User talk:Jonas Poole

re: Diffie reference

Hi. You're right, Diffie references Jorge Álvares' landing in China in 1513, but not Perestrello's, who eventually landed there in 1516. I will research sources to correct it now. Diffie has been an excellent guide for Portuguese discoveries chronology, but dates often vary with sources, even the credible ones (for instance The Cambridge history of China, p.336, as a nice overview of this China landings, and mentions Perestrello, but dates Álvares in 1514. I will go with Diffie, as I had seen this date precised to May 1513 (there are important primary sources on like Tomé Pires, I'll check them). Thanks and congratulations for creating Timeline of European exploration article. --Wikitza (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still finishing Morison's Southern Voyages (only seventy pages left!). I haven't read much on European travels in Asia, so its nice to see someone adding that info to balance the article out. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

You were involved in the RfC discussion here; there is a proposal there, and your comments are invited. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cochinchina

Done, it was not easy to find a complete clear reference, but it is well sourced around, see also Asia in the Making of Europe, Volume III: A Century of Advance. Book 3 By Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley. Hope it is ok--Uxbona (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen, yet again

As you prefer edit-scuffling to dialogue, your recent unexplained, undiscussed deletions have been raised here.Xyl 54 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of seventy-two hours for disruptive editing through slow-motion edit-warring on Spitsbergen. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 09:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen, one more time

There is a proposal, here, to resolve the OR issues raised in this article.
If you have any comments to make, please join the discussion. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Please - I don't know what the problem is, but this is quite uncalled for. Please stop, or I will request a ban of a few days to give you time to cool down. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My problem is people talking out of their asses again and again. Not my fault people are too stupid to make any sense. There shouldn't even be a debate on that page. They're so obviously wrong. Jonas Poole (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you do not seem capable of understanding why you are consistently mistaken about this Mr Poole, and even despite that you seem incapable of just speaking without resorting to extreme insults. I have no further recourse but to report you to the appropriate noticeboard. Weakopedia (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported at this noticeboard - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption and incivility at Spitsbergen Weakopedia (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Because of your disruption and personal attacks, I have blocked this account from editing for 1 month. Diffs:

Attacks:

• diff
• diff
• diff

Intent to disrupt:

• diff

In determining the duration of the block, I considered your history of prior blocks.

You have had friendly warnings and short blocks. If you return from this longer block and make a personal attack anywhere on Wikipedia you should expect to be blocked indefinitely.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}

CIreland (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you block me from editing everything, with the exception of this page. Jonas Poole (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no technical mechanism to unblock you to edit only one article. Additionally, the primary problem is your unwillingness to approach in editors in a collegial spirit; you would need to address this in any unblock request. CIreland (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This 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).

Jonas Poole (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to only be blocked from editing the Spitsbergen page, so I can continue to add to the following page and other exploration related pages.

Decline reason:

That would be an acceptable compromise if the only problem was minor editing issues at one particular article, but this is your fourth block in the last few months for disruptive and uncivil behavior. Any further unblock requests would need to address your behavior and how you intend to modify it to work collaboratively. Kuru (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Offensive language and personal attacks

Jonas - You know well that this sort of thing is unacceptable. Please refrain from attacking other editors, and stick to discussion of the subject. Thank you. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

But he literally knows nothing about this subject! NOTHING. I simply told him he shouldn't be commenting on a subject when he knows absolutely nothing about it. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fisher on Stadukhin

Gimme a few days to dig. I'm tied up with something else now. What I said about 'given the poor records' is there because Fisher didn't seem to explain what took Stadukhin all those years to make a maybe 1-3 month journey. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please see here. I've blocked your sock account. Parsecboy (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I only use OttaSotta to edit articles on exploration. I accidently used it on that page, and then used this profile to talk to you about it. OttaSotta is not a sockpuppet. Could you please remove the ban on it. Continue to ban this profile all you want, but I'd like to keep that one only to edit articles on exploration. Again, it was a mistake. Please restore it. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

- To User:Uncle G. I stand by my assertion that I did not intend to use OttaSotta as a sockpuppet, nor to "tag team" against the user in question. Look at OttaSotta's contributions. You shouldn't find a single contribution that has to do with this issue. Again, I didn't realize what profile I was on when I originally made that edit. I get extremely upset when I see people use the incorrect spelling, and had to revert it at that very moment. It wasn't until after the edit was made that I saw I had used OttaSotta. Once more, I did not intend to use OttaSotta as a sockpuppet. Jonas Poole (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)