Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jonathunder: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:56, 25 June 2015 editBerean Hunter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,802 edits →Edit warring through full protection: re← Previous edit Revision as of 02:08, 25 June 2015 edit undoBorn2cycle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,496 edits →Edit warring through full protection: BD2412 involvedNext edit →
Line 175: Line 175:
:::Look, I didn't even know the page was protected. No, I'm not going to edit it now that it is, but I would like to participate on the talk page, as I did right before your quickdraw block. ] (]) 01:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) :::Look, I didn't even know the page was protected. No, I'm not going to edit it now that it is, but I would like to participate on the talk page, as I did right before your quickdraw block. ] (]) 01:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't mind that. BD2412 should have waited as we were about to have this worked out. Thanks for checking with the blocking admin there BD.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC) ::::I don't mind that. BD2412 should have waited as we were about to have this worked out. Thanks for checking with the blocking admin there BD.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;] ] 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:::For the record, {{U|BD2412}} is and has been heavily involved in the HC/HRC dispute and, IMHO, should abstain from administrative matters in this area. --] ] 02:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:08, 25 June 2015

Template:Archive box collapsible

Andrew Doyle Article

On May 2, you asked if I object to moving Charles Andrew Doyle article to C. Andrew Doyle. No objection.

Thanks,

Tom tmdivine (talk)

Yellow Corn Image

We are considering using part of this image for a sell sheet. We would show about half of one ear of the corn in your photo. The print run would be small 100-300 copies. Could you contact me to discuss?

Thank you for your time.

Mike

Yes, will contact. Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

When to use pictures of people

Are there any guidelines/standards on when to use pictures of people in entries about that person? I have pictures of several bishops I have taken myself, so I have rights to them, but I don't see lots of pictures of people and I am wondering what the guidelines are. Johnma4567 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are legal standards, which are very broad, Wikimedia standards, which are somewhat more narrow, and ordinary politeness. In my view, the latter is simply considering how the subject of the photograph would feel to have it published. If you do that, you are unlikely to run into trouble. Jonathunder (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dennis Hastert. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Edit warring through full protection

My protection is an admin action from an ANI complaint. There will be no edit-warring advantage for admins. Blocked 72 hours and I will mention this in the ANI thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That was a very hasty block. I was caught in an edit conflict and didn't see a warning that the page was fully protected. And you block me for 72 hours without even a warning? Jonathunder (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to unblocking provided that you don't intend to edit through the protection.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've already removed the block. Getting caught in an edit conflict is not a blockable offense. bd2412 T 01:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, I didn't even know the page was protected. No, I'm not going to edit it now that it is, but I would like to participate on the talk page, as I did right before your quickdraw block. Jonathunder (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind that. BD2412 should have waited as we were about to have this worked out. Thanks for checking with the blocking admin there BD.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, BD2412 is and has been heavily involved in the HC/HRC dispute and, IMHO, should abstain from administrative matters in this area. --В²C ☎ 02:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)