User talk:Jeffmichaud

Please DO NOT post comments about on-going discussions here. Post them to the discussion page. I don't like behind-the-scenes talking as I have nothing to hide; plus they don't benefit anyone being closed off to this page. I'm archiving previous "discussion oriented" comments, along with other items of no pariticular value. Please add all thanks and praises below, but if you have nothing nice to say, maybe just bite your tongue <:0) ~Jeff

• /Archive1 -01 January 2006

Vandalism

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

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)

Arbitration

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

"Drainage ditch"

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

WP:3RR

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

see Talk:Bostanai

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

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)