User talk:Jonathunder/archive20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit Request for Planet Nine[edit]

I would like to correct a mistake (made by me earlier) in the article. Please see talk discussion on Orbital_Inclination

J mareeswaran (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Charles I of England[edit]

What is wrong with specifying that St Charles I of England is celebrated in the Church of England? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not only the Church of England where he is commemorated. See Society of King Charles the Martyr. Jonathunder (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Society of King Charles the Martyr is an Anglican society, which is another word for Church of England. Do you know anyone other than the Church of England who venerates him? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many commemorations happening today all over the Anglican Communion, including North America. Jonathunder (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon in Madison[edit]

inline
inline
inline
inline

Hey Jonathunder—I saw that you were listed or active near Madison. If indeed you are, you are invited to the upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. And if you want to be automatically contacted for future Madison-area events, be sure to add your name to the invite list. czar 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

I reverted you there because it had already been closed here. Several folks have already posted thoughts at: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat if you want to still voice a thought. — Ched :  ?  06:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center[edit]

The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon
  • Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 6–8pm
  • Location: Loft Literary Center, 1011 S Washington Ave, Room 203, Minneapolis
  • Sponsor: The Loft Literary Center
Hello Jonathunder! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided.
gobonobo + c 23:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

DYK nomination of psychology of eating meat[edit]

Hello! Your submission of psychology of eating meat at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

This reversion and the edit summary you provided was not helpful at all. Why didn't you take it to talk instead of performing a drive-by reversion? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who has repeatedly tried to add disputed material to a BLP. It's up to you to get consensus for your edit. Jonathunder (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "disputed material" at all. One editor reverted it, and that editor suffers from some sort of behavioral issue where he/she reverts almost every edit I make on Wikipedia. The edit was uncontroversial and unchallenged until the first reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's definitely disputed: take a look at the talk page where I agreed with the other commentators that it doesn't belong in the article. Let's discuss it there. Jonathunder (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing the edit there. But I'm discussing your reversion here, because it is a behavioral problem and not a content issue. The edit was not disputed at all until an SPA reverted me and then you came along and contributed more instability. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the impression that she won the delegate vote is BS and pointing to the (still not blocked?) sock is a lame excuse.--TMCk (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are posting that here, but my edit did not give the impression Clinton "won" anything at all. If you want to discuss content, please move to Talk:Hillary Clinton as Jonathunder said. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

Can you explain to me the logic of this edit: Jonathunder's edit to Cruz campaign article? I admit that confuse Judge Posner with his son. But I left Posner in the article--as you requested--then American In Brazil added Elhauge and Clinton, I removed Elhauge and Clinton, and then you used my confusion between Posner and his son as the reason for you to re-add Elhauge and Clinton to the article. What is the rationale behind this edit? Also, do you agree with American In Brazil that my removal of Elhauge and Clinton is vandalism? Inquiring minds want to know.--ML (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the fourth time today MaverickLittle has reverted the same edits. This violates the WP three revert rule. Can something be done about this belligerent editor who refuses to accept consensus and follow WP rules? American In Brazil (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lie about my edits. I have not violated the 3RR. If you really believed that I have reverted the same edit four times today then you would go ahead and file a complaint in the correct place: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But you aren't because you know what you just wrote is not true. Just like you kept lying about my edits and calling them "vandalism" when they were clearly good faith edits that were NOT, in any way, vandalism. Stop lying about my edits. I would stop talking about lying when you stop doing it.--ML (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is hilarious that American In Brazil is calling me a "belligerent" editor when he was been lying about my edits, engaging in ad hominem, and reverting as many edits he can until 3RR kick-in and pounding his chest about his background, which is irrelevant and probably not true. I think the word "belligerent" applies to him.--ML (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you reverted five times today, ML, but I don't have time to pursue it now. Why don't the two of you see if there's a compromise you can both live with? Jonathunder (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to compromise. Leave the citations in. American In Brazil (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a compromise. If the article named only three legal opinions on each side, which would you pick? I'd say Eric Posner and Tribe on one side and Katyal and Clement on the other, to name a conservative or libertarian and a liberal on each. They are all notable lawyers or legal scholars who we have articles for. Who would you add? Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have broken the three-revert rule now. Any chance you'll stop and start working out a compromise? Jonathunder (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to Posner and Tribe on one side and Katyal and Clement on the other. Also, if the information is so important then why can't American In Brazil move everything and more into an article all about Ted Cruz's eligibility all the time, right?--ML (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Six reverts by ML now. I have counted three on my side. American In Brazil (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let's stop reverting and keep talking. Which opinions are most important, which the article must mention? Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ML can add as many additional citations as s/he wants. But the paragraph of four legal scholars is essential, as it states the original intent interpretation of the Constitution, the one that Cruz subscribes to. The solution is to leave it in full pending further discussion by other editors and consensus. American In Brazil (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Natural-born-citizen clause, 5.3.3 Ted Cruz American In Brazil (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an offer of compromise. The only thing that I have heard from American In Brazil is that we leave in all of the edits. That's it. No compromise whatsoever. The section is too long. It is turning into a law journal article on Ted Cruz's eligibility, when the article is about Ted Cruz's campaign.--ML (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)6[reply]

On 15 FEB 2017 I made 3 reverts, ML made 6. What's being done about ML's violation of WP:3RR? American In Brazil (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No attempt to compromise. Just pushing his "All of my edits stay" POV. @American In Brazil: How would you see a compromise? -- ML (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevents you from filing a complaint on the noticeboard. Do that if you want. But are you going to talk about a solution to the article? Jonathunder (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already talked about this above. Read my comments. American In Brazil (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's your initial position. Suppose you don't get everything you want, as occasionally happens in life. What can you live with? Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that the article Natural-born-citizen clause has a whole section dedicated to Ted Cruz and it is actually shorter that the section in Ted Cruz's campaign. That article is specifically dedicated to the citizenship issues and it does not go into the detail that the campaign article does and the campaign article is supposed to be outlining the ins and outs of the current campaign, not Cruz's eligibility. I'm willing to compromise and I am offering to assist in writing a in article dedicated to all of the various opinions (both for and against). A separate article could be totally focused on this topic and we could go into greater detail about the written opinion of both well-known law professors, well-known attorneys, and other people whose opinion is not as respected (both for and against). So I just upped the ante. I'm offering to help make that new article.--ML (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, the paragraph with four academic scholars of the "originalist" school (of which the leading proponent was the late Justice Antonin Scalia), interpreting the Constitution regarding Presidential eligibility, is essential to understanding the issue. Original intent of the Framers is also the philosophical position of Cruz. This is a widely accepted and valid viewpoint in legal circles. ML's statement that the section on Cruz (section 4.3.3) in the Natural-born-citizen clause article is shorter than the "Eligibility" section of this article is misleading; section 4.3.3.1 of the "Natural born" article, about American citizens born on foreign soil, is far longer. If ML wishes to shorten the section by removing other material, go ahead. But do not excise the essential "originalist" theory. Further, ML has been reverted by three editors (including you) but refuses to accept that this is consensus. He has reverted them all (including you, with abusive and insulting language) with six edit wars in 24 hours (15 FEB 2016) in violation of WP:3RR. I made only three reverts, within 3RR. What is being done to enforce WP rules? American In Brazil (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never removed Tribe's comments about Cruz's inconsistency (Tribe's criticism that if a judge was to follow Cruz's interpretation method then he would not be eligible.) So that is a red herring. But the main issue still remains and you continue to ignore it: the article section is too long, it is not the main topic of the main article and it goes into way more detail than it should by listing opinions and comments of more of the people who believe that Cruz is not eligible (the minority POV) and listing fewer of people who say he is eligible (the majority POV). Once again, this new proposal by you does not respond to that main issue. Moreover, it is NOT "essential" that we list FOUR scholars to get the point across. The article is about Cruz's campaign, not about Cruz's eligibility. You need to write an article just about Cruz's eligibility if you believe that Wikipedia must have all four scholar's opinions. Also, you aren't fooling anyone by your complaining about edit wars when you were engaging in the edit war yourself. Also, you violated the 3RR rules with four reverts in 24 hrs and fifth one right outside the 24 hour period. Also, your silly complaints about "abusive and insulting language" since you have engaged in that behavior more than anyone. It is embarrassing for you to act like this is a one-way street, in which you are an innocent bystander. Once again, you have refused to respond to the new article option or to the two and two compromise. And finally, by the nature of this discussion there is no consensus so drop that issue. And if you are going to talk consensus please note that you are editor who is attempting to add disputed material, not me, and as such you have the burden to prove that your material needs to be added, not me.--ML (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is going to be solved here and I don't have time to edit Wikipedia today. So please use the article talk page and perhaps other editors will chime in. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already continued the discussion on the Talk page of the article. Please join in. American In Brazil (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Cibolo Creek Ranch[edit]

This article is what I love about Wikipedia. It was nominated for deletion a few days ago, and with the efforts of a few editors it has become an very interesting article about a little-known place. Thanks for your great edits today, and sorry for my seemingly harsh revert. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on articles about historic places, which this is. They are typically much calmer and saner places to edit than articles about political campaigns. Jonathunder (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Planet Nine[edit]

Hey there! On January 26, you semiprotected Planet Nine, noting in the protection log "Hopefully semiprotection can be lifted once no longer on Main Page". Planet Nine has now been off the main page for some time, and its views have dropped significantly since it was protected. The page also has 172 watchers, so vandalism should be reverted quickly. Planet Nine is a hot, developing topic where input from the scientific community, many of whom do not have accounts, is to be expected. For example, Mike Brown himself has commented on the talk page as an IP. So, I was wondering if you might be persuaded to unprotect Planet Nine for now? A2soup (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I didn't know it was still semiprotected. Thank you for the reminder. Jonathunder (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response! A2soup (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Good idea. Perhaps you could add "Supreme Justice" before Antonin?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wiki, so you could do that, but DYK regulars like brevity. Jonathunder (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added your suggestion as an alternate hook. Jonathunder (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, Part II, epilogue[edit]

I have been discussing one of your edits on the Ted Cruz campaign article. You can review my comments here: Jonathunder's edit to Cruz article that created two footnotes for the exact same editorial and how it was obvious that this admin editor did not actually read the citations before adding them into the article, but yet admin editor Jonathunder was critical of my edit and immediately reverted my edit while sitting back and watching American In Brazil beat me over the head with insults and lies about vandalism. -- ML (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder: I realize that you are an admin and I also realize that admins do not like to have their work to be reviewed or edited or criticized. So if you are going to find a reason to block then I would ask that you just go ahead and get it over with. Thank you in advance -- ML (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathunder: You can review your original edit here: Jonathunder adding duplicate citations that he clearly did not even read before you put them in the article. And you can review my edit which fixes your obvious mistake here: ML coming in and cleaning up Jonathunder's glaring mistake. Not to put too fine a point on it: You reverted one of my edits and you made the comment in the edit summary that you believed that I did read ALL of the citations closely enough because I made an honest mistake of confusing Judge Posner with his son. You did not give my edit the good faith that it deserved. I made that mistake because I actually did go to law school from 1985 to 1988 and we were required to read Posner throughout my first year and we had to refer back to Posner over and over again throughout the remainder of my time there. Now, I find out that you not only were critical of me for making an honest mistake by confusing Judge Posner with his son YOU put three citations to support your inclusion of the Professor from Weidner Law but you did not read all three of the citations!!!!! Amazing. The only good thing that came out of my block for 3RR is the fact that whole bunch of more eyeballs took a gander at the Cruz's campaign article and it was almost unanimous that they agreed with the point I was making and they did not agree with American In Brazil. -- ML (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence, please.[edit]

Regarding your claim that "Sanders has a religion, and it's cited",[1] Can you please provide a citation that where Sanders himself says that his religion is Judaism? Here are references where he says otherwise:

No original research is needed. Just follow the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Psychology of eating meat[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art+Feminism[edit]

Hello, Jonathunder. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Phil wink (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A More Usable Episcopal Church Calendar[edit]

I'm wondering why you insist on taking down the links to commemorations and collects from the Calendar of Saints (Episcopal Church) page. I think that links that go directly to the prayer for that particular saint makes the Calendar more usable to anyone using the Calendar as a calendar and not just a list. At the least, the links go to the BCP, Holy Men, Holy Women, and A Great Cloud of Witnesses and reinforce how the saints for commemoration were chosen and communicated. It had been many years since I last participated in editing on Wikipedia, but a desire to make the Calendar of Saints more functional is why I setup a new ID. I also started a thread on the Talk page for the calendar.

Dwsmith84 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:SandersSmiles.jpg[edit]

it says you took this last year... really? Can't be... 75.172.224.240 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I fixed it. Perhaps in ten months or so, I'll get used to writing "2016" on things. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cibolo Creek Ranch[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Jonathunder, didn't get you get the warning to look out for previous ds alerts on Blue Salix's page? Your blp ds alert came one minute after mine. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't, which is weird. I've placed it only once or twice before, and I got the warning then. Maybe it's because we were doing it at (almost) the same time. We were thinking alike, apparently. Jonathunder (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see you have removed yours, and BS has put it back with a BS reason. Par for the course I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
If he put it back, at least we know he saw it. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that translates to "BlueSalix put it back with a BlueSalix reason" ... BlueSalix (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"BS has put it back" is meant for "BlueSalix has put it back", so far you've got it right. Don't get your hopes up about the second part. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I knew I should have named myself GreenSalix. BlueSalix (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New photographs[edit]

MaverickLittle, I've noticed you have found some new photographs, and cited them as your "own work". Are you a professional photographer? If not, these images cannot be your own work. Please specify further where these may have originated from. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I was at the fundraiser and I took the pictures. Just like I was at the opening for Cruz's headquarters where the picture of Heidi and Ted comes from. They are my own work, just like the Heidi's picture. Please explain yourself and your question.--ML (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking out of curiosity, MaverickLittle. If they were not your own work then this matter would be very different. However, that is not the case. Thank you for explaining. The uncivil tone in which you responded to me is another matter, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing uncivil in my tone whatsoever. That is a flat out falsehood. Now, I will repeat my question, "Please explain yourself and your question."--ML (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of "falsehood" are out of line and you've been warned before. End it now. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What else am I supposed to say when he states that I was being "uncivil" when I was not being uncivil?--ML (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like to know what I am supposed to say when he calls me "uncivil" when I was not being uncivil. I will not just ignore it when Ches and WV call me uncivil every five minutes when I am not being uncivil. Please let me know what I am supposed to say when they go down that road.--ML (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When several people consider your tone uncivil, it just might be that your writing comes across as abrasive, even if that's not your intention. Also, if people go down roads you don't like, you don't have to follow them. Jonathunder (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what I said to editor Ches that was actually "abrasive"? I just asked him to explain himself and then he called me "uncivil". It does not make sense and what I said was NOT uncivil. I simply asked him to explain himself. There is nothing uncivil about that. That is a fact. Please tell me what I said that was uncivil? I cannot change what you call "abrasive" if I don't know what it is, right? What was "abrasive" that I said to editor Ches to make him make the claim that I was "uncivil"? I am asking an honest question here. How is asking him to explain uncivil? -- ML (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Please explain yourself and your question" may have seemed abrasive, although I would not have made an issue of it myself. Saying "That is a flat out falsehood" was what I reacted to. A better approach is to assume good faith. Ches asked about the provenance of the photo most likely because we get questionable uploads all the time, and probably not because he wanted to start a fight with you. Thank you, by the way, for uploading a couple of better photos. I upload a lot of images and I know how hard it is to take good ones of people in a crowd. It's also hard to have people criticize your work. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I understand what you reacted to. But I did just want to understand what he was driving at. I'm not real proud of the pictures but they are what I have. The close up is not good because Heidi was posing with two friends of mine and I had to crop them out of the picture. The one from the audience is distant and it is difficult to see her face.--ML (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

Thanks for the invite to the twin cities event. I couldn't make it, but it would be fun to make a future one. dfrankow (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of S/2015 (136472) 1[edit]

Hello! Your submission of S/2015 (136472) 1 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wugapodes (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Sheldon Theatre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Bullying Edit War committed by editor Jonathunder[edit]

Jonathunder is engaging in an obvious edit-war by reverting and removing material I put on the Talk pages of Merrick Garland and Merrick Garland SUpreme Court Nomination. He is trying to avoid the development of a consensus that reference to withdrawing the nomination of Garland is being made by reliable sources in the news media. I will be adding such references shortly, but I wanted to establish the propriety of doing so. Thugs like Jonathunder and Neutrality have decided to try to prevent me from doing so, and thus obstructing the discussion. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 75.175.105.188. Although I think deletion of your comments might have been a little heavy-handed, Jonathunder and Neutrality are correct that the sort of comment you put on Talk:Merrick Garland does not belong there. Please review our policy WP:NOTFORUM: Article talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the subjects of articles, they are for discussion of the articles themselves. Your original comment appeared to have nothing to do with our article. If you want to discuss content or sources you want included in the article, then by all means discuss it by writing something like, "What do people think about adding X to the article?" Of course, we need to adhere to other policies and guidelines, such as WP:V and WP:AGF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also have felt I was also bullied by this user. In my opinion, Jonathunder uses admin powers to threaten and ban people who put in edits that he or she does not like. --Darth Borehd (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion you are mentioned in[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_civility_and_ownership_problems_at_Obergefell_v._Hodges --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying by User Jonathunder[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 174.25.48.161 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Arthur Llewllyn Williams[edit]

The article Arthur Llewllyn Williams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears not to meet notability criteria. Google only lists him as having existed as a bishop

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dubbinu | t | c 14:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LCB Leasing listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LCB Leasing. Since you had some involvement with the LCB Leasing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Larson's Hunters Resort[edit]

— Maile (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedrals[edit]

I wish I saw your post before I finished. What I'm doing is making the pages consistent as with the other US cathedral wiki pages which have the cathedral names along with their location.

Roberto221 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SW MN road trip[edit]

I skipped the Jacob Nuffer Farmstead on my 2012 pass through Rock County merely because I deemed it too far off my route, or possibly because I lost too much time looking for those long-gone bridges. However in looking at it now via online satellite imagery and comparing it to the NRHP nomination and photos, it is clear that all or nearly all of the historical buildings on the farm have been razed. I woudn't go out of your way for that one.

The rest of your prospective list looks great. I'm assuming the unlisted NRHP and museum sites in those counties are too far off the I-90 corridor for you. There's always some lame stubs in the county categories (Category:Nobles County, Minnesota) — usually schools and lakes — that could be photographed.

Happy trails! -McGhiever (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can venture beyond Worthingon, we could really, really use an exterior shot of the Church of St. Kilian! -McGhiever (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might have to. That's just outside Wilmont, which is apparently the only place you can get Larry Lang's onion rings. I was initially inclined to remove that from the article, but a little research shows that might actually be a thing. Jonathunder (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathunder/archive20&oldid=1139611074"