User talk:Jonathunder/archive3

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Recent VFD

Dear Jon,

As a fan of Gene Simmons, I'm guessing you might like the song "God of Thunder". With that said, I want to defend the article that was contributed about my recording label. While I appreciate Wikipedia and the contributors for making the article, I must say all singers were unknown at one time or another. While it might shock you a preacher likes Gene Simmons, I like both he and KISS. He was once an unknown singer, along with KISS. I respect these guys, because they were underground and grew to overall success. They worked hard and became the most well known rock group in history. While he and Jay-Z aren't religious, I respect these guys for going against all odds. They not only made their careers, but made enough money to sign other talent to their labels. Just because an indie label is religious, doesn't exclude them from the same work ethic. While I respect your opinion(s) for submitting an VFD, I have my own and you just read it. Before it was deleted, I made a hard copy of the artcle. I plan to use it as proof wikipedia had a subject on my label. Whether or not my label grows or not, I thank wikipedia and their staff for keeping it for the past year.

David Agosta Founder of D.H. Records

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Homosexual philosophers

I'm sorry, I didn't follow the discussion after my vote. I actually wouldn't mind the rename if you brought it up again. — Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Woody Allen, from Love and Death:

• A. All men are mortal.
• B. Socrates is a man.
• C. All men are Socrates.
• That means all men are homosexual. I'm not homosexual, although I happen to have the type of body that appeals to both persuasions.

Re: Rochester, MN

Thanks for the welcome! So far I love it here, although it's a big change from Chicago. And I'm too busy to be able to enjoy myself. I hope I will be able to learn enough about Rochester to contribute to some of the Rochester articles here. Are there any other Wikipedia editors from Rochester? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Some very active editors are former Rochester area residents, and in a college town of this size there must be others who contribute from here, but I don't know any in real life (other than my partner, who reads Wikipedia quite a bit but rarely edits). Jonathunder 04:57, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

The Bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN

I don't interpret "deleted nonsense" in the sense of deleting an article--BJAODN is actually just a collection of absurd statements, many of which were removed from articles which were not themselves deleted. The first example in The original Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is from George Washington, the fourth is from "a very old revision of Kylie Minogue." Accordingly I cannot take a BJAODN as other than a joke vote, a "well, at least it's funny" comment. Of course a corollary of the GFDL is that the original must be kept in some form, so BJAODN can never, where it is compatible with the license pertaining on Wikipedia, be a simple delete vote.

My words in closing were as follows:

The result of the debate was No consensus. A majority wanted deletion, quite a few wanted BJAODN (which suggests they consider the content unencyclopedic but of some amusement value). While I'm tempted to interpret the BJAODN's as delete votes, I think there's the germ of an encyclopedia article here, and BJAODN does not necessarily imply deletion; it's a comment on content. There is some concern that the existing content may be a copyright violation, and this should be addressed in the appropriate place. If no attempt is made to turn this into a neutral encyclopedia article, relisting on VfD after 28 days may be in order. -

I think this was fairest, because I found no real suggestion of consensus to delete on this occasion, but a general dissatisfaction with the present contents, which can be improved through simple editing). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Fernando Rizo's RfA

Jonathunder, I thank you for the kind words of support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a responsible admin. See you around the Wiki. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you, what do you mean? Peacenick 23:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Skyring

Because he was targeting a series of articles almost minute by minute with sockpuppets I temporarily protected all the main pages. So far I have caught 14 of his sockpuppets. He has even bombarded Wikipedia talk:Stalking with at least 6 sockpuppets!!! Luckily people copped on and kept reverting. He was so brazen that he would go to it without even doing any other edits!!! That or he'd go to the Lame page and re-enter something a previous sockpuppet had entered and which someone had deleted. I see some user has gone to his talk page and branded him a hypocrite! Pretty apt. And this guy in his blog claims to be a mature adult with a teenage family. He is acting like an immature 2 year old. Feel free to unlock the page if you want, BTW. It doesn't matter to me. It was simply one of his under siege targets! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Date era style

Yuezhi is now where it was before the revert war over eras hit that page. Please do not keep reverting people on that. Our style manual says the date form in that article is fine. Jonathunder 03:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Umm... I was just reverting Jguk who was violating the truce and changing date styles (and you reverted to the same version I was reverting to, incidentally). Good luck trying to get Jguk to stop, however. Sortan 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Which articles are you talking about? -St|eve 17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

REPEAT: Would you please give a list of articles you are referring to? -St|eve 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

HappyCamper's RFA

Hi Jonathunder! Thanks for your support on my recent RFA! I'm now an administrator, and if you ever need anything, feel free to leave a message on my talk page! Happy editing, and I'll see you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 02:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation, perhaps

Hello, risking that I'd be perceived as a nationalist spammer, I'd like to address some issues, that have been bothering this Wikipedia for months.

Apparently, with the adoption of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy as official, the reasons for the use of the "Macedonian Slavs" term for the modern nation that identifies itself as "Macedonians" are in direct violation of this policy (or guideline).

I think I've managed to deconstruct the Macedonian/Macedonian Slavs naming issue here from a strict NPOV aspect, and all I managed to receive was 1. defending the claim that "Macedonians Slavs" was a ambiguity term, with the very same arguments that actually make it a POV term (from DBachmann) 2. standard ridicule from Chronographos (rather pathetic, I might add).

More importantly, I've analyzed the problem in even greater detail and clarity here. For the arguments of both POVs, PLEASE see that link. I realize that I am a partisan in the debate, however, that doesn't mean I can skip argumentation as Chronographos does. So, again, as a neutral, please see and/or engage in that debate. --FlavrSavr 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Jguk at Biblical canon

User:jguk is agitating to convert yet another article to BC/AD dating, Biblical canon. I you could comment there it would be much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

RoM or FYROM?

Regarding your edit edit, is the name FYROM not what the UN and many other countries officially recognise the RoM as? I mean, in all good faith obviously, they designate their embassies to the FYROM. Doesn't that qualify as official recognision. REX 16:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not the name they recognize. It is a phrase they use to avoid naming it. In fact, U.N. documents sometimes use quite roundabout phrasing to avoid the dispute by saying things like "the state referred to in previous resolutions..." or the like. The United Nations is powerless to force a name on a country and it doesn't pretend that it can. Jonathunder 16:12, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

I know that, but if what you say is true, how can it be proved. I mean, the Greek nationalists on Talk:Republic of Macedonia won't accept your word for it. REX 16:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi, Jonathunder. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my bureaucratship. Do you have any specific criticisms or suggestions for me, for next time? If so, let me know. Thanks. Andre (talk) 05:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mountain goat

As far as I can tell, there's never been an independent page called Mountain goat. First it redirected to Goat, then it redirected to Goat antelope, and now it redirects to Rocky Mountain Goat, which is the species most commonly referred to by the term "mountain goat". It seems to be Wikipedia style to capitalize every word in the name of an animal species; it overrides the more general Wikistyle of using sentence capitalization in titles. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care where the article is or how it's capitalized, so long as Mountain goat, Mountain Goat, Rocky Mountain Goat, Rocky Mountain goat, Rocky mountain goat and their respective plurals all lead to the same article. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mammalian names and case

According to the MoS and concensus amongst the editors and WikiProject:Tree of Life, the common names of mammals, birds and fish (the reptiles and invertebrates still don't have a standard capitalisation) are to be capitalised, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). --nixie 01:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the guideline you cited: "Some claim the name of an individual bird or mammal species is usually capitalised, but this is disputed. Various ornithological societies have made a strong case in favour of this convention for naming birds. The case is weaker for mammals."

The common guideline for most article titles is to write them as they would be in running text because it facilitates inline linking. The guideline above is hardly a strong mandate or concensus to do otherwise, especially on articles for mammals. Jonathunder 02:15, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Louis Epstein

I have filed a request for arbitration. You are invited to comment. Susvolans ⇔ 17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia, again...

Do you have the Macedonian Slavs article on your watchlist? Apparently User:Miskin, put this disclaimer in the first paragraph:

The term "Macedonian Slavs" has been used in several occasions by Macedonian Slav politicians as a self-identifying term and therefore it is not used as an offense against the people of this ethnic group.

It is more than enough that Wikipedia actually refers to them as "Macedonian Slavs" despite the fact that all encyclopedias (except MSN Encarta), international organizations, most media outlets refer to them as "Macedonians", but for Wikipedia to prescribe whether the reader or the nation in question, should find the term offensive or not: that is outrageous! The same user (Miskin), actually labeled the nation in question as a "Slavic crowd" on several occassions, and he didn't considered that an insult. He also put some factual inaccuracies on the page, which I intend to revert, as well (the name of nationality has not been yet standardized by the UN?!?)

I mean, regardless of the fact that the statements of the Macedonian politicians are taken out of the context, but it seems to me that some people don't realize that I didn't invent the fact that Macedonians find the label "Macedonian Slavs" insulting. Here's what the only attempt to impose that term on an international level ended: [1]: Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. The organization is referring to the nation as "Macedonians", and didn't start referring to them as "Macedonian Slavs".

Of course, those are subjective factors, while I've studied the NPOV aspects of the issue here. (Did you see the questions part?)

I'll revert those edits, but I am sure that this is going to be yet an another edit war, so please engage in the debate, or inform an another administrator to prevent vandalism.

I would really like to know your opinion about this. I would also like to know what should be the necessary steps to resolve the naming issue (Mediation, RfC?). I feel that, by and large, I'm being ignored on this subject, despite making serious efforts to regard the issue from as much a NPOV aspect as I can, and despite the obvious fact that the Macedonia-related articles are overwhelmed by the Greek POV. I cannot understand the reasons behind this cold attitude. I am a Wikipedian myself (a bureaucrat on the Macedonian Wikipedia), I made thousands of edits there, the cooperation with other Wikipedias is really excellent, and I am amazed that the English Wikipedia tolerates nationalism to that extent (of course, that cannot be applied to everybody). --FlavrSavr 15:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for Theathenae

A petition for Arbitration has been brought against User:Theathenae because of his behavior in the Talk:Arvanites dispute. You can add evidence if you wish here. REX 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Paine

Please recall that I support you, and the Ameerican usage, on Sharecropping; where you are in the right. Septentrionalis 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about taking sides, I hope. Please read what I wrote on the Paine talk page. This article is AE in its edit history. Its subject became an American and is one of the founders of the United States. AE conventions should continue to be followed for that article. For other articles, I have argued against changing them to the AE style from something else. Jonathunder 18:47, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Regarding your comment "I see no reason why George Washington has to be written in the American..." style. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English.

Thanks!

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Note re Rules of the road

Hey. Just a note re changing "F.Y.R.O. Macedonia" to "Macedonia": The article originally had "Macedonia", but someone changed it to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so I squished it to "F.Y.R.O." It remains to be seen if the someone will return to change it back, as has been happening with "Falkland Islands" vs. "Islas Malvinas". ;) IceKarmaॐ 19:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you answer. The fact that they used the term is true. Check the edit's history and the talk pages. You may also find interesting some notes on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#some_thoughts. MATIA 17:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote.

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

But all deletion IS vandalism!

Think about it--an encyclopedia, by definition, is a collection of all human knowledge. Thus, when someone removes bona fide knowledge from the encyclopedia (as opposed to something that's just utter bullshit) is, in a literal sense, vandalizing the encyclopedia--he is acting in a manner counter to its goal. Kurt Weber 18:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, deleting accurate data is vandalism. If Jonathunder deleted data which could have been used in an article according to Wikipedia policy then he did indeed engage in vandalism. If what he deleted though has not been proven and are potentially false facts, then he hasn't commited vandalism. REX 21:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

REX, what we are discussing are edits like this: [2]. Jonathunder 06:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! That really is vandalism, I know it when I see it! Obviously Kurt is not familiar with Wikipedia policy and I would advise him to familiarise himself with it before making accusations. REX 08:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, no, I'm quite familiar is policy; however, policy is wrong. All deletion is indeed vandalism, regardless of what policy may say to the contrary. Kurt Weber 18:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the Welcome Jonathon. I notice you too are in MN. Skype (sunnimbus), AIM (xnoubis). I'm actually not so new to Wikis, just to contributions on Wikipedia. I'm a lot more familar with the codebase than I am with the community. Ping me. I'm sort of new to MN; so, I'm doing a lot to connect folks in technology. AaronRoe

Fort Snelling

Thank you. I had a few interior shots, of the cannon being prepped for its daily "Donald", but I'm kind of reluctant to post photos with peoples' faces visible when I did not ask their permission, and fuzzing them out looks too weird. Wahkeenah 01:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)