User talk:Jonathunder/archive6

Three weeks of admin tools
Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:


 * Protections and unprotections: 1
 * Blocks and unblocks: 4
 * Deletions and restorations: 69
 * Rollbacks: 246

I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.

As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.

I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Quarl
Hi Jonathunder, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 12:14Z 

List of teams sponsored by adidas
I'd like if you moved this page to another place, because the title is wrong. These teams aren't sponsored by Adidas, it is simply Adidas who manufactures the shirts. Boothman 19:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
--Matth e w UND (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!
Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

White Castle
The paragraph -

''Amongst those who do not possess "The Crave", White Castle is seen as fairly downscale and undesirable, even by hamburger-chain standards. The restaurants also seem to be concentrated in low-income neighborhoods, thus they are referred to by some as "Black Shack". It also is sometimes considered to be a part of stoner culture, as per the 2004 film entitled Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, slogans for which included "Fast food. High times.", as well as "Fast food. Best buds.", both clearly references to marijuana.''

Your comment to me -

''You have repeatedly removed an entire paragraph from an article because you object to one phrase. Even if removal of the phrase is justified because not currently sourced (though you could find lots of instances of it in common use if you google for it), removing entire paragraphs repeatedly is disruptive, and you can be blocked for this. Please try to improve the text rather than wholesale removal.''

If you had read the talk page, you would see that I have no objection to the phrase. What I object to is the broad generalizations (read - PoV) that this paragraph makes. Can you please show me a study that shows the market demographics of White Castle restaurants? Or a survey that shows it is seen as "fairly downscale and undesirable, even by hamburger-chain standards"? Also, I have no stance with the phrase "Black Shack" one way or the other. And even if it is Googled, so what? If I put up a web page that states "The majority of clowns in America are viewed as child molesters", and that page is then indexed by Google, can I then edit the clown page to reflect this? Like I said, if you can back this paragraph up with surveys and demographics reports, then I have no qualms. Otherwise, it is PoV (and it is most certainly not disruptive to remove PoV items). --204.152.176.70 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR, in whole or in part and the active discussion flag
Saw your comment on Dzontas' talk page. I wondered whether you understood that the active discussion flag was added because of a challenge I made to a specific change in the rule, not to call the whole of 3RR into question. By removing it, it would appear that a small clique is trying to starve the discussion of new participants. You can read more about it on Requests for comment/3RR. I would be interested in your views. StrangerInParadise 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for welcome
Jonathunder I appreciate your welcome message and thank you for finding another home for one of my uploaded photos. Y1997xf11 22:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

unpublished citation
Hi Jonathunder. You reverted an edit to include into an article an unpublished citation. At Space_opera_in_Scientology_doctrine you reverted my edit to make a reference to an unpublished, confidential Church of Scientology document (it is a lecture and transcript) which the Church of Scientology has never published. They consider it to be Confidential and do not sell it. ChrisO, the originater of that article, has attempted to cite that document in other articles. He has modified WP:CITE in an attempt to make that citation right. A good deal of discussion went on in the talk pages for a while which resulted in a concensus (I thought it was a concensus, anyway) to not use an unpublished document. The issue is not a legal one, although everyone knows Scientology's use of the legal systems, but a publication one and WP:V the policy which the concensus revolved around. Unpublished by the originator of the document, contested in court and so on, the document doesn't fulfill WP:V's "unimpeachable". This is my understanding of the concensus reached and I recognize that ChrisO might understand it otherwise. Have a good one. Terryeo 08:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Venn

 * Hello. You posted a delightful limerick on the Talk:Jesus page. It made me wonder: have I been pronouncing "Venn diagram" wrong all these years, or was the odd rhyme part of the joke? Jonathunder 23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed my limerick. Yes, Venn and sin rhyme. Rick Norwood 23:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You composed the limerick? Now I'm very impressed. Your limerick is an oasis on that talk page; most of the rest of it makes my eyes go woozy and my head spin. Jonathunder 00:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you also enjoy some more silly math humor. Ours involves hyperspace geometry and transfinite sets. Arch O. La 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know
I appreciate your haveing taken the time and responsibility to let me know about my 3RR blockage, ty. Terryeo 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Falklands revert
I'll stop reverting changes, but what would you call this? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.127.172 (talk • contribs)
 * I would call it a comment which is almost a personal attack, and does not appear helpful in improving the article. Jonathunder 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RFAR
I filed a request for arbitration for the naming conventions of the Macedonia related articles: RFAR. I have listed you as a party involved. Bitola 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Macedonia-related articles have seen considerable dispute, but the arbitration case submitted appears too broad and and too related to content, in my view. The ArbCom does not decide content or article naming. I do not wish to be named as a party. Jonathunder 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, than I will remove you from the list of involved parties. I hope the ArbCom will quickly decide whether my request was justified or not. Bitola 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

146.163.52.30 message?
I recieved this message and am not sure why: "Please do not add nonsense to Wilipedia articles." I don't believe that I've added to any articles but have participated in discussions for articles that have been questionable. I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing and am not sure how everything works yet. If you could clarify and tell me what article you allege that I added to, that would be nice. Thanks.
 * If you are not logged in, you may get messages intended for someone else who edited from the same IP address. If you create an account and log in, you will get only messages intended for you. I encourage you to do so. Jonathunder 14:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo
I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, Jonathunder, the Dianetics and Scientology articles are in need of a good deal of balancing POV. As a point of information, the articles topics are poorly introduced, are introduced in such a manner that a disinterested third party would not understand the subject of the article, nor its context.  The people who have been editing those articles are willing to encourage people from alt.religion.scientology which has been known for years to be entirely and almost exclusively hostile to Scientology.  In the main, while the articles do not outright call any of the people or entities involved, call them outright bad names or call any of it evil, the articles stop very short of such writing.  That some balance is needed to present the articles is probably obvious to any disinterested party.  As a further point of information, it was ChrisO himself who placed that linking element into the Scientology Template, and he did that after checking with other, experienced persons.  If you wish, I'll spell the entire thing out here on your user's discussion page where it would be easily available for your pursual.  Or, you could just ask ChrisO, or you could just accept what I say.  The choice is yours. Terryeo 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you don't feel it is appropriate that editors have the ability to contribute to the Scientology Template? It stood for some while with the opportunity to be edited, yet you revert without a word of discussion, why is that? Terryeo 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The template remains editable, but it does not need a self-referential link, as several editors have told you already. Jonathunder 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point of view, Jonathunder, but the Wikiguideline, I believe, states that a template can be linked and spells out how to. I have placed a fuller explanation on the Scientology template talk page. Template_talk:ScientologySeries

My RfA
Hey, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! &mdash; Deckiller 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty ■ 17:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA
I appreciate you considering nominating me for adminship. But I must decline for now. Lately I have some other areas of my life taking more time, I am only on Wikipedia intermittently, and might not be around to answer the questions. Thank you and take care. Maurreen 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Astrotrain 15:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that you have broken the 3RR rule by reverting 4 times within 24 hours. If you had followed this article before you would know that there have been many POV attacks by users to legitimise the Argentine claim by including: dual references to Islas Malvinas; listing the reasons why Argetina should be be given the Islands back; even including photos of Argentine war memorials to the 1982 conflict. A while ago now, I went through the article, and removed all the sovereignty issues to a seperate article (Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands). A summary was left in the main article with the main issues discussed elsewhere. This was a satisfactory solution that allowed the article text to be expanded to more relevant issues for the main page. Only recently has there been attempts to include the foreign name by an anon user who was later banned for vandalism. Astrotrain 15:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

North Shore Pics
Hi -- I just posted two pics of parks up on the north shore -- 050820_GrandPortageStatePark_Waterfall.jpg and 020715_TemperanceRiverStatePark.jpg. If you want to add them to articles, that would be great. Otherwise I'll try to find some time later. (This was prompted by my noticing you've started a Temperance article. I've been wanting to share some more pics but don't have a lot of time right now to work on the articles.) Rufus Sarsaparilla 05:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found a few minutes to add the pictures to the respective articles. Please feel free to move them around or work on the captions.  I see that you created a separate page for Grand Portage State Park -- good deal.  I've been wanting to post that pic of the falls but didn't want to put it in the Monument article. Rufus Sarsaparilla 13:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbia article
You reverted the Serbia article with the comment that my edit was not a reversion of vandalism. Granted, it was not a simple vandalism of removing or introducing irrelevant content. It is much worse one of introducing false information, as I have shown in the talk page. Please have a look there. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 05:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 07:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Era changes in "Calendar era"
I don't want an edit war to erupt at the Calendar era article, but I feel that your reversions of my edits are in violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style and suggest that we come to a compromise here. A quote taken from Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) states the following:
 * "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.".

In accordance with the aforementioned quote taken from the Manual of Style, my edits were completely within acceptable guidelines. Yours however, were not. You may have based your reversions on the following quote from the same Manual of Style article:
 * "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

However, I did have "some substatial reason" for altering the article, which is seen in the first quote as "be(ing) consistent within an article". The Calendar era page uses the era notation of "BC" within the entire article with the exception of the lower section. I made my edit(s) in accordance with the consistency guideline. I would like a response rectifying your reversions. CrazyInSane 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is diverse. Because there aren't only Christians are there? There are atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, humanists, and there even used to be those who worshipped Woden, from whom is named Wednesday&mdash;but there isn't anyone defending a "Common Weekdays" is there? Of course we are diverse, but this means not that we should strip all of the unique aspects of diversity, including the usage of Dionysius Exiguus's Anno Domini system. Also, my edits on Calendar era are in accordance with Manual of Style, and I can't see how you can defend that they were against it. CrazyInSane 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)