User talk:Johnjonesjr

Top-heavy[edit]

I think we are a little top-heavy with the Seventh-Day Adventist books at Book of Daniel#Further reading. My suggestion is that the page should offer (3) of the latest, or most authoritative books, for each acedemic and religious subcategory. It's starting to deviate from WP:NPOV standards by WP suggesting all these books to the audience. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a group, the SDAs have more interest in Daniel and Revelation than any other group that I know of. As a result they have published more books on the topic than anybody else. There are probably about half again as many books that I didn't list. They represent the primary group that still are actual historicists following the original protestant historicism. I'll see which ones I can remove. Some are classic books. and a newer book does not necessarily mean the best. Johnjonesjr (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite SDAs zeolous interest in Daniel, WP should suggest a balanced amount of material. Jehovah's Witnesses have just as much interest in Daniel and Revelation as the SDAs, so would it be fair to blast all of the books and publications, on these two books, from the Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses? Just because the SDAs have a lot of books on the subject, doesn't mean they are all knowing on Daniel. WP still has to maintain an WP:NPOV standard and it is up to us editors to uphold that, despite our own preferences or POV. Do you know how hard it was for me to go through all of the views of the mainstream critical analysts? I was upset to find that John J. Collins just sees Daniel as another pseudepigraph, with the plethora of knowledge that he has on this book. But despite my POV, it was good to see how rediculous their thinking is, which actually confirmed my faith in Daniel. Anyway, I agree with you that newer is not always better, that's why I mentioned an authoritative alternative. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the list down to probably the best ones. by-the-by, Ellen is no more POV than any of the rest. Johnjonesjr (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know ford was linked. I took the list from an earlier edition of the page. Johnjonesjr (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that afterward, sorry. Jasonasosa (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if the understanding of Daniel should be put in chronological order. I.e. first Jewish understandings, the early christian, then catholic, then protestant, then counter-reformation and then dispensational and then the enlightenment skeptical..... Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is the typical order. I'm surprised there wasn't much content on the Jewish view to begin with. Maybe someone, one day, will provide more content from that view.Jasonasosa (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historicism[edit]

Hi User: Johnjonesjr,

Thank you for your help on the Historicism (Christianity) page. I really appreciate your additions there. That page was suffering and any well rounded help that it can get, I support. - Jasonasosa (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Soul in the Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of God (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) 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What they hey?[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Johnjonesjr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm gone for the weekend and then find myself blocked with no reasons given but that I'm suspected of being a sock for somebody or another whom I don't know. Where's this supposed evidence? This is ridiculous. Johnjonesjr (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. According to that, a checkuser confirmed that this is one of several accounts being used by the same person. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Johnjonesjr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is nuts! Confirmed? On what evidence? You guys are making this up.

Decline reason:

Nope. I just reverified. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Johnjonesjr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

obviously you are guilty unless proven innocent and there is no such thing as innocent. There is no appeal, because ipsofacto you are guilty. Evidence be damned. you are all liers....

Decline reason:

This request does not address the issue that resulted in your block. If you misuse the unblock template or use this talk page for any purpose other than making you case for unblock, you will lose the ability to edit your user talk. Tiderolls 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to reviewing admin: Yada yada. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. I verified the results. There's no ambiguity. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to Johnjonesjr that you're wrong: there is an appeals process, you're in it right now, and you're blowing it with these unblock requests that fail to address the reason for your block. You might start by disclosing all the accounts you have used, which account you might want to use in the future, describing what you intend to do if unblocked, and agreeing to various sanctions such as block duration, 1RR restrictions, or other behavioral changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dan2image.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dan2image.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]