User talk:General Disarray/Archive2

Thank you

Thank you for your kind note on my talk page today. This medium does indeed present many difficulties in effective communication. It's a written medium, but treated often as a spoken one. We're all new at it and learning. MARussellPESE 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon RFC

Sorry I wasn't clear that the user had deleted the entire contents of the article :) That's what the RfC was suppossed to be about, the existance of the article :) Seraphim 09:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original research on Messianic related articles

As I see that you have dealt with some original research issues on [Messianic prophecies]], can you take a look at Messianic Religious Practices and Messianic prophecy. Thanks for your help. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic prophecies BUPC

Jeff, I have set up the article Messianic prophecies (views: BUPC) and removed most of the non-BUPC stuff. I also redirected Messianic prophecies to Messianic prophecies (disambiguation). Although I will be doing some more documentation on Messianic prophecy it is largely complete.

RickReinckens 05:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William, in the interest of avoiding problems in the future, I was hoping you could offer some advice for me should similiar situations in the future arise. You suggested to "make an effort to discuss your changes". The edits which led to these four reverts involved me removing what I felt was a contribution to a section which undid the balance of the two views being presented there. The addition is an opinion of one of the two sides being discussed to which both views already had equal say, and the fair and sympathetic views of both sides is now being undermined. The reason for removing the contribution Cunado added was stated in the "summary of changes", yet Cunado chose to ignore the concern and restore, again and again. What's one to do, for it seems all the contributor need to do is restore thrice and he can ignore the stated concerns? It's not my wish to be involved in such things, yet I feel obligated as a contributor to the article to defend it when I see fit. How can this be done when 3rr can be levied by a contributor who had at the article first, and can then restore three times to have his way? Thank you in advance. Jeff 07:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you need to step back a bit: having two sides prepared to revert indefinitely won't help the article. The first thing to do is discuss this on the articles talk page; if that doesn't help, try to find others interested (page WP:RFC) and after that, WP:DR William M. Connolley 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Drainage ditch"

LOL MARussellPESE 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Are much appreciated. Feel free to inform me when you're being ganged up against. My email settings are also turned on btw :) Wjhonson 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on your user page, your have a section "Backround". I think you mean "Background". :) Wjhonson 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert

The blog that I linked to on the David article is hardly a blog in the conventional sense of the word. Reb Chaim HaQoton is a collection of well-sourced and documented essays on various topics within the scope of Judaism. The "blog post" that I linked to on the David article is hardly a blog post, it is a well-sourced academic paper with 50 footnotes that happens to be hosted on blogspot.com and the content is formatted in blog form. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my TALK page. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edit

That was not nice. Now I have re-add it. If you have a problem with it state it. Otherwise fix up the grammar and other minor problems you may have with it. 124.170.187.147 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Be Civil and Assume Good Faith

Be advised: repeatedly refering to others' edits [1], [2], [3], & [4] as vandalism, when they aren't, is uncivil. (Major revisions w/o discussion are not Vandalism.) And repeatedly referring to your own edits as "honest" [5], & [6] is counter to assume good faith.

You're frustrated, but tone it down. You're both skating close to 3RR. MARussellPESE 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring on Leland Jensen. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Shell ^babelfish 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:Bostanai

please see my comments at Talk:Bostanai. thanks. Jon513 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request

I've noticed that you re-edit the talk page a lot. this edit you made was almost 6 hours after your first comment. I'm sure you can see why that becomes a problem for people following. It is also a lot easier to follow the history if you make a comment in a single edit. Try using preview and re-reading before saving.

Also, please change your signature back to something that is less controversial. Wikipedia:Username policy is about user names, but it would not be a long stretch to apply it to changed signatures. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi (Peace be on him)

I was just wondering why you have undone my edit to the page referring to Imam Mahdi (Peace be on him). Wikipedia wanted more references and I provided many references. Considering this page has information from practically only one source, I provided many sources to provide a balnced view. I also shifted the Sunni hadith reference located in the Sunni hadith book Sahih al-Tirmidhi from the Shia section on the page, to the Sunni section; after all why would someone use a Sunni refernce to explain Shia beliefs? It makes no logical sense to have a Sunni reference under the Shia heading. I am baffled at how easily you undid all my long research. I want wikipedia to keep some integrity! So once again why did you undue my edits?

Email

You have a new email. Rudget . 15:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Add "Jeff" or some other form of your username to your signature, please. It does say in Wikipedia:Signatures that "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." I think it would ameliorate the issues a bit if you were to add your username into your signature once more, but you could still retain the message. A possible format you could use is "Jeff ^{Baha'i Under the Covenant}" with one item linking to your userpage and the other to your user talk, or your contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature, 2

I am posting this, again, as you did not respond to it here or at WP:ANI, but just archived it. As an administrator of the English Wikipedia, this is a request to add your username in some format into your signature. I don't care if you have "Baha'i Under the Covenant" in it or not, as I do not know enough about the Baha'i faith to understand why it is an issue. It is a general guideline that your signature have your username in it. Please put "Jeff" in your signature in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently impossible to click on your username to reach your user or user talk pages. Please make sure you have it set so that there is a link to either place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxsey

Hi. You've removed well-cited material from Hoxsey Therapy twice now. I can't quite understand your edit summary. I've re-read the source a few times, as you suggested, and it clearly supports the material in our article. Could you please stop deleting cited and relevant info and explain on the article talk page what your objections are? Have you read the article itself, and if so, do you feel that the passage does not accurately represent it? Please elaborate a bit at Talk:Hoxsey Therapy. I've taken the liberty of quoting the relevant portion of the source there. Also, please be aware of the three-revert rule, which serves to limit edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

When the points regarding self-publication are completely on-point, and you keep on not accepting them, what more is there to add. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out ...

Talk:Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. You have a serious security problem that needs your earliest attention. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This got taken down from WP:AN and I was directed to WP:Oversight. I'm following up there. I really think that data has to come off. Nobody's got any business accessing that. What were they thinking setting it up so that you can have that kind of access without a password? MARussellPESE (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. You know well enough to stay off the 3RR. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing talk page

Per WP:REDACT, Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Own comments

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change, consider taking one of the following steps:

Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
Use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
- Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up ~~like this~~.
- A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"
- Please do not apply strike-through to other editors' comments without permission.

Well, there are two fallacies to your concern with this. 1)Correcting spelling mistakes is not a redaction of a comment. 2)No one had yet replied to the comment that I was correcting the spelling of. So, this quote from the policy page, while completely relevant in it's own right, is not at all relevant to the undo you just enacted on my spelling corrections edit [7]. If you were there long enough to undo my spelling correction, couldn't you have taken a moment to contribute to the discussion? Instead of wasting your time on this sort of non-productive pettiness, why don't you respond to the direct questions being posed to your concerns? _Disarray^General 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were spelling corrections and content change, and it was two hours after you made the comment. I'm not trying to make a big case about that change in particular, but your style of editing your comments a dozen times over several hours does make it hard to follow and it's been that way for a long time. Try using the preview function more often. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oky-doky. _Disarray^General 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[8] made on February 26 2009 to Leland Jensen

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMR.com & CMR.net

Can you tell me what the difference is between those two sites? "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published". Both self-published, both written about Mason Remey, both not written by Mason Remey. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If information from either could pass the bar for inclusion based on the 5 points of WP:SPS then either are valid. If not then the content does not warrant inclusions. Why are you asking me here when it' been asked and answered three times on the discussion page? _Disarray^General 04:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't by you. It's not the content that the point, it's the publisher, because self-published works have no reliable source of fact-checking and thus it's out. In wikipedia, users don't get to decide what is truth, but what is verifiable, and they way to decide if it's veriable if someone else has decided to publish it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]