User talk:JdeJ

Good Faith

Hello. I appreciate your interest in the number of speakers for Farsi. If you could actually provide data from sources aside from the CIA Factbook, I would appreciate it. In a book that I am currently co-authoring, we will have a list of languages spoken as a mother tongue by 50 million or more. Currently, we have not included Farsi because of lack of -- in our limited view admittedly -- is inadequate statistical support for that number of speakers. It actually helps our case to have more languages included in the list, so this is actually a sincere question.

By the way, my changes on the Farsi language entry were made in good faith. The statement that I was someone "claiming" to be an academic seemed a bit like name-calling to me, although perhaps you did not intend it to sound that way or were responding to what you thought might not have been corrections made in good faith. I hope there are no hard feelings.

David A. Victor (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)David A. VictorDavid A. Victor (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mallika Sherawat

Hello!

I somehow agree with what you say on Mallika Sherawat's page. First of all, don't get too fascinated by reverting others' work. You had removed the reference I've added. First of all, Rediff.com is the most reliable and unbiased Indian site on the net (you said it's a gossip magazine, quite strange to hear that). Secondly, sex symbol is not a peacock, and see WP:PEACOCK for evidence.

Regarding the writing tone, I do agree with you. Therefore, I've rewritten it and toned it down. Thanks for the help. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me

Organic Agriculture Redirect Page

Thank you for helping me as I work out how this system works. I am trying to update and enrich sections of Wikipedia which are related to my organization IFOAM the International Federation of Organic Agriculture www.ifoam.org. We are the Umbrella Organization for Organic Agriculture and have an official definition for Organic Agriculture which I am charged with advertising on Wikipedia.

The IFOAM official definition: 'Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.'

I understand that things which are posted on wikipedia will be 'mercilessly edited' and that is fine. The issue is that we represent 'Organic Agriculture' It would be advantageous for us to find a way to have a wiki page for 'organic agriculture' rather than 'organic farming' ..

Marseille

Why did you remove the link to the phototheque of Marseille and its environs? This was a private person's website (hosted by my own internet provider) and seemed to be quite good. I translated the title of the website (because of the peacock term and the misspelling); it did not appear to be spam. Mathsci (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. Happy New Year to you! (You must have lots of snow where you are for all those nice reindeer.) Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Languages of Europe

Regarding my latest edit, what I did was intended to arrange the macro-families (ndo-European, Finno-Ugric...) in terms of number of speakers, not the sub families within the macro-families. I don't feel the latter is necessary, but I do think that Indo-European languages should be listed first, as they comprise the overwhelming majority of speakers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. In that case, prefer a numerical ordering. I will work on making the change if that's fine with you. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppets

I was wondering why you stated what you said in your edit summary here; what is your evidence to back this claim? Feel free to email it if you feel it is sensitive. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps wondergirls and Lakshmix deserve a little attention regarding the use of sockpuppets, just out of interest are these the only two accounts you are aware of that might be used by the same person, or are there any more accounts that you think might be linked to Lakshmix etc. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariana Bridi da Costa

I am worried solely about the quality of discussion, that's what I am "campaigning" for. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You've stated your opinion, I've stated mine.JdeJ (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. You stated an opinion about me and speculated about my motivations. Not only are your speculations about my motivations mistaken, it's also wrong to make such speculations. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. All things taken into consideration, I do think that your motivations could be questioned. Let me remind you that you-re running a single-purpose account in a rather aggresive way. And for someone who turned up on Wikipedia today, finding your way directly to this specific discussion, you seem to be very well into the policies. If you want to make a complaint about me hinting at the possibility of you being a sock, bring it up at ANI. I'll remove further comments here as I'm not interested in a further discussion.JdeJ (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Running a single purpose account"? Nope. Aggressive? Yes, some might see it that way, but then again may I remind you that you did not comment on behaviour such as plain voting, tagging and refactoring others' comments and personal attacks directed against e.g. the nom as "pointy" in that very same AfD. Just saying, it might appear to an neutral observer as though you are attacking me based on your "strong" opinion that the article should be kept. Your motivations in the AfD are far more questionable than mine. Btw, if you want to know what an SPA looks like, you might want to look here. 78.34.148.245 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this right: your every contribution is about the topic of this Brazilian model but you still claim that you don't run a single-purposed account? Funny, but not credible.JdeJ (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

VenetianPrincess

I noticed your edit on VenetianPrincess, which is on my watchlist as being frequently vandalized. You placed two requests for citation on her ancestry. I have a broader question: In what way is such information useful? If someone came from Liechtenstein, spoke only German at home, hung the Liechtenstein flag outside their home, then perhaps an argument could be made that their nationality was central to them. But in many articles, these claims seem...well...irrelevant...nationalistic. Even racist. Any thoughts on this? Piano non troppo (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I don't think I've ever added the nationality of anyone myself, but in a general sense, I don't see a problem with marking the nationality of people and I most certainly don't see it as racist in any way. Having said that, there are cases where it could be and it's not all that rare that such information is added for nationalistic purposes. As for how relevant it is, well, we usually have quite a lot of information about people. When they were born, where they were born, how tall they are and many other things. I don't see nationality being more or less relevant than such information, and that is of course just a personal opinion.JdeJ (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87

An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Hello. Just to let you know that the Fortune Global 500 article has been vandalized again by apparently the same guy who vandalized it repeatedly last year. His/her obsession is with Royal Dutch Shell which he/she insists should be listed as a Dutch/UK company even though Fortune Magazine which is the source of the article lists it as a Dutch company only. Apparently he/she doesn't undertstand that at Wikipedia we have to respect sources. Godefrew (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)