User talk:Jonund

I moved your question to my current talk page, and replied there. I presume you placed it on an archived page by mistake.-gadfium 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the NHS reference at ADHD. Very interesting, and I'm sure it can be used elsewhere in the article, too. - Hordaland (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to get feedback. Mange tak! --Jonund (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, sør for Skagerak, er du? - Hordaland (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nej, jeg er fra Finland og taler svensk. Jeg kan lidt norsk; måske jeg lykkedes omdanne det til dansk. --Jonund (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uff, nei. My fault, I thought of Sweden just as I hit SavePage. Must admit I didn't think of Finland, though! - Hordaland (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Organisation of the Islamic Conference, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 19:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per that warning i don't think it was necessary to change the heading to terrorism this is not keeping a neutral point of view and it was a unnecessary edit that was made please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Take Care ,

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 19:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulties understanding your reaction. I supplied a source (already mentioned elsewhere in the same passage) where a source had been requested. This is to a high-ranking Egyptian parliamentarian, who claims India sought membership. Is that not a constructive edit? To allege that it might have been a test edit doesn't sound respectful. If the source isn't accurate, please let me know why.

I have stated a reason that has in fact been given for Pakistan's opposition to India's joining OIC. That is better than the seemingly far-fetched explanations given without source.

I also gave the name and date of a source that was already there. As I cannot imagine that you object to that, I suggest that you don't revert in toto, if you see a need to revert.

As for terrorism, the passage is about that, not primarily about the Palestinian struggle, although the latter is the most important part of the discussion. The discussion and failure to define terrorism, as well as the statement about Islamophobia do not fit under Palestinian issues. --Jonund (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dove - symbol of Personal Freedom Outreach.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Luther King, Jr.. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kingturtle (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has progressed during the "edit war", with other editors retreating on point after point (although reverting lock, stock and barrel). The section "Changes by Malik Shabazz" seemed to be settled, and I was too concentrated on that when I made my latest revert by a simple undo. Thus, I came to revert what is being discussed under "Adultery", without thinking on it.

I have now made an edit which restores only the settled part, so we can concentrate on the remaining issue. --Jonund (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that continuing to repeat the same arguments repeatedly could be taken as a violation of WP:DE. If you cannot produce any new evidence or reasons to support your contention for inclusion of additional material, then it would be in everyone's best interests if you waited a much longer period of time, at least several months, before raising the issue again. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed with the failure to answer my arguments. Take a look at WP:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing and ask yourself what to do. The only way to reach a solution is to engage the arguments. With hopes for a constructive turn. --Jonund (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been answered. The difficulty is that you are, basically, consistently violating WP:IDHT and ignoring them, and I believe the other editors, myself included, are disappointed in your refusal to abide by that guideline. I am therefore formally stating that, considering that there has already been a request for comment on the subject which has determined consensus does not lie on your side, that you cease such comments on the article's talk page. Failure to do so will very likely result in other venues to resolve the problem being taken, which may include some sanctions against editors who may be found to be in violation of policy or guidelines. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion and you'll discover that there is no such consensus as you dream about. You will also discover that there are a lot of loose threads that you have failed to answer. Please, do that before you accuse me of not refusing to get the point and not abiding by guidelines. You may not right now be in the state of mind required to do that, but you're welcome back when emotions have cooled down. --Jonund (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorund,

I've tried to help you get the MLK quote included, but it might be a lost cause. Even after I showed editor Otto that the author you cite who makes the original claims about the quote won the Pulitzer prize for his work on MLK, one editor still refused to accept the author's research as valid. In several years of editing pages on Wikipedia, I have never seen this level of dogmatic hostility. Even so, I have posted a lot of new arguments on the talk page (along with a link to the Library of Congress which spells out the author's credentials), so you can check them out at your leisure.

I don't know what to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.240.22 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging yourself in the dispute. The whole thing is flabbergasting. Some of the editors apparently think they can ignore rules, dodge arguments and write the article according to their own prejudices. Let's see if they indeed can do that. An appeal has been made to WP:ANI, and we may see if wp has mechanisms to manage problems like this one. Perhaps they will have to learn to abide by rules. It's also possible that wp is unable to protect itself against marauders, as this story suggests. If so, we can hope that the vulnerability becomes common knowledge. --Jonund (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: If you ever go ahead with your threat to add information which has not been adequately sourced against consensus to the existing article, as you have previously threatened to do, the addition will be almost certainly almost instantly reverted by one of the other editors who watch the page, and your actions, including your refusal to find the required sourcing for your addition, will almost certainly be reported to one or more noticeboards, and you may very easily face the prospect of being banned from the topic. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have motivated my case and nobody responded for several weeks so I had to make sure whether you still disagree or not. That's the point of my "treath". All of you, however, refuse to engage the arguments and seem to prefer deleting information you don't like. This is an outrageous violation of Wikipedia policy. As a matter of principle, it cannot be left at that. Another RfC may be an option. I'm considering making an FAQ, so that newcomers can more easily get the picture of the case. I suppose we can cooperate in making it.

I have given an RS for the addition, and I and others have argued thoroughly in favor of it. There is no "refusal" as far as I'm concerned. --Jonund (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are your own. I would welcome finding out whether any administrators and other senior editors arrive at the same conclusion you do. And there is no reason to assume that opinions might have changed unless additional evidence is presented, and you presented none. On that basis, I think most people would find the first part of your statement above at best amusing. Regarding the one RS, please note that others mentioned several other policies and guidelines to you, including WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS, and you still refuse to address them. There is every reason to believe that your behavior qualifies as disruptive as per WP:DE, and I would urge you to refrain from making any further clearly repetitive comments until and unless you can produce sufficient evidence to have reasonable cause to believe your repetitive arguments have any chance of success. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, from the very limited experience I have of your edits on other topics, I get the impression that you are a good guy. Somehow, you have let your judgement go on this topic. If you read my post with an open mind, you will find that I rebut Mish's arguments. In a normal discussion, people change their minds from time to time, when confronted with new arguments. But perhaps people will find it amusing to expect open minds in this case.

You have consistently refused to engage my arguments. A "consensus" that is based on a refusal to take some arguments into account is of no value. I, and others, have given good arguments why WP:UNDUE is no obstacle to this inclusion. You still owe us your answers. --Jonund (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonund. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to United Nations Human Rights Council. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. If you want to use that caption, you need to provide sources for it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, who designed that modified logo? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as such, since ChrisO is not an administrator, this notice is not effective and I have removed it from the log. Breein1007 (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make an ass of yourself. The notice is effective. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intimating that sanctions may be imposed on an editor who has patiently discussed and rebutted all arguments and been met by sheer obstinacy is a good illustration of the reckless campaign to let power, rather than arguments, rule.

Malik's insult of an editor who points out the obvious, and then abusing his privilege as an administrator to make the silliness formally effective is shabby, but it corresponds to the picture that I have gradually got of him. Shame upon you! --Jonund (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik and I have quite some history, so maybe he feels he is free to send personal attacks my way without me taking offense. He is highly mistaken, especially when the personal attacks are coupled with another abusive admin blocking me for pointing out something that is true, that the above message is only effective when given by an admin. I appreciate your support, and I have sent Malik a message telling him that I did not appreciate his personal attack. In terms of admin abuse in general, I am considering the correct way to bring this to the attention of the community for investigation. Also, you are completely right that it is out of line for an involved editor to send this notification to someone else as a form of intimidation and threat. There is a discussion ongoing at the talk page of the sanctions, where not surprisingly, ChrisO went ahead and changed the wording of the template to remove the requirement for an admin to deliver the notification. Breein1007 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonund! I also uploaded a cover and it is being discussed here. (The PD status was questioned at an FLC here.) The discussion at WP:CQ may have an impact on your uploads. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! If we add that he is a Republican we can then add him to the Black Reoublicans list.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Dreamtime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaurna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's unambigous. --Jonund (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Garden of Hedonism.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP's fair use policy before re-adding the image. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Police state. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Pitt O'Brien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upshur County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's unambigous. --Jonund (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goldenseal (magazine), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charleston and Jackson County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Jonund (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Ryan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Modern age magazine cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's used again. --Jonund (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, After reviewing this wiki page [1] I found that I am allowed to make a request directly to users who are listed here [2] where your username is listed. I invite you to comment on [3]. Thank you for your time. Fordx12 (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Colombian armed conflict (1964–present). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if it interests you, would you please review my proposed revisions to La Luz del Mundo here? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. RidjalA (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jonund, I want to humbly apologize for having been rude to you in the talk page of La Luz del Mundo. I was having a bad day, and did not mean to personally attack you or criticize you in any way. I'm a big believer in religious tolerance, and get a very irritated when I think someone is being intolerant. I apologize for having judged you. Thanks for your comments in the talk page. Have a good day. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! It's very rare to meet such an attitude on WP, I'm impressed. --Jonund (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonund. I posted a comment in response to yours on the aforementioned page. Looking forward to your response. Ubikwit (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikiwit[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derwick Associates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nayirah (testimony). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conservator of the peace. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I cordially invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yo, Blair. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your edits to Aniconism in Judaism! Jewish art goes to a very inadequate section in the culture of .. article & badly needs a proper article, to which I could add stuff. Since I see you like substantial edits .... Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence that this meets our criteria at WP:RS. Please don't try to add it again before going to WP:RSN and arguing why you think it meets our criteria. Reliability isn't the default position, once it's challenged it's up to the person who thinks it meets our criteria to get others to agree. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are carrying on a slow edit war trying to remove text first saying on the 18th "It might be kept with a qualifier, but as some editors do not want that, the sentence has to go" - which isn't correct, there was no agreement it should go) and then today with the edit summary "Leave it out as we seek consensus". This is despite never having posted to the talk page although editors just reading your edit summaries might have assumed you had. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now my comments are on the talk page. The burden of evidence lies on those who want to add text, so the sentence has to be removed until consensus for its inclusion is reached. --Jonund (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consensus for its inclusion already. In any case there is " a reliable source that directly supports the material." You are trying to remove material that is attributed and reliably sourced. When you added the word 'liberal' 2 editors said it wasn't necessary (besides me) - neither objected to the material, and you've been reverted by me and 2 others. There is no burden of evidence to meet. There's obviously an informal consensus for its inclusion and you are continuing a slow edit war to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I just looked at the talk page of the article, an editor has written that there are now 5 editors who agree with its inclusion. Remove it again and I don't know what else to do but take you to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of small issues with your rewrite of Yichud. At one point you say "A dependent adult person in need of care should take a caregiver of the opposite gender." Is this correct or did you mean the opposite? Elsewhere you say Rabbi Soloveitchik disagrees with a position, but the previous sentence contains both a lenient and a stringent view and its is not clear to me which he disagrees with. I marked them both with clarify tags. Please take a look when you can.--agr (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Now I have corrected the errors. --Jonund (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Gordis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commentary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Institute of Democracy and Cooperation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute readers club.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Intercollegiate Studies Institute may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for the many students and teachers who reject the postmodernist zeitgeist.”<ref>Lee Edwards: [http://isibooks.org/educating-for-liberty.html ''Educating for Liberty: The First Half-Century of
• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Copper Hoard Culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chota Nagpur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Personal Freedom Outreach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Outreach (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BayShrimp (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Institute of Democracy and Cooperation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on Commons. --Jonund (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Siku Quanshu. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute readers club.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get an answer to this question. Have you tried WP:VPT? And there is a list somewhere of what you substitute in a URL so it will work. I don't know where that is but I'm sure they could help you with that too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the source, which I've linked now into article. The source doesn't directly support fraud, so I can't say I disagree with the IP editor's desire to remove it. Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loathe as I am to do so, I tried to at least clarify why anyone would bother including such a thing with my recent edit. ;) I'm not a regular editor--mostly grammar here and there--so I apologize for any code issues. Hoping to register and study up soon. Sorry for being so combative, Jornund! 161.11.160.44 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source does say that welfare fraud is the explanation. It's on p. 175, which cannot be seen on Amazon. I hope you will enjoy editing Wikipedia. Jonund (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Amazon? https://books.google.com/books?id=o6fUPokvyR0C&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false 175 is readable.The author did not explicitly say fraud (or its synonym). @161.11.160.44: Graywalls (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had read the book at Amazon, where p. 175 is not available for preview. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Murray says there is "an increase in the number of people seeking to get benefits who aren't really unable to work - an increase in Americans for whom the founding virtue of industriousness is not a big deal anymore." That's a clear description of fraud. Jonund (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He's discussing changes in the standards, such as one must be unable to work to qualify, which isn't the case with SNAP. Fraud involves deceptive acts or prohibited acts to claim benefits that you're not entitled per the rules. Graywalls (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, he says that "this rising trendline is not produced by changes in the legal definition of physical disability," which has "tweaked but not substantially changed since 1960." SNAP is only one form of welfare benefit, here he discusses SSDI, for which you qualify only if you're unable to work. Jonund (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Salisbury Review.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Free Congress Foundation.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]