User talk:General Disarray/Archive2

Vandalism

These edits. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Amount to vandalism. Please stop. Cuñado - Talk 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite verifiable sources

These edits [9], [10], & [11] do not provide verifiable sources per wikipedia policies.

Your "reference" *Lamb, J.T. (2004). Over The Wall, Page 10 Publishers, Missoula Montana 59802 web book isn't published and doesn't meet the requirements of this policy.

Would you please take the time to read it. This has been at the crux of virtually all of your edit disputes. The burden is on you to provide sources for your information. MARussellPESE 06:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You can make your comments here regarding your opinion. Cuñado - Talk 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

divisions

Before you embarrass yourself, read over the very last section of Bahá'í divisions. It has links to several personal websites in text. In particular, look at Allison Marshall's link which goes to a badly made personal website. Cuñado - Talk 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please be civil

Jeff, I know the topic is dear to you, but your recent edits on Talk:Bahá'í divisions really cross the line. Please be civil there. This should probably apply to Talk:Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant too. MARussellPESE 15:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bias

Regarding:

for not upholding their vow to "carry out every aspect of the Guardian’s expressed wishes and hopes"[12]

It's in both our interests to make the article look like a factual and unbiased article, and not some kind of pamphlet or personal webpage. It seems like you're just putting down whatever you want to, preceded by "Jensen taught that..." I've never seen a decent reference for what he wrote about what and when, only a link to the introduction of a book which was e-published. If you want to have sentences like the one mentioned, I suggest referencing it straight to what Jensen wrote, or removing it. The way it's written is sloppy, and that's why I removed it. Cuñado - Talk 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Drainage ditch"

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

WP:3RR

Just a warning, the next revert crosses the WP:3RR. -- Jeff3000 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cool

Regarding this suite of edits: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. MARussellPESE 04:30, 2 December 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 [13], [14], [15], & [16] 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" [17], & [18] 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?

signature

I asked you here to change your signature. I'm asking you again now, and I'll follow up on the administrator's notice board if your next post still has it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

+

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Oh no, these points:

"your finite understanding of this particular subject"
"You've taken it upon yourself to interpret Explicit Writings"
"You're making uneducated assumptions without all the facts"
"Your assertion … irresponsibly concludes"

are all personal attacks.

Calling the warning "whining" is another one as well.

I've not made observations about you, your education, your mental competence, or your motives. Your poor argumentation can't escape notice, and I've limited my observations to that. However, that is not a personal attack, unless you so take it. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

These are all personal attacks:

"your finite understanding of this particular subject"
"You've taken it upon yourself to interpret Explicit Writings"
"You're making uneducated assumptions without all the facts"
"Your assertion … irresponsibly concludes"

[19]

"Pointing out that you're uneducated about "this particular subject" is not a personal attack;"
"You seem to be suffering from a delusion that your limited understanding of this subject"

[20]

"you made it up and shamelessly attempted to pass it off as authentic"
"In fact no reference exists … are there Mr. Smarty?

[21]

Abusive edit sums deleting warnings on your user page are also personal attacks:

[22]
[23]

Stop. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. Thanks for the hearty laugh. The funniest being the double standard that you lavishly bestow upon your fellow editors. You can snidely reply to my challenge for a reference with sarcasm, but me calling you Mr. Smarty in response is a personal attack? You call my reasoning puerile (you're spelling that wrong,btw), and turn around and extol me to be civil? Saying you made something up is and attack? YOU DID MAKE IT UP!!! I didn't realize that was a valid debating technique, or that I wasn't allowed to point it out.

Mike, you're hardly living up to these lofty ideals you expect from the rest of us, so spare me the lectures. You have the nerve to respond to me in a discussion with snide sarcasm, and turn around and issue threats and warnings on my talk page for my equally sarcastic reply? You're being absolutely hypocritical about this. If you squint your eyes and look closer at these last few discussions we've had together, you might notice that the exchanges are always confrontational from both sides; yet your sarcasm is justified, while mine is uncivil? What a farce.

Look Mike, my primary interest, namely seeing that our views aren't entirely sanitize from Wikipedia, are increasingly being chipped away and vanishing. After more than two years of revert-warring with Cunado, and being challenged and spoken down to by the likes of you, who could be expected to assume good faith? A better question is why should I care, when you don't extend the courtesies you demand from others? If you intend on dealing with my concerns by intentionally mis-characterizing them in your responses, ignoring and not responding to direct challenges to your reasoning, and consistently speaking down to me with an heir of superiority, then you can expect more of the same from me.

If you really want to make a case to have me blocked on how I choose to call you out for being disingenuous by making things up, then you have my blessing. I find it utterly amusing what you choose to define as a personal attack; I define them as stating facts. By all means go to the Alert board with me describing your repeated unfounded "warnings" as whining in my talk page edit summaries, and with me calling you a "smarty-pants". Oh the humanity! I'm sure the damage to the Wiki-community has been irreversible. If nothing else I do want to thank you though for the hearty laughs your "warnings" have brought me. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 06:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break

You delete two fair warnings for personal attacks that include specific statements, reply on my talk page with a bogus "Warning" that's a repetition of material on your own, and then tell me I'm not to remove material from my talk page, when the talk page guidelines say I can? Can you see the hypocrisy? I see the harassment.

What you read as sarcasm is criticism of your arguments, or lack thereof. Proof by assertion is a fallacy, but unfortunately a method you favor. You can't call that what it is without calling it what it is. What you don't consider personal attacks are your statements and accusations about me or other editors. Can you see the hypocrisy?

If your arguments were more sound, and if you could keep your comments about your interlocutors to yourself, you'd be much more effective. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]