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)

No luck. Fisher, page 36: "Dezhnev and Motora wanted to avoid him [stadukhin] by undertaking to go to the Pinzhina River, but since they lacked a guide they found themselves forced to turn back from their route. Whereuon Stadukhin set out for the Penzhina river, and nothing more was heard of him from then on." page 242: ".. so in February 1651 he set off with a band of followers for the Penzhina and more southerly regions. For the next six years little is known of his activities or whereabouts, but in 1657 he appeared at the outpost of Okhotsk and two years later he returned to Yakutsk." Fisher also has two documents that mention Stadukhin's departure from Anadyrsk, one of which names some of his companions. I could not find anything in Dymytryshin, Forsyth, Lantzeff or Lincoln. The old boy must have had an interesting time for six years on an unknown coast, but there are no records in the stuff I could find.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Do you know where this line from Stadukhin's page came from?

"After the thaw he built a boat, sailed west along the coast and wintered at the mouth of the Gizhiga River. In the fall of 1652 he wintered on the Yama River east of Magadan and some time later on the Tauy River (on the west side of Magadan bay)."

Was it from Fisher? Or perhaps another source? Jonas Poole (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just answered it myself. It appears to come from the Russian source cited in the article. That's unfortunate. Jonas Poole (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And you mentioned Dymytryshin didn't mention anything either? I was going to go to a local university and look through his work, but it appears I won't have to. I've also read Forsyth, Lantzeff, and Lincoln, none of which, as you stated, mention it either. I honestly can't think of any work in English that would mention it? I'm gonna try East of the Sun, which is available at another library nearby. Again, thanks for the help. Jonas Poole (talk) 11:17, 18 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)

- To P-boy. Heligoland is part of Germany. Spitsbergen is not. So there is absolutely no point whatsoever in comparing the two. The only correct spelling in English is Spitsbergen. Jonas Poole (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, in English, one would generally use Heligoland (especially considering it was an English possession until 1890); you would only use Helgoland in conjunction with German topics. If the only correct spelling in English is Spitsbergen, why then do the sources I've used for the article in question unanimously use Spitzbergen? And don't give me the "they're all idiots" argument - the authors of these books are all hold PhD.s and in many cases are pretty highly regarded.

A bit of advice: you need to walk away from this whole issue, including Spitsbergen itself, at least with regard to the spelling issue. When a bit of editing here makes you "extremely upset," you have a serious problem. Find something else to edit, something you don't feel so personally involved with. Nothing on here is worth the headache you've gotten yourself into over the past few months. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said. Helgoland i-s p-a-r-t o-f G-e-r-m-a-n-y. Spitsbergen has never been part of Germany. No comparsion at all. None. Again, as I've said a thousand times, countless moronic British authors have used the wrong spelling because they're too lazy to learn anyhting about Spitsbergen's early history. Also, I've never even heard of this "What links here" template. When I'm bored, I simply type in "Spitzbergen" and go to the articles containing that spelling to see what poor, misguided souls (err you) have used the wrong spelling because they know absolutely nothing about the island's early history. I don't understand why its so hard? Every time I write an article or entry I go and check how a place, etc. is spelled before I link anything. I do this because I know that the spelling used in my sources don't always use the correct form, or perhaps a variant (which Spitzbergen is not, seeing as how it's a darn mistake). Are you not capable of doing this? Can you not see that the article in question is spelled "Spitsbergen"? Why use the wrong spelling? You can spell can't you? Jonas Poole (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd aslo like to add that I don't really get upset at all when I see Spitsbergen misspelled, but I do get very annoyed when I've clearly explained what the correct spelling is and someone (you) gives an amazingly ridiculous excuse to change it back! What does it matter if the article is on a German topic? Nothing. It doesn't matter at all. Not one bit. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"I get extremely upset when people use the wrong spelling" - your words, not mine. It doesn't matter a damn that Helgoland is currently part of Germany not Spitzbergen never was. Spitzbergen is the German name for the island, and is appropriate to use when discussing German topics. It's not a "wrong" spelling, it's the German spelling. That you think that's a ridiculous reason is irrelevant.

Here are a few more examples: the Hoofden instead the Broad Fourteens, Ösel instead of Saaremaa, Moon instead of Muhu. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples of places with German names, which are quite appropriate to use in articles on German topics.

And let's stay civil, shall we?Parsecboy (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Extension

Could someone please explain why my block has been extended twelve hours? I wanted to add something to the timeline, but now I have to wait longer? Why extend the block when I haven't been able to even edit anything?? Jonas Poole (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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:

As I've said several times, I never intended to use OttaSotta as a sockpuppet. Hans Alder has already proved that. I would like to edit on this account now as well as have OttaSotta restored. Jonas Poole (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked.  Sandstein  22:05, 17 October 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.

What do you mean I'm not blocked?!?!?! I can't edit ANYTHING!!!!!! Jonas Poole (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

According to your block log, you were blocked for one month on September 3. That's the most recent block on this account. Is it possible that you're affected by an autoblock? What message do you see when you try to edit? What's the reason that message gives for the block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated below, P-boy blocked my alleged "sockpuppet" account (which I've already shown it isn't) Ottasotta indefinitely. And yes, it is an autoblock, one for the ip address I use. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, 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:

The ip address I'm using has been autoblocked for no reason. Again, I'd like to be unblocked and have OttaSotta restored.

Decline reason:

This account "Jonas Poole" is not blocked. Admins have no way of seeing what IP address you use. Please review the instructions at Template:Autoblock, and then use the correct template for the autoblock unblock.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:33, 17 October 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.

Request removal of autoblock

You've entered the phrase "I would like to edit now please" instead of entering the relevant ip address. We aren't just messing with you; admins really can't see your ip address. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The blocking adminstrator is User:Parsecboy, but the darn instructions are completely useless, so I don't know how to put it there. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Jonas Poole (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly not. If this is a true autoblock then there would have been an autoblock ID like #1234567 - I see so such number in your request. We need this number to unblock.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I might have cleared it right before you checked. There was clearly a numbered AB that I unblocked. Kuru (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! But I'd still like OttaSotta restored. It was wrongly blocked indefinitely. And I have no idea where this Wiki:SockNotify template is. No idea. I was told to put it on that profile's talk page. Could someone help me with this? Jonas Poole (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I got caught in an edit conflict or I would have declined this request. I have a number of questions for you:

1. Why do you feel the need to have a second account to edit these articles?
2. Why have you not publicly declared the link between these accounts before now?
3. If it was not your intention to declare these publicly, did you inform the Arbitration Committee as required by policy?
4. Can you explain why there are two other accounts on your IP address, Mumbles57 (talk · contribs) and RiffraffBot (talk · contribs)? These accounts appear to have been created on the same computer you are currently using.

I am not comfortable releasing a block on your IP address - specifically designed to prevent sockpuppetry - when there appears to be sockpuppetry going on. You may want to review our sockpuppetry policy, and specifically the section on legitimate uses of alternate accounts, before answering. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

1) I created the second account solely for editing articles on exploration;

2) I didn’t want OttaSotta being associated with Jonas Poole, which has a bad reputation on here (mainly because people like to talk out of their a**es);

3) No, I didn’t realize you had to do such a thing. Seems ridiculous to me;

4) I didn’t like the first name and I didn’t know you couldn’t have “bot” attached to your name for the second one. In frustration, I abandoned it. I rather liked that name too! Jonas Poole (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the user's previous track record, I saw no reason to unblock the post-identified sock account (OttaSotta). Limiting yourself to one account seems like a good idea here. The other accounts appear to be a set up for a sock farm; I'd like to hear an answer to the questions posed above before you continue editing. Kuru (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a hard block on the common IP until you reply. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Read above. What is with all these baseless accusations?! I didn't create a darn "sock farm"! Again, read above. Can I have OttaSotta restored now? Which I've already flatly stated is not a sock account and which I intend to use solely to edit articles on exploration. I honestly don't get you people. You never make any sense! Jonas Poole (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, I just saw that "hard block". What's your problem? Until January? Are you kidding me?? Please restore my editing privileges. I've done absolutely nothing wrong. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)These accusations are hardly baseless - you've now admitted to creating two other accounts that you hadn't mentioned earlier, and still haven't given a valid reason why they were necessary. The sockpuppetry policy only permits alternate accounts in very specific circumstances, and in all cases, they either need to be publicly declared, or (in cases where doing so would defeat the purpose of the sock account) declared in private to the Arbitration Committee. Please read the policy as I've asked. We require this specifically to avoid situations such as this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to lift the block on your IP address if you fully explain why you needed these accounts, confirm that you have read and understand the sockpuppetry policy, and commit to editing only with one account except with the explicit approval of the Arbitration Committee. Your other accounts would then be blocked indefinitely, but you would be allowed to edit as normal with your Jonas Poole account. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to use Mumbles57 and RiffRaffBot solely for editing articles on exploration, but as I explained, abandoned both. And I had already read the policy on sockpupperty before we even had this conversation. How about you let me use OttaSotta only. I don't care much for the Jonas Poole profile anymore. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How about abandoning both accounts and I'll just create another one. I honestly just want to be left alone at this point. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello? It's been quite sometime. I'd like to be unblocked now. This is really unnecessary. Jonas Poole (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Please 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'm getting really tired of this. No one has answered my replies. I haven't done ANYTHING wrong. Please remove my ban. Thank You.

Decline reason:

This does not address your use of multiple accounts and does not meet the - reasonable - conditions set by Hersfold above.  Sandstein  21:18, 18 October 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.

And, please. No one say I created a "sock farm" again. Look at everything that I've said. I've already clearly proven that I didn't intend OttaSotta to ever be a sockpuppet (which another user has proven as well) and I only used those two other profiles once, and never intended to use them for a "sock farm", which you people keep wrongly claiming (without ANY EVIDENCE) I did. Please, actually think before saying anything. None of you appear to be capable of doing that. Jonas Poole (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. There is a difference. You have admitted to creating multiple accounts, contrary to the username policy. Instead of linking/advising as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, you may have actually edited the same articles with these accounts, making them a violation of WP:SOCK. 3 accounts = a sock farm, so not baseless. If you read WP:GAB and explain properly, you have a chance of being unblocked. Until you read WP:GAB and reply accordingly, it won't happen.

(Personal attack removed) Jonas Poole (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)