User talk:Jonund - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 21 February 2010 (→February 2010). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:14, 21 February 2010 by NeilN (talk | contribs) (→February 2010)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Jonund, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco 13:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Humair septuplets

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 I presume you placed it on an archived page by mistake.-gadfium 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

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)

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

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

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)

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)

February 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, 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 19:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view

Take Care ,

Staffwaterboy 19:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Image copyright problem with File:Dove - symbol of Personal Freedom Outreach.gif

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 Misplaced Pages's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Misplaced Pages 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:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages: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)

License tagging for File:Intercollegiate Studies Institute Student's Guide Multi-volume set.jpg

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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

Please avoid an edit war

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)

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)

MLK

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

ANI

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)

February 2010

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 Misplaced Pages: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 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, who designed that modified logo? --NeilN 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)