User talk:Jonathunder/archive10

Hi, negative information about Walz is repeatedly being added to Walz entry. It is likely by his opponent, Gil Gutknecht, who has twice been cited by Wikipedia for editing his own entry. I don't want to go in to it myself. Can it be returned to its original state and blocked until after the election tomorrow?

(cant find tilde!)

Kerry Greeley

I think the voters of the first district took care of it. ;-) Jonathunder 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jonathunder, I don’t think User talk:TheHighwayMan394 exists, I think its User talk:Thehighwayman394... You might want to delete the capitalized one. I think that talk page got started because he put his name capitalized on Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways, but if you look in the history [1], his name isnt capitalized... --MNAdam 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: it looks like someone else already caught this. Jonathunder 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit on Benton County because I thought it was a spam link, however User talk:Tylerkellen has readded the link. I'm looking for a second opinion but I think its spam. See the most recent edit after mine. [2] Thanks, --MNAdam 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the map linked to appears to have a quite poor advertising to content ratio. Jonathunder 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my response to your posting. While its true that on your talk page I said “I am reporting that the charges made by Alexander were dismissed in a court of law, I am not saying that Ellison did anything but prove his innocence” but in the article the more neutral “was settled in his favor” was used and it is the article were a neutral Point of View is required. Your quote “charges you yourself said ‘rate no more than a footnote in a few weeks’ do not belong in a biography article now” is in error. I have always said months not weeks. I said it was “worthy of inclusion because it is current news …[it] will lose relevance as a few months go by and should be dropped then. …Currently its wiki-worthy in a few months it will be less than a footnote and should be dropped then.” I also said “this is current news and in a little while it will not be relevant but it is relevant now” and “I am not advocating this segment about Alexander be left permanently in this wiki-article, and I would willingly discuss when it should be dropped – say when Ellison is sworn in at DC with the rest of the House in January.” My position is that once he takes office events brought up during the campaign will lose significance as he works in the Congress and people will know him by his actions in the House. Until then what people know of him is from the campaign of 2006, including these charges brought up in the local and national media. Showing that these charges were resolved furthers people’s knowledge about Ellison. When no one recalls these charges then there mention in the article could be dropped. As a person living in St. Louis Park in Minnesota’s fifth district represented by Ellison, I have heard people who voted against him continue to charge him with sexual impropriety. As newspapers do not keep there stories online for weeks on end, an inclusion in the wiki-article with proper citations showing that this is not the case does not seem improper. That way anyone here can point out that he was never even charged with being a rapist and the actual claims against him were dropped in Court. I don’t memorize Star and Trib urls, and you’d be surprised how being able to click on a ref and linking to their webpage article about this will quiet a bar of a dozen people insisting he’s a rapist. But my being able to use this article is not the issue, the issue is if it follows wiki-standards and if you read the talk-page discussion you’ll see I am perfectly within wiki-standards. Also did you read the revert policy that you say I’m violating, it mentions four times in one day not the two reverts I did, also the wiki-standards on reverts place great emphasis on using the discussion pages which I have used extensively.--Wowaconia 00:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you edited Amy Klobuchar to remove her official headshot with the reason "not fair use of image." Please explain how this is not fair use, and why in your current top edit to Rebecca Otto you allow a publicity photo to remain. -24.118.117.0 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't check the copyright status of images on every page I do an edit to, but I knew the one of Amy Klobuchar was under copyright and used in a way that does not conform to Wikipedia:Fair use. Jonathunder 18:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the Wolli Kangron page to Divine Principle. Should the Talk:Wolli Kangron page also be moved? Would the redirect have to be deleted first? Sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable about such things. Thanks. -Exucmember 18:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I fixed it now: let me know if there are any other issues. Jonathunder 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I will probably take it up... in a while. With the kid coming I probably wont get much wiki-time for the next few months. After that I am game though! -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Jonathunder. Hope you're doing well! I thought I'd run this by you since you've been so helpful! (You know, that busy one always gets asked to help, etc.) I went to look up "The Mastersingers of Nuremberg" but I got a "there is no such page, do you want to create it" error. There really is a page, I discovered, called "Die_Meistersinger_von_Nürnberg". How do I make sure that when you type in the English translation you get the page with the German title (but English text)? Estreya 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan,

Yes I am new to this and this is much harder than I thought. I would definitely appreciate every bit of help you can help on making the site look perfect.

Sonnyjames 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have contributed in the past to the Keith Ellison page I notify you of a current request for comment on that page. Your input would be helpful.

• Talk:Keith Ellison (politician) This is a dispute about where in the article about US Rep. Keith Ellison’s (first Muslim in Congress) ties with the Nation of Islam should be discussed. Whether since they were in the past they can be consigned to a segment enumerating the year of their maximum impact or if such enumerating lessens their impact which is held to be ongoing.07:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have sent a note to the e-mail listed on the campaign website ([email protected]) asking for permission to use a photo. The site might be inactive by now, but it's worth a try. Your snapshot is not bad as free photos go, but I think our state's new Senator should have a more Senatorial photo here. Wahkeenah 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did the changes because a) the article was nearly 60k long (which was well over Wiki standards), b) many of the cites could have been severely condensed, and c) most of the overly-long cites were from sources with a decidedly partisan bent, which was ignored by the persons who posted them in the article. I tried to both shorten the cites (which were so long as to constitute glorified vandalism), include only the most relevant ones, and put them into context by noting the bias of the sources. (I know of the bias as I myself am a Minnesotan who has been following this story for months. Bias is fine and dandy, pretending it doesn't exist is not.)

Here's the latest version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Ellison_%28politician%29&oldid=97149798 It's a rough cut, but I hope you can work with it. I tried not to be too sweeping, now that I've got a better handle on how to edit! CC2006 16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly visit Talk:Separation of church and state#NPOV dispute over Jefferson so we can resolve the NPOV dispute with User:Mactographer? (I've invited him/her as well, and I'm not taking a side in this.) Thank you. :) Collard 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your honor, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 12:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be willing to bet that this is yet another sock of thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has had a history of getting into edit wars on anarchism and related topics. Actually, she's had a history of getting into edit wars and personal attacks on pretty much anything. I have no idea why Chuck Munson is her current target, though. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unable to see any sort of conclusive connection between the two accounts through a cursory search; is there anything you can point me to other than "anarchism" and "edit wars"? At any rate, I was unable to find basis for an indefinite block and I wouldn't characterize this user's contributions as "trolling"; it seemed to me to be more of a misunderstanding of policy which should have been explained to the user rather than silencing them. Jonathunder, have you been able to review this block? I see that you have edited since these messages. Thanks in advance, —bbatsell ¿? 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Your honor" account is obviously a sock of someone, as a review of its earliest edits show, though whose I do not know. It appears to me to have been created for the purpose of stalking Chuck Munson (User:Chuck0) and causing him grief. User talk:Your honor is filled with warnings from several users, including other admins, so I didn't believe further requests to stop being obnoxious would be constructive. Jonathunder 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it is "obviously" a sock? The only thing I can think of is that they have so far only edited articles relating to anarchism, which is really very flimsy/circumstantial evidence. Another possible explanation is that is their field of knowledge and they have not felt comfortable enough to edit articles on other topics. And looking through the contribs and warnings on the user's talk page lead me to believe that it was simply a new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. I hope I don't sound too argumentative, that's not my intention, I just don't feel that there is enough evidence in this particular case to justify an indefinite block without community consensus. Is it possible that they are in fact an SPA intent on trolling? Yes. Is it possible that they are not? I believe so. I am willing to approach this user on their talk page and monitor their contributions in the future and will support a future block if their behavior does not improve, if you are willing to unblock. Thanks again for looking into this, —bbatsell ¿? 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had the opportunity to consider this? Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins did review the unblock request and denied it. The reasons are on the talk page. Jonathunder 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I feel sad and somewhat unfair... The blocking was a mistake, and the administrator who blocked me obviously have not read the block policy, which states bot should be blocked only at running and for up to 24 hours, but that admin blocked me 10 days after my last bot edit, and for a period of indefinite... Could you please reconsider you vote, thank you very much. Yao Ziyuan 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you sound off on this: Talk:DekiWiki, thanks. ~ AaronF 00:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again Jonathunder, we keep meeting, you keep not liking me - unfortunate. I ask you to reflect whether the wiki-page on Benjamin M. Emanuel is acceptable when its two main sources are blogs that claim that he is a murderer.

To clarify any uncertainty about whether this is an attack page look at the source cited http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/S_284_S/Overthrow%20series/Rahm%20Emanuel.htm it asserts that “[Rahm] Emanuel is no stranger to political assassination. His father was reputedly part of the Israeli assassin team that murdered Sweden's Count Bernadotte, part of a U.N. team in Palestine in 1948.”

The other source mentioned http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Emanuel.html makes similar claims:

"American congressman Rahm Emanuel, is the son of a terrorist.… Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat congressman for the 5th District of Illinois in Chicago is the son of an Israeli terrorist. Rahm's father, Benjamin, was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization that coined a new word as they blew up hotels, train stations, and other buildings in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s. …Irgun, the army of his father, is short for Irgun Zvai Leumi, which supposedly means something like "National Military Organization" in Hebrew. As a matter of fact, the Irgun was simply a terrorist Zionist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. They killed innocent Palestinians and British soldiers and blew up buildings."

This source also asserts that the events of 9/11 where caused by this organization they claim Emanuel was part of saying, “The Irgun even has a website with pictures of the buildings they blew up before they demolished the World Trade Center with Thermite and high explosives”

It should be obvious that these unsubstantiated claims are not up to wikistandards and must be deleted as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Biographies_of_living_persons .--Wowaconia 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your recent comment on my RFA. I'm interested by the fact that you opposed per another editor (Xoloz, i.e. "as well as confusion over proper RfA conduct") who thought I'd broken some kind of tacit RFA protocol by answering and politely querying oppose votes. As this is a wiki, I believe that this position is inherently wrong. Do you think that answering oppose votes on the RFA page in a polite manner is wrong, or was it specifically the lack of wiki-space edits that was a problem?

I very much respect your (and Xoloz's position) and hopefully in the future I'll meet your admin requirements should I agree to dedicate more of my time to the project and run for admin again. Thanks again for your time and interest. Budgiekiller 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me any pointers on what policies I lack knowledge about? _→AzaToth 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to her Senate web-page at the very bottom click on “Privacy Policy” you will find:

“2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.”

--Wowaconia 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to go here and weigh in on the discussion? Thanks --Appraiser 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting some Minnesota courthouse pictures at User:Jonathunder/courthouses. I just created an article about the Winona County Courthouse using one of your pictures (as well as other references, of course). There are quite a few Minnesota county courthouses on the National Register of Historic Places (55 buildings, which includes current and former courthouses). The old Hennepin County courthouse (Minneapolis City Hall) also has an article, so I only have 53 articles to go now. Looks like I'll be busy for a while.

Thanks again. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the punctuation in the Ronald Reagan article to reflect British English rules for where to place periods and commas in relation to quotation marks. I changed the punctuation back to American style English, per WP:ENGVAR, which says, in relevant part, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." If you believe my edit was in error, please let me know. Cheers, JCO312 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the WP:MOS. As Ground Zero pointed out on the talk page, the manual also states, "However, insisting on changing to this usage, especially in articles written in American English, is deprecated; there are better and less divisive uses of time."

I also don't know how the general rule follows with WP:ENGVAR, which appears to indicate that grammar and spelling preferences should follow the national preference for articles that are specific to one nation. Or, to be more specific, I read the relationsip between the general rule of WP:MOS and WP:ENGVAR as meaning that for articles without any particular tie to one nation or another, punctuation should be placed outside of quotation marks (unless it's part of the quote, of course), but for articles with a specific tie to a particular nation, the punctuation should follow that nations norms. I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time, to be sure). Cheers, JCO312 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, but I would be interested in what you think WP:ENGVAR means, and how, if at all, it impacts this general practice? JCO312 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's nothing wrong with being a lawyer :). Second, I see WP:MOS as the general rule, with WP:ENGVAR as the exception. I appreciate your point about WP:MOS having guidelines specifically about punctuation, but its application is general. I suppose WP:ENGVAR could be read to only give guidance where there are no other applicable rules, but I don't see anything that indicates that it should be read that narrowly. JCO312 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that your point about the general versus the specific is a good one. As I said, I've been looking at it a different way, and will ponder your view and respond later tonight. Cheers, JCO312 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect your perspective on this, but 1) the WP:MOS guideline says that insisting on this is inappropriate, and 2) you're only editing half of the page everytime you revert. You would know more than I would about this, but has there been a RfC on this? I'd be interested, from an academic perspective, on seeing what others think. Cheers, JCO312 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, why would Talk:DekiWiki be deleted? It's the talk page. Is this some rule I'm not aware of? ~ AaronF 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I already informed an administrator. I hope it will be fixed soon. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally please, you moved the page in a good faith of course, misled by the IMDB. Removing diacritis from the article name is really a pitty and loss of the information and wikipedia manual of style gives an example in François_Mitterrand. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be an us-ascii redirect sufficient then ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just ain't right. Your argument applies to hundreds of other articles and they stay in their diacritics version. There is no precedence to do so. He is well-known by millions of people in ČR and only by thousands abroad, that's all. - Darwinek 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? :))) Swearing would be, if I would say something about you, that was about Waldek. LOL - Darwinek 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in the history of Czech Republic that you are improving article related to the czech man ? I wonder if yes, it is not so common and I would be surprised. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathunder,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonathunder. Could you tell me please why you deleted this photo? I think you've made a mistake because it is an official portrait like every other United States Senator on Wikipedia. I looked on my talk page (I tagged the image) and on the uploader's and in the article history and find no communication or explanation. [3]. The image was Image:Senator klobuchar.jpg and was labelled, like all the other US Senators, a US government portrait, with the source given, and tagged {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. -Susanlesch 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk. Policy and policy implementation are the areas where my contributions are focused. There are the few times, where policies need to be expanded when there are deficiencies. Of those times, such as with WP:EL, I have participated in expanding them [4]. Administrator duties, will encompass more janitorial duties than actual article writing, I am prepared for that. However, I feel that this is opportunity to learn from the more experienced editors, in which areas to grow new strengths. I have and created the articles National Futures Association, Grain Futures Act and Commodity Exchange Act. Hopefully this can show some versatility, and the ability to adapt and learn. I also hope that you find some value in a candidate who has contribution strengths areas of which your participation is less. I do hope you can reconsider. Thanks--Hu12 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]