User talk:Jonathunder/archive9

Selassie I

The first time I was expressing my own opinion that the consensus was wrong because, as you know, i have been one of the major editors in creating the article as it stands. I only reverted the picture being removed today because I totally disagree with the picture being removed, I put it there in the first place and it has stood for 18 months with nobody removing it. As long as the picture remains I wont revert again back to HM, and had no intention of doing so before Thumbalina removed it but I would suggest that the problem is the lack of consensus and the dispute between you and Codex, perhaps we should take the whole ridiculous argument and the obsessive 3RR editing of yourself, Codex and Thunmbelina to Rfc. Blaming me aint gonne solve it, that is for sure, and scapegoating me even less given the number of times I have reverted and the number of times you have. I do want to see the edit warring stop. Hopefully we are in agreement about thatSqueakBox 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Hello. Just to let you know I added that Jesus birth disclaimer. Just letting you know incase you now disagree with the concept because I created it =). — ^`CRAZY`(IN)`SANE^` 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a reasonable compromise and seems to have ended an edit war, so thank you for making it. Jonathunder 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sundita RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. P.

Thank God I wasn't drinking milk when I saw your comments. I hate milk-snorts! - Outerlimits 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pretending to be an "historian"

Jonathunder, I notice that you keep editing Keith Ellison's bio under the guise that you want to make it more "encyclopedic", yet you want his biography to include no context of his actual life history, accomplishments, or current ambitions, but only to include some right-wing scandal that Michael Brodkorp of MinnesotaDemocratsExposed.com wants to dig up in order to deflate DFL turnout in the inner-city. How is that showing yourself to be an historian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotaPolitics (talk • contribs)

My RfA thanks

Hello Jonathunder/archive9, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for welcoming me, even though I've been here for a while! I have just recently rediscovered Wikipedia after not editing for months. Thanks for the invitation, I would love to join Minnesota Wikiproject.Phl 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Kelly Martin

Hi. Could you explain why you blocked Kelly Martin? --Tony Sidaway 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain, on her talk page. It was met with the same brush-off as my previous attempts to ask her not to keep recreating lists of editors and ranking them by how favored they are by a particular clique. It has a very disruptive effect, as many people said, and not just those on these lists. Jonathunder 13:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Highway 33

Hi... I'm trying to puzzle out what happened here and how it applies to the Highways arbitration case. Could you hepl me figure it out? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed to SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Jonathunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Guys, please stop edit warring over this article. I am watching and I expect you as two very experienced Wikipedians to know that you should resolve differences by discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invited SPUI to discuss with a message on his talk page, which he has ignored, and with several other invitations to take it to talk if he thinks he knows better than I the names of roads I drive all the time. No response to that, either. Jonathunder 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to note that you should not be using administrative rollback in editing disputes, in any event. Ral315 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may well know better than SPUI, certainly for all I know in this instance; but if feel you know also better than the Arbcom, whisper it softly. (See [#6] of the Highway naming case.) Alai 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

If you really have left then your work at Minnesota and related articles will be missed. Please consider staying and working only as an editor and staying away from the truly wierd politics of this place. -Ravedave 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go

I'm sorry to see that you're leaving/have left/at least look like you're leaving Wikipedia. It's no good that you got wrapped up in a lot of less-than-ideal things, which certainly must have been stressful. I hope all goes well, and that maybe we will see you back here someday. Regardless, good luck. -- Nataly a 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Went to the top. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Sorry to see you leave or diminish your activities here. You are still a great asset to this community. Don't let SPUI get to you too... we've already lost some great contributors. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2#Delaware

I have brought up evidence that Route X (thus <Delaware> Route X) is the common name. Please consider changing your vote. --SPUI (T - C) 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your comment and I checked your links there, but stayed with the option that had the most consensus. In any case, that part of the poll is done. Jonathunder 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fine article

While I don't contest your decision to move his son out of the article, I just wanted to tell you that I got the information about his son and school from his website and do not endorse giving out more personal information than a candidate or his campaign wants to give out.--Folksong 23:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

I would love to know about personal sandboxes and thanks for all your help, the pages you added to my user talk were great.

Rej4sl 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back

Never was sure quite what all the fuss was about but I'm glad you're here. If you drove from Nerstrand-Big Woods State Park to Faribault, Minnesota, you probably went past my house. Remember a farm painted bright yellow? That's it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to tell you that your favorite Wikipedian has left, and that you should restore your userpage and become an inmate once more. ;-) Good work. Grand master ka 07:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Please don't use your admin powers when you have participated in a discussion suach as the Eris case. Joelito (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins close page move discussions on which they voted all the time. The results of the ones I moved today in cleaning out a large backlog were all clear, with or without me. Jonathunder 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conch Republic

Please do not make nonsensical changes to the above article. The Conch Republic has existed for over 20 years. Its contuinued existence over that time has been documented widely, and celebrated annually. It continues to have a Prime Minister, to sell its tourist goods and passports, and to maintain a website. There is nothing past tense about it. --Centauri 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It continues to have a Prime Minister? What nonsense. Please read the discussion on that talk page, and stop reverting to push a Micronation agenda. Jonathunder 00:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only nonsense here is your bizare POV-pushing campaign to try to insinuate as much weaseling as possible into the article to avoid calling it what it obviously is - and what it is documented in reference sources as being - a micronation. Your little misinformation campaign is sailing very very close to outright orchestrated vandalism, and if it continues I will deal with it accordingly. --Centauri 04:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 3RR on vandalism. If you continue to encourage or facilitate vandalism of the article in direct contravention to the multiple quoted references, I will continue to restore it to the version supported by those sources. --Centauri 06:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palaver at my place

Judging by the above snippet, there's some friction all around. Would you be open to informal mediation? I've also asked Gene Poole, who appears amenable. There's User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Opt_in if you are willing. - brenneman ^{L} 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle poke saying "Hey, look at this section." - brenneman ^{L} 12:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars is mediating things over at Conch Republic, so thank you anyway. The constant reverts appear to have stopped since I blocked Centauri/Poole as well as the worst reverter on the other side for 3RR. Jonathunder 17:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

I reverted your change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways); see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways)#Minnesota. --SPUI (T - C) 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to be able to help out in the highway naming dispute, I'm afraid it would be a very bad idea for me to get involved or to express an opinion. After the fracas on State Highway 33 (Minnesota) or Minnesota State Highway 33, or whatever the hell the road is called that you take from I-35 through Cloquet to get to the Iron Range, I haven't been able to edit highway articles. I've been warned by multiple admins and reported to WP:AN/I by User:SPUI regarding my behavior. The entire fiasco also disrupted my trip to Branson, Missouri and made it difficult for me to enjoy my time out there -- it was hard to enjoy a vacation when I had to attend to a road war. (No doubt SPUI would be happy to hear that my vacation sucked because of that debacle.)

As a result, I don't edit highway articles any more. I've been working on History of Minnesota lately, trying to get it to good article status. I might even try to get it to featured-article quality. However, it's hard for a bad editor like myself to write a good article, so I probably won't bother nominating it.

If you can't tell, I'm extremely bitter about the whole highway naming dispute. Meanwhile, SPUI is probably reading this message and laughing his trollish ass off. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're anything but a bad editor, and I'm sad to hear the road wars made things so unpleasant. I left Wikipedia altogether for about a month, in part because of that nonsense, but I thought it was settled and the Minnesota articles were going to be left alone. Too much to hope for, I guess. Jonathunder 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll in Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming

User Ryūlóng recently tried to close the poll in favor of an option for which he voted and argued himself and which received the clear and absolute minority of the voters. Can you please intervene and close the poll properly?--Nixer 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a strong enough consensus to move pages based on the straw poll there, at least not yet. As I read it, Ryulong is advocating leaving the dwarf planet pages where they are now, waiting for the implications of the new definitions to settle out, and seeing if a consensus for systematic naming on Wikipedia emerges in time. I tend to agree. Jonathunder 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, Jonathunder! I will keep an eye on the discussion page to see when you guys decide to meet; I probably won't be able to attend, as I work six days a week on average and don't think I'll be getting any days off that weekend. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I didn't log in in time to see it. dfrankow 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite and welcome, Jonathunder! Unnyn 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Meetup October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 16:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag on Conch Republic

One single editor believing that a section is disputed does not constitute a legitimate dispute. There was a wider dispute, with FairHair and Averette and others on several points. That larger dispute has achived consensus, other than FairHair. He's tagging it as disputed because he's the only one left who doesn't agree on it, and WP consensus doesn't require that we let the last extremist left on one side of a dispute freely tag in opposition after consensus is achieved. Georgewilliamherbert 17:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, count me as a third editor who disagrees, for reasons I given on that talk page. We have editors who aren't listening to each other but just reverting tags, trading insults, and calling attempts to make the article more accurate "vandalism". This needs to stop. Jonathunder 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't commented on the talk page for two weeks. Averette has agreed to the wording in the intro paragraph. Do you still disagree with it? Georgewilliamherbert 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. If the article says the Conch Republic is called a micronation, and sources the statement, I won't dispute that. If it says it is a micronation, which seems to me to be a neologism with a different definition every time it is used, I do dispute that. I had no interest in joining the primary school level of discourse that talk page descended into--on both sides. Jonathunder 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject Minnesota template

The template recently got importance and rank paramters added to it for sorting check it out here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Minnesota#WikiProject_Minnesota. So don't forget to add the paramters when adding the template, Thanks -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal warnings

Please remember to substitute warning templates when giving them out. I.e. {{subst:test2}} instead of {{test2}}. Thanks. -- Steel 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfB With A Smile :)

Mario Party 7 trivia

Jonathunder... I was a bit timid to edit at first, but I added a bit of trivia to the Nintendo Gamecube game, Mario Party 7, that when the intro begins, and the message eventually says "They're kings of the world", there is a camera angle that moves a la Titanic (1997 film).

Vote soliciting

Please do not solicit votes only from those who have voted consistently with your opinion in the past. --Serge 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto

Is the DFL refered to as endorsing Otto the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party? You being familiar with Minnesota Politics may understand that better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelj (talk • contribs)

Yes. Full answer on Talk:Rebecca Otto Jonathunder 06:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whoops

Yes, I realized I made that mistake and was about to correct it. Thank you. V105memorial 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)v105memorial[reply]

WTF??

You are blocking for someone undoing a move against consensus? And that right after Mets blocked Jooler for non-existent violations? Please do justify this block at AN/I where the consensus was that it was an abusive block. Guettarda 01:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking me was an abuse of priviledge. You can't simply block because I oppose your view. "Both sides" agreed to not move the page - well I wasn't party to that discussion. I just saw that Mets had moved the page out of process. I moved it back. And this MOST CERTAINLY does not warrant a block without any kind of warning and it MOST CERTAINLY doesn't warrant a block 2 hours after the event without any kind of discussion. Jooler 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page while a requested move survey is going on certainly is disruptive. People have voted to support or oppose a move, and moving it back and forth between votes makes the survey almost impossible to follow. Jonathunder 02:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not reason enough to block without any kind of warning. Still an abuse of your power. Jooler 02:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know he undid the block [1]. semper fi — Moe 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of wheel warring with any administrator, so I'm not going to reblock, but moving a page while a survey is ongoing and people are in the middle of voting to support or oppose a move is really confusing and disruptive. Jonathunder 02:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page in clear opposition to a survey is also disruptive, but I see that you have neither blocked yourself, Mets, or Serge. There has never been an end to the survey - it has been extended - twice - with the hope of getting the desired result of a move to yogurt. Don't be a hypocrite. Unlike the rest of you Jooler was doing the correct thing.

As for "wheel warring" - don't you mean "further wheel warring"? The matter was brought to AN/I, there was consensus that the block was improper, and you ignored that consensus, didn't even bother to comment, and reblocked. I must say, I am really disappointed in your attitude - I thought a lot better of you. Guettarda 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To wheel war is to do an admin action more than once, as you did. Please review the policy. Jonathunder 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets blocked him. I unblocked him after discussion at AN/I. Your reblock, against consensus at AN/I, amounts to wheel warring. Granted, my undoing of your reblock also fits the definition of wheel warring. That it was done to support the consensus at AN/I is a point in its favour. That I did not wait for someone else to do so is a point against my action. Nonetheless, you were the first to wheel war, and you were the one to do so despite the consensus at AN/I. My point is not "but he did it first" (that excuse doesn't work past 5 or 6), my point is that it's a bit late to say "I'm not going to wheel war" after doing so. Guettarda 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the block the first time was wheel warring too Guettarda. Undoing any admin action, even once without a furthur revert, is a wheel war. You were the only one unblocking as well, and you did that twice. semper fi — Moe 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was undone based on consensus at AN/I. Which is the correct way to deal with blocks which violate the blocking policy. Guettarda 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup thanks

Thanks for the invite and the reminder on location change regarding the Minnesota Project meetup! I caught a cold last night so that ensured I wouldn't make it. I'll be interested in any notes or direction that the group comes up with but sounds like the plan is just to have fun so I hope you all manage to do that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazzmn (talk • contribs)

Thanks from me as well! I've been kind of busy and couldn't make it, but I hope it went great. :) Markovich292 22:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, it was really a pleasure to meet you today! Thanks for all your help organizing it! Estreya 00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, thanks for the work organizing it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my thanks as well. Thanks for organizing it, and it was good to meet you. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and good to meet you. Appraiser 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hatch

Can you get another picture of Mike Hatch? WP policy says that if we have a free picture then fair use images should be removed. As of now your pic is the only free one, but it is of pretty low quality. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the best one I have now, but the next time I'm in the same room as he is, I'll try to get a better one. And I'll talk to people I know who may be connected to his campaign. Jonathunder 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]