User talk:JereKrischel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2005 – August 2006
  2. August 2006 – August 2007


Socks[edit]

(Cross-posted on my talk page.) No worries JK, I believe you. Even before checking the IP later, I thought it didn't seem in character, so that's why I asked for evidence first (I've been busy so asked for someone else to check WHOIS). I don't suspect anyone of trying to set you up, just that they jumped the gun a little bit based on the editing tensions -- sometimes putting 2 and 2 together leads to an unwarranted conclusion of "4" when no addition was actually involved! Btw, I think we've both inadvertently gone past 3RR in our zeal from time to time. While we should obviously work to avoid edit wars entirely, in the case that we do and you (or any other editor who I know is not a total asshole/vandal) go past 3RR by accident, from now on I will at least tell you first and give you a chance to self-revert -- because I know if you do go past it's an oversight and not trying to game the system. As for the various articles, I haven't had time to look at all the changes the last few days and it's a lot to get back up to speed on. Given that the Legal Status article really needed a major re-vamp anyway, I suggested we go with L's version there to spark some needed creativity and re-thinking. I haven't forgotten about the need to get the other articles up to shape either, but work has been busy here, and for once I wanted to actually enjoy a holiday weekend and not deal with Wikipedia. Hope you had a good one too. Cheers, Arjuna 05:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere, I f***ed up by accusing you, and I really apologize. It was either an uncanny coincidence, or someone who doesn't usually edit was watching the back-and-forth in real time and decided to jump in right then. You may be a pain in the ass (my POV, ok?) but you're not a liar. And I shoulda asked you before I accused, because I do trust that you would give me an honest answer. So do you want me to remove the accusatory discussion or let it stand? Knowing you, I figure you will probably choose to leave it up but I did want to ask, because it's certainly your right to take it down if you want, and you should not have to do it yourself. Aloha,--Laualoha 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Aloha & Peace!Olive branch.svg[edit]

‎ It was great to finally meet you, Jere! I have a lot of hope for the future -- I believe that we will be able to resolve things much more productively hereon. Even though I don't agree with you on many things, I admire your dedication and sincerity a lot. But don't forget, no bus me out to your gang, or else!! (just kidding, sort of). Nah, I pretty much know when a person's word is good or not, and as far as I'm concerned, yours is solid. Planny Aloha, --Laualoha 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A Barnstar!
The Aloha Barnstar

I hereby award this Barnstar to my often-opponent Jere Krischel for Enduring Aloha and overall Good Faith shown through tough & sometimes brutal battles.--Laualoha 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies![edit]

Drawing-Gay flag.png

Hi, JereKrischel, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
  • If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Hawai'i[edit]

OK, no problem. Let's just block out a time when we can do it all. Aloha, --Laualoha 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jere, so when do you want to do that real-time discussion? I have changes I'd like to make to the Legal Status page, but as part of our "truce", I'm not touching it until we can do that. This weekend is completely booked w/band-related stuff for me, but I'll try to make some other time. Just give me some times that might be good for you, ok? Aloha, --Laualoha 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time[edit]

Hey JK, got your note and sorry I missed you but there was just no way -- work stuff was, well, not 24/7 but a good 12/7, which is enough to take away any time for electives. Next time you're in the islands, I hope. Any case, I'm back and trying to catch up on all the good chats and rumbles you guys have been having. Cheers, Arjuna 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Legal status of Hawaii[edit]

I know I'm gonna regret this, but I thought I should bring to your attention the "request for comment" debate happening on the Talk:Legal status of Hawaii page. I already know I'm not gonna like what you're gonna say, but since you were involved extensively I do not feel it is right if you're not aware of it. Take care, hope things are going good. Aloha,--Laualoha 00:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jere. I wrote to continue our conversation about "fringe" in WP policy. In short, I disagree with your approach, which assumes that "fringe" in law is based on a lack of success among legal decision-makers, and that legal journals are vulnerable to fringe ideas and hence distinct from courts/legislative decision sources. Hope to hear from you soon, you strike me as thoughtful and quite well informed. Take care, HG | Talk 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed answer, I replied now too. Moved both to the Article Talk, hope you don't mind! Ciao. HG | Talk 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. Ok, so we're in a bit of a spat (or spats) at the moment. I take no prisoners rhetorically, but seeing as how you give as good as you get, I think you already know there's nothing personal intended. No hard feelings, ya? Respek! But seriously, please reconsider your wholesale reversions of what are now the new consensus versions -- at least provide some reason and please stop accusing E (or me for that matter, though you haven't done so this time) of vandalism. That's a serious charge, and you know as well as I do that this is not about vandalism but a POV dispute. When you offer specific objections, I have taken them seriously and either accepted many of them or made good faith compromise efforts to address them. Second, we're all probably coming up close to some 3RR issues (I have tried to be careful and am 99.9% certain that I have not), but in any case I intend to honor my previous pledge to you that if you do go over I will let you know and give you a chance to self-revert before reporting. I hope you will accord me (and maybe others of similarly good faith) the same privilege. Cheers, mahalo, thanks. Arjuna 10:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So given your lack of a reply, should I consider my offer of a gentleman's agreement on inadvertent 3RR violations (i.e. alert and give the other a chance to revert) not accepted? Arjuna 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

Don't know you and have nothing to gain here, but I wanted to complement you and Arjuna808 both on the mature way you've handled your POV disagreements. Lots of passion there on both sides but much respect as well. Very refreshing!--Lepeu1999 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"[edit]

JK, please stop accusing Eekadog -- or anyone else of vandalism unless it really is. Or maybe you aren't aware: "rv" means "revert" whereas "rvv" means "revert vandalism". Given that you are the one reverting the consensus version, if anyone can make the accusation (which we are not), it is Eekadog/myself. c/m/t, Arjuna 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning[edit]

First, this is to warn you that you have violated 3RR on Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and probably other articles as well. Given your lack of a reply, I suppose I should consider my offer of a gentleman's agreement on inadvertent 3RR violations (i.e. alert and give the other a chance to revert) not accepted? I will give you a couple of hours to self-revert and if not will then have to report. Cheers, Arjuna 23:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

nattang 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JereKrischel (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

History of Hawaii reverts were against simple vandalism, Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was not 3RR - see details below

Decline reason:

Your reverts at History of Hawaii such as [1] were not vandalism reverts; rather, they constitute a content dispute. The reverted version may or may not have been of lower editorial quality, but it is not vandalism; that would have been the case if the text would have been replaced by "poop poop poop" or similar. I'm sorry to say that I can't help out much in the interpersonal dispute detailed below. Next time, consider WP:3O or WP:RfC to get out of content gridlocks quickly. — Sandstein 05:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

details[edit]

Eekadog has consistently been removing cited material in fairly simply vandalism, yet has been claiming in his comments that he is doing "NPOV" edits - note the "unecessary [sic] cites of POV material" comment, where he attempts to justify the fairly straightforward removal of citations, without any further discussion on the talk page:

  • 09:47, 2 October 2007 Eekadog (Talk | contribs) (24,167 bytes) (revert to last NPOV by Arjuna, remove unecessary cite of POV material) (undo)
  • 12:38, 2 October 2007 Eekadog (Talk | contribs) (24,167 bytes) (remove vandalism) (undo)
  • 15:37, 2 October 2007 Eekadog (Talk | contribs) (24,167 bytes) (remove unecessary cites of POV material.) (undo)
  • 09:51, 3 October 2007 Eekadog (Talk | contribs) (24,167 bytes) (revert to last NPOV version by Arjuna.) (undo)
  • 13:03, 3 October 2007 Eekadog (Talk | contribs) (24,167 bytes) (revert to last consensus NPOV version.) (undo)

Every one of these reverts has been to remove citations, and his last comment on the talk page was:

  • 17:07, 27 September 2007 Eekadog (Talk | contribs) (58,771 bytes) (undo)

Arjuna has been more willing to talk than eekadog, but has not addressed issues on the talk page since:

  • 22:44, 24 September 2007 Arjuna808 (Talk | contribs) (54,820 bytes) (Naniwa) (undo)

Regarding Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, 3RR was not violated -

  • 21:55, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (compromise version, including some edits from both sides)
  • 20:20, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (rvv - please explain why good cites should be removed on talk page, eekadog)
  • 13:15, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (fix typo)
  • 13:11, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (rv, see talk)
  • 07:01, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (Undid revision 161965636 by Eekadog (talk) rvv)

7:01 was the first version, 13:11 was the first revert

13:15 was a fix of a typo

20:20 was a revert to the fixed version (first revert)

21:55 was a compromise version

Please check the history logs - you'll see that Arjuna's assertion that I did 4 reverts is not accurate.

Mahalo for your consideration, and any help in mediating this dispute would be appreciated. --JereKrischel 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am writing to dispute JK's assertion that either Eekadog or my changes or reverts to the pages in question were vandalism. Indeed they were not; the accusation could more credibly be made the other way, but I do not wish to make such a formal accusation. I regret to say that JK's recent edits have continued his longstanding pattern of selectively quoting sources so as to present an overall misleading and highly tendentious representation of the mainstream scholarship regarding the historical events described in the articles. His assertions were indeed cited, but these were cherry-picked statements taken out of context and thus misrepresenting the intended or comprehensive conclusions of the authors. In a small number of instances he accurately quoted authors (eg. Twigg-Smith), but these authors represent at best "significant minority" POVs of the historical events in question, and are thus undue weight. In short, JK repeatedly exhibits an inappropriate sense of "ownership" over the articles, and has been engaged in blatant POV pushing despite repeated and (mostly) polite requests to desist. In his repeated (and spurious) accusations of vandalism, he is referring to his reversions of the mainstream consensus version, and insists on repeated re-introduction of inappropriate or misleading material. These accusations are most unfortunate, unfair, and distressing. I reported his 3RR violation only after giving him ample time to self-revert (posting messages on his talk page, other pages I know he monitors, and even sending him an email). In fact, I may not even have reported him at all were it not for his defiant and rude attitude after being warned about having already violated 3RR. In short, the reverts from Eekadog and myself were to correct JK's tendentious POV pushing edits. I regret to say that I fear JK has been trying to "game" the system by repeated stonewalling, nit-picking, and cherry-picking in order to push what can (very charitably) be described as a contentious POV. In so doing he has frequently exhausted, intimidated, and otherwise scared away a whole series of good editors over at least the last year and a half. The records on the various talk pages will bear out this assertion, and there are many other editors who are likely to support this contention. I respect JK as a tenacious and (at times) productive editor, but unfortunately his passionate and yet divisive ideology too-often gets in the way of good sense and basic fairness. I am happy to answer any questions from the Admins, and thanks for your consideration of my perspective. Arjuna 04:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course I respectfully disagree with Arjuna's take on the situation, but some of his accusations illustrate the pattern of interference at play here - where he accuses me of selectively quoting, instead of either working to provide more context or rebutting the validity of any of the citations, he instead has engaged in character attacks on authors whose POV does not match his (without doing more than "skimming" their work, even though available online for free [2] - see Talk:Sanford_B._Dole#POV_pushing where Arjuna808 states, "Yes, I have read the things you mention, or rather skimmed them -- one doesn't need to eat a whole apple to know it's bad."), and encouraged Eekadog in vandalizing the articles by removing citations, or any reliable sources that may contradict his particular POV. I have repeatedly asked for more detail about objections to edits and sources, so as to work towards compromise, but the replies have been similar to "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it", a singularly nonconstructive response. For example, from his citation that somehow I've been "defiant" or "rude", Arjuna808 flatly states, "Anyhow, I think one way to deal with this seemingly ingrained tendency is to knock out the foundations he relies on for (spurious) claims to authority. TTS is clearly a divisive, fringe figure and should not be accorded anything approaching the same level of legitimacy as a mainstream commentator or scholar of whatever stripe" This comes across like a battle plan to discredit someone by demonizing and attacking a respected publisher and author. On the same citation, Eekadog states, "I think I'd rather bang my head against a wall", when asked to comment on our disagreements (prompted by Arjuna808 himself). His own reference shows less of my attitude and more of Eekadog's, but I leave that to the reader to decide. If there is something on Arjuna's citation that does come across as rude, I sincerely apologize - it would be helpful if someone would give me the exact quote so I can understand better what was offensive.
Regarding any opportunity to self-revert, Arjuna had already reverted History of Hawaii, and I had written on his talk page regarding my dispute of his count of reverts on Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Whatever email he allegedly sent did not reach my inbox, but it could be stuck in SMTP land somewhere, so I take it at face value that he did send it.
It would be of great help for some third party to help mediate our current disputes - I believe much of our difficulty lies in personality conflict, and an outside perspective may help calm the waters and more clearly guide us in constructive efforts.
As a basic rule, I believe we should be working towards adding cited material in a neutral manner, with appropriate references and no weasel-word editorializing; we should also accept that there are reliable sources on both sides of the issue, and avoid character attacks on materials that may contradict our own points of view - arguing that a real publishing house is somehow a "vanity press" because it published a well-reasoned and thoroughly cited book written by the CEO of a parent corporation is simply untenable; and last, but not least, we should be diligent about explaining, justifying and detailing our specific objections to edits, rather than simply using superlatives and rhetorical adjectives in describing our displeasure. Under those terms, I think things would move forward much smoother, but I'm afraid that that kind of suggestion from me would not be heard by either Eekadog or Arjuna808.
I believe both Eekadog and Arjuna808 can be constructive editors, but I'm afraid that the current methods of engagement, and an apparent lack of WP:AGF has made things particularly difficult. I am reasonably sure that both Eekadog and Arjuna808 see my attention to detail in both references, statements and editorial comments as some sort of "gaming" of the system, and I can understand how that can cause them to behave the way they have been - but I'm not sure how to help change that perception. I ask for comments, references and details because I believe that the only way we can get to WP:NPOV is to leave our POV at the door, and rely on the available historical record and resources to speak for themselves. When the historical record does not coincide with our own POV, or when reliable secondary sources do not coincide with our own POV, we are obligated to respond by adding to the detail and context, not by suppressing information we find unfavorable. Any comments or suggestions on how to proceed together are greatly appreciated. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And I take strong exception to JK's characterization of the nature of the disputes, which seems to turn reality on its head. I see this not so much as a personality conflict (call this odd, but I somehow get the sense that he is a genuinely likeable human being in real life) but rather a conflict between mainstream views and an incorrigible ideologue who refuses or is incapable of acknowledging his own POV pushing. This may sound harsh but I can back up this assertion quite readily. Brevity and civility being desireable, I will not do so here but am happy to clarify any of this as appropriate. And to JK: honestly, I do maintain respect for you in many ways and harbor no hard feelings whatsoever towards you personally. Aloha, Arjuna 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess when I use the word "personality conflict", I probably mean "communication styles" - Arjuna is right, over a beer, we'd probably all get along as buddies - but when it comes to editing, or handling differences over these articles, my communication style is to get more detailed, insist on more references and more citations, as well as more detailed explanations about what is problematic in their eyes. (I learned this from a stint on Race and intelligence) Eekadog's communication style is typically limited to edit comments and what I'll call pithy statements of little clarifying value. Arjuna is more verbose than Eekadog, but he tends to focus on two or three adjectives he likes, and makes statements about his perceptions rather than the cause of those perceptions. Needless to say what he considers "mainstream" I consider fringe - it may be that we're conflating contexts (activist academic versus academic versus common perception in Hawaii versus common perception across the U.S.).
Anyway, thank you Sandstein for considering my appeal, it is appreciated. I will take your advice to heart, and hopefully that will help both Eekadog, Arjuna, myself and others find a way to be more constructive, and gain higher "editorial quality" as we move forward. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile![edit]

-WarthogDemon 05:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal Status Page[edit]

Hi Jere! Wanna take a break from all this tangled mess going on & work with me on the legal status page for a while? I'm kinda brain-dead tonight (bad "hearing" last night with the military...) & I gotta run & show face for a little while at another meeting (it never ends...) but we gotta get to it eventually, so I'll definitely make some time. Just let me know! Aloha, --Laualoha 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's do that this weekend. I gotta help my wife get the car back from the shop, but other than that I don't have anything planned. Gimme a call anytime, and if I'm not there leave a message and I'll call you back as soon as I get it. --JereKrischel 04:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography[edit]

Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the Biography WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-) LarryQ 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Nalayne Mahealani Asing[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Nalayne Mahealani Asing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

CATI[edit]

Hi there, if you are interested in supporting the Coalition Against Tagalog Imperialism please add {{User:Arikasikis/Userbox/CATI}} . The logo would look like User:Arikasikis/Userbox/CATI



Arikasikis (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Inactivity[edit]

In trying to deliver the LGBT Project newsletter, SatyrBot detected a period of three months of inactivity from this account. You have been placed in our "Inactive Members" section. If this has been done in error, please let my bot owner know and change your status in he project. Thanks! SatyrBot (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Thanks for clearing that up for us. Enjoy your break. —Viriditas | Talk 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your message on my talk page. Oy what a mess. I sincerely, deeply, and humbly apologize for assuming that Yosemitesam was you (a notion that the other party, when asked directly, did not bother to dispel, btw). Frankly, I am rather relieved that our working theory was wrong. That you were able to give the kind and generous words that you did says much about your character. I will send you an email later, but for now enjoy your wikibreak. Cheers/mahalo/thanks, Arjuna (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Akaka Bill[edit]

Hi JK. Saw your recent edit on the Akaka Bill article, and I don't have a problem with it whatsoever in terms of substance -- it seems pretty non-controversial. Two things, though. 1. The sentence currently states that "it does not provide for non-native Hawaiian people of the Kingdom any opportunity to participate in the new governing entity", but since the Kingdom no longer exists, this statement is confusing. Shouldn't it be "decendents of non-native people of the Kingdom", or even "any non-Hawaiian as defined by the law"? I'm going to make a change to the latter, but since you're more up on the language of the bill than I, if this is incorrect then please re-edit. And 2. thanks for providing the citation, and I don't intend to challenge it, but just note that unless I'm missing something (entirely possible), the statement in the article isn't directly supported by the citation; it kind of does indirectly but doesn't say the same thing explicitly. Also, op-eds (regardless of which "side" is represented) generally aren't as strong as straight reportage, so we should be careful on this in future. Finally, I've been really busy but still intend to send you a note soon. c/m/t, Arjuna (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence[edit]

Yes, we need you back. Could you review the recent talk - I would suggest you read from here if you have the time; this is an RFC which I think is the starting point for all current discussion. On March 23 I made a major proposal for overhauling the article and reorganizing it, but that discussion is now mired down. It would mean a lot if you could read through this discussion and make whatever interventions you feel necessary. I think many people want to make positive changes now and the RFC makes clear the urgency, but we need more voices and you really know the history. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you will follow the discussion below the RfC, and participate when you consider it appropriate/constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz[edit]

I just reverted this edit, but FYI: [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008[edit]

Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008[edit]

Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reexamination of old disputes[edit]

Hi JK,

At the suggestion of Viriditas, I've reexamined some old issues that you were involved with and posted my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii#Reexamination of old disputes, so any feedback you can provide would be much appreciated. Mahalo! --jonny-mt 15:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008[edit]

Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - July 2008[edit]

Aloha. The July 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - August 2008[edit]

Aloha. The August 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - September 2008[edit]

Aloha. The September 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VII - October 2008[edit]

Aloha. The October 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Inactive?[edit]

Jere, I've moved you to the inactive section over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Members, so you will no longer receive the newsletter. If you still read this page, feel free to move your name back or contact me. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilcox rebellions[edit]

Look at a seed you had sown Wilcox rebellions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Race and intelligence[edit]

I thought you should know about this. I know in the past this article (and I think my contributions to the talk page) have caused you some grief but I always thought you were a well-informed and thoughtful editor with something constructive to say. Perhaps in the course of this mediation, you might have something to say that could have a positive inflkuence on the outcome. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ConklinTempleValley.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:ConklinTempleValley.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A statement[edit]

I have learned for myself that communism is not true. Beware of political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.22 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Assistance[edit]

Hello I write to ask your assistance. We are a Hapa club in Japan and have tried twice to edit the "hapa" page to include using the word outside of California and Hawaii but user 74.108.XX.XXX continues to change to say "only" Hawaii and California.

I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with Wikipedia etiquette and do not want to offend 71.108. We read your posts on the article talk page and were very impressed. Can you please advise or help to edit page?

Thank you very much!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.105.45.226 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinion - hapa[edit]

I made suggestions on the hapa talk page based on your earlier edit of hapa to help alleviate the edit warring by several anonymous IP users. Can you please review and comment on it? Thank you. TAG speakers (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)