User talk:Jonathunder/archive8

FunkyFly

By the way, the Republic of Macedonia as an independent state was established in 1991. Miladinovi Brothers were technically from the 19th century Ottoman Empire, so Macedonia should stay. It was not an independent region then. I hope this makes it clear for you. FunkyFly 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, I'm really not happy about FunkyFly's block. The only reason in the Wikipedia:Blocking policy such a block could be supported by is "disruption" (of course I highly doubt that disagreeing with you on how links should be amounts to disruption). Be that as it may, according to the policy, a warning is required before the block, something I did not see you do. Please consider unblocking, as I'm prepared to take this to the highest level and I'm sure FunkyFly is as well. You are way to involved to be throwing your weight around like this.

I'm also not very pleased with the way you use the rollback button to revert his edits. While there is no specific policy against it, I'm sure you're aware that it's considered uncivil. You've done it on many occasions on other articles as well. Telex 18:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned by another user, who also has no axe to grind, whose good edits he was systematically reverting. He has also been blocked for very similar activity before. Jonathunder 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the discussion at User talk:Travelbird#The disambiguation of Macedonia (which FunkyFly initiated BTW), I don't see any warnings of blocks for disruption (or any warnings at all for that matter). His prior block was a 3RR violation (exceeding the acceptable limit in revert warring), something you have been doing as well. In this revert war, FunkyFly was the only one who actually made an attempt to discuss and not simply resort to reverting, quite unlike yourself. I can tell that you haven't been ckecking his edits [1], [2]. He is not linking to a dab page like you claimed he was [3]. Please consider unblocking him - consider it an act of mercy or anything else you like. Telex 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justification article

Hi, I noticed that you appeared in the edit history of the justification (theology) article. I recently made major changes to the article in an effort to move it to NPOV. If you have any suggestions for improvement (style, content, whatever), please leave a comment on the talk page for that article. The goal is to get the article to the point that the POV and cleanup templates can be removed.

Thanks, --jrcagle 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota abortion law

Though a lot of people seem to agree that the South Dakota reproductive rights controversy should be at South Dakota abortion law controversy no-one seems to have actually proposed it in a requested moves. I have done so. A vote is now taking place on that name. Let the debate begin! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xchrisblackx RfA

Thanks so much for voting!

Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your constructive criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.

Mahoga ny

Srikeit RFA

Hi Jonathunder/archive8,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rmrfstar's RfA

Greetings! Would you please address my response to your comment on my RfA? Also, what makes you say that I don't have enough experience to be an admin? -- Rmrfstar 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my "argumentative responses" are quite necessary. You tell me to concentrate on building the encyclopedia, and I must say I want to do exactly that. The admin tools are features for editors to use that they may build this encyclopedia more effectively. -- Rmrfstar 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FORGET IT

User:Kazuba 14 May 2006

The Rochester Franciscan order

Many thanks for expanding the the Rochester Franciscan order article. I had been starting articles about Roman Catholic religious orders whose origins were in Wisconsin. One of the sisters from the Rochester Franciscan order was stationed in La Crosse and had worked at Viterbo University and help out at the St. Joseph Cathedral Parish. I felt the article was needed.Thank you-RFD 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The motherhouse, Assisi Heights, is one of the most beautiful places in my home town, and just by chance I was up there this weekend taking some photos. Thanks for creating the article. Jonathunder 16:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway's RfA

File:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG

Me relaxing...

Request for Adminship

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers}

Dewet RfA

Thanks for taking the time to comment; I've addressed your concerns on the page. Would you be so kind as to review them and let me know if there are specific things you would like me to attend to? Thanks, dewet|✉ 06:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logic

The Conch Republic is one of the world's best known micronations, reported as such in hundreds of media articles for nearly 30 years. Removing an infobox template designed specifically for use in micronation articles (and which is in fact in use in dozens of other micronation articles), from the Conch Republic article is way out of line. There is absolutely no logical justification for doing so. Kindly familiarise yourself with the subject at hand prior to making further comments on this subject. --Gene_poole 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the subject, having actually been there. Have you? Nobody there at all takes it as a serious thing. They all tell you it's maintained for the tourists. Your "micronation" template on that is misleading and out of place, as others said too on the talk page. Jonathunder 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but no banana. Your motivations are transparent, and will be dealt with in the usual manner. --Gene_poole 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that last reversion. Exactly as I anticipated. --Gene_poole 05:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove whole paragraphs of good info from articles you can anticipate reversion. Please don't keep it up, however. Jonathunder 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hole you're in just gets deeper with each comment. --Gene_poole 05:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles with Gene Poole

hello, it is nice to realize that Im not the only guy that is being harrassed by "Gene Poole". I suspect that this person's identity (and pic) are faked, and that he is a sock puppet of someone else.Brian Wilson 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin ^{Be excellent}

HI, i migth need help

I might need help to define the real meaning of the term Macedonism, and tought you might help. Please see the article about the term. Thanx.--Vlatko 01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courthouse picture

Nice picture of the Courthouse in Preston Jonathunder - thanks for posting it. You were in town over Memorial weekend for the festivities at the fairgrounds?? Jim Y1997xf11 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I had a wonderful time at the SCA event, I enjoyed a nice part of the state, and I was able to check another courthouse off the list. Jonathunder 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool3 RfA

Jonathunder/archive8, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

I really appreciate your support, and am honored that you consider me to be a good editor. Thanks again! -- Nataly a 05:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KimvdLinde RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is your third warning

Please avoid using rollback for edit-wars or you'll be RFCed. Instead of deleting this warning as you've did before, please reconsider your attitude.

The following list is just the latest edits of yours more will be provided to the RFC if you continue.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 talk to +MATIA 05:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Parks

Hey, Thanks for you note and connecting my photograph to the big bog article. I am touring and studying state parks for 3 months in Minnesota and am a professional photographer. I write for Trails magazine and I hoped to add and expand information on MN state parks. I have tons of photographs from each assignment, and was guided by local ecologists and scientists on where to find unique wildlife and plantlife in the area. I know a bit of programming, but wiki is a bit unfamiliar to me. Thanks for connections, I'm going to add a small word here and there in state parks and contribute photos as needed. thanks again Chris

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rastafari and Selassie

Hi, Just letting you know that I went through a long conversation with Codex on the issue, and I backed off when he showed me that there are some other Wikipedia articles that use royal stylings in their mentionings of people. I feel that the MOS is unfortunately not as clear on this issue as it should be. If you would be up to making a proposal to revise it to explicitly cover this situation (e.g. titles may be used but stylings should not), I would be happy to support you, because I do think that using (as opposed to mentioning) styles is not good practice for the project. Take care. --Improv 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS may not be as clear as it could be, but I think it is very clear that inserting reverential honorifics at every turn is not NPOV. The article on Jesus discusses the title "Christ" but it does not address him as that in every image caption. Nor should the article on Selassie worship its subject. The NPOV policy is not negotiable. Jonathunder 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.M. was an official and internationally recognized title, quite unlike 'Christ'. It's certainly not worshipping H.I.M. to use it, so I don't understand what the legitimate problem is when many other articles are allowed to use honorifics. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually pretty rare that articles do, and I believe that the MOS could and should be made more explicit on this point. Understand that one's style and one's title are different -- H.I.M. is a style, and "King" is a title. The first is a ritualised show of respect, the second is similar to a statement of profession. Wikipedia suggests use of titles in certain areas, and while it does say that styles are to be mentioned, it does not say they should be used (and most articles do not, in fact, use them). I believe an explicit 'mention-but-do-not-use' rule in the MOS would be a good clarification of what I believe is largely existing custom, and would avoid getting the encyclopedia into partaking in ritualised shows of respect. Jonathunder, would you like to make the proposal or shall I? --Improv 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose such a unilateral policy change, because it would mean having to change an awful lot of other articles where honorifics are used, like the ones in the Line of Succession series, and that is only going to meet with resistance from a variety of editors. And the only reason someone might attempt to somehow manipulate the wording of the guideline to cover only this situation, while still allowing all the others, would ultimately be for some kind of reasoning similar to the "because the article should not worship its subject" argument, which is of course a flawed assumption to begin with. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codex, I don't think you're using the word unilateral correctly -- I was talking about putting forth a proposal for a policy change, not just changing it without adequate discussion. It may indeed require changing some articles, but they are inconsistent and in my opinion needing of this change. I also don't understand what you mean by "only this situation". Could you clarify your meaning there? Finally, as noted above, I have never felt you have addressed the issue with ritualised shows of respect I have raised. I don't understand in any case why you want to use the styling of royalty anyhow unless it's because you respect or revere Selassie and want to shape Wikipedia to show that. If that's the case, I find it unfortunate that such respect is expressed in this way. In any case, I intend to put forth a proposal to amend the MOS soon. --Improv 08:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a change/clarification in the handling of royal honorifics at the MOS (biographies) page to state that honorifics should not be used inline (but should be mentioned) for royalty. Please comment at the link above. Thanks. --Improv 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Dear Jonathunder/archive8,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

Do not roll back constructive, discussed edits as vandalism without comment just because you disagree with them, especially when dealing with veteran editors such as myself. It is rude, and an abuse of admin access, by the way. 172 | Talk 04:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because a user is outnumbered, does not mean he is wrong. Some opinions are worth more than others. I am a professional historian. Most users editing the articles on U.S. members of Congress are uncompromising POV-pushers. Do not revert my edits on the sole basis that some users "disagree" with me. 172 | Talk 04:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everyone on that talk page disagrees with you, actually, and they appear to have different points of view otherwise. Try finding a compromise with them. Jonathunder 04:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipeida is not a social networking site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If I am outnumbered on the talk page, I will invite other competent editors serious about proper encyclopedic standards to take a look at the article to change that. 172 | Talk 05:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a more productive approach than constant reverts and demanding a topic be omitted entirely because you are a "professional historian" and know best. Jonathunder 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I do know best, I will act in the interest of Wikipedia. I have been on Wikipedi for three years; I know what I am doing, and I'm not interested in your advice. I have no idea why you are ignoring my comments on the talk page and similar comments by TheKMan. You are misrepresenting the discussion to suggest that there is a consensus for including the trivia on Wikipedia among everyone except myself. 172 | Talk 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I decided not to make the above post. [4] 172 | Talk 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepsenting me. That was not my reasoning. My reasoning was explained on talk. 172 | Talk 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus RFA

It turns out he didn't need your support vote, in fact he had already passed 96/25/9 when you voted, so I reverted your edit (it says "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it."), so take care not to vote in closed discussions, thanks. — Jun. 21, '06 [15:19] <freak|talk>

When I clicked a link to that RFA, it didn't say it was closed. After I typed support and hit save, it did say that it closed several hours ago. Wierd. Anyway, thanks. Jonathunder 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You loaded the page four hours before voting perhaps? Let me guess, Firefox and you always have too many tabs open, and easily get distracted, happens to me quite a bit. — Jun. 22, '06 [14:33] <freak|talk>

Winhunter RFA

Thanks for raising concerns in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/my RFA, I understand my editing summary usage was really low when you voted. I am trying my very best in improving the situation by trying my very best to put in editing summaries in my every edit. The editing summary usage have since risen to 51%, would you mind reviewing my suitability as an admin? Many thanks.--WinHunter ^(talk) 01:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

I am working on getting the Minnesota article up to featured article and I was wonering if you could spare some of your time to fix the Parks section of the article, or any section you would like to work on. Thanks! -Ravedave 04:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

closing an ongoing survey

1 week is not enough for such a think, it doesn't attract enough editors. 3 votes were added after you closed the survey and I reopened it.. is 3 votes not enough? is it over because noone else would vote or just because you like the state of no consensus as it is? Either participate in the discussion normally or stop messing around. 85.70.5.66 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That vote, and a number of others, have gone on already longer than the RM guidelines. It is closed and there was no consensus to move, just as last time. I am closing a number of backlogged RM requests. Do not disrupt it by removing headers. Jonathunder 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilsen/Plzeň

Hello! You might want to take a look at Plzeň and Pilsen again. A new contributor has reversed the recent RM. Olessi 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]