about Jackie Robinson as a baseball player and didn't mention race. It would still be a large portion of the article that is ultimately needed, but it would still miss the point. - Jmabel | Talk 15:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I propagated a summary of your evaluations from the respective talk pages to the items in the hide/show list; can you have a quick look to make sure I fairly represented them? In sum, I understand them all to pass, except for the one that can't be compared because the orig was deleted, and also #3153, where I understood an implicit "pass" from your description of your improvements, although it wasn't stated outright. Do these look about right? Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. - Jmabel | Talk 16:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from Spanish
Hello Jmabel,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Spanish to English Wikipedia?

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Spanish article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Spanish, using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Spanish. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great.

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Spanish article, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates Pass and Fail may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am in the midst of doing this for several dozen articles translated from Romanian. I suspect you should find something else: native English speakers with decent Spanish should be pretty easy to come by, but native English speakers with decent Romanian are in short supply. - Jmabel | Talk 14:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 * has been telling me this and and I was just now composing a message to this effect. Indeed, I agree. Your help is welcome with Spanish, where there is a high volume of articles, but you are the only editor we have found so far who can do Romanian so please do carry on with that as a priority. I was not aware you were doing Romanian when I sent the message about Spanish. Thank you for your help. Elinruby (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved to User:Jmabel/Barnstars - Jmabel | Talk 23:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacqueline Ayer has been accepted
 Jacqueline Ayer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! 07:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

A kitten for you!
Hi! I'm extremely new to Wikipedia user-hood, and I was looking for good examples of a user page when I stumbled across yours. Actually, I first saw your name in the discussions section and I wanted to let you know that you're inspiring! Thank you for all you've done here, both with photography and intellectual discourse.

RevolutionMary (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal acquaintances update
I got verified at WP:Personal acquaintances and completed your third attestation making you confirmed as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that only took a few years! - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And a trip to Europe! But now we have critical three confirmed users in our region and can build more network locally. Which reminds me, we should hold a meetup soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed we should. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Architecture of Seattle has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Architecture of Seattle. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops - changed quotation
I was working too fast and didn't notice this was inside a quotation. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grant Harrison Jones

The article Grant Harrison Jones has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I just factored that out of where it was absurdly included in the article about architect Grant Jones. - Jmabel | Talk 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Architecture of Seattle
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Woot! Just saw this on the main page and didn't even know it was a DYK nomination. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Had a little bit of a battle over it, because it's far from a finished article, but once you took it live it was now or never. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1768 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM
06:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Strong account security for administrators
Joe, in case you are interested. Apparently you can use a two-factor auth code generator on either your PC or smartphone. Details are at Simple 2FA. The instructions are on enwp but there's a similar page on meta so I think it's enabled across all Wikimedia projects. If you do this, please do heed the instructions about keeping written backup codes. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Zongora for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zongora is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Zongora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. « « «  SOME GADGET GEEK  » » » (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ahamefule J. Oluo has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ahamefule J. Oluo. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ahamefule J. Oluo has been accepted
 Ahamefule J. Oluo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Mattflaschen - Talk 05:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Ahamefule_J._Oluo help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Elcor, Minnesota
Hello, Jmabel!

I know you are only moderately active, but would you have any interest in translating the Featured Article Elcor, Minnesota for the Italian Wikipedia? Since many of the immigrants who settled here were from Italy, I think having the article translated in this language is important, especially for any relatives of former residents who may be looking for information about the town. DrGregMN (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC) DrGregMN (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While I can read Italian pretty well, I would never venture to translate into Italian. You should find a native or near-native Italian speaker for this. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, Jmabal. Anyone you may suggest?
 * Sorry, no, but look for someone whose Babel box claims it-4, it-5, or it-N. That's the level where translation into a language is feasible. - Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Request of an expansion of an article translating it from the one in Spanish
Hola, hello, Jmabel, soy un user de la wikipedia en español, le escribo este mensaje porque usted hace traducciones del español al inglés, para pedirle que traduzca una parte del artículo en español de Jurate Rosales, que ya está creado en la Wikipedia en inglés. Se lo pedí a otro wikipedista, que lo hizo, pero es muy breve. Rosales defiende una interesante hipótesis histórica disidente, sostiene que los godos eran un pueblo báltico y que se expandieron hasta la India en expediciones de conquista. La petición es especialmente sobre el apartado 'Tesis sobre los godos'. ¿Podría expandir el texto? (tanto si lo va a hacer como si no ¿podría comunicármelo? Unas palabras bastarán) Un saludo. Regards. Rovirarovere (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC) It's ok, I'll try to find another translator. Un saludo. Rovirarovere (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Hello, Jmabel, le ruego que me perdone, me disculpe y me excuse, I'm really much embarrassed, I'm sorry, me pareció que usted decía educadamente/politely que no quería traducirlo, acabo de mirar en su página de taller y creo que está haciendo un trabajo verdaderamente excepcional. Perdóneme, si es posible, por el innecesario malentendido. I didn't ask to anyone else to make the translation. You began to make it. There is nos reason for you not to follow working on it. I'm really sorry for the misunderstanding. Un saludo. Rovirarovere (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Me parece intersante. No sé exactamente cuando hay tiempo para hacerlo, pero debía pasar en las próximas dos o tres semanas. - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ¿Por qué? He comenzado, pero no hay tiempo para hacer todo a la vez. ¿Esperaste que todo se hiciera en un día? - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello,, thank you very much. Your translation is a first class job, may be I should translate it into spanish. You deserve be awarded with a golden medal for it (and also with a silver one and a bronze one). I made a few changes on it (punctuation), I think there was a confusion in the second paragraph. And may be it's not necessary to mention escita and Escitia in spanish (they were borrowed from latin), what Rosales holds is that the origin of those words is baltic. Sinceramente, enhorabuena, congratulations. Muchas gracias. Un saludo. Rovirarovere (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried to improve the writing rather than just translate literally.
 * With reference to escita and Escitia: since I didn't have her original text (presumably in Spanish) at hand, I had no way to know exactly what she had written. I was assuming she was drawing from the text of the Crónica, so Spanish seemed perfectly likely. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jmabel, It's all right. Well, if you are interested in this subject, Rosales' book "Los godos" can be found with this title [DOC]Jurate Rosales - Los Godos - IES T-004 Normal, the part about the Baltic etimologies for Spanish words seems really wrong in quite a few cases but that doesn't disprove her hypothesis, and also the American historian or orientalist Sundeep Jhutti has a work published in internet "The Getes" which could be described as definitive. Maybe translating 'lugar de paso' as 'place of passing' and 'transeunte' as 'transient' is too literal, I think that translations of the kind of 'land to go through/across' or 'walker, traveler' (as examples) would be more explanatory, but you are the English native speaker and the article is yours, if you think that they are good enough it's ok. Un saludo.Rovirarovere (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly the closest literal equivalents of the Spanish you used. Since I don't have access to Rosales' text, I have no context to improve on them. transeunte, in particular, can have quite a range of meaning. If the intent was "traveler", wouldn't viajero have been a more likely choice? "Transient" emphasizes the "just passing through" aspect, as I believe does transuente. For lugar de paso, on further thought perhaps "place of passage" would be better than "place of passing"; am I correct that the connotation in Spanish is a particularly place that is relatively easy to get through, when what is to either side would not be, as (for example) a mountain pass, or a dry ridge in a boggy land?
 * Sorry that I don't have any interest in tracking down & reading the book, but I don't. Her views make Daco-Romanian continuity seem rock solid, by contrast. - Jmabel | Talk 20:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jmabel, those translations are totally appropriate and their connotations are right in this case, the suggestion was meant to express in a clear way that Scythia is a land and that Scythian is somebedy who goes across it; without a doubt, the Spanish translations become clear in the context of Rosales' explanation (which you don't need to read), she says that they have the same origin of the lithuanian verb "eiti" 'to go', etc., but also in Spanish they are somewhat of cold, aseptic definitions, and I suggested only a translation with more common English words because "transient", especially, seems a bookish one. I'm sorry if I'm punctilious or fussy (puntilloso o quisquilloso). I've just realized that there is a mistake in the text in Spanish about asčiai it should be aisčiai. Aside from it I have no other "objection". Rovirarovere (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this meet your objection? By the way, "transient" is not particularly bookish: perfectly likely in, for example, see https://www.dailynews.com/2010/12/01/man-found-dead-behind-whittier-business-was-a-transient/. - Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ok, aside from a [ is missing in the edit source for Scythian, I have nothing more to say, I'm really surprised for the speed of the reaction to the message. Un saludo. Rovirarovere (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata documentation and RFC
Hi Joe

It was a real pleasure to meet you at Wikimedia Conference, as promised here is a list of the Wikidata documentation i've written so far:

 * Wikidata Import Hub
 * Wikidata Data Donation
 * Wikidata Data Import Guide
 * Wikidata Open Data Publishing
 * Requests for comment/Mapping and improving the data import process
 * Wikidata in Wikimedia Projects

As we discussed I think the next step is to outline the user journeys for different kinds of contributors in an RFC and then create Phabricator tickets for each task, then organisations and volunteers can allocate resources to addressing them. I'll share something with you in the week or so for you take a look at.

Best

John Cummings (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm
23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

You are appearing in The Signpost
This is just a heads-up that you are quoted in Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Besides the category for reports, you might also want to mention meta:Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Further_reports. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Trouble at Black Legend
Cateyed, on the second day of his editing here, decided to create The Black Legend, covering Spain, and to reduce the long-established Black Legend page to a rump. Before he got started Black Legend was nearly 34k raw bytes, he then expanded it up to nearly 62K, before removing the Spanish stuff and reducing it to under 10K. I haven't had time to to work through his changes, though it is clear his English will always need a basic check for grammar and spelling, and his additions seem to be reference-free. I didn't think this was acceptable without discussion, so for now I reverted back to a version before his big cut. This page gets over 300 views a day, and has always been somewhat of a target for problems. I haven't formed a view as to whether a generalized "black legend" page is needed, but if it is, I don't think Black Legend and The Black Legend are sufficiently distinct titles. Perhaps this should be resolved by a WP:RM discussion, but I'm asking for preliminary views at the BL talk page first, ideally from those who have looked through Cateyed's many additions, at BL and at the other article. You're one of the top editors, so I'm informing you. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2018
01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Pete Seeger Clearwater.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Pete Seeger Clearwater.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I uploaded this file well over a decade ago because at that time we lacked any free images illustrating that phase of Seeger's career. Obviously, if we now have such images and if this is no longer used in the article for which a non-free use rationale was provided, it should be deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Translation help request of 2 Argentine Spanish articles
Hello, can you please help me translate es:Historias breves to Historias breves, and es:Rey Muerto (cortometraje) to Rey muerto??

StevenSuperstar (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I should be able to work on this, though not necessarily this next week. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rey Muerto done; capitalization of that title follows English-language conventions. - Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you !! You're amazing!! - StevenSuperstar (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the other is now largely done at User:Jmabel/Historias Breves. Two things where we will probably need help from a native speaker of Spanish:
 * I suspect Niños envueltos has a meaning beyond what I could glean, either a play on some other phrase or a connotation of envuelto that I'm missing. I know the word envuelto often shows up in the name of foods along the lines of what we'd call a "wrap", maybe that's all that's going on.
 * I can only sort of make sense of "en la que el personaje es una tarotista que trabaja en una línea erótica, recibe una valija con dólares marcados para sacarla del país a los fines de su lavado." Roughly: "in which the personage [I assume 'protagonist'] is a tarot reader who [literally: 'works in an erotic line' but what on earth does that mean?], and receives a suitcase of marked dollars to take them out of the country to launder the money."
 * I have no idea of your level of Spanish (if any). Should I try to engage the original author, or do you have someone available who might help out? - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! You're awesome. I asked three Spanish-speaking friends for translation help, and only one responded haha. She said "envueltos" in this case might mean "intertwined", and she translated the second thing to "in which the main character is a tarot card reader who works in an erotic store (sex shop) and receives a briefcase full of money with instructions to take it out of the country for laundering." Hope this helps! - StevenSuperstar (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've long since sorted these out, and I'm sure she is wrong about "trabaja en una línea erótica": it means "she works in phone sex". - Jmabel | Talk 15:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yess you're right. It is indeed a phone line, because this synopsis says "hotline" as well http://www.cinenacional.com/pelicula/noches-aticas 👍👍 Thank you so much again!! You're amazing. - StevenSuperstar (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Collier's Encyclopedia
Hi Jmabel! We met at the Seattle Wikipedia meet-up. One of the items on my to-do list is to do some work on the Collier's Encyclopedia entry. If you have a chance, take a look at the page for Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. In my quest to document publishing history--my hope is to up the game and provide a comprehensive story of who owned who, who bought who, who then became what, how their book/magazine lines changed over time, etc. In this entry, I started with the story of Crowell Publishing Company and the founder P.P. Mast and then it ends with them becoming Macmillan. I also covered a bit of how they went into the 1950s and grew the educational market. I'm planning on going back through the materials I sourced on the Crowell-Collier page to then flesh out the Collier's Encyclopedia page. I have a few entries on the various lawsuits, etc. I'd appreciate any feedback you have. Auldhouse (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging receipt of this; will look into it when I get some time. - Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made some remarks at Talk:Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, there seem to be a lot of incoming links in various articles to Macmillan Publishers that should be to Macmillan Publishers (United States) or to Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. I see this on both Gone With the Wind and Jonathan Livingston Seagull, the company's biggest bestsellers in two different decades. If those are wrong, a lot else of that sort must be wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be on the lookout for errors like that. I'm assuming the book should always go back to the publisher of record at the time the first edition was published. Auldhouse (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In an article about a book: absolutely. In a citation, of course, you should cite the edition you actually used. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM
08:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Can I request for a translation of a permissions request letter?
Hello and good day. For more than a year now, I've been trying to get a free image of the Japanese singer Konomi Suzuki, but have been unable to get one; the people and events I've asked have either been unable to respond, declined, or had licensing problems. I am asking this because right now she is in Brazil for an anime convention (for reference, the event's Facebook page is at this link), and I was hoping to ask permission from them for photos they've taken of her. Would it be alright for you if you would be able to translate a letter I will send you (based on the example at Example requests for permission) so I could send it to them? Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think my Portuguese is good enough for a translation into Portuguese. Like many Spanish-speakers, I read Portuguese reasonably well, but I have some trouble expressing myself. User:DarwIn is a native Portuguese speaker with good English, and would be a better bet for this. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks for the response, though I've also contacted two other editor so far about this. Since DarwIn hasn't edited since the beginning of the month, if you have any more suggestions on who I could be referred to, that would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't edit much here at wiki-en, but I'm around. ;) About the translation: Sure, in a second (I hope Jmabel doesn't mind placing it here):

Caro/a (note:male/female)  (note:use Dr. if the person has some kind of degree) : Sou um dos muitos editores voluntários da Wikipédia (wikipedia.org), uma enciclopédia colaborativa baseada na Web. Venho respeitosamente solicitar sua permissão para usar esta excelente imagem, , como conteúdo da Wikipédia, no artigo Konomi Suzuki. A Wikipédia é uma enciclopédia multicultural de conteúdo aberto que ambiciona ter conteúdo completo e confiável. Voluntários de todo o mundo trabalham colaborativamente na criação de conteúdo, mas a Wikipedia depende de imagens como a sua para ilustrar esse conteúdo de forma clara. É para essa nobre finalidade que lhe faço este pedido. No entanto, para que a Wikipédia possa usar conteúdo fornecido por você, precisamos que concorde com a licença Creative Commons Atribuição-CompartilhaIgual 3.0 Não Adaptada (CC BY-SA 3.0) (muitas vezes referida como CC-BY-SA). Esta licença permite que conserve seus direitos autorais e a autoria sobre seu trabalho, mas permite aos outros usarem, copiarem e partilharem seu trabalho de forma livre, incluindo em possível uso comercial, desde que não tentem chamar a si mesmos os direitos de autor de seu trabalho, ou tentem impedir que outros o usem ou copiem livremente (e.g., "CompartilhaIgual"). Pode ler o texto completo da licença aqui: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pt_BR". Caso me autorize o uso desta imagem, seu trabalho será reconhecido,  ficará escrito que está sendo usado com sua autorização e, caso deseje, colocaremos uma ligação para seu sítio da Internet. Fico-lhe muito grato (note:"grata", in case you're a female) pela sua atenção a este pedido. Por favor informe-me de sua decisão  e eu agradecidamente o enviarei para a Fundação Wikimedia. Muito obrigado, e espero que considere aceitar este meu pedido. Atenciosamente,

I'll also try to ask someone from Wiki.pt to help you in that quest. :) All the best, Darwin   Ahoy!  00:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * . Thanks. However, it would be nice if it could be mentioned in the letter that the image would be for our article on Konomi Suzuki. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Darwin  Ahoy!  16:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Speculative philosophy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Speculative philosophy. Since you had some involvement with the Speculative philosophy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Matthew Fennell (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rudolph Marks

The article Rudolph Marks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Both offline and online source searches (WorldCat, Scholar, Books, Google) reveal a few passing mentions but nothing which would satisfy notability guidelines for creative professionals or people in general."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  SITH   (talk)   16:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rudolph Marks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rudolph Marks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rudolph Marks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  SITH   (talk)   12:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos
04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Choe
I reviewed this, and I am not convinced she is notable. Let's have an AfD and see what happens. If there is consensus she is notable, we can remove the tag, but IMHO that's a promotional entry on a non-notable individual. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martha Choe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Korean ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Martha_Choe check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Martha_Choe?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Registered historic places
You have noted in comments at headings in various articles: "Registered Historic Places" is a proper noun, keep it capitalized. What is your basis for this? Seems wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't link any specific case, but assuming you are talking about the U.S., and assuming you are talking about the NRHP rather than some local listing, I believe you will find that the federal government is pretty consistent about this. The lowest level of designation on the NRHP is a Registered History Place; there are also National Historic Landmarks and a few other higher-level or more precise designations. If it's lowercase, it could mean something that's just on a city, county, or state landmarks list, but has no federal designation. - Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was working on South Lake Union, Seattle when I noticed it. Where can I find evidence that Registered History Place (or did you mean Registered Historic Place?) is treated as a proper name? I don't see how being a "designation" is very relevant.  Books don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, History => Historic, that was a typo, I was on my way out the door & didn't have a chance to check it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like they may have changed some terminology since I last looked. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm now seems to totally avoid "Registered Historic Places" (caps or not) and uses "NRHP Listed Properties". It looks like with the government shutdown, some of the pages I've looked at in the past are giving errors, so this isn't the ideal time to look into this, but https://web.archive.org/web/20181011125250/https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/HISNPS/NPSHistory/nomenclature.html does show them using lowercase on some things I believe they capitalized at times in the past. That page also says, "In recent years, national historic site has been the title most commonly applied by Congress in authorizing the addition of such areas to the National Park System," a term I don't think they were using at all when we started working on this. The coverage of that page is a bit narrower than one might hope -- it doesn't even mention "National Historic Landmarks", which are discussed at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1582/index.htm. Doing some googling around, https://historiccapitolhill.com/capitol-hill-nrhp, http://www.thelogcabinmotel.com/nationally-registered-place.php, and https://www.sandiego.org/articles/south-bay/explore-south-bays-historic-heritage.aspx both use "Nationally Registered Historic Place" (with caps), https://www.erielandmark.com/how-to-list-a-property-on-the-national-register/ and http://www.dbusiness.com/daily-news/Annual-2016/Grosse-Pointe-Yacht-Club-Clubhouse-Added-to-National-Register-of-Historic-Places/ don't use caps, and (my apologies) I don't feel like spending a bunch of time trying to sort out the consensus. I'm not readily finding a bunch of federal sites using "registered historic place" at all any more, with or without caps; they may have dropped that terminology. So I guess the main thing for us on Wikipedia is to be consistent one way or the other. Given what I just found, I don't care which way we go, but I do care on this as on other things that we adopt one consistent style. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Those sources don't really support capping "Nationally Registered Historic Place"; one is just a motel ad and the other doesn't have it in a sentence. Books also don't. There's a lot unnecessary capping on web pages, but WP style is to avoid that, per MOS:CAPS. I'll work on case fixes; we can decide later if there's a better term. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:1830s in Oregon Territory has been nominated for discussion
Category:1830s in Oregon Territory, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:1838 in Oregon Territory has been nominated for discussion
Category:1838 in Oregon Territory, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Territory has been nominated for discussion
Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Territory, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory has been nominated for discussion
Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9
To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Good Night
Would it be a good idea to translate this article into English? I never asked you for anything. 2804:14C:5BB5:A5B7:214A:A1BD:7097:D221 (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly deserves to be translated, but my Portuguese is only at about the pt-1 level and I'm really busy both on Commons and in outside life, so I'm not necessarily the best person to do it. Do me a favor: if no one else picks it up before mid-April, feel free to get back to me and I'll try to find the time. - Jmabel | Talk 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The deadline has passed. Now you can? 2804:14C:5BB5:A5C6:2134:DFD4:477D:925A (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider me informed, but I have absolutely no idea when I will have time to do this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, April 6th, 1-5 PM
05:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Good night (2)
Could you - if you please and can - translate this article to the English speakers please? att 2804:14C:5BB5:A5C6:E129:3929:667F:5D69 (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Again: (1) I'm only a pt-1 level of Portuguese and (2) I work mainly on Commons. You would probably do well to find someone with more Portuguese and more time for Wikipedia. In addition, at the moment I am very backed up with tasks, both on Commons and "in real life." - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here would also be a good translation. 2804:14C:5BB5:A5C6:D97C:43B6:F8B0:3EF1 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Translation of Villa Annoni
Hi, are you available to translate this article https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Annoni from Italian into English? There are a lot of American tourists coming to Cuggiono to see the Villa and I think it would be helpful to have an article in their mother tongue. --DelicateAloe (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm really up to my eyeballs with the projects I'm doing on Commons (not to mention my actual job). If you can find someone else to take this on, that would be good. I doubt I can get to it the next few months. - Jmabel | Talk 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it's not urgent at all. I have tried asking other translators, too. If you ever have the time, do it. Otherwise, thanks for the prompt reply. --DelicateAloe (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Translation needed
Hi,

I noticed your username at Translators available. Will you please help with translation of the following text to English language which probably may be used to expand article on Illyrian languages:

En los Balcanes noroccidentales, donde tampoco hay un predominio cla-ro de ninguno de los dos haplogrupos, se asentaban las lenguas ilirias habla-das por una serie de tribus distintas. Los esfuerzos de muchos estudiosos del tema para establecer si el ilirio pertenecía al grupo centum o al satem han tenido como resultado la recopilación de un manojo de rasgos contradicto-rios, algunos de los cuales parecen apuntar en una dirección y otros en la contraria. En realidad no hay otro fundamento que su vecindad geográfica para suponer que todas las lenguas habladas en esa zona de los Balcanes pertenecieran a un mismo grupo dialectal.

Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the northwestern Balkans, where none of these haplogroups ever clearly predominated, the Illyrian languages spoken by a series of distinct tribes took root. Much study expended on the question of whether Illyrian belongs to the centum or satem group has resulted in collecting a batch of contradictory features, some of which appear to point one direction and others the other. In reality, there is no basis other than common geography to suppose that all the languages spoken in this zone of the Balkans belong to the same dialectal group.

"took root" is a bit loose, but the Spanish "se asentaban" (a reflexive form of "they settled") doesn't work in English. "common geography" is also loose, the Spanish is "su vecindad geográfica"; "vecinidad" in this sense does not translate literally into English, we don't use "vicinity" that way. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2019
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

yay thanks
Was nice to see the Keister image uploaded. As a former Seattleite and former resident of Romania (now Vermonter) it's nice to see sometime traveling alone similar Wikipathways. Hooray and hello Jessamyn (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I believe I was last in Romania more recently than I was last in Vermont... - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards,  PA TH  SL OP U  13:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Womxn Artists of the Pacific Northwest

 * Can't do it, I'll be at the Romanian Film Festival. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 * OK. I plan to be there. Peaceray (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Belated holiday greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; max-width:750px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

Belated holiday greetings. Merry Christmas and happy new year.

↠Pine  ( ✉ )  05:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

German Translation
Hello Jmabel,

Would you be bale to translate the below article for the German wikipedia? I have been making requests to translators on the List of German translators. Have not yet had any replies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_graffiti_and_street_art_injuries_and_deaths (Happy to have replies any on my talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyxyzyz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't consider my German good enough to translate into German. - Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

VPR thread on requesting action from WMF Legal
When you closed the VPR thread requesting that WMF Legal take action, did you contact anyone in the WMF linking them to it? If so, did they say anything in response?

(I know Doc James mentioned that he would share it with the rest of the board, but I'm assuming this isn't primarily going through the board.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No I did not. Someone asked for an uninvolved administrator to close the thread and indicate the consensus, and that is what I did. Someone involved is perfectly capable of informing WMF, no need to ask someone uninvolved. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will forwards the closure to the board aswell. Will need to get advice on if anything effective can be done and what are the potential risks and benefits. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Șapte Seri

The article Șapte Seri has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fails WP:CORP."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Uploading images to an infobox
Hi Jmabel, I want to upload the image on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bailey_Doogan,_American_artist.jpg

to the infobox in the listing for Bailey Doogan. The image is already entered in the stored set of images for the Bailey Doogan article. (I don’t know what that space is called, but it’s where all the other images that have been uploaded into the article are stored.) If you go to do a manual insert, this image comes up as one of the options to choose. I just don’t know how to insert the image into the infobox rather into than the article itself.

Thanks! Dactyl123 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to believe that is appropriately licensed. Unless you have a clear source to cite for that license being granted by the copyright holder (in which case, indicate it), then the copyright holder needs to go through the process described at commons:COM:OTRS. Your indicated source for the photo is the subject of the photo, so she is almost certainly not the photographer, which means she is almost certainly not the copyright-holder.
 * Also: assuming you can sort out the copyright, you should add some relevant categories. Category:Women is pretty useless here. The fact that it is a picture of a woman is not why it should be of interest. - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Further: I assume you want to add it to en:Bailey Doogan. Once you get the copyright sorted out -- and, please, not before -- you can edit source to add "| image = Bailey_Doogan,_American_artist.jpg" as a line in the Infobox at the top of that page, right under the line for her name. - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The photo is by Bailey Doogan’s daughter. I’ll get an email from the daughter giving her permission. What I got was an email from Doogan giving her daughter’s permission second hand to use the photo. I did the Category:Women as a sample to see if I was doing it right and didn’t get back to adding more categories, which I’ll do. Writing for Wikpedia has been an ongoing learning curve. I did this article, plus other things, as part of my first Art + Feminism WP Edit-a-Thon. It was all via Zoom, thanks to Covid-19. Even so, I think we got quite a bit done. Dactyl123 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but emailing you is not the point. We need the email to go from the photographer to the address given at commons:COM:OTRS. - Jmabel | Talk 21:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed article name change - Bayonne statute
I see that you originally posted the English translation of the Bayonne Statute article, so I am contacting you directly. I posted on the talk page the following: I propose the article be changed to include the word "constitution." In the original document it is explicitly called a constitution (Constitution of 1808, PDF). It was drawn up after Napoleon invaded Spain; he sought to transfer the monarchy to his brother Joseph and provide a legal basis for his rule. To that end a "junta española" was convoked in Bayonne in 1808. The constitution was signed by Joseph as king, with other signatories being the Spaniards who approved the document. The Spanish Constitution of 1812, often called Spain's first written constitution, is a document that, in fact, was influenced by the Bayonne Constitution, with Spanish America being accorded representation. The title "Bayonne Statute" obscures, likely deliberately, the fact that Spain had a constitution prior to the one drawn up by the Cortes of Cádiz. I don't want to do a redirect from the existing title without community discussion.Amuseclio (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio

No question given your PDF that the people who drafted it called it that; conversely, I'm pretty confident that the English-language literature on the subject usually calls it the "Bayonne Statute," and analogously in Spanish. (If you think I'm wrong about that, please feel free to make a case.) So unless you can show that it is more common to refer to it as a "constitution," the article should at its current title, but we absolutely should mention that it was self-described as a constitution, and if possible discuss the history of who has and has not referred to it as such, probably meriting a section in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for getting hold of me to discuss this! - Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I did a quick Google Scholar search for both "Constitution of Bayonne" and "Bayonne Statute." Overwhelmingly authors use Constitution of Bayonne, not Statute of Bayonne. Relatively few authors in English mention the Bayonne document; it does not appear in the title of any monograph or article of an English-language publication. An article by Wilman Amaya León, "El Estatuto de Bayona. La primera carta liberal de América Latina." Verba Iuris 33 (2015) does place it in the title. Fifteen authors in French and Spanish include "Constitution of Bayonne" in the title. I'll add a selection from the list to the further reading section of the current WP article.Amuseclio (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio
 * If that's the balance of it, that sounds pretty clear, go for it. Probably post on the talk page what you just posted here to explain what you are on about. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic virtual edition 2020
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Jack Block Park
I replied to a plagiarism allegation at Talk:Jack Block Park. You might find the outcome interesting. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm totally confused. Three years of what, to which I'm connected how? - Jmabel | Talk 17:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, sort of. A link to some contest I knew nothing about and certainly didn't deliberately enter. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you looked. No contest at all, just memory of . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sharing

The article Sharing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:NOT. The article is a collection of very loosely related subtopics, all of which are addressed in other articles, except for one, which is completely lacking in sources."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hey, could you help me translate
Hey, could you help me translate the article Fabrizio Romano into Italian? I have already started the page here, but I would appreciate some help. I do not speak Italian, but I am determined to get this done. Thanks for your help. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * my apologies, but I'm not much use translating into Italian. I read Italian pretty well by triangulating between Romanian and Spanish, but for writing I'm no better than Google Translate. You should probably look for a native Italian-speaker with decent English. - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for responding. Do you know anybody like this? On the translators thing, most users are inactive. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Not offhand. Look in it-wiki for 3 or so admins with at least en-3 level of English; then make your request at it:Wikipedia:Bar and ping these people. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just put a request at the bar thing. I'll see what happens. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They reverted my edits (??). Can you please put in a request for me? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * * Sorry, who reverted what edits? Diff? - Jmabel | Talk 00:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, on the "Bar" thing in Italian, I tried asking for help translating, and they just reverted my edit (the edit where I tried making a submission.) Apparently I did something wrong. Can you please put in a message in there asking for help translating the article Fabrizio Romano in Italian, and please say that I asked you to write that message. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't see any trace of your edit or of reversion. It seems odd that they would have scrubbed the history.
 * I didn't notice this before but (I'm guessing you worked this out) it looks like their protocols are a little different from ours. Questions are posted at it:Discussioni Wikipedia:Bar, not it:Wikipedia:Bar, and it looks like they often move them elsewhere & leave a link. - Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And where User:Valepert reverted you, his comment is just "cambuso allo sportello", which, to be honest, makes no sense to me. I know all three words, but they make no sense together. "Cambusa" is like a kitchen, nautical I think; I've never heard of "cambuso". "sportello" is a counter (in the sense of where you prepare a meal). Makes no sense at all. you list en-3 in your Babel, which is definitely better than my Italian, so I'll keep this in English. What is going on here, why did you revert Paul, is there somewhere different he should have made the request and (for my own curiosity) what did you mean by "cambuso allo sportello"? - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * hi! on it.wiki cambusa means "move/archive discussions (to the right place)", sportello (informazioni) is the Italian equivalent of Help desk. the original request is now here. sorry for the confusion! --valepert (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So it looks like your request was just moved to the right place & everything is fine.
 * Is that any thing like a normal meaning of cambusa/cambuso in Italian or is it Wikipedia jargon? I kind of triangulate on Italian from near-fluent Spanish and good foreigner's Romanian. And I'm sure you can understand why neither Paul nor I had context for sportello (especially in conjunction with cambusa, where it almost but not quite made literal sense)! - Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I think it's old it.wiki jargon. in 2005 the users who archive the old discussions start to call themselves "cambusieri" (an old nautical term for storeman/warehouseman) and the related words ("cambusa", "cambusare", etc.) are still in use today. --valepert (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! so my wretched triangulated Italian had the etymology almost right, just no clue about the jargon usage.
 * I haven't done enough on Wiktionary to know their customs, but shouldn't cambusare give at least a link to cambusa? (And possibly a see also link back?) Doesn't Wiktionary deal with etymology?
 * I see that cambusa covers the jargon meeting as well as the literal. Does Wiktionary not give conjugations of verbs? Unsurprisingly, "cambuso" as such got no relevant Google hits, probably would have if it appeared verbatim anywhere on the relevant page.
 * "from Middle Dutch kabuys." So it must is the same etymology as English caboose, which apparently (I did not know this) once meant "A small galley or cookhouse on the deck of a small vessel" so OMG I was right on the mark with "like a kitchen, nautical I think"! In America, caboose is mainly the traditional last car on a freight train, which included a small kitchen.
 * Jmabel | Talk 13:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Union Free School District
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.erschools.org/district/what_does_union_free_mean_, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed, and I paraphrased some. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep discussions in a single place. I hope pinging you suffices, but I'll also leave a note on your talk page directing you back here.
 * I feel that the amount of quotation I used there (all of it made clear by citation) was well within the acceptable. I'm pretty sure that few of the phrases I quoted were original with that site; they're pretty boilerplate as description of the legal concept of a Union Free School District. I kind of wish you'd consulted with me beforehand, and especially before suppressing my versions, which makes it very difficult to see diffs as a means of seeing exactly what you've changed and to tell what phrases you found problematic.
 * For what it's worth, I'm also an admin and have been a Wikipedian since 2003. I think I have a pretty good sense of what is and is not an acceptable amount of quotation. I'm not going to argue this heavily -- what you've left seems fine -- but in the future if you think my edits are so problematic that you need to remove them from the history and hide even the fact that the work in question was my contribution, I'd appreciate being engaged before the fact, rather than after. I'm mainly on Commons now, but I doubt I have ever left a note on this talk page unread for even 24 hours, unless perhaps I was in transit. Leaving the content there for (in this case) a few minutes wouldn't have killed anyone. Jmabel | Talk 14:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Jmabel. You should be able to readily review what I removed and paraphrased by looking at . The content is a match for the copyright source document. It's not "boilerplate"; it's copyright text, and we are therefore not allowed to include it unaltered. I did paraphrase the short quotation that you used, but I did that in a separate edit, which makes it easy for you to view separately.Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical. The high volume of potential violations that need to be assessed each day (75 to 100 cases) precludes the possibility of discussing each case with the editor involved or waiting to do the revision deletion at some later time. To do so would easily double or triple the time it takes each day to review all the reports. — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I am watch-listing this page for a while, so there's no need for a talkback template— Diannaa (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Talkback template was only because you specifically wrote, "Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions." - Jmabel | Talk 15:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. In "One or more revisions of this diff has been removed from the public archives…" as an administrator, there is a place I can click through and view the diff. On the specifics, you removed several things that as far as I can tell had nothing to do with copyright issues. I hate to be spending time on this -- I already wrote "I'm not going to argue this heavily… what you've left seems fine," but if you insist on saying I was violating copyrights, then I guess I'm compelled to give a detailed defense of my text as written. Would you be willing to restore the revisions you deleted so that I can point at diffs to make my case, or am I going to have to do this in such a manner that any non-admin looking at this accusation will have to take my word (or not) that I am describing this accurately?
 * Again: I'm not saying that you need to engage the original author every time you think something might raise copyright issues. I'm saying that when you are dealing with another admin who is also a major contributor to the site over time, you shouldn't be so sure that you are the one who understands the situation better and that they couldn't possibly be right. I would not have done this to your edits. - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a side by side comparison of what I took out and the source document. Overlapping material is highlighted in bold.Your addition:

 * Source document:

— Diannaa (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I would much rather see copy restored so that we can do diffs in the normal manner.

While what you are saying is technically true, I believe it is very misleading. In particular, the bulk of what comes from the source here, "Union free school districts are governed by a board of education composed of between three and nine members who serve three, four or five year terms. Board size within these limits may be changed by the voters of the district. See Education Law 1702-1703," is not original with the site in question, but is quoted by them, with attribution, from "A Guide to the Reorganization of School Districts in New York State from the New York State Education Department describes a Union Free School District". Admittedly, New York State publishes documents like this under something equivalent to an "NC" license but a quotation of this length from a government document that clarifies a law is certainly fair use. The East Rochester Union Free School District obviously felt free to quote a passage ten times that length on a fair use basis, from which I took this. You removed it entirely without even a paraphrase.

So we are left with "has nothing to do with labor unions" and "two or more common school districts joining to provide a high school." The latter is also verbatim from "A Guide to the Reorganization…" The former, "has nothing to do with labor unions" is admittedly a 7-word phrase quoted directly. I don't think that violates anyone's copyright, but if you really felt it amounted to a plagiarism, it would seem like that could have been resolved simply by placing it in quotation marks, not by removing it. It does make an important point, given how many people misunderstand "union free…" as meaning "union-free".

Further, and on a matter of accuracy rather than copyright. You changed "related to a 'union' (joining together) of two or more common school (K-8) districts joining to provide a high school" to "signifies that two or more common school districts were organized to provide a high school to serve all their students." That is not strictly true. While the name is related to providing a high school, it dow not signify that they are necessarily organized for that purpose. As indicated elsewhere in the rather short article, "thirty of 151 existing union free school districts provide only elementary education" and "16 'special act' union free districts serve only children resident in specific childcare institutions," so it is extremely unlikely that those ever had a high school in mind. - Jmabel | Talk 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the prose also appears in the document published by the State of New York, but that document is not compatibly licensed either. Regarding the possibility of fair use, Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. Short properly attributed quotations are permitted, but prose written by Wikipedians is preferred. Please see WP:NFCCP for more information.— Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are both longstanding contributors and admins. I believe I am not addressing you as if you are unfamiliar with policy (please indicate where I've done that if I have), but that is how you are addressing me.
 * Paraphrase is entirely acceptable but:
 * Even if you feel that this was an issue in terms of my words needing to be edited, I believe you are conceding that it was well within the range of fair use (in the legal sense, not the Wikipedia policy sense) so there was no reason to delete my intervening versions from the history.
 * I believe the explanation is important that this term absolutely does not mean "union-free" in the sense of excluding labor unions because the term is often misunderstood that way. You did not paraphrase that, you removed it.
 * As I stated above, I believe your reworded phrase that begins "signifies…" is not accurate as you have worded it.
 * You removed, rather than paraphrased the statement about the composition of school boards, which is an important part of the legal definition of a Union Free School Districts. - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand the difference between fair use law in the United States and Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia's copyright policy is stricter. Your second point is not correct however, as our revision deletion policy calls for redaction of violations of Wikipedia's copyright policy, not US copyright law. See WP:RD1 for more information on this topic.
 * The patrolling admin is under no obligation to re-write copyright material when it's encountered. I could have removed it in its entirety, but instead chose to do a little paraphrasing. I don't have time to do very much re-writing of other people's additions, or there would be no editing time left over to assess the reports at CopyPatrol. I do the bulk of the work there, and it takes anywhere from four to eight hours per day to do so, depending on how many people help that day.
 * If my prose needs further attention please go ahead and fix it, with the proviso that copying from the source is not an option.
 * The patrolling admin is under no obligation to re-write copyright material when it's encountered. — Diannaa (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

On the first point I did not accuse you of failing to understand the difference between these two things. In fact I wrote, "I believe you are conceding that it was well within the range of fair use (in the legal sense, not the Wikipedia policy sense)," making it quite clear that what you had conceded made exactly that distinction. I increasingly feel like you are trying to pick a fight rather than have a discussion. Please consider that I am something like a peer, not a brand new user who needs to be schooled.
 * WP:RD1 refers to "Blatant (emphasis mine) violations of copyright policy. I contend that this was nothing of the sort.
 * WP:RD1 says, "Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." Copyright problems says that "blatant" means "[t]here is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license." The fact that you disagree with me does not mean that my claim is not "credible". I may be wrong. I tried early on to walk away from this and let your edit stand, but you apparently needed to come back here and argue, so I'm making my case. If you really feel that my statements here are so incorrect that I am "blatantly" wrong, please nominate me to be de-admin'd on the basis of incompetence or inappropriate editing or both. I promise to stay entirely out of the discussion of my qualifications to be an admin except to come in exactly once to be overt that I will stay entirely out of the discussion of my qualifications to be an admin.

On the other points: no, you are not required to fix the article. You are even allowed to make the error of incorrectly paraphrasing what was previously there, as you did in one case. You are required to assume good faith. You are expected, though not required, to consider that you might not always be right and to try to discuss matters in a way that scknowledges that someone who is roughly your peer might have a clue about the matter (which I am certainly assuming about you, notwithstanding your claim that I accused you of failing to make a distinction that I clearly acknowledged you making).

May I suggest that we might bring in a third party with whom neither of us has a close connection to look at whether it was mandatory to delete my intervening edits? That would have to be an admin, since given that you have deleted them, no one short of an admin can see them, and I am not going to start an edit war by undeleting them against your wishes. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a list of admins with experience in copyright at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess that is effectively a list of people you work closely with all the time, but I'll still take my chances and ping two more or less at random: could you please have a look at this and give an independent opinion of any of the following upon which you are willing to comment?
 * Whether it is necessary to keep these revisions deleted.
 * Whether I have, indeed, committed a "blatant copyvio" and, if so, whether I should consider resigning as an admin over either my ignorance of present practices (I'm not too active on en-wiki these days) or because you actually believe this was willful bad behavior on my part.
 * If you do not think there is a serious problem with my behavior (or, I suppose, even if you do), whether User:Diannaa appears to granting me an assumption of good faith.
 * Since you are both also involved in copyright issues, whether if you had removed material on the basis of copyright and a user said, as I did above, "I feel that the amount of quotation I used there (all of it made clear by citation) was well within the acceptable. … I think I have a pretty good sense of what is and is not an acceptable amount of quotation. I'm not going to argue this heavily -- what you've left seems fine -- but in the future if you think my edits are so problematic that you need to remove them from the history and hide even the fact that the work in question was my contribution, I'd appreciate being engaged before the fact, rather than after," you'd also feel a need to come back to the page and "school them" (and later complain how busy you are) rather than just let the matter lie.
 * I don't mean to restrict you by asking these four questions. If something else here seems salient, go for it.
 * if you have anything else you'd like to address to MER-C & Sphilbrick, or if you take issue with how I have worded my questions -- I realize that the fourth one was a little contentious, but at the moment I don't see a more polite way to word it -- please feel free to say so. - Jmabel | Talk 16:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have some sympathy to the concerns of . As someone who tries to help out at Copy Patrol, I sometimes feel a little a little like a bowl in a China shop. I revdel before talking to the editor in question, I do rollback rather than rewrite, and while I try to leave informative edit summaries and notes on talk pages, they are often boilerplate rather than custom. I do try to reach out when the issue involve someone with a lot of experience, but I won't guarantee that happens every time. The sad situation is the numbers don't justify it.
 * We have 1112 admins. I'm not unrealistic enough to expect that every admin should be actively involved in copyright issues on a regular basis. However, an ambitious, but not absurd desire is that 10% of our admins should have at least occasional involvement. If 10% of our admins worked on one item at copy patrol every day, that would roughly cover the number of new items each day. Under that scenario, it would be easy to imagine giving advice to admins in the area that they should open a discussion with any editor who has more than modest experience, attempt to rewrite issues rather than rollback when issues are identified, and consider holding off on revision deletion until a discussion has ensued. But we don't have 10% of our admins working actively in copyright. Closer to 1%. I tried to address 10 to 20 items a day, and can't really wrap my head around how Diannaa can do what she does, but even at my much lower level of activity, it's not really workable to carry out a more complete back-and-forth with an editor including rewrite for that many items. Of course, I could imagine it if I could dedicate my entire day to copyright issues, but there are other areas of Wikipedia that interest me and I actually try to carry on a life outside Wikipedia.
 * In cases where I do a revision deletion, many editors have expressed dismay that it makes it difficult for them to look into the issues. I understand it in the case of a non-admin. I'm slightly surprised to hear an admin make this observation as an admin can click on the diff and see it trivially. However, it is my practice (and I won't speak for others), in any situation where an editor thinks that looking at the diffs would help shed light on the issue, that I will undo the revision deletion temporarily so we can sort out the issue. Over 98% of the time, I am right and they are wrong, so I don't feel the need to wait until discussion before doing the revision deletion. In the rare cases where there's something to discuss I immediately undo the revision deletion, we talk about it, I'm usually right and then reinstate the revision deletion, but if I'm wrong, we will handle it differently.
 * I don't think it is at all reasonable to expect the admin reviewing a copyright situation to do a rewrite if a problem is found. If we had more admins handling things and admins were averaging one issue a day, and they were willing to do a rewrite rather than simply a rollback more power to them, plus thanks for going the extra mile, as well as a barnstar, but I wouldn't remotely consider it an obligation.
 * So far, I've commented without looking closely at the specific issues, but it is worth emphasizing that Wikipedia copyright policy is understandably and deliberately more stringent than copyright law. We permit less under fair use than might be legally permitted on purpose.
 * I am very concerned that this project is so heavily dependent on one admin for what I believe is a critical aspect of this project — keeping it reasonably free of copyright violations. I'd like to see some admins working on how better to share the load, and asking those few who are contributing to spend a lot more time doing it is not a step in the right direction. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it; you are sympathetic to both of us. With all due respect (and I mean that, no sarcasm intended, thanks for weighing in), that really does not answer any of my specific questions above, including (question 2) whether I am indeed a "blatant" violator of copyrights, which it seems to me if true would be a reason to de-admin me and, if not (questions 3 and 4) wouldn't it have made more sense just to leave alone my willingness to accept her edits while demurring from them, rather than come over here and (in my view) fail to accept that I was acting in good faith, and come to my user talk page to "school me"? - Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So far, I've commented without looking closely at the specific issues, but it is worth emphasizing that Wikipedia copyright policy is understandably and deliberately more stringent than copyright law. We permit less under fair use than might be legally permitted on purpose.
 * I am very concerned that this project is so heavily dependent on one admin for what I believe is a critical aspect of this project — keeping it reasonably free of copyright violations. I'd like to see some admins working on how better to share the load, and asking those few who are contributing to spend a lot more time doing it is not a step in the right direction. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it; you are sympathetic to both of us. With all due respect (and I mean that, no sarcasm intended, thanks for weighing in), that really does not answer any of my specific questions above, including (question 2) whether I am indeed a "blatant" violator of copyrights, which it seems to me if true would be a reason to de-admin me and, if not (questions 3 and 4) wouldn't it have made more sense just to leave alone my willingness to accept her edits while demurring from them, rather than come over here and (in my view) fail to accept that I was acting in good faith, and come to my user talk page to "school me"? - Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned that this project is so heavily dependent on one admin for what I believe is a critical aspect of this project — keeping it reasonably free of copyright violations. I'd like to see some admins working on how better to share the load, and asking those few who are contributing to spend a lot more time doing it is not a step in the right direction. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it; you are sympathetic to both of us. With all due respect (and I mean that, no sarcasm intended, thanks for weighing in), that really does not answer any of my specific questions above, including (question 2) whether I am indeed a "blatant" violator of copyrights, which it seems to me if true would be a reason to de-admin me and, if not (questions 3 and 4) wouldn't it have made more sense just to leave alone my willingness to accept her edits while demurring from them, rather than come over here and (in my view) fail to accept that I was acting in good faith, and come to my user talk page to "school me"? - Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I gather neither of those two is going to way in on our conflict. Pinging two more from that list. Diannaa seems to prefer this mediated by someone from and I won't argue the point if one of the seven people there other that herself will mediate. Care to help out? - Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I also want to weigh in again on one particular piece of this, substantively. How can the phrase "has nothing to do with labor unions" be a "blatant copyvio" that must be suppressed from the record? How on earth else would you word that simple thought? - Jmabel | Talk 16:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Well, I've had a look at the edits and skimmed the conversation above, and I think Diannaa has a point. These edits contained several sentences which were taken more or less verbatim from an external source, and there doesn't seem to be any dispute that the source is non-free. As copyright problems go it's pretty small but I think it's large enough to be a problem. The phrase "has nothing to do with labor unions" wouldn't be an issue by itself, no, but that wasn't the only piece of text which was added from that source. The non-free content policy has restrictions on quoting from non-free content. In particular quotations have to be formatted as quotations, they must be brief, they must be attributed, and they must be used to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". The "Union free school districts are governed..." bit wasn't formatted as a quotation, wasn't attributed to an external source, and it wasn't illustrating a point or anything like that. It was presented as just another paragraph in the article. As such I don't think its use can be justified under fair use. I should also point out that Diannaa has reviewed 479 edits like this one in the last week alone, and if anything I'm surprised she took the time to partially rewrite this one.  Hut 8.5  20:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just want to make sure I understand: I said from the outset that I would let her edit stand, that was not what was in dispute. Are you saying: (1) this was such a "blatant copyvio" that it cannot even be allowed to remain in the article history and (2) that it was appropriate for her to come over here and "school me" even after I said a the outset that I would let her edits stand? The latter particular gals me because after taking time to do that, she complained about how she has to spend so much time dealing with copyvios. Or do you disagree with me on some aspect of how I just characterized that? - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it was a "blatant violation of the copyright policy", which is what WP:RD1 requires, the relevant policy recommends revdel in that case, and it is common practice if the material was added recently. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the text in question was copied more or less verbatim from a copyrighted source. You've argued that it could be justified as fair use quotations, but since they weren't formatted as quotations and couldn't be used under Wikipedia's fair use rules I don't see how that affects things. I don't view this thread as Diannaa trying to "school" you at all. She posted here to let you know she'd taken this action and invited you to leave her a message if you had questions. You asked her, at some length, to justify this action, and she did so.  Hut 8.5  08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It does seem that you have consensus among yourselves on what constitutes such "blatancy" as to require removal from the history. Let me say clearly: as a fellow admin, I don't agree with that consensus, but I recognize that you are the group who has taken it upon yourselves to enforce your understanding and will defer to it for now. That is not my understanding of Copyright problems in terms of deleting history, which may be because I am reading "fair use" there in the legal sense, and you seem to be reading it in the Wikipedia sense; it looks to me like it is completely ambiguous as written, and I think at some point it merits clarification. I'd like to start a discussion on that in a neutral forum at some future date, but I'm probably too busy to start that right now and then pay attention: I'm in the middle of returning right now to a career line I dropped thirty years ago.

I'm much more active as a Commons admin than an en-wiki admin, and it is perfectly possible that en-wiki consensus on this has shifted in the last decade or so and I've just plain missed it. Believe me, I know from Commons how much of a problem an out-of-consensus admin can be, and I doubt I will become reconciled to your view here, certainly not how we handle the same issue on Commons. If you feel that should disqualify me from being an en-wiki admin, as I said above, feel free to nominate me to be de-admin'd on the basis of incompetence or inappropriate editing or just plain being out of consensus. I promise to stay entirely out of the discussion of my qualifications to be an admin except to come in exactly once to be overt that I will stay entirely out of the discussion of my qualifications to be an admin. I would appreciate (but do not require) that you point to this discussion if making such a nomination.

One question: "has nothing to do with labor unions" is so brief and to the point that I don't see any way to word it that would not at least be such a close paraphrase as to raise essentially the same copyright issues. Can someone suggest how else to word it? Would "is not related to labor unions" be acceptable to you? Unless I hear otherwise, that is what I will use.

Where I plan to go with this article when I can have time to get back to it: I will try to find the text of the statute itself (which is certainly not copyrighted) or some pre-1926 NY state document (ditto) and quote that instead of the current guidance. I won't be surprised if it turns out to be verbatim. And I will definitely fix Dianaa's paraphrase that I believe is misleading. - Jmabel | Talk 12:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Whoa - nobody suggested you should be desysopped for this! This wiki doesn't have a community desysop procedure like Commons does, and even if it did I certainly wouldn't send someone there for making one mistake like this. Just bear it in mind for the future. As I've said the phrase "is not related to labor unions" is fine by itself, it's only in combination with other text from the same source that it becomes a problem.  Hut 8.5  17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. On Commons, "blatant copyvio" would definitely be a last warning before a block, and if said by one admin to another would certainly imply that one of the two was in the wrong role. - Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Seattle/Invitees list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Seattle, please add or remove your name here.

Orphaned non-free image File:Ejercito Popular Boricua logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ejercito Popular Boricua logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Michael Healy (Oz)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Michael Healy (Oz). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?
Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article. For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done. I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project. Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 16:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you. Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

 * Apologies, but I generally have not picked arbitrary school topics to work on. I'm interested in the area, especially for school systems of communities where I've lived, but I have quite a backlog of projects I want to do (or have started and not yet completed). - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Four years since what? - Jmabel | Talk 14:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I was equally confused when you did this a year ago. Please, can we skip this in the future? - Jmabel | Talk 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * skipping five as you wish --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Uncle Tom's Cabin
I have nominated Uncle Tom's Cabin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  07:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Gofundme
I just wanted to post on Village pump (miscellaneous):

As it seems, GoFundMe is on spam blacklist for whatever reason and I cannot post it with the relevant link; but actually would like to share the campaign on English WP too, as is basically a Wikipedian. Is there something we can do, can you help? Regards --A.Savin (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already donated.
 * Just tell people to search on "help-wikipedian-rehman-repay-hospital-charges" to find the page. - Jmabel | Talk 17:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I know of this possibility of course... however such a post should be as barrier-free as possible, so my question to you as sysop wuld be, for instance, could you consider temporarily taking GFM from the spam list and return it there after I have posted? Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I'm an admin here, I've never worked on the spam list, and I'd be uncomfortable doing that. I think you should go to the Admin noticeboard, where it will be taken up by someone where this is more their realm. You can feel free to link this conversation, and my endorsement that this is a good cause. - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bisserov Sisters
I "translated" this article from Bulgarian (ie Google translate + common sense) but not sure what some of the transliterated acronyms mean (and they weren't linked). Thought you might have some interest and insights to contribute to the improvement of this article. Happy New Year! Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I worked out "SBMTD" for you & edited accordingly. Where does "SANPT" come from? The transliteration of the Bulgarian should be "DANPT" (it's "ДАНПТ", not "САНПТ"). But that's about it from me: swamped with other stuff, and I don't bring much to the Slavic languages beyond knowing the alphabet and being able to Google. - Jmabel | Talk 22:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! Google did it. I'll look into it further. Skyerise (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Truck company
I found more info, so I went ahead and created Kelly-Springfield Motor Truck Company. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Topical song
Hi, I am writing the new article, Topical humor, a subject surprizingly miissing from wikipedia and I wanted to add "Topical song" into its "See also". But unfortunately I found out it was nuked because it was unreferenced. I saw that you created it, but I also see you are no longer active. Still, I am curious whether you have a possibility to "resurrect" the article. Quick google search shows it is an interesting subject. While in America the concept is conflated with "protest song" folklorists trace the concept to the times when there were no newspapers, and songs were a vehicle for news reports (about notable events: from heroic deeds to disasters). Some of them, started as topical, became perennial. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm active (I'm a admin), but I'm focused mainly on Commons these days. As I'm sure you saw if you looked at the history, that was written when there were almost no requirements about referencing on Wikipedia. I don't have any particular interest in doing the work it would take to write an article on that particular topic that is up to Wikipedia's current standards. Maybe at some point, but not now. Yes, I think such an article should exist.
 * Yes, certainly the old "broadside ballads" were also "topical". - Jmabel | Talk 00:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 Seattle meetup
23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Proposed deletion of Catalan mythology about witches

The article Catalan mythology about witches has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Uncited speculation that has mouldered in an unimproved state for 15+ years. A non-article left over from a different era of Wikipedia"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Fictional natural features of Earth has been nominated for renaming
Category:Fictional natural features of Earth has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

View it! September update
-- (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Garrigues Flag.png
Thanks for uploading File:Garrigues Flag.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if this is now orphaned it should be deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 17:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Help with posting fair-use approved university logo
Would you be able to provide some direction? I have been dealing with a copyright bot issue that does not provide a great deal of information to resolve my issue properly once I insert a fair-use authorized university logo. It simply removes the image and leads me to a long list of options.

The pages I'm interested in adding the, pre-authorized fair-use, logo to include:
 * Oregon State University College of Science
 * Oregon State University College of Engineering
 * Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts

The image currently appears inside the infobox on the Oregon State University page. The image is Oregon_State_University_primary_logo.svg

Each time I add the image to one of the infobox on the related college pages, it's removed. A message is left to properly tag the image for fair use. I believe I've already done that once, but it was removed again. What am I missing? This logo is not being used differently nor on a page that is describing anything other than Oregon State University.

I have added the three college pages to the original fair-use page, but again they were removed. Thank you for any assistance you can provide.Ludviggy (talk)
 * I think what User:Marchjuly told you at Talk:Oregon_State_University_College_of_Liberal_Arts is absolutely clear: "[A]n individual college of an university is typically considered to be a "child entity" of the main university per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and the primary logo of the university is usually not allowed to be used by default. Instead, a logo specific to the individual college is preferred. So, if the College of Liberal Arts has its own logo or branding (maybe like this), then it should be OK to use that in the infobox. Otherwise, the use of the primary university logo is not automatic and a consensus may need to be established to do so." There is no consensus to do this. You'd need to establish such a consensus on the talk page of each of the respective articles, but most likely there will be no such consensus, because this is not our usual practice. We try to minimize our use of non-free images, and the logo of the university itself is clearly appropriate to the article about the university as such, but I don't really see a strong case for putting it on an article about a college within the university. If any of these colleges have logos of their own, there would be a strong case for including those. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 * By the way, I followed Marchjuly in calling this a "logo", but I see this is properly the University seal; they have a different "logo" for more casual use. See https://policy.oregonstate.edu/sites/policy.oregonstate.edu/files/04-020_use_of_university_seal_draft.pdf. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There may be some confusion here. The logo I'm interested in using is Oregon_State_University_primary_logo.svg, as mentioned above. Not the seal. The colleges do not have their own individual logos. They use Oregon_State_University_primary_logo.svg (as shown in your pdf). What are my next steps to use this logo? It seems I have played by all the rules here and OSU has authorized this logo for wiki fair-use. Ludviggy (talk) Ludviggy (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As explained above, where I quoted Marchjuly, you probably cannot do that. The only way would be to develop a consensus on the talk page & I don't think that will happen. - Jmabel | Talk 14:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it an option for me make a simple text only logo (i.e., Oregon State University College of Engineering) to create these logos? I believe one of these pages had something similar in the past. Ludviggy (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if the college actually uses a simple text-only logo. - Jmabel | Talk 16:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it an option for me to make a logo (i.e., Oregon State University College of Engineering) that would match this use? https://engineering.oregonstate.edu/fy22-research-funding-highlights This would include Oregon_State_University_primary_logo.svg, but it would also include "College of Engineering" under it - just as the college uses it. Thank you. Ludviggy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. Again, you would have to build consensus to do so, and as far as I can tell, that is not a logo of the College of Engineering. It is the logo of the university, which happens to have the words "College of Engineering" on the next line under it, but not as part of the logo.
 * I am not sure why you seem so concerned to come up with some way around this. Why is it so important to you to get logos onto the pages for things that don't seem to have logos of their own? This has been eating a lot of my time responding to you over something that does not seem to me to be either possible or valuable. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many others editing university college pages, could be asked the same question. I'm not alone in doing so. However, it appears you are saying I would need to wait for an individual college (i.e., Oregon State University College of Engineering) to use a logo that includes the words "College of Engineering" inside the artwork file to use as a logo? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Iowa_College_of_Engineering Ludviggy (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. In that case, there I believe is a uniform use of a logo saying "Iowa Engineering" on various materials from that college of that university. I'm not aware of any such thing for University of Oregon, but if it does indeed exist then the case would be similar. In any case, though, that Iowa one is a "textlogo" and is not subject to copyright, so it doesn't raise fair use issues at all. - Jmabel | Talk 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's Oregon State University. But thanks for the help. It is odd, however, it appears to offer the same level of fair use I was attempting to show. In fact, I can't find an example of the "Iowa Engineering" source. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Iowa_College_of_Engineering_Logo.jpg Keep in mind, we are talking about the use of this logo and not the seal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_State_University#/media/File:Oregon_State_University_primary_logo.svg Ludviggy (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Pike Place Market
Hello! You may or may not have noticed, I've created many new Wikipedia entries related to Pike Place Market (see Template:Pike Place Market). I see you've worked on the PPM entry and uploaded quite a few images of the market at Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for doing so! I'm using your photos as possible to illustrate images. Anyways, I've created new stubs for Corner Market, Economy Market, and Sanitary Market. I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping to trim/move content from Pike Place Market to these pages appropriately. I'm also curious if you think any of the other buildings are independently notable. I've been through the market several times, but I'm still trying to learn how the buildings fit together, which businesses are housed in each, etc. This is just an invite in case you are interested! Happy editing, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now, I'm kind of up to my eyeballs in projects of my own (Seattle Public Library recently donated about 34,000 images to Commons, high-res but not all well-curated), so I'm not that likely to work on this. Glad the photos were useful.
 * I see that the Butterworth Building already has a slightly-more-than-stub article of its own. Post Alley is now a redirect to Gum Wall, but probably deserves an article. The Pike Place Hillclimb might deserve an article, as might the armory that used to sit at the north end of the market.
 * Do feel free to get hold of me if there is anything specific I can help with, including if you want me to make a pass through something after you think it's basically good to go. Also, let me know if there is anything that still exists that you need photographed, I get down there now and then (as it happens, I'm going to a meetup at Kells this evening). - Jmabel | Talk 15:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I've been to the Market a few times recently, so I'm currently in the process of uploading hundreds of photographs to Commons. I'll let you know if I need assistance with anything specific, otherwise I'll just keep on truckin' with my visits, article creations, and photo uploads. For now, take care! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Spoke too soon! Curious about your gut reaction re: notability of Main Arcade, MarketFront, North Arcade, and Triangle Building / Triangle Market. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say they are all right in that range where an article could meet the threshold to be kept, but it would require good work to establish notability. La Salle Hotel would also probably be at the same level, and Leland Hotel could probably combined with the Main Arcade. Also possibly an article on the Joe Desimone Bridge and/or the Municipal Market Building that it originally led to, and which burned in the 1970s.
 * By the way: are you on Facebook? There is a recently-started private group on there for people working seriously on Seattle history to be able to help each other out on queries. Some very solid people in the group (e.g. Feliks Banel, Valarie Bunn, Lorraine McConaghy, Ben Lukoff, David B. Williams, Rob Ketcherside). If you want to join, message me from your account on Facebook and I'll invite you into the group. - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Translation
Hello Jmabel, I was wondering if you would be able to translate two paragraphs for me from Romanian to English? I am currently researching the history of transatlantic flights from the Bucharest airport in order to describe them in the latter article. Google's translations of these paragraphs didn't fully make sense to me.

1) "Cand s-a decis oprirea zborurilor s-au luat in considerare tot felul de factori. Anul acesta pretul barilului de petrol a crescut foarte mult, iar acest lucru a influentat decizia reprezentantilor Delta de a anula zborurile pe timpul iernii, cumulat cu faptul ca in acele luni traficul e mai redus. Delta are o mare flexibilitate in gestionarea flotei, iar operarea unor rute depinde si de contextul economic. Momentan au reluat cursele doar pe timpul verii, dar nu putem spune cu siguranta ce vor decide pentru iarna anului viitor", a precizat Enciu. (source)

2) "Speram ca joint-venture-ul dintre Air France KLM si Delta Airlines sa ne creasca cota de piata in Romania, insa compania a fost nevoita, pe fondul recesiunii, sa redimensioneze zborurile spre anumite destinatii, si a decis sa nu mai zboare in Romania. Competitia pe acesta ruta era una foarte acerba si in aceste conditii tarifele practicate de Delta nu acopereau costurile de operare", a explicat Alexandru Dobrescu directorul pentru Romania al Air France KLM. (source)

Regards, Sunnya343 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

took a little help from Google Translate because I was in a hurry, but I can vouch for what I'm writing. Google Translate got totally thrown by luni meaning "months" and took it in the sense of "Monday". Otherwise, it was pretty OK, though as usual not very colloquial.

1) "When the decision was made to stop the flights, all sorts of factors were considered. This year the price of a barrel of oil increased greatly, and this influenced the decision of Delta representatives to cancel flights during the winter, combined with the fact that in those months there is a lot less traffic. Delta has a lot of flexibility in managing the fleet, and whether to operate some routes depends on the economic context. At the moment, they have resumed the flights only during the summer, but we cannot say for sure what they'll decide for winter of next year", stated Enciu.

2) "We hope/expect that the joint venture ul among Air France KLM and Delta Airlines won't increase the market price in Romania, but due to the recession the company had to resize the number of flights to certain destinations, and has decided to stop flying to Romania. Competition on that route was among very bitter and in those conditions Delta's fares didn't cover the cost of operations", explained Alexandru Dobrescu, director for Romania of Air France KLM.

- Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! Sunnya343 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

View it! update
{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFFFFF;"
 * rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | View it! Tool.png View it! Tool update  Oct. 2022

'''Thank you for signing up for View it! updates!'''

 * As a reminder, you can view details about how to install the View it! user script or use the Toolforge tool on our meta page. Please use the talk page there to contact the team!

October Update
September/October Happenings
 * View it! is now multilingual! We are currently working on tool localization. Please consider helping us!
 * View it! now has advanced search option on Toolforge, simply toggle on to enable searching with a different property constraint, free text, specific resolution, and quality assessment.
 * Advanced search allows for searching by Commons Categories which have an associated P373.
 * Commons Category search will also show sub-categories for more specific results.

Coming Soon
 * We are releasing a new version of View it! that will implement some of the Toolforge functionality into the on-Wiki experience.
 * We are thinking about ways for View it! results to show up on page as an image grid, gallery or other form, without leaving the page. Please let us know what your idea/preference is.
 * Integrating editor features such as the ability to add an image from View it! or remove a faulty statement.

Action to take JamieF (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Share your thoughts with us about the interface! What would you like the final product to look like? Should it be on-wiki? Preference on location of the button/link? We are open to ideas - please share them with us.
 * Install Beta script and see how it can used to add new images to articles.
 * All editors are invited to share the tool with their local wiki communities, or incorporate it into relevant local templates, such as infoboxes. If you do so, please let us know about it, so we can ensure backwards compatibility for that use case as we continue development!
 * }

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jmabel!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Jmabel, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 15:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 15:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Advice about new (old) image to Commons
Hi JMabel, Thanks for your help on the Taschereau image. I've got a new question. I'd like to add an image of a fellow who died in 1858, named Robert Christie. It's used in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and also the Archives of Montreal:

http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/christie_robert_8E.html

http://www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca/archives/portraits/fr/fiches/P0413.shtm

However, I don't know how or whether this would pose any copyright problems? Commons is very much a mystery to me, so any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It says, "La gravure a été réalisée par C. S. Taylor d'après une peinture de Devis". "Devis" is presumably Arthur Devis. C.S. Taylor is presumably this guy. If he was "active in 1826" then obviously his work is all in the public domain by now. If you could pin down the date of Taylor's death that would be great, but even without that PD-old-100 is safe: there is no way that anyone active in 1826 was still alive in 1923 (100 years ago). And no one would have made an engraving of something like this for any purpose other than publication, so we can presume it was published shortly after it was made. - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Mariide
This draft came to my attention. I suspect you might know whether there are better sources you could direct to? Skyerise (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is going to be impossible to source. I made my remarks on the talk page of the draft. - Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's was my conclusion as well. Just wanted a second opinion. Skyerise (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ladies Musical Club
Hello! Your submission of Ladies Musical Club at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023 Seattle meetup
04:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

You are bad on Commons
@Jmabel, I do not like you on commons. Thank you, @Turnup97(I think.) Turnup44 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that charming? Someone creates a new account to tell me they don't like me. - Jmabel | Talk 15:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Good morning
Good evening, with your permission, I would like to know how to make the photos that I took with copyright or copyright Jimmy Jimmy Yelzer (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please keep Commons matters on Commons. This is my user talk page on the English-language Wikipedia. There is already a discussion going on the Commons help desk, plus several deletion requests. Please, let's not start yet another separate discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ladies Musical Club of Seattle
Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Awesome (band) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Awesome (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Awesome (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. violetwtf (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Translation request
Hi, I see you have stated that you know moderate Italian and are native in English. Is there any chance you could translate the page Antiprohibitionists on Drugs to the Italian language Wikipedia please? Helper201 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 * There should be a lot more information on them in Italian than there is in English, so I'm sure a bigger and more detailed page could be created about them by someone that knows Italian. If you could use your knowledge of Italian to expand the English article using sources that would be great too. Helper201 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not be qualified to do a translation into Italian. For that, you should look for someone who can claim more than "it-1" in their Babel box. I can do a fair job of translating Italian into English, but in the other direction I would probably not be at any higher level than Google Translate, maybe lower. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: When I wrote that just now, I hadn't looked and seen that this is just a tiny stub. I probably can do a serviceable job on that. I'll take a shot at it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done: it:Antiproibizionisti sulla droga. Hopefully a native speaker will review this and fix anything I got wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 19:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But they apparently will delete it for lack of sources (presumably in terms of the electoral results). If you have citation for any of this, add it to the en-wiki article and I can try porting it over. - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * okay, thank you. I've tried looking for English sources but haven't seen any so far. I think you'll have better luck looking for sources in Italian. I think this would be much easier for you to do than myself, as I have no knowledge of the language. Helper201 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I found very little in Italian offhand. It was a small and short-lived party before the time of the web, and the fact that it was a center-left party whose leaders later allied with Berlusconi can't have left a lot of people feeling very favorable about it. - Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for looking and trying. Simply citing its political position on the English and the Italian page as centre-left if you found that would be good. Hopefully you or someone else can improve it before the Italian page is deleted. If you're looking for a Wikipedia page that could do with help translating content from Italian to English then the Love Party (Italy) is one I marked as needing translation from its Italian article recently. So that would be very much appreciated if you decide to work on translating from the Italian page to the English page on that. Helper201 (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI the work I did on the Love Party was using Google Translate from the Italian version. I'm sure it could be done better by someone with some knowledge of the language. Helper201 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2023
01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Left-wing terrorism
Hi, I've listed Left-Wing terrorism in Articles for Deletion. You were involved previously when it was discussed and you may be interested. AlanStalk 09:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jyllian Gunther, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Porter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * already fixed by someone else. - Jmabel | Talk 15:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The portrait of Susanna Victoria Reid
Hello! Before publishing, I read the rules of English Wikipedia, concerning the images, but the explanation in them is purely obscure, incomplete and unintelligible, in my opinion, so publishing this work was quite chancy and risky. I'd say that I'm quite an experienced user of English Wikipedia, so your voluminous critique would have been very apposite, apropos and indispensible.

What's your personal viewpoint on my work? Do you think this work is a treason? The thing is that Susanna is quite a reactionary, bourgeois journalist, so it appears to be that I made a right wing opportunistic (petty bourgeois) mistake. On the other hand, personally, I find her to have been quite attractive in youth, so, may be, this cause might have diminished the cruel punishment of proletarian intelligenzia and all the revolutionary workers of the world.

On the other hand, I asked a couple of persons about this work. They told me that Susanna was drawn realistically and vividly, so I didn't committed an antiproletarian crime. My mother, the gentlest and saddest of womankind, noticed that there's a decadent tendency in this work, though. Dr. Blofeld's opinion on the above-mention sketch isn't low. I find this user to be well-behaved, affable, and reasonable.

P. S. if you describe and discuss your opinion on this serious matter in a very voluminous reply to me, I'll be very glad. The point is that I'm really afraid of the decay, decadance and really obscurantism shown in this work. P. P. S. By the way, I'm inexpressibly sorry for my extremely verbose and stylistically incorrect English (it would appear that you noticed that there's a holy mess with grammar, vocabulary and stylistics in my present messages), so I've got to apologise. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * more appropriate convenience link: File:SusannaReid2005.jpg.
 * I have little idea what you mean here by "treason." Treason is betraying one's country (unless maybe you mean it in terms of "a traitor to one's class"?). Frankly, I don't care much about anyone's politics here, as long as they follow the rules. The issues here would entirely be rules of copyright. If this is based on a copyrighted photo, then it's a derivative work, and cannot be hosted by Commons (or en-wiki) as long as the original on which it is based is copyrighted and unlicensed. On the other hand, if you happen to have crossed paths with her 18 years ago and drew it from life, fine. As for whether it belongs in the Wikipedia article, assuming there is no copyright problem that is entirely en-wiki's affair, not Commons, and I have no more role in that than any other user. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply. In other words, thank you very much indeed! I officially declare that I used very many sources in the process of drawing. I drew her three years ago, so I don't remember their number exactly. And, accordingly, I never met Reid in real life. May I ask you whether this official statement in the present talk formally prevents me from the issues with copyrighted images or not?Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are in a gray zone. I've been there myself; I personally wouldn't put such an image on Commons or Wikipedia. You probably would do well to say overtly that the sketch was loosely based on a number of photos of her; I have no idea whether the consensus would be to allow it or not. - Jmabel | Talk 20:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * May be, I should ask a couple of your colleagues, taking legal action against artists in wikipedia. What do you think about this idea? Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest struggling with this pretty corrupted system of copyright. As I see, you're a victim of reactionary, repressive policies, so I would have supported you, if I'd been a participant of the trial.Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Use in Wikipedia is almost never likely to become a legal matter. As a non-profit educational site, Wikipedia would be granted very broad fair-use latitude. The issue is that we want to allow easy reuse, even commercial reuse, so we try to keep things to what would be easily defensible in that other context. - Jmabel | Talk 20:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * However, there're numerous committees of censorship, the rules (de-facto, the laws) have got the most ambigous wording, so I'm gonna go through the infernal regions of prosecution and repressions based on someone's hypothetical lost lucrum, even though it's almost entirely impossible to prove (and disprove) that my sketch is based on copyright photos because I've got my own bourgeois democratic right to express my thoughts, feelings in art, so, may be, I changed Susanna's physiological features to modify her facial expression, her countenance. Why not?
 * If Wikipedia had been a purely educational website, there had been such medieval policies in terms of copyright (so far as I remember, queen Anne signed the Copyright Act in the 18th; in other words, it's inconceivable, isn't it?).Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, if someome is gonna blame me in the violation of copyright, I've got a right to admit such words as calumnities because there're Susanna's photos which are certain to be in the public domain, so if someone is going to argue that I violated the copyright with uploading the above-mentioned image, I'll have got to admit this citizen as a calumniator, because his (her) evidence isn't based upon the official statement of specialist who're able to argue that the aforementioned portrait has got similrities with a set of copyrighted photos. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * are you familiar with Commons' recautionary principle? Point four basically says if we aren't sure about the copyright status, we don't want to host it. Why? Because we want reusers including commercial reusers to be able to have reasonably high confidence that they are not accidentally violating someone else's copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 21:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, this point four blames me in violating the copyright, automatically. This point militates against UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, so I've got my personal presumption of innocence. In other words, Commons is strongly against one of the main principles of international law.
 * If someone has got facts, evidence, testifying against me, this person should have got a right to delete my files. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia declares that there's no international law's implementation here, Wikipedia is completely illegal as a project. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are grossly exaggerating the situation. This is not a matter of criminal law. I take it that someone wants to delete a file where you yourself admit you are not quite sure of the sources from which it may derive, so you can't demonstrate that your work is sufficiently transformative not to be considered derivative work. They are not even proposing to take any action against you personally. They are saying that under the circumstances, they don't think Commons should host your photo. I've personally had photos deleted on similar bases (mainly lack of freedom of panorama in Romania). It's not a comment on me, and this is not a comment on you. And with that I'm done. If you feel a need to have the last word, go ahead, but I won't be responding further. - Jmabel | Talk 21:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

About administrative maps of Austro-Hungary
Hi Joe Mabel. From what I have observed recently, nationalist contributors, notably hungarian, romanian, polish, russian or turkish (but not only) cannot support the modification of their maps (see for example Ingush03.png) and are particularly indignant when someone add nuances, diversity or minorities where they want to show reductive simplifications. Following the COM:CROP rule, they consider any modification, even of a digital map created especially for Commons (therefore not a historical document) as a "falsification". They protect their mistakes, biased PoVs, spelling or geographical errors (wrong locations) by making inoperative the possibility of downloading new versions (the dialog window then asks to download the improved version separately under another name, and if we try, it tells us that we do not have the authorizations). Regarding Romania, they ignore the romanian legislation regarding works of art, historical monuments and old photos, to indiscriminately apply the no-FOP to any image that displeases them. Too bad, Trecătorul răcit (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [I presume that throughout you mean upload, not download; the other makes no sense.]
 * The "new name" thing has nothing to do with nationalism. We made a decision recently on Commons to require the "autopatrol" right to overwrite a file that someone else uploaded, because there were too many bad overwrites, easily the majority. We also have a way to temporarily mark a file to be overwritten freely if a consensus has been reached on the talk page. For maps, in Commons' view, it's not a matter of "falsification": it's that if two different people cannot come to a consensus about a map, then Commons' policy is to host both, and let the individual wikis decide which they prefer to use. Obviously, the ideal remains changes by consensus. Of course it is best if you have a specific citation for each change you make; often the situation is that you can cite all of your changes to one or two maps from the period.
 * "[I]t tells us that we do not have the authorizations" is vague. You don't say exactly what error message you are getting, or what tool you are using. I strongly recommend (depending on your experience level with Commons) either commons:Special:UploadWizard or (what I use) commons:Special:Upload; the former guides you through the process, the latter more or less gives you tabula rasa. Remember to mark the original with commons:Template:derivative works and your upload with commons:Template:derived from. I'll be very surprised if you get that error from either of these tools, as long as you are logged in.
 * "romanian legislation regarding works of art, historical monuments and old photos": at least with regard to historical monuments, Romanian law has almost no allowance for FoP, even if the government does a poor job of enforcing this. Commons' policy is to follow laws like this even if the country in question never enforces them. I find it frustrating, too, but it's policy. I recently had a picture deleted that was of a building built in Bucharest in the 1920s, because the young architect lived to be old and it is less than 70 years since he died. As for works of art and old photos, I'm no sure what you have in mind. Anything with a known artist who died before 1953 should be fine, as should anything where the artist can't be determined and the work predates 1903. Anything more recent is not. Can you give me an example of something that was deleted where those rules weren't applied? As you probably know, I'm a Commons admin as well as an en-wiki admin, and from what I can see it's rare (though not vanishingly rare) for someone to close a Commons' deletion review in a manner that goes against the rules, and if they do then the undeletion review process is pretty robust. - Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these clarifications. If Commons' policy is to host both or several versions, and let the individual wikis decide which they prefer to use, so this will allow me to better record some "commons:Template:derived from" versions, explaining and sourcing the reasons, despite the simplifying nationalists who consider any improvement or enrichment as a "falsification". - --Trecătorul răcit (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. - Jmabel | Talk 17:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed? Unfortunately only for six hours... Look, I try on the French wiki to introduce the complete version with this argument : Enriched map of religious minorities of this time, in accordance with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Derivative_versions: Commons policy is to keep several versions if the authors do not agree on a map. The enriched one is challenged by the contributors who only admit the representation of state religions: see . The colleague Мя Масніи ("My fatty"?), one of the most active defenders of Hungarian cartography concerning the history of Central Europe, revert my change with the answer Off-topic - suggest your changes in pdd. So, the religious diversity of this time and the whole context of the crusades, sourced and showing the majority opinion of historians other than Hungarians are... present in Commons but not in use in Wikipedia, where it is... off-topic! Too bad, oversimplifying nationalism wins by knockout, because I cannot be right against the opinion of Enyavar, Gyalu 22, Мя Масніи, OrionNimrod, Pannonian, Pikerton and some others. Sincerely, --Trecătorul răcit (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot be responsible for anything the French-language Wikipedia community chooses to do. I'm barely a participant there, let alone anything more than that. As I said, fr-wiki can choose what it prefers. - Jmabel | Talk 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I'm not making you responsible, I'm just informing you. Fr-wiki (and all other wikis) can in theory "choose what they prefer", but in practice, sometimes it is the web brigades that dominate. In this specific case, a Hungarian nationalist web brigade. That's life! --Trecătorul răcit (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Typo on your user page
Hi there, you gave me some advice on commons, so I thought I'd pay respects and let you know there is a typo on your User Page in the following paragraph:

I was one of the mainstays of Wikipedia for about three and a half years. I backed off from such a major role in April 2007, though I am still a moderately active participant here, and quite an active participant in The Commons. My reduction in involvement was largely because Wikipedia is now basically a success, and does not need my time the way it once did. The equivalent of a second, unpaid, full-time job needs to be fun, and in recent years I've found Commons more fun that Wikipedia.

I think you mean to have than :) Chavmen (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Meetup in Seattle on 16 January 2024
(t · c)  buidhe  05:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Email you received
Check out this thread: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. If you get another, block the account (You won't be called out for being involved, it's a LTA doing this). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FAR for unification of Germany
User:Buidhe has nominated Unification of Germany for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Seattle March 2024 Events
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 01:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

Concern regarding Draft:Bam Bam (Seattle band)
Hello, Jmabel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bam Bam (Seattle band), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Translation assistance
Hello, I'm KB from Binance. I came across your username as someone who can help with translations of the Richard Teng article, which I worked with editors at Articles for Creation to create here. I have posted an Italian version and a Portuguese version. I saw you listed on "translators available" for both languages and was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and if everything is good, create the translated articles on the Italian and/or Portuguese Wikipedias? Because I have a financial conflict, I don't directly create articles related to Binance.

Thanks so much. Let me know if you have any questions. KB at Binance (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * while I am perfectly capable of translating from Italian or Portuguese into English, I am not capable of writing either language well enough to go the other direction. The only language other than English where I have the confidence to write for publication is Spanish. - Jmabel | Talk 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Surprise! (film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Surprise! (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Surprise! (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Links
Hi, do you know about red links on Wikipedia? I am not clear on something about them. Delectable1 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A red link means there is currently no such page. Anything else?- Jmabel | Talk 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I keep trying to take them off and some user, Sable not only reverts but won't answer. Delectable1 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the link is to something that would be an appropriate article topic, and it's the first time it has been mentioned in the particular article, it should be there as a "red" link. - Jmabel | Talk 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's too much to try to analyze. There's one of these links in Lizz Wright. What about the Indy 500 articles? Particularly in the tables. Delectable1 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Provide specific links for where you want my opinion (e.g. link the diffs, or link the article and say what link in the article you are talking about). - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In a summary I would say red links usually do not belong anywhere. If they do fit then someone should make an article for the page. With the Indy personnel and why would each of those charts be better with people without articles? Other red links pop up like I said in the Lizz Wright article, Arban method (T.H. Rollinson and the Jean White Company), and more. Also in the 2019 IFSC Climbing World Championships and the IFSC World Climbing Cup the tables would be improved by having no red links. Delectable1 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again: if you want to discuss a few specifics, I'm willing. If you want to give me a laundry list that links to nothing, I'm not interested. - Jmabel | Talk 22:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be very specific. In the 1955 to 1967 Indianapolis 500 articles as well as the 1977, 1990, and 2024 Indianapolis 500 articles I took out the drivers' names with red links in the failed to qualify section. With the Arban method article I took out the T.H. Rollison and the Jean White Company red links. With the 2019 IFSC Climbing World Championships and the IFSC World Climbing Cup articles I took out the athletes who had red links. Is that specific enough? Repeating the question, when are red links useful? In the Lizz Wright article the red link is for the National Choral Award. There is no article for the NCA. Delectable1 (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In answer to your direct question: red links are useful when they indicate something that links to an article we should have, but don't. In practice, they are the main way people notice that an article ought to exist, but doesn't.
 * Let me try to guess which phrases in the paragraph above are equivalent to the links I asked for; perhaps this will make it clearer what I wanted when I asked for links:
 * Convenience links: 1955 Indianapolis 500, 1956 Indianapolis 500, 1957 Indianapolis 500, 1977 Indianapolis 500, 1990 Indianapolis 500, 2024 Indianapolis 500, Arban method, T.H. Rollison, Jean White Company, 2019 IFSC Climbing World Championships, IFSC World Climbing Cup, Lizz Wright, National Choral Award. Is that correct that all of these in your paragraph above are either to be article names or, for the four that are red, things you are saying do not merit articles? - Jmabel | Talk 14:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, also the Indy 500 for the years 1958-1967. Apparently the other years of the race from 1911 to 1916, the years 1919 to 1941, the years 1946 to 1954, the years 1968 to 1976, the years 1978 to 1989, and the years 1991 to 2023 have these links too. The articles which you listed related to the Indianapolis 500 have the links. The red links you listed are correct except it's the IFSC Climbing World Cup which has an article. That article also has the links to which we're referring. Delectable1 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For the Indianapolis 500, it seems to me pretty much a wash whether these people have red links or not. It does look like the bulk of people who are listed as "failed to qualify" actually have articles; I honestly don't know what the notability rules are for race car drivers in particular, and if making it to the qualifying round of the Indy 500 (but no further) is, itself, considered enough to merit an article. If it is, then certainly the red links should be kept. If not, then I'd lean toward not keeping. I'd suppose Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing would be the best place to ask about that notability threshold, and that certainly if there is anything like consensus there, you should abide by it.

IFSC Climbing World Cup: certainly the winners should have links, since obviously winning that would be sufficient to merit an article. Linking surfaces the need for the article. Second or third place? Again, I have no idea. And, similarly, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climbing would be the place to develop a consensus.

T.H. Rollinson nl:Thomas H. Rollinson has an article in the Dutch Wikipedia, so probably merits one in English. I made this edit, which is how that should be handled. "Jean White Company" probably does not merit a link; if someone adds that back, ask them for some evidence of it being sufficiently documented and notable for an article. Similar suspicion on National Choral Award, and hard to believe that if it's something important we wouldn't have it, but someone might show otherwise. - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jmabel