User talk:DBaba

This user may have left Wikipedia. DBaba has not edited Wikipedia since October 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi DBaba, just noticed something that could be of interest to you. The IP that did "this reversion" with the summary "Reverted edit war between DBaba and MHzard9", also did this edit in another article. Just a friendly heads up.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 09:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. It's too bad, this sort of behavior. I took it to Sockpuppet investigation, hopefully that'll sort it out. I put a lot of work into the stuff, thanks for lookin out! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please go through the article and help it achieve the language standards of GA, as you did in the article Kabandha? See Talk:Mandodari/GA1, where the reviewer notes your contribution to Kabandha.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to take a look at it. Nice to see Kabandha got Good article status! It couldn't have without your great work. DBaba (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for improving the article, especially your changes to the lede which are quite good. One of the sentences that you introduced to the lede uses the phrase "seeking to invalidate the historiography of the Nanking Massacre" with a wikilink to the article about the Nanking Massacre.

I was wondering if you were aware that there is an article titled Historiography of the Nanking Massacre. I thought about changing the sentence referenced above to link to Historiography of the Nanking Massacre instead of Nanking Massacre but I reconsidered doing that because it's critical that we have a link to Nanking Massacre early in the lede.

Could you take a look at the article on the Historiography of the Nanking Massacre and consider if there is a useful way to link to it? I think that article has information that is relevant to the topic of this article but I'm not quite sure how best to refer to it.

--Richard S (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added a 'see also'. I don't know if that's enough, but it's a link at least. I'll have to play around with that Historiography article at some point. Thanks!

Are you very familiar with the 'contest' historiography? Is Wakabayashi not insensitive for using the word 'fabrication' in his work, for its association with revisionist accounts of the massacre on the whole? [1] I don't know if he's tactless or if he just wants to tweak Chinese nationalists by choosing that word. Dramatization, exaggeration, uncertainty; a parable, true in symbol, uncertain in detail; there are plenty of more accurate, less confrontational ways to make the point! DBaba (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your great work on improving this article. I had abandonded it in lack of stamina, and you made it look regal in format and substance. Shoplifter (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. It's a tough article. Some of the criticism he faces is so intense, I don't even know how to integrate it. And it doesn't help that his fan or publicist is trying to promote him on Wikipedia using dishonest tactics: [2]. I expect that this person's interest is vested enough that s/he will return to try again. DBaba (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I didn't know about that. I had a spat with Mhazard9 because I felt his/her edits were biased. Good thing it got sorted. I think your approach in relaying the criticism is accurate and appropriate; Hilberg pretty much said it all with his comments. Shoplifter (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article was full of lies a few weeks ago, even propagating the false information that his name would be "Frantz Omar Fanon". I know Fanon, his life and his works quite well, and read all his books (in French). You could not find a word from him speaking of Martinique as a Nation, and of Martiniquans as a people. Fanon always considered himself as a French man. So, not only is "Martiniquan" incorrect regarding WP rules on nationality, but it is unacceptable, as it gives an impression which is very different from the reality : Martinique is not (and was not at his time) a colony (Fanon went to school as all French children), and Fanon never defended that opinion. AND there is nothing controversial about that. Vol de nuit (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you believe, I wonder, that he is speaking as a Frenchman when he uses the words "We Algerians..."? Michael Azar writes, "It is clear already from how Fanon locates his own “I”: it is no longer “we Frenchmen,” or “we Martinicans,” but rather “we Algerians.” Fanon has chosen to take part in this new historical formation... as the foundation for a new humanism."

I want you not to misunderstand. I am not disagreeing with you necessarily, only showing you that your view is one of several views. I am familiar with Fanon's earlier writing about his French identity, too. 'We Algerians', this is regarded as a sort of conclusion, though, by some scholars. I'm glad to meet someone who feels passionate about his Fanon. I hope you can be more patient with other editors, however! Sometimes they have a point, too. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

--Martinlc (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC) If the only reliable source for his appointment is a primary document, then that suggests that it is a fact that is insufficiently notable for inclusion. We might expect newspapers to report on this if it was: as it is this is effectively Original Research - there is more detailed information on Wikipedia than anywhere else. I can only assume that some editors are keen to flag it up as a way of highlighting his sexual orientation, breaching BLP policy.Reply

I appreciate your point, but I think you misread the citation. I added a citation which was not a primary document, and it was that citation that you most recently blanked. The significance of his involvement with the LGBT community is multifaceted, but suffice it to say that because the media has made an issue of it, and because the citations are available, it would be peculiar to omit it from his Wikipedia bio. Glen Greenwald concluded one of his articles with a link to this, which asks the obvious question: "Did Lamo—who was once appointed to San Francisco's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force—trade on Manning's gender or sexual struggles to win over his trust, and his confession?" Cheers, DBaba (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean. but the source cited merely retails, without confirmation, what Boing Boing has said; I still think it's marginal on notability grounds here - if we are going to speculate (or report speculation) on why Bradley Manning confided in Adrian Lamo I think that belongs on Manning's page not Lamo's. Maybe I'm being over-critical - Lamo's page has been the target of so much negative BLP-ing that blandness and brevity seem the best approach. Martinlc (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see what you're saying. To me, though, it looks like blanking Lamo's involvement in the LGBT community not only distorts the image of Lamo as captured in the media for many years, it's actually part of a program of defaming him. I don't mean to suggest that that's what you mean to do, it's just my perception of the function of that omission. He has been the homeless hacker who cares about the gay community for a long time, and now he's being transformed into something else by his critics.

Does that make sense? If his critics from within the LGBT community (e.g., Greenwald) seek to destroy him, that's precisely what they have to omit from their op-eds, except when that involvement can be used to smear him as a traitor. His passionate critics want to pretend that this stuff never happened, despite it being a well-documented part of his life in the media eye. So it's not just that I think that it should be mentioned, and that I see it (his involvement in the LGBT community, generally) reflected in the media alongside his name over the years, it's that many people active in the media want to conceal this about Lamo, in order to advance their political interests and in order to hurt him. (One Wikipedia editor, while editing Lamo's page hostilely,[3] linked to his blog from his Wikipedia page,[4] where he featured an article, 'Bradley Manning and the stench of US hypocrisy'.[5]) DBaba (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

From my point of view his only claim for notability is as a hacker; I wouldn't have considered his LGBT work as significant, but maybe I'm worn.Martinlc (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kyclay.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just wanted to ask why exactly you considered the following as "weak quote, UNDUE lead" in the Japanese internment camps article.
On November 26, 1941, president Franklin D. Roosevelt orders Henry Field, Anthropologist to the President, to produce a list with names and addresses of all American-born and foreign-born Japanese residing in America.^[1]
This was published in university press, with books as sources. And why is the lead undue? The idea is to show that while the general opinion is that the internment happened because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the President actually ordered the lists before the attack.
Regards, BesterRus (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Regarding that rollback, I found the material inappropriate for the opening, because it presents a view that is not typical, common, or central to the historical memory. That is, I would not expect to find that in a book on the subject... I agree that it would be worthy of inclusion in the broader article, with a strong citation. I find that the citation is weak because the cited website states at the bottom that this was a history paper of a college student for History 101. I don't doubt that a professional citation exists, I'd just like to see it referenced, and perhaps also given more context. DBaba (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion on the citing sources talkpage about the source for a citation you included in the article. Your contribution to this discussion would be welcome. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi RolandR, thanks for your inquiry. I don't remember making the edit, or even the individual in question, but I can see what my logic was. I'm sure I came to the suspicious, uncited assertion that "he had accepted large sums of funding from the CIA without disclosing the fact" and, flagging that in my mind, looked into it with a cursory web search.[6] Based on the formatting of the citation, it looks like I came to the Campus Watch entry and, knowing the unreliability of Campus Watch, used Google Scholar to verify the text[7] (the dating appears to be derived in part from copying the Campus Watch formatting, "August 2, 2005").

Anyway, that's how I'd do it, if I were making a single, quick edit to a page of a dude I'm soon to forget, now. Oh, I dislike a lot about the article, looking at it, but I'm just not terribly interested in it, and don't even understand what Campus Watch's angle was on that one. Yawn! Anything more I can offer, please do ask! DBaba (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you might, as a major contributing editor, be interested to know that the article Consolation of Philosophy is now up for a Good Article Review. Best, It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gangstar (disambiguation) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangstar (disambiguation) 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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Frannnnnnkenstein.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

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) 01:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply