User talk:Jonathunder/archive2

Thanks for the welcome!

I look forward to working with you and everyone here to make the Wikipedia the best it can be.--Onlytofind 21:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Southern Kurdistan

Please reconsider your case regarding move/merge. New material Presented. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Southern Kurdistan for my reply and continuing discussion. Jonathunder 22:59, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Welcome message

Well, I'm not extremely experienced in welcoming, but here's what I know. First, you should check out Wikipedia:Standard user greeting for some examples. I kind of like Neutrality's version. But, try to remember that adding you own personal flavor to the message will make it more appealing and, well, personal. I think the best option is to peruse the Wikipedia:New user log for new users and customize the message to their pesonal interests, suggesting related Wikiprojects, Notice boards, etc., along with standard greetings. I bet this would make them more likely to contribute. Best of luck! --Dmcdevit 03:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Achilles. Thanks for the message. I read most of the arguments made so far, including all of what you wrote, I looked at the image and its context in the article it is used in, and I thought about it. I decided to vote to keep this one, which is different from how I voted on the previous image. In my judgment the copyright permissions and the educational value of the images are different enough for me to arive at different conclusions. I do appreciate very much that you brought this new issue to my attention, even though in the end we disagreed on keep or delete on this one. Best. Jonathunder 02:30, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I of course disagree with your final decision, but I can appreciate diverse views upon the matter. I expected that some people I contacted might indeed vote otherwise than on the previous one. What was especially irritating to me was that there was so casual disregard and dismissal of the strong views and consensus expressed on the previous image in attempting to replace it with this one. As I have noted, there is not another article on erotic, auto-erotic or quasi-erotic activities that I am aware of that uses such an explicit photograph, though I would expect that there have been attempts to post them. ~ Achilles † 02:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thank you

for supporting my recent RFA; I'll do my best in the new job. Happy editing, Antandrus 03:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my nomination too --nixie 03:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supporting admin candidates

Hi, don't forget to sign your comments when you support adminship nominations. It's no big deal, we just want to save the bureaucrats from having to dig through the history to figure out who the comments are from. --Michael Snow 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for the reminder. Jonathunder 02:44, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Society of Southeastern Minnesota Wikipedians

Care to join?

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Count me in. Jonathunder 02:06, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Christianese style question

Howdy, You made a minor edit to this article changing the Jesus Christ wikilink to a Jesus wkiklink, but AFAICT, they both link to the same article. Not at all arguing about this, makes no difference to me, but I'm just wondering if I'm missing a subtlety in Wikistyle that I should be aware of for future edits. Thanks very much. Soundguy99 16:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. Yes, both the direct link and the redirect take the reader to the same article, but it is a little bit better to link directly when possible. More importantly, many consider "Jesus Christ" to be a title which expresses a point of view. If you look at the talk pages for the article on Jesus, you'll find that, after some debate, this was generally agreed on as the more NPOV name. Jonathunder 16:30, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the quick answer. Soundguy99 16:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support and the kind words on my RfA! I shall attempt to continue to do the same, and to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Newcastle Group

This article, which you created, was listed on WP:VfD and several people are saying it is a hoax, or at least unverifiable, since information about it has not been found. Could you provide a source or reference to help save the article from deletion? Cheers. Jonathunder 19:56, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

What would satisfy your appetite? Copies of incorporation papers? Our quarterly tax returns? How about a listing of assets within our portfolio? (mostly agricultural and commodity interests, FYI). It would take a day or two for me to get those to you as 1.) I am outside the United States right now, and 2.) The weekend started an hour and a half ago. We don't keep a website (though the name is reserved). Given that I have infrequent access to the web while I'm away, give me the grace of a day or two to respond to your comments. —ExplorerCDT 22:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to drop a note off thanking you for the comments and the cleanup edits, I was a bit crosseyed when I hit the save button :) The Nordeast redirect was great! Thanks again...later! Rx StrangeLove 02:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He and she versus they

Please stop replacing they with he or she. It is standard English usage on Wikipedia and worldwide to use the third person plural as a third person singular neutral. Adding in two third person singular specifics reads badly, which is why most people avoid it like the plague. Wikipedians widely use they for that reason. It is elementary English. FearÉIREANN 23:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Request for Adminsip

In regard to my small userpage and usertalk, if you look at my talk page I refer all talk to my user page since I check that on a weekly basis. If you check the history of my user page you will see I regularly delete conversations when they are no longer active so I have been in discussion. The point is actually moot though since no one has voted in support... freestylefrappe 23:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

For your thoughtful consideration

And your unbiased impression of my nomination for adminship, I thank you! Yours truly, El_C 03:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dakota War of 1862

I did not cut a paste the new article. I merged two articles and added my own research.

The title was chosen following the example set by the professional historians at the Minnesota Historical Society whose judgements I respect. The redirects will lead people to the article if they choose to use an older label for the conflict.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Homosexuality and morality

Thoughts? Samaritan 05:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The LGBT noticeboard is a great idea

I liked the idea so much, I created it! Please see Wikipedia:LGBT noticeboard. Help spread the word. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Re:GLBT categories deleted

Thanks for the heads up on this! Arcuras 22:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

The poll about serial commas is archived here. This issue is also other places in the archive, if you're interested.

Although I was substantially involved with this issue in the past, I don't feel strongly either way about using or not using serial commas. My objection was to the way certain people were trying to push through their preferences. This time the change appears to have been handled cooperatively. Maurreen 02:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I left my comments there and will continue to watch the page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the serial comma debate is becoming something of a tradition... Thanks for notifying me; I'll watch the discussion and comment when I have something to add. Sietse 10:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Style

Jonathunder, I'm sure you noticed that I responded to your request for a comment on this issue, although I doubt it was what you were hoping for. Allow me to give you a bit more unsolicited (and perhaps unwanted) advice: bad spelling is a good way to undermine arguments in any manual of written style. It suggests either a lack of competence with the language or unwillingness to perfect one's prose, which is the raison d'être of manuals of style. This implies that one is willing to criticize but not follow guidelines. I considered correcting your unfortunate misspelling of "unfortionate", but I have a visceral aversion to editing other people's Talk page text. I suggest you make this correction, and run your further contributions through a spell-checker (or check individual words with Merriam-Webster Online or Cambridge Dictionaries Online when in doubt, like I do) before you post, in order to avoid inadvertently sabotaging your credibility. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I can often see a misplaced comma at a glance, but I'm awful at spelling. Thank you for the advice. Jonathunder 21:38, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

We each have our stylistic weak points. One of mine appears to be excessive verbosity. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Minnesota stuff

Hey,

Yeah, as I'm sure you noticed, I'm a bit new to this. I am from Minnesota; I'm in Iowa now but I'll be returning for the next year in a couple of weeks. I think I have a pretty good knowledge of the state, so I figured I'd contribute a bit when I saw things were somewhat incomplete.

I agree that the organization should be worked on. I mentioned that I thought those two regions were ok together simply because of a general geographic size similarily as the other divisions that were made; I do understand, though, how they could be thought of as two different regions. I think I'll sit back and see what more experienced people think of this.

Thanks for the help.

ObsidianOP 02:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I see the page is protected now. I added it to my watchlist. Jonathunder 16:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Ratification on honorifics

I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look? Trödel|talk 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Trödel|talk 23:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the Aesthetic Realism article

Thanks for your help with trying to maintain some semblance of balance/objectivity with the Aesthetic Realism article. I'd do it myself but the mediator requested that neither side post to the Talk or the Article itself until the matter is resolved, so I'm honoring that. Of course that hasn't stopped Aperey from attacking the article with gusto, but that's expected. I haven't heard from the mediator for a while and he didn't respond to my message from a few days ago so I'm not sure anything's happening on the mediation front. At some point I guess I'll have to ask for a new mediator. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Michaelbluejay 02:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr re: Styles

Please see [1] if you are interested. Whig 09:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Alfred A. Knopf

Just so you know, the reason I blanked the page after I created it was because I trying to delete the page so I could move Knopf Publishing Group to that page. I can't do a move if the page exists. I spent several hours disambiguating the company from the person but decided that people were probably going to keep linking to Alfred A. Knopf when they meant the company,so I wanted to turn it back to the company's page. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get an adminstrator to delete the page so I could complete the move, so even though I think it is a poor set-up, I went back to reinstate my disambiguation language and saw you had already done so. DS1953 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try requested moves, since I think what you want is to move and disambiguate, right? Jonathunder 05:45, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

GA page move

I'm not at all sure why, but it seems we're voting again on what to call Gustavus Adolphus. Since you voted the first time, you may want to participate again. No Account

Thanks Jonathunder

Thanks for your support on my Adminship request.

English and English

I noticed you reigned in on the Color debate. Unfortunately, you weren't around when Gasoline was changed to Petrol, of course, nobody was. The RfC was posted on the article's talk page last summer with no notice elsewhere. Now it's Gasoline/Petrol (my idea) until we can develop a consensus. Your contribution to the vote would be appreciated. ℬastique▼^talk 04:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline was changed to Petrol? (Sigh.) After seeing on Yogurt/Yoghurt how many people would rather argue about the "correct" spelling than just follow the policy of leaving things where they landed first, I don't know if I want to get into one of those debates again. But I'll take a look. Jonathunder 01:10, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Arnold Perey voting

Thanks for letting me know about the vote on whether to delete the article about Arnold Perey. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether there's a Wikipedia article about him or not. Maybe it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for what's deserving of an article but I'm unfamiliar with such standards. What I'd *really* like is to just keep him from vandalizing the Aesthetic realism article on a daily basis. It's ironic how he has a page on another website titled "Arnold Perey counters lies about the death of Eli Siegel" in which he claims that AR people have been completely open about the fact that Siegel killed himself, yet on a daily basis Perey censors that very fact from Wikipedia. Michaelbluejay 19:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)