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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you! Thank you for supporting / | |
| |
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! |
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)
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. :) | →
A
z
a
Toth
09:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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. |
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
The original is rather larger. I'll let you know. :) Wahkeenah 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you have such a pro-Slavic agenda on the Macedonian question? Miskin 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I let the message on my talk page. StabiloBoss 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA! 8)-- Rockero 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) |
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 |
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)
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)
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)