User talk:Jdcaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Jdcaust! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Thank you for the editing barnstar! I appreciate your taking the time to acknowledge my efforts to improve the Israel article. It certainly has been rocky going...--Gilabrand 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you've put a lot of hardwork in and I just want you and the others to know someone has noticed. --Jdcaust 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tireless Contributor - Featured Artcile

Thanks a lot for the barnstar; I'll put it on my user page. Also, you should probably create a user page, even if it's just a blank page; the red link just screams "newbie". -- tariqabjotu 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You deserve the barnstar! I know you put a lot of hardwork in. Thanks for the advice. I started the userpage. Its a little sparse now, but I'll put some more in later. --Jdcaust 18:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Israel

I am really fighting for the position held by the cited source in Talk:Israel to be correctly represented. I took your suggestion into consideration, and on top of that, linked eighteen countries to the list of the eighteen countries that Freedom House includes in that region, and on top of that added a footnote (which I am not sure if it is even called for as per WP guidelines) to clarify Tariqabjotu's apparent view, despite the fact that WP:REF reminds us that WP is not the place for our own opinions or original research). But anyway, I did that--to express the opinion of the source citing a publication in which it holds that position, linking to a list of countries that are considered by the source to be a part of this never-completely-defined region so users can see out of which countries, and including a challenge against the position of the source. As I constantly say, all of this is pretty much covered in WP:Citing sources#Adding new content. I saw that you recognized the need to refer to the source, and I am happy to see you cooperate. I see you havent edited in the last few days. If you would, I think a comment would be helpful. --Shamir1 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on the use of this sentence proposed in Talk:Israel#Freedom House text? --Shamir1 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Automatic Peer Review

Another peer review this time a Semi Automatic Peer Review has been done to help this article achieve GA. Good luck. SriMesh | talk 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and help. I'll be getting to the changes next week, but I've just been so busy. Hopefully I can get this thing up to snuff! --Jdcaust 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RFC discussion of User:Shamir1

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Shamir1 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shamir1. -- -- tariqabjotu 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Since I tried and failed at mediation, I'm inclined to endorse tariqabjotu's take of things." You do know that that is not true, and that Tariqabjotu did not mention your compromise as a compromise. Trying and failing at mediation does not put the blame on me.
"I do believe you are a honest editor who only wants to improve the articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, everyone involved became impassionated about the wording of a single sentence." Perhaps but does that give Tariqabjotu the right to ignore WP:SYN and not discuss content, even to a mediator? I wanted to resolve the dispute, I always stayed on topic and edited to fit the issues. Even so, I suggested mediation to resolve to correctly follow the guidelines, but he refused. You talked about "continuing" the discussion. Couldnt it have ended with your compromise? I understand you take your compromise back, but is it fair to come back now and blame me for going ahead and considering what you wrote? It could have also ended with the edit suggested by Taz00, who said that the Tariq's issue with the sentence could be solved. Couldnt it have ended with mediation? One user refused all of that, forcing us to continue to bump heads. And this all shows the will to end it properly. I appreciate your input, but feel your decision has been made too rash. I dont see why I should be blamed for responding to editors on talk and referring to WP guidelines. I dont see why I should be blamed for taking up a compromise you suggested or that other users suggested. I dont see why I should be blamed for suggesting mediation and other ways that may formally resolve the dispute, which is based on content. Perhaps you feel that I shouldve done things better, but I dont feel like these reasons are right.
Lastly, it doesnt seem like you noticed what you probably should. On the request for comment, I said that if Tariqabjotu's desired outcome will end this, then it should happen. I will not have time for this anyway, and I already know of other ways to improve the article, including the introduction. I have been involved with the article for much longer than most of us have. It seems that you are mislead, I think you should reconsider. I always pushed for dispute resolution and named the policies, and to this day Tariqabjotu has yet to even try to prove that that sentence would contradict any policy. Discussion was limited to policies, and I was always answering other editors. To other editors, I was making different suggestions per each issue that arose, but too many editors here are too opinionated. I thank you for your cooperation. --Shamir1 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I kindly ask that you take this back.[1] I don't think it is fair to write that after I had written this, which I am assuming you did not notice.[2] When it is written after that, it is undue, and only makes things look worse, which I dont think you intend. --Shamir1 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Shamir, I understand your frustration with me, even if I disgree with you. First off, I apologize its taken me this long to get back to you. I have been somewhat busy, with only enough time to make a few edits here and there. Regarding the business at hand, I don't know that I've ever agreed with you regarding WP:SYN. I offered my compromise because it frustrated me that you and Tariqabjotu kept going back and forth with little progress. My perspective was that I could understand where both sides were coming from and that I believed you truly did want to help out, regardless of what the other editors purported. After reading the exhaustive arguments after I put forth my compromise, I realized two things. First, I had only made things worse and should have stayed out of the argument all together. I didn't realize how deep most of this went. Second, I never realized that the wording that was there had been established by a large consensus of editors. Parts of my wording had apparently been offered before and shot down. With these two things combined, I felt that I should retract my compromise, recognize that I made things worse, and apologize to all parties involved. When I mentioned stubbornness, I was referring to both sides, not just you. In this way, I feel that my comments were appropriate for the situation at hand.
I do want to respond to claims that I'm blaming you or making things look worse. I'm not sure either is true. If you read where I signed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shamir1, I am committing to two things:
  • That I certfied the basis for the dispute. I do feel that the dispute, as described, occurred in that way.
  • That I tried and failed to resolve the dispute. My attempt at compromise was exactly that.
Although some may see my signature as signing on to more than that, that is all I intended to mean. I feel that it should be all anyone should think I mean. I'm really not blaming you for anything. If anything, I don't think anyone is truly at fault. However, I do agree with you that you have been unfairly blamed on Talk:Israel. I wish I had noticed this when this was occurring as I should have commented. If this happens again, please let me know, because I do not think that this was fair.
Finally, I don't think I should remove my comments from the talk page. I wrote what I wrote before I read anything at the bottom of the dispute page. Further, I don't think it really reflects poorly on you as its mostly me taking responsibility for stirring the pot and asking you to end the disagreement, which you did. If there's something in particular that I said that you object to, please let me know and perhaps I can strike that and mention that I hadn't read the dispute resolution yet.
The one thing I do object to, Shamir, is your continued editting of your comments on my talk page without signing them. This is misleading as you only signed those comments on October 17th, but your edits on the page continued until October 19th. If you wanted to continue to add points and comments, you should have tabbed them out and signed them like you did the first time.
In any case, I'm sorry that its come to this. I'm glad to see you are staying around the Israel page regardless of the hostility that occurred. I know that you are a fair-minded editor that is easily impassioned. There's nothing wrong with that and I hope that all of this hasn't deterred you from continuing to be bold. Good luck in the future. --Jdcaust 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Second, I never realized that the wording that was there had been established by a large consensus of editors. Parts of my wording had apparently been offered before and shot down. With these two things combined, I felt that I should retract my compromise, recognize that I made things worse, and apologize to all parties involved. When I mentioned stubbornness, I was referring to both sides, not just you. In this way, I feel that my comments were appropriate for the situation at hand. Is any of the above mentioned my fault? If you feel your compromise (which failed on the count of one editor) should be retracted, that is not my fault. And by the way, that compromise was made even more pro-Tariq by me than with your edit.

First of all, remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so your observation (which is exemplified by your compromise and consideration of the source) can just as so be a good one. I dont see how constantly editing a sentence in accordance with WP:REF, taking on and solving every issue with it brought up by editors (and editing it further accordingly), and on top of that, suggesting and requesting mediation shows any stubbornness. I dont see it at all. All the issues that Tariqabjotu claimed to be concerned about were solved by the end, as other editors said. I think he became too opinionated to even see that, or the concerns he stated had not truly been the concerns he was concerned about.

The biggest problem with editing Wikipedia is editors using their personal opinion as a basis for editing. Judgment should be made in reference to cited sources and Wikipedia policies. Many editors easily get this. Unfortunately, many, including most of the newbies and some who recently posted sections, do not. Personal opinion and conclusions are not legitimate arguments to consider, they must come from verifiable information published by a reputable source.

Lastly, in addition to the matters you say you have done, your signature in that place does in fact directly endorse his opinion and blames me as the cause of the failure of the dispute. I am not sure if this seems to be your exact position. Thanks for getting back to me. --Shamir1 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective Awards?

I saw an award on "okedem" page for "The Barnstar of Diligence" with the following quote: "For your hard work on the Israel article, as well as your even-handed and fair arguing throughout the discussions on the Israel discussion page. Your contributions helped Israel earn featured article status." I think you should reword and make it more accurate. I am neither Israeli not Palestinian and having seen his remarks and statements I have to say he is biased in his views. If he had contributed a lot to the Israeli page then award him for that but not for what you said as "even-handed and fair arguing throughout the discussions on the Israel discussion page" because it is not true. He is Pro-Israel and therefore has been and most likely will be biased in most all discussions in the Israel discussion page. This award in some way questions your experience and criteria when issuing awards.Randyqs 13:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Randy, are you serious? Its my decision alone who I do and do not award Barnstars to. I awarded the Barnstar based on my opinion that okedem worked hard and argued fairly. You might completely disagree with me, but that's beside the point. There's no objective standard for determining fairness, so while you may believe what I said is untrue, I fully believe it be true. I think okedem was even-handed in all of his arguing and tried his best to keep the Israel page NPOV. In fact, the featured article reviewers seem to all agree with me as they awarded FA status to the article. Question my experience and criteria all you want, but I refuse to reword anything and I stand by my claims. Besides, who gave you the right to criticize and judge any editor's experience or Barnstar criteria? I kindly ask you to either contribute or move on. Telling me I'm wrong in recognizing another wikipedia editor serves no constructive purpose. --Jdcaust 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I noticed you deleted my response from your talk page completely. Very honest of you. --Jdcaust 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination: Alan Keyes

I've reviewed Alan Keyes in response to your nomination for GA status, and I've placed the result on hold for seven days because of three instances of uncited information. You now have seven days' time to find sources for or remove uncited information before I make a decision. I also ask you to please alert me on my talkpage when you are done making the changes. Thank you. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the three citations. I found a good source for one, an ok source for the other, and deleted one fact because I couldn't find any sources. The ok source is from the diplomat section. The only thing I could find was an article about the straw polls from his election campaign site. I'll remove it if you think its unreliable. Let me know. The deleted fact was pretty contentious, so if unsourced, its better off being deleted anyway. One other question. I noticed in the review under "No original research" the article received a "?". Is there something questionable in the article that I can fix? In any case, I think this covers what you wanted. I've posted this on the discussion page as well. Thanks for reviewing this. I also appreciate getting the chance to make the last few changes to get this up to snuff. --Jdcaust 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The "?" next to "No OR" was simply because of the lack of sources for those three facts - there was no way to tell whether they were OR or not. I'll go ahead and re-assess the article now. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Israel

Any chance of you estending your interest to the History of Israel? I could do with some sane help. Telaviv1 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Keyes

I removed one unreliable source: http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/2668/Alan_Keyes_a_conservative_voice, which I explained here.

I removed two broken links: http://www.declarationalliance.us/then_and_now.php (which is still broken because of an unresolved hostname) and http://www.mesora.org/_private/alankeyes.html (which is now repaired but inaccessible yesterday).

I did not remove any other information.

I did not add any information, with the exception of an access date in the first reference of the 2000 US Presidential campaign section.

Detailing each minor change of a full stop or comma in individual edits is an unnecessary waste of my time and yours.

I will not change my editing style. I will not change my edit summaries. I will continue to write edit summaries, as I have done, which are wholly appropriate and correct. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I need to apologize as I have a little egg on my face for this. The large "addition" I thought I saw was wikipedia misinterpretting a spacing change in section on an area of controversy for Keyes. Wikipedia red-marked an entire paragraph as an addition. See the edit summary here between line 87 and 119. As for the broken links, one is still broken. I thought I had checked it, but I must have clicked a different one by accident. Mesora still works, so I'm guessing they had server maintence or something similar when you checked it. Finally, as I said above, you were right on the inappropriate source and I replaced it with one from the Boston Globe. All in all, my comments stem from thinking you added a large amount of new information when in fact, I trusted wikipedia's misinterpretation of a spacing change. I hope you can understand my consternation if, in fact, that had been true. Please accept my apology for my mistake. --Jdcaust (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, and the changes to the page. The only thing I'm concerned about now is the passage from Bloom's book. The excerpt itself is referenced but there should be a reference for linking the passage in the book to Keyes, who isn't named personally. Who said that Bloom is referring to Keyes? DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikignat's editing

FYI, Wikignat asked that the page be protected because you were allegedly putting Wikipedia "at risk for a lawsuit". The request was declined. [3] JamesMLane t c 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not sure what gets him so worked up over this. He did make a few constructive edits to the page after the first attempt to get rid of that material. Hopefully, this will end here. Thanks again for your help. Its always nice to have an independent editor come in and give his view. --Jdcaust (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject St. Louis

 Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and sub-categories

I note that you have been putting articles in both category:Indian Christians and category:Indian Roman Catholics. The policy on categories says that:

Usually, articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory.

Otherwise, head categories would be extremely full or articles in a way that gives no additional information. As you say, Roman Catholics are also Christians, so there is no need to add the Christian category to an article that is already categorised in (for instance) Roman Catholics.

I hope this is clear, but feel free to discuss with me if not. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was watching Dinesh D'Souza and noticed someone had changed Christian to Roman Catholic. Having seen similar edits before (not with categories), I admit I jumped a bit fast noticing that an anonymous editor changing these categories. Seeing as these were his only contributions, I thought it looked like the editor had an agenda and that this would better left to those who edit those pages. As it is, I did not know about this general guideline and I apologize as it seems these were your actualy your edits. I do have a few questions about this, however. If you subcategorize the Indian Christians category, does that category list each of these subcategories? Further, if one were simply interested in Indian Christians in general, how would one get a list of these? After all, concerning Christianity, not everyone is always interested in dividing Roman Catholics from Protestants. Many look at them as different sects in the same religion, as many non-Muslims would not care to subcategorize Shia and Sunni if they were looking for a list of Muslims. Basically, I just want to make sure that this makes surfing wikipedia easier, rather than more difficult. Thank you for coming here and letting me know about the guideline, however. I learn something new about wikipedia all the time. --Jdcaust (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the category lists each of the sub-categories. For Indian Christians in general, the article List of Indian Christians may be a good place to start, as it should list the most notable people in a structured format. It's generally considered that categories with hundreds of entries make surfing Wikipedia more difficult, not less, and that it is better to divide large categories using appropriate criteria. Don't worry about your edits - I used a software tool, WP:POPUPS, to revert some of them quickly. Hope this helps, Fayenatic (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I swear I learn new things about Wikipedia every day. --Jdcaust (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SLU stuff

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis/Education/SLU. I just started it. I figured userboxes would be a start. If you don't like them, feel free to alter them. DaronDierkes (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)