User talk:JonathanFreed

Hi. Welcome to my talk page.

If your concern is article-specific, please type it on the article's talk page and just put a link to that talk page here (if you must).

If you leave a article-specific comment here, then please note that I may archive it in its entirety away from my talk page and into the article's talk page.

Thanks!

Ohio county government

Thanks for deleting all the county gov't text [from the 88 Ohio county articles] and replacing it with a link to Ohio county government. I was seeing that same pointless boring boilerplate in every article that I added county courthouse photos to and I just thought it was awful. --Tysto 07:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! Moving that to its own separate article was one of those brilliant moves that made me exclaim, "Duh! Why didn't I think of that!" Kudos, JonathanFreed! -- SwissCelt 14:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was pointless to have this material convenient for users. PedanticallySpeaking 18:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. And altho it's boring to me, it's not boring to everyone. But one click away is still convenient. The best place for it is in its own article. --Tysto 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President

Thanks for editing my post on the vandalism. I'm new to editing on wikipedia. --Jordan.Kreiger 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor / Alito

(Note: I have moved the comments that were in this section to the Sandra Day O'Connor article's talk page, because they are specifically related to that article. That talk page already had some comments and now all of the comments will appear together. JonathanFreed 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Simmons (electronic drum company)

(Note: I have moved the comments that were in this section to the Simmons (electronic drum company) article's talk page, as they were specific to that article. JonathanFreed 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thomas Paine

Would you please see my remark at Talk:Thomas Paine#Further reading removed? Since this was your edit, I'd appreciate if you'd consider my disagreement with it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response made at TP talk page section. JonathanFreed 06:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cleft

I thought you would be interested in the latest post (at the bottom of that page) about renaming.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Get It

(Note: I have moved the comments that were in this section to the Mahoning County, Ohio article's talk page, as they were specific to that article. JonathanFreed 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ohio and the Midwest

I responded to your query (in Talk: Ohio) with some of the original language I wrote on this issue, just wanted to give you a heads up and see what you think —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbobjoe (talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Judicial System

Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1871 page and State Court jurisdiction, could you indicate the source which suggested State courts could NOT hear claims under section 1983? I suspect there is some misinformation out there that we may be able to chase down and correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.104.80 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Intellectual Property Links

Saw your most recent edit to the Intellectual property blanking the links. Of course, Wikipedia is not a collection of links and the IP article's external links section was out of control. But blanking the page without even mentioning it on the talk page seems a bit of an overreaction. I can't believe that you couldn't find a single link in that list worth keeping -- or another to put it in there.

It's a whole lot easier to remove information than it is to write it up and put it in. Be wary of that and try to be careful. At the very least you could have copied the information to the talk page. I'll go through the list now and copy it to the talk page. Please try to work with the community a little more on this next time. Thanks! —mako (talk•contribs) 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I have responded to mako on the Talk:Intellectual property page, as his comments here were specific to that article and he also left comments on that page. JonathanFreed 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Status of the Articles of Confederation

My notes on the subject:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/526/489.html, section 4 and Thomas dissent
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/521/898.html, fn10
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/520/564.html around fn13

...

Edit summary on German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis

Regarding [1] - yes, it does appear to have been copied from a book co-written shortly after the war by the XO of the ship. Details of the book are on Talk:German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis. Orpheus (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Dictatorship to Democracy

Hello, I've been working on the page From Dictatorship to Democracy, which you started. Nice beginning. Do you have a source for the following point of view about the book? I removed it because it seemed a bit too much like editorializing and WP:OR. However, if it can be cited to a source outside Wikipedia, it might be worthwhile to re-insert it (though probably not in the lede):

While the essay has been cited as a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, it focuses on past events and is more descriptive than prescriptive. Sharp has written an accompanying and more-prescriptive guide for people who wish to overthrow a dictatorship: Self-Liberation, A Guide to Strategic Planning for Action to End a Dictatorship or Other Oppression (First Edition, November 2009).

Thanks for your work on this article! -- Presearch (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for From Dictatorship to Democracy

On 4 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article From Dictatorship to Democracy, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy was described by CNN as "incendiary advice" that became a "viral pamphlet" that provided tactical guidance to the Arab Spring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/From Dictatorship to Democracy. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing references to medical marijuana in hyperemesis gravidarum

(Note: I am moving the comments that were in this section to the hyperemesis gravidarum article's talk page, as per my request at the top of my talk page and because they were specific to that article. JonathanFreed (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

(Note: Similarly moving comments from Biosthmors. JonathanFreed (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You have made your fourth revert in 24 hours to hyperemesis gravidarum. Would recommend to revert back you last edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at WP:AN3#User:JonathanFreed reported by Zad68 (Result: ). JonathanFreed (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JonathanFreed has been blocked by administrator EdJohnston from editing for a period of 24 hours after his finding that JonathanFreed has engaged in edit warring at Hyperemesis gravidarum. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:JonathanFreed reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24h).

My response to EdJohnston and the others' assertions at WP:AN3#User:JonathanFreed reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24h):

With respect, EdJohnston, I did indeed make a response to the observation that I had broken WP:3RR and you have flipped edit warring and 3RR on its head based on the evidence. You do not appear to have followed the guidance to administrators on WP:EW that "where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." Before I address corresponding specifics, please note that according to Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes, users who are considering deleting material should first "clarify it instead of throwing it away." And, editors are over-doing it if they are "criticizing instead of editing". (These points are in their respective sections' first bullet points.)

Regarding specifics, I was not the one who was throwing away others' material. Instead, it was my contributed material that was being criticized and thrown away by others instead of being constructively edited. The first 3RR that occurred was actually committed by Jmh649 when Jmh649 threw away the material I contributed. Specifically see the following reversions by Jmh649 that followed my addition of material at 2013-01-30T18:20:41‎.

2013-01-30T18:44:03‎ Jmh649 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,488 bytes) (-2,767)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 534949544 by TylerDurden8823: removed poorly supported content. (TW)) (undo)
2013-01-30T19:28:45‎ Jmh649 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,488 bytes) (-2,767)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by JonathanFreed (talk): No none of these are suitable sources. (TW)) (undo)
2013-01-31T06:10:01‎ Jmh649 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,014 bytes) (-242)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 535817838 by JonathanFreed: removed primary source again. (TW)) (undo)

Furthermore, and again, I did not just revert three or more times. Instead I significantly changed what I contributed in consecutive edits ([2], [3]) and thereby edited in a constructive manner to avoid 3RR. I changed what I contributed in an attempt to address concerns, as opposed to the others that just deleted and did not actually edit.

That being said, I respect that there is a consensus among the article's editors that have been active since 22 January that is different from that of the editors that kept a reference to medical marijuana in the article since 2007. Therefore, and in light of your action, whatever its valid or invalid justification, I will proceed to develop consensus on the talk page before adding any more material about medical marijuana to the hyperemesis gravidarum article. It appears that consensus among the active editors is that there should not be any reference whatsoever to medical marijuana in the article. We shall see.

Lastly, if Zad68's apparent assertion that time makes consensus is true ("there's an argument that Doc's removal on 22 January was the previous consensus" because the material was not readded until January 30), then clearly the fact that a reference to medical marijuana has been in the article since 2007 indicates that there is a consensus among active editors since 2007 that such a reference should remain.

JonathanFreed (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonathan. I am glad you are considering new options, but please don't edit my comments. You are allowed to remove them, but per WP:TPO you should not edit them. Also you should get users' permission if you want to move their talk postings from one page to another. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, pursuant to WP:UP#CMT, comments, notices, and warnings are three different things, and what you left is arguably a notice, and therefore the restriction on editing comments that you cited is not relevant to the edit I made. In any case, the total removal of comments and non-active notices is allowed. So, I am now totally removing your "comment". In its place, I am adding a notice that does not include your signature but still lets people know that I was blocked, by whom, and why. I'm sure you will let me know if you think that is unacceptable. JonathanFreed (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of introduction to hyperemesis gravidarum

(Note: Pursuant to my notice and my policy about this talk page, I have removed talk. It essentially just duplicated what the author put at the article talk page, Talk:Hyperemesis gravidarum. JonathanFreed (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]