User talk:Jonathunder/archive7

Greece article

Jonathunder the naming dispute about FYROM is a much more serious issue than a simple wikipedia redirect. --Avg 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC) You reverted again. You obviously fail to understand the issue. This can easily result in an edit war, unless you have a look at the talk page. --Avg 23:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the issue. On Wikipedia, we use the common name for the country when other countries are listed that way. We don't single out one country in a list for different treatment because we don't like it. If you have an issue with how the article Republic of Macedonia is named, please take it there. Jonathunder 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're just trying to stick to formalities, but this is a serious issue and not some editing game. I will definitely pursue this further. --Avg 23:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing at the appropriate article if you wish to change its name. Regards. Jonathunder 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your directions. Before closing this, let me tell you that I read all of Wikipedia:Naming conflict and, it says nowhere that one cannot refer to an article by its synonym (RoM and FYRoM are synonyms, albeit of different POVs). In fact, if I may paste: "However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term. Thus the article United States can be reached via redirection pages at US, United States of America, America (US), etc. (See Wikipedia:Redirect for more on redirection pages.)". Therefore, even if I'm going to follow the procedure of WP:RM and change the name of the article itself, temporarily, I can see nowhere a decision to refer to an article with its title and not a synonym. If such a decision has been made, can you point it to me?--Avg 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Texan

(Pat Tillman) -- If you are going to sprotect this article, at the very least, you should not do it immediately after doing a non-vandal revert. The edit you reverted and sprotected after was a valid edit which, if you assume good faith, requires you do dialog about on talk, not just revert on a knee-jerk basis. It's this precise type of reverting by editors like you, that keeps me as an anon. I have no interest in polluting my log-in name arguing with rude editors. And frankly, your actions have been very rude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach/anontexan (talk • contribs)

I do not agree with your block of 66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs) for vandalism. I ran into the Anon Texan on Killian documents and have looked into his case at WP:ANI. He seems to be intentionally disruptive and likes to provoke people. However, tonight's edits did not fall in that category. His edit to Killian documents, which you reverted, was a minor grammatical change; he took 2 clauses separated by an and and changed them into 2 separate sentences [1] The change he made to Pat Tillman was technically correct; Rich Tillman is quoted in the cited article as saying "He's f--ing dead" and I can find no published source in Lexis/Nexis that he actually said "fucking". Now, maybe the papers bowdlerized the quote, but maybe Rich Tillman censored himself out of respect for being at a memorial service. I know the Texan has been disruptive but it is my understanding that a blanket "revert on sight" policy would only come after an ArbCom ruling, and I certainly disagree with a block for "vandalism" on the basis of tonight's edits. Thatcher131 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His vandalism consisted of inserting childish nonsense into one of my user pages where I was preparing a major edit. The only way he could have found that would be by searching my contributions log, so he certainly knew what he was doing was deliberate vandalism. The block was relatively short--only 3 hours--and has expired, but I will block again if I see him vandalise user pages again. Jonathunder 14:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anon Texan vandalised my main user page by adding simular "booger" nonsense, and so I gave that IP another short block. Jonathunder 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers RfA

Hi Jonathan! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

As you probably know, on a word-history basis, "Christ" comes from "Christos", the Greek for "annointed". And as you know, "annointed" in this context, refers to the literal pouring of oil on the head so as to signify authority (read Biblical account of Saul becoming Israel's 1st king). That being the case, it sets the tone for the illustrative use of the term "Christ" ("Christos/Annointed") as applied to Jesus. Those who call Jesus "Christ" intentionally and with knowledge of the meaning of the term are indeed calling Him "annointed". And in that context, "annointed" means King. Once again, see the history of Saul to understand that ancient Jewish leaders were "annointed". And, what you may not also know is that "Joshua" (Biblical hero) and "Yeshua" are variants of the same word and both mean "savior". So too, Jesus is the English translation of that same basic word - as it was used in the name Jesus of Nazareth. Basically, what is boils down to is that on the face of it, "Jesus Christ", on an Etymology basis literally translates as "Savior Annointed". Those who accept the Biblical account of John the Baptist baptising Jesus, accept that Jesus is annointed with the power of the Holy Spirit "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". The bottom line here is that it's not possible to refer to Jesus by His name, in any manner unless one uses at least one of the two words "Jesus/Savior" and/or "Christ/Annointed". And both of those words, if traced back to how they entered the English language, do indeed have reverence attached to them. The point I am getting to with all of this is that this edit [2] of yours, does not take into account enough information about the underlying history of the name, so your conclusion is erroneous. One need not "assert" Jesus to be their personal "Christ" to recognize that Christ is indeed His personal title. Just the same way the "Pope" is called Pope regardless of whether or not one is Catholic. In your zeal to be utterly neutral, you have gone too far and eliminated part of the true history of the word.Merecat 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are largely correct, but not in your conclusion. "Jesus" is a personal name, and Jesus links to the biographical article of the most famous person with that name. "Christ" is a title, as the article Christ discusses. My edit to point the "Jesus Christ" redirect back to Christian views of Jesus eliminated nothing. On the contrary, I pointed the redirect to the article which most describes the views you have expressed here. You may be interested in expanding the Christian views of Jesus article--there is a lot which could be said there. Do remember the NPOV principle, though. It is one of the non-negotiable core foundations of this encyclopedia. Jonathunder 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gentle reply. I disagree with your reasoning, but the wiki is not a Bible study, so we will leave it at that. Best wishes. Merecat 05:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Blanning RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Pepsidrinka RfA

My RfA recently ended, which resulted in me becoming an admin. However, you were one of two objections, and if it is at all possible, I would appreciate it if you could further explain your vote in the hope that I can better myself on Wikipedia (and thus better Wikipedia). Thanks for your opinion on the RfA. Pepsidrinka 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AzaToth RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	_→AzaToth 09:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

San Jose

Dear Jonathan, hello. Why did you remove half of the accented "San José" occurences in the article San Jose (California)? It seems to me there is a distinction between keeping the article at the most common English usage location -- San Jose (California) -- which I concede, and removing the official city name within the article in favor of the technically incorrect albeit most common version. I refer you to the city's web site -- they do quite a production of spelling "San José" every time they mention the city name. At any rate, it makes for a weird non-Wikipedia result of having the article hide the official name for half of it, only to continue with the official name from that point on. I believe the article should consistently use "San José" except for the clear cases (what few that there are) of it being expressly incorrect, such as in names of enities such as the hockey team or the town newspaper, which choose to market themselves in an anglicized fashion. Cordially, -- Mareklug ^talk 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for pressing the point, but in at least one instance your removal of the "foreign accent mark" counterdicts factual information: In the infobox atop the article, it expressly states, "official name=". The official name is San José -- the very portion of the article you left intact further down the page states this fact. Won't you please consider fixing your error? -- Mareklug ^talk 19:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist edit summaries

I apologize, I don't understand. To me, 99% of my edits don't need summaries(welcomes, minor stuff, etc.), so I like to spice things up every now and then, considering that people seem more interested in the edit summaries than the edit themselves, so I might as well put something in there. I might put "asojiadfidiojafd" or something like that in the future. Karm a fist^{Save Wikipedia} 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joturner RfA

Jonathunder/archive7, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HereToHelp RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --Here T oHelp 13:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerShark RfA

Hi. I am sorry to bother you but I wondered if you might be prepared to take another look at my RfA nomination. The main reason that I ask this is because there has previously been some confusion as to my talk count and I also wonder if there might have been some confusion regarding the duration of my contributions. I would also like to comment on some of the concerns raised by others, which I have discussed on the nomination page, but which you may not be aware of.

Firstly with regard to my talk contributions and the duration of my contributions. I just wanted to clarify that I do have substantial numbers of contributions in the user talk namespace although significantly less in the main article and wikipedia talk namespace, so I do have a good history of interactions with other users but primarily on their user page (furthermore I have a good track record of warning vandals - something is often lacking for many vandal fighters both admin and non-admin). Regarding the duration of my contributions, I just wanted to clarify that I have now been contributing for 15 months in total and, although I have had a few "lean" months when my focus have been outside of Wikipedia, I had almost 2000 contributions before February and there have been 9 months when I have made 100+ contributions.

WIth regards to the concerns raised by other, which aren't covered by the above, they seem to relate primarily to my lack of contributions to the article talk and wikipedia talk namespaces and what this says about my community involvement and exposure to process. Firstly I would like to say that I don't think my contributions in this area are particularly low when compared to other current nominees and recently created admins who are/were heavily supported (I have provided some details on this in the comments section of the nomination) - as I said in the comments section this is not to say "they are supported so why aren't I", rather it is just to provide a benchmark to compare how common my contribution pattern is. Secondly I would like to point out that I do not typically revert vandalism in these namespaces which I believe play a significant part in the number of these contributions for vandal-fighter editors (especially in the article talk namespace). Finally I would just like to reiterate my personal opinion that, regarding edits to Wikipedia talk, contributing and understanding are different things (i.e. I do understand the policys and guidelines even though I have not actively contributed to them). With regard to my community involvement, I do have a fair number of edits to the mian Wikipedia namespace and also the user talk namespace as previously mentioned.

I understand that contacting you in this way may well be considered "campaigning" but I want to assure you that I am driven by good practical intentions rather than ego. As you will be aware, I am primarily a vandal fighter and I feel that the admin tools will allow me to far better serve the community in this area. Specifically I come across a lot of situations were there are very few editors on RC patrol and a lot of vandalism is being missed, this is compounded by the fact that AIAV is often not being heavily monitored during the same periods meaning that blocks are delayed and a lot of time is spent reverting vandals who have already received a final warning. This extra time spent reverting known vandals obviously mean that much new vandalism is missed - with the obvious effect on the quality and credibility of Wikipedia.

I would like to sum by saying that I feel I could make good use of the tools and that I have never done anything to raise concerns that I would misuse them. Cheers TigerShark 20:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathunder. Just a quick note to thank you for voting on my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I want to let you know that I will do my best to address all concerns that were raised during the RfA. I will also do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flcelloguy: thank you

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia article intro

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! --Aldux 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Snelling photo

The original is rather larger. I'll let you know. :) Wahkeenah 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded Image:Fort Snelling Round Tower large.JPG at full size and uncropped. Wahkeenah 23:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biasm

Why do you have such a pro-Slavic agenda on the Macedonian question? Miskin 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no bias at all and no stake in the matter. I'm a Norwegian-American from Minnesota. If my outside views and analysis appear biased to you, it may reflect something about your own agenda, but I have none other than wanting the Enclopedia articles to be accurate and not clouded by nationalist ideology. Regards. Jonathunder 13:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Yeager RFA

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I’m the user that was formerly known as Bitola. I decided to make some changes (changes are always welcomed from time to time) and I created a new user account. I was pretty much involved in the Macedonian articles heated area for several months and these days I will take some rest from all that bickering. In the same time, I would like to thank you for your voting for the brief option on the Republic of Macedonia talk page (the option I was supporting). MatriX 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands

I was in favour of bold also, but the others were right on that the last compromise version was indeed with italics, and that was indeed the first inserted version. That is why I changed it accordingly, because I think consensus building is a good thing, but respecting it afterwards is also, regardless whether I am fully in agreement with the compromise. KimvdLinde 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the compromise was to give both names, and bolding alternate names in the lead is Wikipedia style, done across countless pages. I won't change it again, however. Jonathunder 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

I appologize for causing offense although I was simply trying to educate and am 100% no offence was caused despite what you think, however I will refrain from posting my knowledge of their politics in the future.. Is it possible for you to read up on the subject so you yourself understand what is happening and not comment blindly as there are many politics going on and sometimes people pretend to affected to suit their politics Reaper7 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of De mortuis

I let the message on my talk page. StabiloBoss 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry to bug you with this, but we have a problem. ROGNNTUDJUU! and I were accused of sockpuppetry, and it turned out we are neighbours temporarily and suspect that the common router of our house led to the misunderstanding. The same thing had already occured to ROGNNTUDJUU! with the first account he had here and my friend Henrik who killed himself. ROGNNTUDJUU! says he does not remember the password of the other account and we both think he should leave it inactive as we do not want to reveal which account was that of Henrik. The administrators who blocked do not answer. Could you please take care of this? De mortuis... 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with De mortuis.... They have my support. --StabiloBoss 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gerard determined De mortuis and ROGNNTUDJUU! are the same person and I see no reason to doubt that. Since then, StabiloBoss has appeared to also be a sockpuppet. If you are not one, stop acting like one, or this account will also be blocked. Jonathunder 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your logic is disgraceful. I am not a sock that's for sure! But the way you and other start seeing socks everywhere and you block potential users is beyond any reasonable logic. You accuse me of being sock? Well, you can check me as you wish you'll be dissapointed I'm sure. You may try it. I'm just in favour of unblocking innocent people. You can't accuse me for that. --StabiloBoss 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reason to doubt? So you did not read my message? Your accusation against StabiloBoss is ridiculous and your threat totally out of place. De mortuis... 14:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get my point. If you strongly believe that I am sock, than block me. I will request a checkuser, I will be unblocked than you'll be desysoped. Is that clear? Don't threaten me, I told you once I am not sock, in fact I come from another country as De mortuis... and ROGNNTUDJUU! and all these things can pe proven. I just want justice that's all. You didn't convinced me when you started discreding me and saying that I am a sock. In fact, you dissapointed me. Instead of unblocking a person, now you see everywhere socks? Where is your assume good faith? Where is the spirit of stimulating users to cooperate, to write articles? If I were you I would unblock that person, would give him a 2nd chance and I would not threatening other persons, WP:CIVIL. --StabiloBoss 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation inside quotation marks

Got this message: [Hello. It is Wikipedia house style to include exactly what is quoted inside quote marks--no more, no less. Punctuation goes inside if it is part of the quote, but otherwise not. Please see our style manual for more detail. Regards. Jonathunder 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)]

Fair enough, and I saw it after the fact. But are you aware that that disagrees with just about every other Manual of Style in the world? I guarantee you that if you pull a book off your shelf at random and examine the quotes, you wouldn't find it done that way in a single one of them. Basically, the Wikipedia Manual of Style disagrees with every publishing company on the planet, and every other Manual of Style, at least on this question. I was a proofreader for a lot of years, and corrected this one hundreds of times. Odd. Carlo 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bookofsecrets block

Please reconsider your block. Even though he recently scribbled a message from Merkey onto my user page, I really don't think Bookofsecrets is a sockpuppet of Merkey. I've interacted with both far more often than I like to think about. Bookofsecrets has his own trail of sockpuppets seperate from Merkey's which have in the past operated at cross purposes to Merkey. Bookofsecrets acknowledged his past use of sockpuppets, apologized for it and has since been reasonably well-behaved. He appears to me to be very gullible and his actions in behalf of Merkey, while misguided, are being done in good faith. — MediaMangler 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with MediaMangler. I have been patiently interacting with Bookofsecrets since December under his various admitted sockpuppets, but never have I suspected him to be a sockpuppet of Waya Sahoni or Gadugi. (He has contributed under Bumpusmills1, WECoyote, and various IPs: 4.152.156.212, 4.152.180.67, 4.152.180.69, 4.152.183.226, 4.152.96.220, and 4.152.99.145) Though I'll admit that I can never be completely sure, I remember that when he first came to Wikipedia, he did not contribute to Native American articles, and had no knowledge of this entire "Merkey-related" situation. However, he is certaintly gullible, and seems to be eating out of Waya Sahoni's hand after his offer to help him "find his Native American roots."

He was not shy in revealing personal information on his user page when he first arrived at Wikipedia, and my enormous amounts of knowledge there does not correlate with the little I know about Waya Sahoni. If you'll look at the deleted edits at his user page at Bumpusmills1, you'll see that it was deleted after an individual began stalking him and his elderly parents in real life. Disgusting as this may have been, it helped persuade me of that Tennessee identity.

His personality is completely different as well. Though his own work is usually done in good faith, he consistently blows up at other editors, somehow taking everything in bad faith and blaming it on his "Cherokee [Indian] blood," which is the complete opposite of Waya Sahoni. Bookofsecrets changed British actor Ian Hart's page to reflect American spellings; a reversion led him to rant about a war between Britain and the United States. He placed images in Bumpus Mills, Tennessee, and lashed out when the article was Wikified. Waya Sahoni never openly behaved this irrationaly until the end. (Unless something happened under Gadugi; I don't know much about that) Finally, Bookofsecrets made edits to Cherokee society; when Waya Sahoni came in to take away supposed New Age Indian falsehoods, it took a frustratingly long time for Bookofsecrets to come around and accept his edits in good faith.

As a result, unless I see more evidence, I strongly doubt that the original individuals logged in as Bookofsecrets or Waya Sahoni are the same person. At the same time, I have no doubt that Bookofsecrets is blindly following Waya Sahoni. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also left at note at User talk:Friendly Neighbour. As further evidence of my doubts, Friendly Neighbour's list of Waya Sahoni's IP sockpuppets there do not correspond to the IP range of Bumpusmills1/WECoyote/Bookofsecrets' IP range. Thanks for your work here though; let me know if you need any more information. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bookofsecrets was originally a real person, that is nobody's sockpuppet. It seems he host interest in Wikipedia after the user he worshipped (Waya sahoni) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jeff Merkey. Since then he has two bursts of activity. Both seems Merkey controlled. I have a suspicion that he was so gullible he gave his password to Merkey. His today's posting were clearly aimed at giving some credibility to Waya sahoni not being a sock of Merkey (while Merkey's recent activity seems to be the final confirmation that Waya sahoni is Merkey as the ban on Merkey allegedly affected status of Waya sahoni). I believe Bookofsecrets's "attestation" was a cheap trick which was supposed to open a door for Merkey to return to Wikipedia. (By the way, Waya sahoni was blocked also for legal threats so even if he were a separate person, he still should be kept blocked). To sum it up: I have no proof but I have a gut feeling that the recent activity of Bookofsecrets was at least Merkey inspired if not Merkey controlled. Friendly Neighbour 18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more than a gut-feeling - it's obvious that Bookofsecrets is under the influence of Waya Sahoni. However, Bookofsecrets' style of editing remains consistent with what I've seen in the past, and is unlike Waya Sahoni's. The reason for the recent decline in editing is because of Waya Sahoni's establishment of a separate Wiki. We must remember that these are not single purpose accounts we are talking about, and we shouldn't hand out indefinite bans just because two people happen to agree with one another, however misguided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigadugi is certainly not the reason why Bookofsecrets is not active here. He did not work on Wikigadugi in April (his Wikigadugi name is Red Bear). It seems Waya sahoni (the one from Wikigadugi who is certainly Merkey himself) deletes the Wikigadugi history from time to time. But you can compare Red Bear's Wikigadugi talk page and its archive (I give you a anonymized link because Jeff Merkey is know to use his web pages logs in his litigation threats) - the entries end in March. It is possibe that the archive will be deleted in minutes after I post this info, so please be quick.Friendly Neighbour 19:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Statement retracted. Friendly Neighbour 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Wikigadugi's records show that Bookofsecrets/Red Bear has made dozens of contributions to WikiGadugi over the month of April. [3] Regardless, I don't really care, becuase that's not the point. I'm not here to accuse Waya Sahoni of anything, I don't know enough to accuse Waya Sahoni of anything, I don't know who Merkey is, and I don't care. The point is that there is no evidence to accuse Bookofsecrets of being a sockpuppet, save for the fact that some people have a feeling that his last contributions here sounded like something Waya Sahoni would write, and I'm here to ask Jonathunder to reconsider his block on those grounds. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my previous statement. You're probably right about the Wikigadugi stats but we are anyway in no position to know who-is-who on that server. Sorry for raising this topic. I accept the point that we cannot know for sure whether Bookofsecrets is operated by Merkey or not. But still, I would be afraid of the mayhem we'll bring on Wikipedia by unblocking the account if it's really operated now by Merkey. Friendly Neighbour 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with definite certainty that Donald Watkins II (aka User:Bookofsecrets) is not Jeff Merkey. I've dealt with this person before I ever knew who Merkey was. This user should have been blocked for a multitude of other reasons, but being a sockpuppet of Merkey is not one of them. It's just that Bookofsecrets is now a lackey of Merkey to such a degree that they are indistinguishable. --BWD^(talk) 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking further into this ridiculous situation. In recent months, Bookofsecrets has toned down his personal attacks, in comparison with those from last December and January, and has apparently seen a psychiatrist regarding anger management issues. Therefore, I was willing to continue steering him in the right direction. Unfortunately, I now have no qualms with blocking him for disruption, incivility, and personal attacks if he continues in this manner. On the other hand, I am still adamantly against blocking him for sockpuppetry. I agree that there is no evidence that the bulk of his contributions – rants about Waya Sahoni and Wikipedia's apparent hatred of Native Americans (the latter always makes me chuckle) – are positive assets to the Wikipedia project. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across the unblock request for Bookofsecrets and noticed that you had unblocked by blocking for 15 minutes? I wasn't sure why that was, but since the consensus seems to be to unblock him, I went ahead and just unblocked the account. I'm sorry if that wasn't what you intended, please feel free to undo it if that wasn't what you meant. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias: Rockero RFA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA! 8)--Rockero 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota controversy

I'm perfectly willing to go with the consensus. Having been involved in the discussion, and having already reached consensus and having an admin state that we'd reached consensus, led me to believe that you chose not to honor that. When an admin declares consensus has been reached and the move can happen, which occured before you joined in, then I figure that's it. CovenantD 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - All I did was move the topic you started back up with the rest of the votes that had already been cast. Creating another topic and splitting it up caused more confusion than anything. We've not got other users leaving comments in both places. I'm re-integrating them, from the time the H.B. 1215 suggestion was made and people were agreeing to or disageeing with it. CovenantD 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing content from the talk page. Twice now you have removed things that I have posted there. Not just the moves, but my comments as well. please stop. CovenantD 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey block

Thanks for blocking the sockpuppet of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. But there's another one. Looking into the edits by 67.177.52.200 I noticed that all he did was to propagate earlier edits by WolfMountainGroup (talk · contribs). This username is simply the name of Merkey's company and the legal theory page the previous sock created is directly linked to old Novell - Merkey litigation. To sum it up, we have another sockpuppet of Merkey on the loose. Could you block that one indefinitely? Thanks in advance. I reported both accounts on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents over four hours ago but nobody seems to have noticed the report was about two, not one account. Friendly Neighbour 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the contribs and watch the user. I was wrong once before in identifying a sock of J.M., and I don't want to do that twice. Jonathunder 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember. I myself at first suspected him but later agreed I was wrong. But this is different. There are no doubts it's Merkey. His litigation, his company, his bad spelling. However, I understand your reluctance. Friendly Neighbour 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again!! Friendly Neighbour 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humus sapiens RFA

Dear Jonathunder, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTSWyneken RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Francs2000: whole de-bureaucrating thing

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Fr a ncs2000 09:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadani: a favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 09:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester RFA

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]