Jump to content

User talk:Jmabel/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

Was Romania occupied?

Hello. I know you've scaled back your activity here (though not entirely, thank goodness), but I wonder if you have anything to say over here. As far as I can tell, my opponents in this dispute are arguing a rather far-fetched position, while I seem to be backed up by sources (which have not been countered). Your perspective, though, would be valued, as I'm sure you'd bring a more impartial voice to the discussion. Biruitorul 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Infernal Noise Brigade

I've nominated Infernal Noise Brigade, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Infernal Noise Brigade satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernal Noise Brigade and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Infernal Noise Brigade during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Remença

Hello again! I ran across the Remença page when randomly going through the Catalan wikipedia and I noticed that the whole concept of remença and the war has been compressed into a single article in the English wiki. Would you be interested in working together to translate these? -Yupik 08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

About your contribution

Please see Talk:Constantin Tănase#Deleted source, where your 2 year old contribution (Talk:Constantin Tănase#German-language site) is disputed. I think your opinion would be important. Mukadderat 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Jmabel/Archive 53, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Discussion: Peace activists & Anti-war activists

Hey there, Jmabel. I've seen your name turning up again lately, nice to see you working your way back into things (to whatever degree).

Given what I've seen of your editing, I thought you might find this of interest. I nominated the brand new Category:Peace activists for deletion, and the discussion is getting under way here: [|Categories_for_discussion: Peace activists & Anti-war activists

Regards, Cgingold 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

==Thanks for the welcome==

Thanks Jmabel,

I don't know where you find the time! I don't want to get too deep into this!

I'll be looking to removing the POV and Unreferenced|date=January 2007 tags for the Militant Tendency article over the next few weeks. Will post a question on the discussion page when I'm done, and would appreciate your revisions and critical eye.

In the meantime, your thoughts on the "list of 'Party members expelled'" are welcome. I think its amateurish and not either wiki encyclopedia or any encyclopedia type material. I think it should be removed, but not if there are any reasonable objections. Andysoh 01:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Univ of Washington project to add photographs to Wikipedia -- WP:EL policy concerns?

Hello Jmabel, I see you're the only editor who has ever interacted with User:UWDI ced, who is apparently Carolyn E. Dunford, a librarian at the University of Washington who adds links to photographs to Wikipedia articles. (See her contribution history). They have made some presentations that describe this as a project. I'm writing to see if this raises any spam concerns with you.

  • I notice they hardly ever announce on an article's Talk page what they are up to.
  • The actual photos that are IN the collections are strictly copyrighted, so they are not available for our own use in articles
  • Wikipedia is not a directory, so I wonder what our optimum usage of this type of material really is.
  • Is this something they should be urging as an example on other librarians?

I'm writing to see if this worries you at all. If not, I'll probably let it go.

I saw this talk on line (scroll down to Dunford): Using Wikipedia to Extend Digital Collections. Ann Lally and Carolyn Dunford, University of Washington.

In the summer of 2006 the University of Washington Libraries Digital Initiatives unit analyzed the content of its Digital Collections for subjects relevant to articles in Wikipedia; and edited the Wikipedia articles to include links to our collections. Since that time the use of our collections has increased tremendously. This presentation will talk about the history of the project, the culture of Wikipedia as applied to this project and the results of our analysis of our web server statistics.

A further presentation is planned here.

EdJohnston 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit spammy--do we have a policy on group accounts like this? Of course it'd be preferable if they uploaded their collections to Wikipedia and released them under the GFDL... Then again, I do think it's good they want to be involved and I don't want to scare institutions off, like what happened earlier with HistoryLink.. --Lukobe 04:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a tricky case. I think it's generally appropriate because the collections are uniformly excellent, and absolutely non-commercial. In many cases, I doubt they are in a position to release their materials under GFDL: a photographer may have released a collection of his/her work to the university library and allowed them to place it online, but not allowed them to yield up other rights. In some cases, when I've said that a particular link was not relevant to the topic of an article or was not very valuable, they have always been willing to agree to drop that one.

If you think there are links here that don't give "value added" to our readers, then I recommend that you make a list of the ones you'd be inclined to keep and the ones you'd be inclined to drop, and approach her. I'd be very surprised if you can't work this out amicably. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cberlet mediation

Hi Jmabel,

I've generally seen you as pretty level-headed, and I wanted to ask you about your support for Cberlet's position in the recent disputes. To me he has come across as rather intransigent and non-neutral; he may well be a recognized scholar (you seem to know who he is; I don't), but the only explanation I can come up with for his sharp refusal to consider redirecting National Socialism to Nazism -- surely by far the most common meaning of the former term in English -- is political bias (he is probably sympathetic to some form of socialism and doesn't want to see it tarred by association). That's an understandable feeling -- though I myself am opposed to socialism, it doesn't mean I think Michelle Bachelet is getting ready to fire up the gas chambers -- but that doesn't overrule the use of the common name. --Trovatore 07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't have a strong opinion either way on redirecting National Socialism to Nazism. National socialism (lowercase "s") should lead to National Socialism (disambiguation), as it does now. National socialism (disambiguation) should simply lead to National Socialism (disambiguation), as it does now. If National Socialism is to redirect to Nazism, there needs to be an {{otheruses}} hat text on Nazism.
Also, National Socialism (disambiguation) should probably mention the term "social nationalism" (see Syrian Social Nationalist Party).
I'm conjecturing here, but I think Cberlet's concern — and it is a valid one — is that a group of people have been doing everything they can to say that Nazism (and fascism in general) are a form of socialism, which I find ridiculous. From a strictly tactical point of view, I can easily see why he won't readily yield on this point if he thinks that it is not going to help settle this fight, but will simply be taken as a tectonic shift in an organized campaign to make a connection that many of us find not merely invalid but misleading and scurrilous with reference to socialism. As has come up before, it is as if we were to take seriously "liberal" and "democratic" in the name of Zhirinovsky's party in present-day Russia.
For what it's worth, if you doubt his credentials, see Chip Berlet, especially the publications list. Note that, especially in the last decade or so, there are academic presses and journals, as well as other major publishers (e.g. Routledge). - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, there should be the hat text on Nazism. Thanks for pointing out Chip Berlet. I have to say it kind of confirms my view that he's not really approaching this from a neutral POV, though.
I suppose in fairness I should come clean on my own: Yes, I am a libertarian, don't really buy the right-left distinction; though you could call me "right-libertarian" to distinguish me from (say) Noam Chomsky, I'd rather be on the same side as Chomsky, or Alan Dershowitz, than the same side as Pat Buchanan.
But I'm not going to say fascism is a "form" of socialism (what does that even mean?); I might have said it once, polemically, but I concede that it misses a lot of stuff descriptively. I think both of them are wrong for the same reason, namely that they undervalue individual liberty, but that isn't quite the same as being the same thing.
Anyway that's all just background. We can certainly agree that the fascism article shouldn't start with "Fascism, a form of socialism]...." Hopefully we can also agree that both fascism and socialism reject some of the same key pieces of classical liberalism, and that classical liberal scholars find a commonality between them in that regard, and that these perceived commonalities should be mentioned somewhere. --Trovatore 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. There are several separate issues here:
  • Whether National Socialism (capital "S") should redirect to Nazism rather than National socialism (disambiguation). On this, I have no strong opinion.
  • That you personally dislike both fascism and socialism and find them both opposed to your libertarian views. That you, as a Wikipedia contributor, hold this opinion is of no encyclopedic importance.
  • At one remove from that, the view that both fascism and socialism "undervalue individual liberty" is multiply an opinion. First that there is a "correct" value to place on individual liberty; second, that fascism inherently places a lower value than that (which I think you would easily find is a mainstream scholarly opinion, easily cited for); and third, that socialism inherently does so (on which I think you would find much less scholarly agreement). Certainly the mainstream of present-day scholarship would say that about the former East Bloc, but there are a lot of scholars who make a case that the socialised policies of Northern Europe have effectively increased rather than decreased human liberty. Not to say for a moment that the view is unanimous, but that it is, at best, controversial to say that rather socialized Norway places serious limits on liberty (though as a libertarian, you presumably do not feel they have made the correct trade-offs).
  • That "undervaluing individual liberty" is a connecting characteristic rather than a fact (that is, you would not discuss carrots in an article on oranges, merely because they are a similar color). Insofar as there is something relevant here, it probably relates more to concepts like "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism". That is, theorists of totalitarianism, such as Hannah Arendt, have made quite an interesting case (one that, I think, now qualifies as mainstream) that Nazism and Stalinism share some important characteristics. But these are not characteristics that they share with Fascist Italy under Mussolini, and certainly not with present-day Norway.
At least that's the way I see it. So, while on the specific issue of the redirect, I don't have a strong opinion, I do have a strong view, from being moderately familiar with the literature, that almost no one other than libertarians (a class in which I include the Austrian School economists) holds the view that the "collective" aspect of both fascism and socialism is a key common characteristic that binds them together while differentiating them from most other 20th- (and 21st-) century ideologies and views.
Further, this distinction among (1) our own opinions, (2) the opinion of any small number of scholars, and (3) a mainstream of scholarship on a topic is a very important one. Having worked with Cberlet on numerous articles, I think he is quite good at distinguishing his own views from those of the mainstream where he holds non-mainstream views, and he is quite good at articulating each. In my experience, most of the people I've seen get in fights with him are people who hold non-mainstream views more or less opposed to his, and who do not adequately make a distinction between something being their own view and something being mainstream scholarship. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not claim my own view was relevant; I disclosed it, in the context that since I was suggesting Berlet might be biased, I should own up to my own biases. On that point, I am very far from persuaded that Berlet's personal views are not a large part of his motivation. Some of what he writes on that talk page sounds like he's still writing for Ramparts, particularly when he juxtaposes "right-wing" and "marginal" over and over again, as though they automatically go together. --Trovatore 07:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
On the talk page, yes, but in the articles, I think he's been pretty meticulous about leaving out even his own views where he knows they are marginal.
As far as I can see, when people have brought up marginal left-wing views (e.g. that Bush is a fascist) he has been just as quick to slap them down; the difference is that they've gone away more quickly, whereas the right-wing equivalents have not. That is, if I may caricature, the "Bush = Hitler" people have not been nearly as persistent as the "Roosevelt = Mussolini" people, so most of the time and effort has been spent arguing with the latter. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Taxi (band)

"could you please be more specific about what in the article you feel needs citation from third party sources?" - Nothing specific; just anything from a third party that verifies that they even exist. I've removed the primarysources tag since you added some references. --Geniac 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Hello Jmabel. I understand that you have restricted your input of late and would rather not be dealing with irritating situations, but the Che Guevara article has become a bit sticky again due to the less regular appearances of long term editor Polaris. I've been attempting to cope with various additions, and accompanying talk page banter, but have found myself under siege from editors who believe it is anti-Guevara propaganda, and am myself being described as "anti-communist, anti-Che" (I'm simultaneously being accused of being on the payroll of the Cuban government by Cuban Americans on the Cuba talk page, so I am presently under siege from all comers). Meanwhile, Ed Poor has descended to add a POV tag to what I believe is a very strong Che Guevara article, claiming that the article "hides the fact that Guevara was a murderer". And he's showing no signs of removing it, which is a shame because its a featured article, and Polaris in particular has spent many hours honing its prose for accuracy. My efforts to safely steward the article are failing dismally. So a temporary return to the talk page to calm the waters on your part, would be most helpful. Please take a look.-- Zleitzen(talk) 05:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few remarks on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Joe.-- Zleitzen(talk) 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Félag íslenskra þjóðernissinna

Hi... thanks for your note over at "Félag íslenskra þjóðernissinna". I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I do think there's enough material for an article, I just don't have the skills necessary to write it myself. Thanks! --Joe Decker 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Hi. About Ruben Dario's page. I wrote about him in the Arabic Wikipedia and I wanted to link the article I wrote with the English one. So I edited the page and added the "ar:" interwiki link. However, I was not able to save the page because the Spam Protection Filter prevents "www.yoyita.com", so I had to remove the link from the page in order to save it. Sorry, I should have clearly written that in the edit summary. Recently, I'm trying to get used to writing good edit summaries, but sometimes I fail. —MK (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group categories

(copied from talk).." I just came over here based on discussion at Template talk:Ethnic groups#Peer review parameter..."

  • There were a couple-three admins trying to find everything that was deleted [hundreds of categories, that is], and then restore them... I think we got everything back, but I didn't do a one-by-one search of every category that was originally created for the project... but I believe we did... --Ling.Nut 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI: Related thread here.

Ling.Nut 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Paine Peer Review

I noticed you appear to have contributed signifcantly to the Tom Paine article. If you are interested I've nominated it for a peer review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review.

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

Hi Joe, I was blindsided too. I noticed yesterday or the day before that they deleted the article. I was surprised, but more surprised that you were surprised. Can it be restored? Modernist 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We can propose restoration. But first things first. I have contacted the person who proposed deletion and asked why he didn't inform me that it was up for deletion again. I admit that I will be surprised if there was a good reason, but I want to have my ducks in a row before I propose restoring it.

For what it is worth, there was probably a lot of content in the article that merited removal, but that should not be an argument to delete the article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep me informed. Modernist 21:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You were one of dozens of contributors in the first AfD, and of literally hundreds of contributors to the article; I did not know that you in particular wanted to be notified, I'm sorry. However the AfD discussion did last a full five days, and the page did have a very prominent notice that it was up for deletion during that period. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought that anyone who participated in the first afd would have been notified of the new one - I wasn't either. Tvoz |talk 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You're certainly free to bring the discussion up at DRV, if you really feel that the article did not meet our deletion criteria. However, there was a very strong consensus during the second AfD that the article was original research and indiscriminate information.
Keep in mind that pretty much all of the keep arguments in the first AfD were pretty flimsy ones: "it's useful," "it's interesting," "lots of people put hard work into this," and your threat to leave if this article is deleted. Unfortunately none of these arguments deal with the very large problem of the potential inaccuracies inherent in OR (and perhaps even libel, if the artists being discussed are living persons). It is sad that you would choose to leave the project over this, and I urge you to reconsider, but please keep in mind that this is not an attempt to be "tight-assed," but rather to keep Wikipedia as factually accurate as possible. Krimpet (talk/review) 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15. I'll be informing the other people who have expressed opinions either way, but I may not get to that in the next couple of days. Since this should be open for five days, that should not be a problem. - Jmabel | Talk 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in either AfDs--I know enough not to make a fool of myself by trying to discuss things I do not understand. But I made a comment at the DelRev, since regardless of the subject I can count heads and match up usernames. You will have noticed there strong exception has also been taken to the process for the Darvon cocktail review today. I've commented also. I urge you to help us all by staying around to try to get some changes in the deletion process. DGG 06:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way - does anyone happen to know exactly what the edit summary said when the second AFD was opened? I just loooked at a couple of articles that survived recent afds, and their edit summaries are rather oblique about this, which could explain why none of us noticed it. I would like to know if this can be produced, not only for this article's sake, but for the general discussion going on about the afd process. If no one here knows, as I suspect since we became aware of this after the deletion, then where is the list of admins who are open to providing copies of deleted material? I assume the stuff is available if we're expending so much energy trying to get it reinstated. This whole process is new to me, and seems cloaked in clouds of smoke. Tvoz |talk 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It was clear. It was "nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians (2nd nomination)". As I said, I was 19 days backed up on my enormous watchlist: back in January, I ratcheted down my level of involvement, and haven't normally been looking at articles until they seem to have "settled", though I've been occasionally dipping randomly into the watchlist so that I occasionally hit at least some of the ones where there may be ongoing discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see it was clear - but it was only showing on watchlists for 4 hours. I have over 600 non-talk pages watched and god knows how many Talk pages - I am here too much, but looking back to my contributions around April 2 when it was posted I see I was knee-deep in uncovering and fighting off a sockpuppet situation (where a guy posed as an MD, made edits all over the place to medical articles, just so he could be "credentialed" and offer his support to himself on a dispute about Elizabeth Edwards) - I just didn't see this one, because probably I directly checked the hot topics that were being attacked and by the time I looked at the watchlist more closely the article had slipped down and the edit summary replaced by something later and less clear, if mentioning the afd at all. So I do think the process is flawed, and I do think someone could have noticed the apparent utter lack of interest by any of the people who had been interested enough to participate in the 1st afd just a few months earlier, but maybe that's naive. Tvoz |talk 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the message on your user page so I'd understand if you don't want to get into this too much. However would you be able to add your opinion to wikipedia talk:External links#Clarification of rich media section? You wrote the original version of the rich media section which is being quoted there - it has been garbled slightly with time but the essence of it still remains. The dispute is basically about whether rich media should be linked and how rigidly the external links guideline should be applied. Graham87 07:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Identity Crisis: Jeffrey Newman

Good to see that you are still around. And that Wikipedia is strengthening immeasurably. I have not visited for some time and cannot now access my User Name:Jeffrey Newman. I'm told this is because I did not originally supply my e-mail address. Please could you help me become myself once again! With many thanks. Jeffrey Newman 85.210.255.81 01:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I wanted Jeffrey Newman to appear in blue so you could hyper-link it; and it's in red: be grateful if you could tell me, at the same time, what I did wrong. And if hyper-link is the correct jargon. Thanks.

What you presumably want is User:Jeffrey Newman. If you didn't provide your email, though, and you forgot your password, I cannot imagine how you will prove that you are the same person. In any case, I personally have no ability to solve this. I suggest that you go to WP:AN/I and ask there (and don't be surprised if they refer you along to yet someone else, or tell you that this cannot be done). - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians (2)

It seems your request came too late.--MariusM 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shit. I linked the wrong thing. It's under deletion review. The review is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15. And I did this on the, like, 40 user talk pages of people who had participated. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I went through your recent edit history and fixed all the links in the messages you left to point to the current DRV. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
At least for the moment the List was restored [1]--MariusM 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that - not clear to me what the restoration actually means, though - it appears the commenting on the reinstatement continues. Tvoz |talk 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
All it means is tempoorary restoration so people can see what is being discussed. I've suggested it would be more useful to allow me to show what I propose, rather than what was there. - Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
How'd you manage to get it up? I'm showing no "edit" tab. Tvoz |talk 07:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Admins can edit protected articles. But that's neither here nor there: I'm going away for a while regardless of how this turns out. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Songs

Too late :) >Radiant< 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 16 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reginald H. Thomson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The list and your request

Hi and sorry. My computer was on the fritz for the past days, and it was already a redlink when I read your message. I'm sorry that it got deleted, and more so that it happened in this absurd manner. Dahn 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tactics

I would strongly support recreating the page (after DRV ends) with your new stripped down version. I think it should be stripped down even further, removing all entries without citations. Tactically, it might have been better to just ignore DRV and be bold and repost the new version. It would also help future DRV to add some more opening discussion of the phenomena that cites books, articles and other media on the subject. Certainly, no one would question an article on literary allusion, and songs are no different. I'd also like to see the history of the old page restored and combined with your new version. --Samuel Wantman 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you formulate a new and simpler title for the page, like songs that reference other artists without the complications of the older page. I like the new streamlined list. Maybe it's for the best that it gets rewritten. Modernist 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please folks, make these comments at the deletion review. Clearly, the way this is going, no one from the other side of this will pay attention to what is said on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. My reason for commenting here was for your future benefit. You don't need a consensus at DRV to recreate an article with a new version that addresses the reasons the previous one was deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs ...

responding to your input on my talk page

I've provided some input at the Deletion Review discussion. My argument is mainly that allusion is a valid literary device and should be recognized as such, despite the need for rigorous referencing. Another person explicitly referred to allusion as well, but came from the angle that such references should be included in the song article due to their commonality; dissolving lists into referring articles could be done for many hundreds if not thousands of lists here on WP, so I don't think that saying dissolution is possible is an argument for doing so. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! and thanks

I wrote what follows without noting that I had asked for help from you a couple of days ago - and that you had kindly replied. I will take your advice.

I note now - by scrolling up - that you yourself are in the midst of another contoversy, so I will try to read it up and figure out, if I can, 'WIGO' [what is going on]. That is what I mean (below) by 'seductive' (and the only time I ever have to do this is the middle of the night!

Now read on (if you wish!) -

Good to see you are still around! I seem to be having another bout of Wikipedia addiction but the quality overall in areas I am interested in seems continually to improve, so I find it fascinating and curious and worthwhile and personally seductive (in a slightly dangerous way).

I got to you this time by trying to think about NPOV and Conflicts of Interest, since I am promoting Earth Charter in UK and have been doing some editing of it. However, I will sort out a 'declaration of interest' (presumably on my own site? or in the discussion page where I am editing?) once I know how to use the technology again and get my user (and real) name back (I can't log-in as I apparently didn't provide my e-mail in 2005 and my password isn't working).

I'm writing this here because, I think, one of the positive attractions of the project IS the 'community' aspect. user:Jeffrey Newman 85.210.255.81 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, a declaration of interest should be on your user page and on the talk page of the article in question. - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to trouble you again - I put a note on WP:AN/I (it was no. 56 I think), but it's all been archived. It was partly seeking to find how to make contact with a 'developer'. I appreciate that I may need to wait and people have limited time and many responsibilities - once I could get a sense that the issue can be attended to 'in due course'. But, till then, I don't want to give up. Maybe I'll just have to try again on WP:AN/IHope to look at the issues you're involved with later this evening. Thanks. 85.210.255.81 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't quickly find it in the archive; saying "it was no. 56" is like saying "before the storm, it was the 7th grain of sand from the left". I don't have any better tool to find it in the archive than you do; so find it in the archive, copy-and-paste it back to AN/I, and say that it was archived without being dealt with and you still need help. - Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel/Archive_53&oldid=1143089757"