User talk:Jonathunder/archive4

My RfA

Jonathunder-- Thank you for your comments concerning my RfA. I will take them into consideration as I continue to grow as an editor. Thank you for your time. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. It shows maturity. Jonathunder 17:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Other than my relative short time here (according to some), is there anything else that you think I should work on to improve my chances of support in the future? --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Yep, the images were added so they could be used. I'm glad you found them useful. —Mulad (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's RfA

Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 21:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxl's RfA

Thank you for supporting me on my RfA! Rob e rt 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

Hi. Can I get your opinion of Tony's latest recreation and relisting of a valid VfD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Thanks. - Tεx τ urε 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hodur

Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully we can get a few others from the Balder vote to go to this one. DreamGuy 04:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scanian

You have supported a move of the article Skånska over at Talk:Skånska#Requested move that is not compatible with the concept of NPOV and general guidelines over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. I would appreciate if you'd read the objection I've posted and reconsider your vote.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was "Article titles on the English Wikipedia should be in English." If you ask me to elaborate, I would say they should generally be at the most common English name. How does that violate NPOV? Jonathunder 17:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having read more of your comments, I see you are objecting on the question of whether this is a language or a dialect. I'd make a few points: 1) The distinction between language and dialect is fuzzy 2) You quote SIL, which is a respected source, but they tend to be splitters on the language/dialect question -- nothing wrong with that, but other sources would draw it differently 3) Still think we should go with the most common name in English. I'm willing to read more discussion as to what that is. Jonathunder 17:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Skånska#Requested moved I have altered single "first past the post" vote to approval voting so that we can try to reach a consensus. Please check that your vote still reflects your position as I may have misunderstood your voting intentions or you may wish to vote for more than one proposal. Philip Baird Shearer 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Großglockner#Discision

regards Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FSF RFA

Thanks for the support. freestylefrappe 14:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=WP:RM#Proposed changes

If you are still interested in the subject please see WP:RM#Proposed changes. Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible admin nomination

Hello Jonathunder, I recently found your name on the list at User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins and noticed that you had indicated your potential interest in being an administrator. I've been reviewing your contributions to Wikipedia against my rather strict nomination standards and I'm pleased to tell you that you passed. I did observe that you were one of the disputants in a request for Arbitrattion back in January, but that you were never central to the dispute and the dispute went the way of your opinion. I've reviewed every single one of your User talk page contributions and found no incidents of incivility. I've reviewed your overall edits as well. You've been heavily involved in vandal fighting, AfD, RfA, CfD, and the ever contentious requested moves. I also particularly liked your contributions to things related to WP:3RR, and WP:MOS. I've also reviewed your contributions in images and especially appreciated your observance of copyright and the proper application of license tags. Everything I have found has been exemplary in conduct, with the best of intentions and inline with Wikipedia policy. With all of this in mind, I'd like to nominate you for adminstrator. If you would be interested in accepting, I have just a couple of questions:

If you were to accept the nomination, one of the standard questions is "What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?" How would you respond?
Somewhat related to the previous question; why, exactly, do you want to be an admin?

All the best, --Durin 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You're not bald. Your hair just migrated south to your chin :)

I am very flattered. I will respond to your questions soon. Right now I have new work duties which have kept me very busy this week and away from Wikipedia. Thank you and kind regards. Jonathunder 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. There's no rush. Just drop a message on my talk page if you would to let me know you're ready to proceed. It is a good idea to have seven days available for the RfA in which you are generally available (not 24 hours a day for all 7 days :) but more like once a day at least). When you're ready, let me know. Hope things at work go smoothly for you. --Durin 20:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome. Well done on the State Park articles and the other stuff you've started. I'll contribute what I can and appreciate the welcoming guidance and hope you'll offer any other advice on wiki-ing (is "wiki" a verb yet?) as you see fit. Cheers. the dharma bum 18:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again! ALKIVAR™ 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please dont change the names and the regions of greece.

Proposal up for a vote

A new proposal on representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. I'm letting you know because you commented on that page :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the "vote" they are proposing would force the English-language Wikipedia articles to be named following 13th century Icelandic words instead of their common English ones... It completely violates standard naming conventions here, and, looking at the names of the supporters, appears to be being pushed by members of foreign countries. Make sure you show up and vote against this really insane idea that English language names are inappropriate on English Wikipedia. DreamGuy 02:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance

I disagree - guidance should have consensus, and when it loses consensus, it should be removed. This piece of guidance, which is often ignored (by the way), has long since lost that. After all, if it were consensus to remove, it would mean that once there it would only need 25% support to stay - and it just doesn't seem right that 25% can overrule 75%, jguk 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

I'm sorry you're upset and I, too, am sorry about personal attacks on both sides. I will reply further later. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that people honestly, sincerely and in good faith disagree with me on the issue. People can rationally and reasonably disagree about the best representation of the material. In particular I in no way question your motives and I would like to compliment you for staying clear of personal attacks in the debates. I also understand that there are valid arguments in favor of using ultra-Anglicized forms throughout. Some of them are even good arguments. I personally feel that the arguments for using the authentic forms including diacritics and nominative endings - while making sure to use redirects liberally and prominently include alternative Anglicized versions - are stronger. I'll think some more about this and send you another message later today. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I'm taking so long to think about this. I'm trying to separate our material disagreement about the article title from the procedural concerns you (and I) have about the moves. It's hard to disentangle issues that one is so wrapped up in and I think I still need more time to try to look at this from other perspectives than my own. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't get around to writing you again. I'm so drained from this that I'm going to make an attempt to tear myself away from Wikipedia. Didn't last a day last time, let's see how it goes now. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rl

Hi! As you can see, an old RFA is causing quite some waves. Next time you're on irc, I'd love to ask you some questions, if you can still recall what happened a bit. :-)

Kim Bruning 06:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for TheParanoidOne

Hello Jonathunder. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my RFA. I have now officially received the badge, so I shall try my best to be a good administrator. Thanks again. --TheParanoidOne 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for your thunderous support on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0; I'll try and live up to the expectations of others and do my best in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. --Gurubrahma 14:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ready for RfA?

I didn't expect to be nominating anyone again any time soon. But, Gurubrahma approached me to nominate him despite my concerns. The success of his RfA has restored some of my faith in the process. I'd be willing to move forward with a nomination for you if you'd like. If not, no worries. I just didn't want to leave this thread dangling. --Durin 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Jonathunder, thank you for supporting my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 07:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (disambiguation)

I've marked your changes as POV, what will we do next, delete everything Macedonia related that has nothing to do with RoM? If we want to help the readers then we should remember that WP is an encyclopedia, isn't it? Please leave your comments at the relavant talk page. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 17:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfocused Gambit

Wanting to assure you that I don't think you had anything to do with this and hoping that we can bury the hatchet I'd like to offer you something I've seen User:Unfocused do when he's been in conflict with someone and wants to put things right. I quote:

Choose any one article in Wikipedia and I'll make a good faith, content contributing, referenced and cited edit to the article.

Examples of such edits: [1] [2]

So, pick an article - any article - and I'll do my best to help it :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind and generous note. There are two articles I have worked on which I think may benefit from your expertise, actually. One is Leif Erikson Day, which I am proud to say I have expanded from about three sentences to three paragraphs. The title reflects the official name of the U.S. observance as decided by Congress, but I think it may be helpful to readers to include something, even if only briefly, about how the explorer would have been referred to in his time and culture. As for the second, Lutefisk is an article I would love to have eventually become featured. It has a bit about how it is pronounced in different Nordic languages, but no mention of Icelandic.

Two articles! Greedy, are we? :) We actually don't eat "lútfiskur" in Iceland, I've never tasted it and I know nothing about it so I'll probably only make a minor edit there. But I'll make edits to Leif Erikson Day and Leif Ericson. And they won't include moving the whole shebang to my preferred spellings! :D - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one huge edit à la Unfocused isn't really my style so I'll make a small campaign out of this in editing a series of related pages. I'll report back to you when I'm done. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made small edits to the pages you requested. But since I don't really know anything about lutefisk or that particular US holiday I've made more contributions elsewhere. I've made edits here and there to articles related to the Norse exploration of North America but my biggest contribution to the area is the Saga of the Greenlanders article which I'm still writing. It uses ultra-Anglicized forms of Old Norse names against my personal preference as a token of goodwill.

And I haven't moved any articles though the inconsistency annoys me. Even if Anglicized forms are used shouldn't the patronyms of "Leif Ericson" and "Thorvald Eriksson" be harmonized? - Haukur 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for keeping an eye on the ever-controversial Macedonia article. It takes a braver man than me to get involved with that page! Soo 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.

Ian ≡ talk 07:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Neale

I'm rather pleased with the article, but it needs much more detail on parts of his life not covered by his book - in particular his family life and third stay on the island. The new edition of "An Island To Oneself" will have a preface by his daughter, Stella, which I believe covers these matters, but I don't believe it's out yet. Stella said she'd send me a copy of the preface, but I've lost touch with her.

We also need an appropriately licenced photo for the article. The book cover is technically only fair use on an article about the book, although I think that autobiography covers should be fair use on articles about their authors.

If I can get the additional material I want, I'll put the article up for peer review and depending on the feedback there, go for featured article status.

Thanks for your comments.-gadfium 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On edit-warring

I know it looks like edit-warring but that's not the case at all. If you care to see the discussions you'll find out that all of my edits concern the removal of blatant POVs and unsourced information, particularly offensive to certain ethnic groups. The only reason it looks like edit-warring is because I'm outnumbered and I have to deal with this POV-pushing entirely on my own. If I don't, then no-one will, and wikepedia neutrality will remain violated. I always try to stick to wp:rules, and revert what is considered as "official policy vandalism". Today I've been in certain cases over the limit, but it's a risk I'm willing to take in order to de-POV a certain number of articles which is under constant borderline-vandalism, performed mainly by nationalist users. According to wp:rules, when the unsourced content is put into question, nobody has a right to add it back in until it's sourced. Miskin 06:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I requested protection for those two articles at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; hopefully an administrator will respond. I'm sorry, I don't think I can do much in this dispute except supervise some form of informal mediation. I recently blocked User:CDThieme for 24 hours and five minutes later unblocked him as I unblocked Miskin. I've unblocked everyone, so that they can all participate in a discussion on the talk pages once the pages are protected (this has yet to happen). Anyway, I suggest Wikipedia:Mediation - IMO that could do the trick. Protecting articles or blocking users just creates bad feelings. Izehar 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

former vs Former

I checked the official UN roster of nations, and you are absolutely right. My apologies. Sysin 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Happy editing. Jonathunder 14:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your support. -- Samuel Wantman 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians (ethnic group)

I must admitt I was quite surprised you defended Macedonia's edit, I mean the piece which adds to "It is presumed by some historians (Kunchov; Weigand) that these Slavic tribes probably absorbed some indigenous populations that they came upon in the area" this piece: like the ancient Macedonians as claimed by the Macedonian government. The first point (It is presumed by some historians (Kunchov; Weigand) that these Slavic tribes probably absorbed some indigenous populations that they came upon in the area) is correct; these two ethnographers, the German Gustav Weigand in his Ethnography of Macedonia (1919) and the Bulgarian Vasil Kanchov's (and not Kunchov) in Makedoniya (I think) in the late 19th century, presupposed that the Slavic tribes in Macedonia mixed with indigenous elements, intending Latin speakers (today Vlachs), Thracians and Illyrians; but they did not not go further than the level of assumptions. What is important, neither Weigand nor Kanchov spoke of a fusion between Ancient Macedonians and Slavs, because their is full consensus among scholars that by the 5th century Macedonia was Greek, and this at least from the 4th century BC. In my opinion this is a case of manipulation of sources: respected references are used to make them say something they don't. The ex. link added is another example, for it is unclear why a passing remark in a tourism-promotion page can be considered an official position of the government of the Republic of Macedonia. For these reasons I believe we should remove the addition like the ancient Macedonians as claimed by the Macedonian government. But first I would like to hear your opinion. Bye, and sorry if this message came so long ;-) Aldux 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Miskin, it is entirely possible the info is bogus. Certainly he did not agree with it, and you don't either. But some other folks of a different nationality are defending it. I don't defend the position, as such, what I want to defend is the idea that both sides must be reported so that our readers can decide for themselves which is the stronger position. The information was sourced and attributed and a revert war to keep removing it is not OK. Counter it with sources and attribution presenting the other side and I will defend your ability to do so. Cheers. Jonathunder 22:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]