User talk:Jonashart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Better late than never?

Welcome!


Hello, Jonashart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maple warming

Thanks for the support on the maple syrup / global warming issue. Mickmaguire

[edit] License tagging for Image:Red stapler.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Red stapler.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RLST

I think all discussion is useful and I am glad we are talking for the world to read. Well, maybe someday. Jeff.t.mcdonald 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vermont Education

Thanks Jonas! It has been on my "to-do" list for a while. It covers a fair bit of history, and how it ties to the 1777 constitution. Now someone needs to really clean up the economy section. Overall a good page, and while I feel very proud of my homestate, too often people get blindsided by their idealism, and POV creeps in. I am sure I am guilty of that on some level too but have tried to stick to the facts!CApitol3 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] BC/AD and BCE/CE

This is a well-tread topic in Wikipedia, right up there with abortion and British vs. American spellings. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras, from which I quote, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article" ... "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" ... "Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable". Therefore the changes that you made to Confucianism, an article that was already uniformly using BC/AD dates were inappropriate; please refrain from making unilateral changes on touchy issues like this and join in the community discussion on the issue instead. --Marlow4 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for editing the Vermont Politics area. Great job! Student7 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tours

Thanks for pointing out that people should not unilaterally decide to add sourcing information without references. I was tired of arguing, and it was nice someone else spoke up. IT IS APPRECIATED! If he wants references, the Muslim histories also speak of a week of waiting and light skirmishes, as the invading Umayyad forces waited for their entire army to gather, so his claim it was "christian" sources is plainly wrong historically. old windy bear 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I left him a note saying that he should be checking the discussion we've had. And that if he has actual sources, he ought name them. But that labeling things 'Christian' or 'Muslim' is really not doing any good.--Jonashart 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Issues

Jonashart Greetings! If you have a chance, please go look at the argument over deleting the new article on macrohistorical battles crucial to the survival of European Civilization. Yes, it probably could be renamed, but the attacks on it are the same ones brought against our article on Martel and Tours. Your help would be GREATLY appreciated, here is the link to the debate on whether to delete what could be a very good article. [1] old windy bear 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU

Someone has added you to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear. Please note it was not me, although I did create the Oldwindybear RFCU request. --barneca (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Enough

I apologise, as I said I would. Please do not call for my head, it's not worth it. GDonato (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I feel it needs more than that, I acted with the best intentions of the project in mind. At no point did I try to cause anyone grief or difficulty, you were added because I genuinely thought something dangerous was happening not becuase I was trying to get appreciation or following some rulebook. You can judge me on the appropriateness of my actions. If you feel I done something genuinely bad then leave a note on my talk page; I will act on it. If you need anything, just ask. You remain in good standing and I thank you for your patience. My talk page is, as always, open. Best regards, GDonato (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Glad to help out. Thanks for the encouragement. It helps to know there are other editors who care about an article (as something besides a platform to harangue from). -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in united states

I got your message that you want to discuss something about the footbath controversy. Please feel free to do so. --NapoleansSword 14:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the critical aspect we're overlooking here is defining what makes something a credible source. As I've said before, just because we can find a quote from someone that we can cite, doesn't mean we've proven any given point. Just because it's not our opinion we're using, doesn't make that an unbiased source. The issue with citing a source like Frontpage Magazine is that they have a particular agenda. We cannot, in good faith, assume something to be true just because they say so. If, say, the NYTimes, CNN, 4 scholars, and two judges say that the footbaths are truly unconstitutional (and give their reasons), then that's pretty well sourced. It's no enough to say that someone else says so too. Sources need to be vetted, in a way. Unfortunately, I have yet to find and Wiki policy on sourcing, other than how to source. Now, that said, there is really nothing that is truly unbiased, in the sense that bias is just those influences that color one's perspective. But bias can be alot more than that, and when it comes to sourcing, we need to be aware of that. In short, there are good sources, and there are bad sources. The better the source, the more accurate the article.--Jonashart 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I would advise you to take a look at the sources again for that statement. They are indianapolis local news and msnbc. In any case FrontPageMag is also a reliable source because its not a blog and a newssource and there is no wiki policy against using it like you said. Some people might think that it is a little conservative but then people also criticize fox news for that. Doesnt mean its not reliable. NapoleansSword 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Because Frontpage Magazine isn't a blog and is a "new source" doesn't make it a reliable source. That's really poor logic. Read this: Reliable_sources and then tell me that Frontpage fits.--Jonashart 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jonas, I redirected a link in your "Sourcing" comment at Talk:Islam in the United States.

Hi, NS. I made a case against FrontPageMag (David Horowitz's publication) at your talk page. It's interesting that Jonas has expressed the same concern. He and I have not compared notes, so you might want to take this concern seriously.

It is not about whether we think Horowitz is right or wrong. It is about reliable sourcing. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Have you seen What Wikipedia is not? It's very helpful. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Frontpage magazine is NOT a source for the footbath issue. Read my post above and rechek the sources. For your convenience:

[2] [3]

Both the sources are saying that the footbaths have caused an "uproar" or "stir" but FCYTravis is arguing along the lines of where is the proof of other religions being denied the facility and is still saying its not a controversy. This is a clear violation of WP:Point NapoleansSword 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what is actually said: the 'uproar' and 'stir' is the issue being taken by one guy. One guy who, as a reverend of a different faith, is more likely have specific and biased opinion against Islam. Let alone that the guy's kid was killed in the current war. Thus, defining one guy's opinion as a "controversy" is stretching the definition. Now, one of the articles does mention another issue at the university as well. If there were a pattern of "controversy" as indicated by lots of these kinds of issues, that would be different. But one guy with an ax to grind a controversy does not make.--Jonashart 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Help request

replied on my talk page. --barneca (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jonas, I didn't forget your request, I've been meaning to take a look at Talk:Islam in the United States in depth for a while now, but it's so big and unwieldly that frankly I've been putting it off. Now, I've just discovered I'm leaving town for a week or so on short notice, and won't be on Wikipedia at all for a week or so. Haven't even looked at the page in 3 days, so I don't know if the logjam has been broken or not. Please leave me a quick note on my talk page if you'd still like me to look at it late next week, and I'd be happy to (no procrastination this time).
The only comment I have so far, after spending 1/2 hour looking thru the talk page (I couldn't muster the courage to look at the archives), is that the article might benefit from something slightly more formal, like mediation, or an article RfC. Don't even know if that's been tried yet, but with the slow motion edit wars and talking past each other on the talk page, a fresh set of eyes or two might not help all that much.
Sorry, by procastinating a couple of days, this trip is now turning it into a couple of weeks. Good luck with the article until then. --barneca (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No worries

It's always tough getting involved in discussions when it seems like the whole world is just plain dumb, deaf and blind. No worries my friend. Take care! ScarianTalk 19:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure no problem! You just gotta always remember to bite your lip. If you find yourself getting angry come find me and I'll be the third voice. It's not worth fighting over simple words on a free encyclopaedic. It's not like we're getting paid for this (Unfortunately)! ScarianTalk 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)