Jump to content

User talk:JereKrischel

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liberalpunt (talk | contribs) at 05:48, 8 May 2006 (→‎Hapa link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, JereKrischel, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages. Again, welcome!

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology Resolution work in progress

Hi there! I got your message and have a suggestion. Since I can't come up with the material you need right this instant, and it may take us some time to agree on a common version, would you mind reverting your change to Apology Resolution and continuing work on your draft improvements in a User sub-page? That way the article isn't left in a halfway, "under construction" state.

To create a User sub-page, first create the page User:JereKrischel. Within the bounds of Wikiquette, you can put anything you want on it, it's your page! Then create one or more sub-pages such as User:JereKrischel/Work in progress, copy-pasting the entire text of your proposed new Apology Resolution into the work in progress page.

My work-in-progress page for Apology Resolution is here. You can see the direction I was going with it. The idea is, we look at each other's ideas, crib from each other and from anybody else who weighs in with useful bits, until we get a common version we like. --IslandGyrl 06:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again! It looks as if I won't be able to Wikipedia much for several weeks due to some work I now have to do as a result of the recent German elections. So articles on Hawaiian politics are in your hands for awhile! Don't worry, I'm sure you'll do a good job. As the (native) Hawaiians I know would say, hey, they've been waiting for 112 years, so what's being underrepresented on Wikipedia for a few more weeks? :-) I'll be back to help paddle the canoe when it's settled what the new coalition government in Germany is going to be. Aloha & a hui hou… --IslandGyrl 23:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi, I am the anonymous contributor who has been causing trouble on a couple of Hawaiian related pages.

Thank you for your help. I notice you have made a lot of progress with IslandGyrl and it appears that I wll be more successful if I pattern my behavior a little more like yours. I know we haven't talked before and I never asked for help but you clearly delivered it anyway and I appreciate it.

Thank you again. Emperor Otho 22:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii recent changes

Aloha. I notice you've been reverting vandalism on Hawaii-related articles. If you're interested, you can also keep an eye on Hawaii recent changes. To add articles of importance to this public watchlist, edit this page. --Viriditas | Talk 14:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Hawaii

Thank you for catching my mistake when I accidentally reverted the Hawaii article back about two weeks. I only meant to change the US state infobox template, but since I had old versions of the Hawaii article open on my browser to try and decide which version was best, I think I probably edited one of the outdated versions instead of the most recent one. I edited the main page again [1], please tell me if you object to my changes. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) 06:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 24% for major edits and 79% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 72 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: discontent with the Monarchy

The point is that you cannot claim that any majority supported the overthrow of the monarchy with any certainty, save for the white settlers. I don't think the "Hawaii" page has any room for controversial points. I think scant mention of the overthrow is the best solution. Otherwise, I'll be forced to explain your interpretation. I'll leave it up to you to revise it.M.ana 03:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can claim that - the riots against Kalakaua in favor of Queen Emma, as well as the hawaiian language newspapers of Liliuokalani's day clearly indicate a general sentiment against the monarchy from all quarters. In fact, many kanaka maoli wanted Kaiulani to take over the restored throne, if it was to be restored. Liholiho was the last monarch of Hawaii who had anything close to what could be called universal support amongst any group of people. Again, see Andrade, Unconquerable Rebel. --JereKrischel 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no you can't. There are sources that suggest Emma declined the throne when offered. Which, as far as your perspective is concerned, only proves that the people was against certain individuals (and even to suggest that the majority of Hawaiians opposed Kalakaua and/or Liliuokalani would hardly be a NPOV.) and not against the monarchy as a whole. I don't think including that explanation is pertinent, do you? --User:M.ana
Whether or not Emma declined the throne when offered does not mean that the riots against Kalakaua, and the subsequent landing of U.S. peacekeepers, didn't illustrate a discontent against the monarchy. There is clear evidence, without any particular POV pushing, that indicates that both Kalakaua and Liliuokalani did not enjoy the same support as did the Kamehamehas and Liholiho. To ignore the vast amount of evidence regarding the instability during both Kalakaua's and Liliuokalani's reign is POV pushing. --JereKrischel 04:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There was no general concensus on public sentiment, only your bias interpretation of how the population should have reacted to certain legislation. Your version sounds like blatant bias. You cannot say with any type of certainty that there was broad opposition to the Monarchy except from inferences. And your statement, "growing discontent with the monarchy in general" is an outright lie. I can concieve, possibly, how there could be discontent with a certain Monarch, but to say that in general terms people were discontented with the monarchy is revisionism and stands for much of the editing you've done thus far. How can you rationalize support for Queen Emma and with the same breath claim that there was no support for the Monarchy? Frankly, this whole conversation and subsequent editing has gotten too far out of the realm of pertinent information. I say make a very broad edit to the charcaterization of Liliuokalani with minimal allusions to the overthrow. Really, why is this page even trying to explain the overthrow? Further, why are you pushing the issue?
The newspapers of the day, both Hawaiian language and otherwise, clearly indicate a general public discontent with the monarchy from all quarters, even if there was no consensus on the remedy or the reason for such discontent. Other writings of the time indicate this as well. This is not an inference or an interpretation, it is a verifiable fact. And support for Queen Emma was really the beginning of discontent - had she come to power, and ruled, the excesses of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani may never have caused reason for discontent with the monarchy. Are you trying to claim that there was widespread general contentedness amongst any particular portion of the population? Do you have any references to that effect that contradict the published works of the time critical of the Kalakaua dynasty? --JereKrischel 05:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could suggest sources all day too. How about some references to back up your assertion?
Sorry, not used to the tilde closer yet M.ana 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shoal of Time, by Gavan Daws. Unconquerable Rebel, by Ernest Andrade. The Hawaiian Kingdom (3 volume set), by Ralph Kuykendall. If you haven't read through any of those, I highly suggest starting with Andrade, it's a short read, and covers a lot of political detail surrounding the Kalakaua dynasty in particular. (oh, and to sign a section, use two dashes, and four tildes --~~~~ )--JereKrischel 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Main Article-ism

I'm sorry Jere, I cannot allow you to keep your version of history. Please read Neutral Point of View, NPOV tutorial and Information Suppression. Unless you can come up with a more credible source than Kuykendall, I'll have to ask you to desist from inserting your POV. As far as "General discontent", I'll accept that as long as you cite Gavan Daws. Zora has already showed me the reference. Please refrain from pushing your POV in the future. M.ana 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologist rhetoric

I am not the one disputing Daws or Kuykendall. You are the one that removed Kuykendall's reference. I am not disputing Daws either, you will find on your talk page as well as Zora's, that I am perfectly fine with other interpretations as long as a reputable author is cited. I am totally fine with citing any adverse views as long as you have a source and are willing to divulge those sources. As a rule of thumb, and as per the NPOV guideline, you should probably consider whether you would include the author of a point of view before editing anything remotely controversial. Further, as per the NPOV, citing sources is preferable over uncited material. I would suggest that you take your own advice. This is not a blog, stop treating it as such. Remember, we are not rewriting history, but relaying the events of the past. Please refrain from insinuating apologist rhetorc in any future edits. M.ana 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you specifically disputed Kuykendall: "Unless you can come up with a more credible source than Kuykendall" were your exact words. My contributions here are not apologist rhetoric, but well referenced and cited. You may disagree with the sources cited, but my inclusion of information regarding the Hawaiian Revolution that is counter to your POV is not an insertion of POV on my part. If you have specific issues with wording, please suggest changes to make things more NPOV, and refrain from making the error of assuming that your personal POV, or that of "sovereignty activists" is a neutral one. --JereKrischel 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "Unless you can come up with..." was my quote. It was a reference to my inclusion of Kuykendall that disputed your "changing hands" notion, for which you had no obvious citation. My quote of Kuykendall is what is now incorporated in the paragraph. A little attention to detail might improve your your insight. I'd also like to ask you to refrain from starting unfounded malicious topics on my talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. M.ana 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Mana, I misinterpreted your assertion. I thought you were disparaging Kuykendall as a credible source for the general discontent with the monarchy. I don't think Kuykendall disputes the "changing hands" notion, but I agree that changing that to "changing control" versus "changing hands" was a decent change. My apologies for misunderstanding what you were trying to say. --JereKrischel 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a show of good faith, I've edited percieved disparaging remarks. M.ana 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Selective Witnesses

Just a quick cease and desist request. Here is a quote from you "I understand the the transition from sovereignty comment boards to Wikipedia can be a difficult one, and I hope you are able to clearly differentiate between the rhetoric appropriate on one, and the collegial spirit required on the other." However, if you go on over to my talk page, your malicious topic of "Tin-foil hat" is counter to what you just suggested to me. As I've suggested before, please pay attention to detail before making accusations. It is clear to me that you are in no position to give advice on the above topics. Please refrain from acting in an uncivil manner. For reference I will point you to Wikipedia guidelines. Your cooperation is of the utmost importance to me. M.ana 03:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if the use of "tin-foil hat" came off as insulting - it was not intended that way. "Tin-foil hat" is a fairly common wikipedia term used in relation to far-out viewpoints. My assertion that your viewpoint is limited to a particular minority is in no way meant to be insulting - it is meant to be informative as you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. --JereKrischel 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'll have to ask you to quit labeling me. It is unfruitful and shows your unprofessionalism. Perhaps a greater degree of impartiality is required on your part. Thank you for your cooperation. M.ana 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your talk page for the adjusted section title without the "Tin-foil hat" label. --JereKrischel 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration. M.ana 03:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonet Constitution

I think it should go in order of relevance; ie The Constitution and Liluokalani first as these are source documents, and then you can arrange the opinion pieces in whatever order you see fit. I suggest staggering them. M.ana 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should categorize them into source documents (the full text), books (twigg/liliuokalani), versus articles & opinion pieces? I'll throw something up, let me know if you can think of further improvement. --JereKrischel 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten talk/med 12:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Power

Thanks for your message, would it be possible to discuss some of this privately via email? Arniep 01:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others pages

I apologize for editing out one word that would make your statement a correct one. However, I honestly thought that was acceptable practice. I am very new to Wikipedia. Yesterday, Arniep removed an entire post that I made on discussion, and since he seems to be kind of a bigwig at Wikipedia, I assumed editing others' post was acceptable. That said, I don't understand why you are so eager to prove someone bisexual when you didn't even seem to know who he was. And, I'm not sure why you prefer to leave an incorrect post.

Tyrone Power mediation

Concerning your remarks on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03_Tyrone_Power#Mediation_process:

Hapa article

Thanks for helping out with sorting out the external links; it's something I don't know much about. As for dealing with hapas.com vs. realhapas.com, the links should probably only show up in a discussion of the controversy. Of course, I'm not sure whether to mention that in the main article or just on the Talk page. Hmmmm. --Alan Au 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision Userbox

You may find a userfied version of the deleted box in my user space at User:Tomyumgoong/ubx/nocirc, feel free to subst or transclude it if you wish. Tomyumgoong 07:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason for removing the Hapa link to X-Plicitley Mixed? How is it that I am not allowed to post a link that X-Plicitley Mixed dedicates exclusively to Hapa's yet Mixed Folks is allowed to be on there as is Swirl that doesn't even have Hapa's on their front page or with resources with some degree of extent? Please clarrify as I see biasm at this moment, but retain my judgement for the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you

I am updating this response after finding out your other action's upon the word's eurasian and blasian. If I am not allowed to post a website that is more than resourceful yet, someone from Mixed Folks whose link does not even directly attend to the word Hapa then clearly there is an issue here and quite ironically a sense of biasm. You can not give me a good reason why X-Plicitely Mixed's Hapa website can not be there but a overly broad website is allowed too. As a matter of fact XP has a forum dedicated exclusively to Hapa's whereas most of those websites (excluding Eurasian nation and Hapas) don't even do that. If you continue and support this type of biasm by the constant editing of the link to X-Plicitely Mixed's Hapa site, I will bring up a dispute and personally contact Wikipedia myself (Call them, etc, the whole 9 yards). X-Plicitely Mixed's Hapa site is not commercial, do you see any products sold? Clearly not, nor is it anyone's personal website, rather a professional one meant to attend a Multiracial and in that case, Hapa/Eurasian audience. I would like to to diffuse in the most peaceful manor, please clarrify your reason's, otherwise I will handle this another way I trust; rather un-preferably, I'm sure we can work out something. Again I see hypocrisy.

Another thing, based on the history under the word Eurasian, you are seen reverting to a previous version. I find it ironic that you allow the eurasian webpage of X-Plicitley Mixed to be broadcasted under the word Eurasian yet you don't with the word Hapa. As a matter of fact you desire to place the link in a position that seems of your personal preference. Either way I have the history saved and will make my case to the appropiate individuals if we can not resovle a legitable and justifiable stance.

Interesting enough I also checked on the word blasian. You delted the message board that goes to a blasian (meant for those half black and half asian) on X-Plicitley Mixed. I would also like an explanation about this? Everything seems to be perfect timing Alan. Odd, I look forward to hearing from you, if not, from your superiors, to the top of Wikipedia. Guranteed dear sir.

I really would like to see this go peacefully and in preference for both of us within legitable and rational conclusions. My words are a reaction to your action, simple, and not meant to be negatively harnessed upon.

Thank you Jere

==========

Hey Jere!

I just got your response! Wow quick timing and absolutely appreciative, thank you. I supposed we can exchange, almost like a chat session. Well to begin friend, I am not an owner or affiliated with X-Plicitly Mixed on a high level. I just post at their boards, read their news, listen on the latest event's etc. And as a matter of fact love it and see them as a very healthy place for ALL multiracial's. That's the reason I am trying to get the word out. You see Jere, multiracial's have many issues and if I can just dedicate a little bit of my time by getting the word out to a very professional, neat, and legitable website like XP then hey that makes a difference for the better. Again it's not my site and don't know why you assumed that immediately, just a fan of theirs. Just check out their site friend, you'll see they adhere to the largest multiracial groups, at least in America. What do you think? :)

Thanks again Jere!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JereKrischel&oldid=52098956"