This page is an archive of my talk page. Please do not modify it. If you would like to comment about anything on this page, please use . No further edits should be made to this page.

Past discussions on my talk page may be found on the following archive pages. My personal talk page archiving policy may be found at User:Jdavidb/Talk archiving

• /Archive1 (2005-09-28 18:32:28 UTC)
• /Archive2 (14:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC))
• /Archive3 (15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
• /Archive4 (14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
• /Archive5 (15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dersonlwd Talk 14:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, David. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see someone with your musical perspective added to the group of Wikipedia "editors". I've left a comment on the singing school talk page also. - Rlvaughn 21:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Rlvaughn. Thanks for taking an interest in my singing school article. I'm glad to have someone with your additional perspective helping. Going to be quite busy in the next few days, but I can't wait to come back and add more info. Jdavidb 15:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I left a question on Talk:Ronald Reagan: my understanding is that Reagan was indeed the first divorced man to be president. But if you have other information about Jackson, I'd love to be corrected! - Nunh-huh 20:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong on that. Misunderstood that it was Jackson's wife who was divorced, not Jackson himself. Jdavidb 19:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If nothing else, looking it up taught me that Jackson was one of the (presumably) few presidents who have "married" (and lived with) a married woman!<g> - Nunh-huh 20:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, at least we all learned something. :) Jdavidb 15:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the GREAT edits to the American Standard Version article. They have made the article more informative. I agree about the Internet copies. I can't believe the error rate that there is in them! But I guess that it's better than nothing. iHoshie 03:31, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! It's made my day to see that I did something somebody found useful here. :) I have hope that at some point the ASV text will be loaded into Wiksource where it can be collaboratively corrected. Jdavidb 18:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh and/or Fanger, please discuss here what you might know about use of an apostrophe in the possessive of a singular noun already ending in s, specifically the possessive of Jesus. Thanks. Jdavidb 14:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Gilgamesh of Fanger, but see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and search for Making possessives. Style sheets don't agree on such things, in part because people's pronunciations don't agree. Jesus'  was the standard way of doing it but some now use Jesus's. And people get very hotted up about the apostrophe issue. jallan 17:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for the delayed response. I have not been around much, and indeed may not be around much in future. It's an interesting subject, and as Jallan and you have said there is much interpretation and disagreement. I really only reacted quite so strongly because of something in the other user's tone of voice, which cheesed me off. As you probably know, if you do a Google on "apostrophe jesus moses" you'll get about 84 billion pages discussing it. My favourite reference in a book I regard as very useful is the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors and it is clear about the exception for "ancient names" (or something) and quotes examples like "Jesus' love" and "Moses' law". It probably does not matter a great deal, and almost certainly matters less than courtesy between users! Thank you for raising it. Goodbye for now. --Fanger 07:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feedback re: removing links to commercial sites. A massive majority of websites are commercial. This is doubly true in areas such as entertainment. Thus it is not inappropriate that Wikipedia links to such sites in general. The crux point is that such an external link should be worthwhile (e.g. it should be the best fan site devoted to Brad Pitt, or whoever). When an anon goes round adding virtually identical links to lots of articles, this criteria is very rarely satisfied and so it is right to remove the links, as you have been doing - I just wanted to point the reason for removal is because they are poor links, not commercial ones. I hope you don't think I am being too petty by labouring this distinction. Pcb21| Pete 20:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I earnestly agree with you! Yes, the problem is not that they are commercial, but that they are not worthwhile. I simply adopted the same wording used by some who came before me deleting the same links. In the case of the two sites I have (so far) singled out, these appear to be vanity links to drive traffic to the sites in question, presumably posted by the owners of the sites. The first one purports to sell archives of U.S. government papers on certain topics - not a useful link for further (free) research. The second is someone's "news" site ... site apparently has access to some limited database of news and has set up a lot of virtual hosts in his domain named for various celebrities; visiting a site named for a celebrity yields a couple of news articles that include the celebrity's name (nothing a person couldn't have done on a news site, and not even necessarily directly related) followed by a very large section (10-12 headlines) of articles that are billed as "News Related to <celebrity name>" but are not.

THANK YOU for making the distinction. It is that kind of precision that makes Wikipedia a good encyclopedia as well as a pleasant and productive community. I do not have any problem with commercialism per se, myself, including commercial websites. You are quite correct that the vast majority of websites are, of course "commercial." Jdavidb 21:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I advocate home education for those who want to. Not only is it a great and flexible way of learning, but you get to go to places, follow your interests, and make friends all over the country and abroad.

I am quite interested in how your wife got on in later years of home education. Did she go to college and/or university or did she go and get a job? --Spe88 18:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My wife completed a custom course of secondary education at home which as near as I can tell is roughly comparable to most high school Texas educations (though I would have liked more math). Most of her secondary education was self-paced and self-taught, and she completed more than a year early. She then entered a local junior college and acquired a certificate in a field of her choice (something less than an associate's degree, I believe, but still requiring two years of work), then transferred to a four year state university in my area and is on track to complete a bachelor's degree in linguistics in a year and a half to two years. She receives A's in almost all courses. She is surprised at the inability of many entering college students to learn on their own from books, something which she has been doing for longer than she can remember. Like many college students, she has changed her major multiple times, which has slowed her down somewhat, or she would be finished by now. :) Jdavidb 16:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay,David if that is not the method and purpose of the bible what is it? Put answer in Bible discussion. Remember no personal opinon.

Charlie

1. Please put comments under a new heading, not at the top of the page.
2. Please discuss it on the talk page for the article.
3. That is not the purpose of the Bible for everyone. If you want to say that's the purpose the authors had in mind, say so. If you want to say that's the purpose modern readers have, say which readers.
4. Yes, that is more or less the purpose of the Bible for me, and perhaps for you, but not for everyone.
5. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please get an account.

Jdavidb 15:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks David, I'm not that interested in the subject. Just how would you define it to someone who had never heard of it before? Wikipedia is too much of a popularity contest and lack of expertise. I have yet too run into good professional biblical scholarship. But I have certainly come across a lot of suspicion and paranoia. I have often wondered how Galileo would have fared on here. Not to well, me thinks. Thanks for your kind words.

Charlie Turek  charlesturek@comcast.net

If you want to discuss a change to an article, the best place to discuss is on the article's talk page. (Click "discuss this page" on the article.)

Well, the article already says "The Bible is the primary sacred scripture of both the Jewish and Christian religions," and "Some religious sects, notably, several of the 'Protestant' Christian sects, believe the Bible to be the ultimate and authoritative guide in all spiritual matters." What exactly do you want to add to the article that is not already said there?

I'm sorry if you think Wikipedia has some drawbacks. It's not perfect, but I think it's a wonderful place to be. Jdavidb 19:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

I don't understand why the use of this phrase is not NPOV. --Eleassar777 21:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please carry this discussion to the talk page of Pope John Paul II. I will explain here, but we need to reach consensus there. (Unfortunately the discussion was just archived, so we may need to start it again.)

Basically it is not NPOV because there are a number of Protestants who do not believe that Peter could even have any legitimate successors. Some have stated in the discussion that the dispute is only over the extent of his powers, but I don't think they have the whole picture of Protestantism. There are many who don't believe Peter could be succeeded, and there are probably some who believe he could but who don't believe the Pope is a legitimate successor. This doesn't even get into Eastern Orthodox -- I don't know if they accept him as a "successor of Peter" or not. (I think they probably do.)

Let's talk there for consensus and compromise. Maybe we can say, "26Nth successor of Peter, to the Roman Catholic Church." Jdavidb 22:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, thanks for the smilely on Talk:Pope John Paul II, but I'm not exactly sure what I fixed. I rhink I was just reverting the anon edits because the user deleted a large section of the text, not because of the sucessor number.

By the way, the Vatican web site uses "264th pope." And Eastern Orthodox recongize him as the successor of Peter, they just believe that he does not have legitimate authority over their Church. Oh, and I'm sorry if my talk page archive disrupted any conversations you were having, but the page was 102 kb long, and it probably should have been done long ago. Cheers, Bratsche^talk 04:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Anytime! Hey, do you think the Pope article could be a featured article once all the dust settles? Bratsche^talk 04:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) Source of Reply

I think definitely. It's got good pictures, very thorough, NPOV, etc. Jdavidb 13:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious what you view is on NCdave's RFC. You and I bumped heads on the Terri article about the Terri-in-disabled-state photo and you showed me an angle I hadn't considered... We reached an agreement, and I felt that the result was better than what I could have done on my own. I haven't been recently editing that article, because there was just too much pressure from users who seem to refuse to behave as reasonably as you did. ... and checking in, it seems to be getting worse now that the matter has hit the Terri blogs. **sigh** In any case, thanks for being a grade A wikipedian. :) --Gmaxwell 05:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It means a lot to be called a grade A Wikipedian, and it means even more to hear that I successfully showed you a new angle. Wikipedia has been so very expansive for me, and it is very gratifying to help contribute to it being that way for others.

I have put a comment on the RFC, but I've decided to try to focus on the article rather than his behavior, because to be honest, I've been more focused on the article than his behavior to the extent that I don't think I could honestly say I know if he is being railroaded or not (though I have my suspicions).

I really enjoyed our collaboration on that image. There is a different image there today, and the text is far better than anyone could have come up with on their own. We all made something great together. And we gave everybody's views a fair shake.

I think in this charged environment, possibly because of NCdave, a double standard is being applied. There are more changes that need to be made to the article to make it NPOV. But any attempt to report the Schindler's POV is met with all kinds of unfair excuses, "The article is too big; that would be bloat," or "That poll is unscientific." Pardon me, but it is NEVER up to Wikipedia to decide truth. We contextualize and report in a factual manner. Most of the time when people are objecting, their objections should be included in the article along with the material they are objecting to, rather than removing the material. And that is exactly what we did for that image, and it worked out great. And this is a double-standard; we don't get to ask the same questions or raise the same issues with the Michael Schiavo POV.

I just want all the chaos to die down so I can get in the article and help make it better without having my changes reverted on sight by people who don't want to take time to think or discuss, and people who don't even comment on what they are doing in the edit summary. I want each view on this subject to get a fair shake.

NPOV is a beautiful "treaty," to me. It is our international law in the midst of anarchy. Please forgive me if I gush a bit, but I honestly think the NPOV policy is one of the most impressive innovations in human history and ranks up alongside historic documents like the Magna Carta and United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The amazing thing is that it is something we can all agree on. People who DO have a point of view can still make unbiased, neutral edits that will be acceptable to the other side.

If we forsake NPOV, if we allow the Michael Schiavo side to carry the day and dictate truth for the article, we have done an extraordinary disservice to the Wikipedia community and to the Wikipedia audience: all of humanity.

If we have to kick people out (from either or both sides) to make editing the article peaceful enough, then it ought to be swift and certain. (I think Wikipedia is transitioning on this ... looking forward to days when this policy is clearer.) I'm a believer in instant no-questions asked bans of increasing duration (from one week to permanent) for violations of the three-revert rule. I have a feeling NCdave has probably violated that one many times; we probably could have solved this a long time ago.

There's some basic decency standards we need to ask all sides to follow: the three-revert rule, required explanations of changes in the edit summary rather than reverting and hoping the other side won't notice, and working for consensus in the talk page. If you could convince some of the people you know editing this article to hold to these higher standards, I would be so appreciative, and Wikipedia would be so much better. I've learned that I need to pick small changes (like the picture), start discussion on the talk page, propose my changes, work for consensus, and then watch like a hawk and call people on it when they revert my changes without commenting or without discussing. I think it really surprises people and helps build my case when they see me editing conscientiously, wanting to discuss rather than wanting to participate in a silent edit war. And we can all expose each other to more than we would have considered otherwise, and make Wikipedia something better than any one faction could have done on it's own.

I'm in contact with some of the guys from the blogs and have tried to encourage the higher-standard behavior. And I don't know about fly-by-night editors who might pop up and replace the entire article in a single blow, but several have listened to me and, I hope, are working on holding to that higher standard. We can all recognize and agree (eventually) on how to word an article so that it will be acceptable to all points of view, but we have to be talking and listening to do it. And we gain so much from the experience. :)

Thanks again. Jdavidb 14:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear, though I don't have time to reply to all in detail. As far as additional edits go, I didn't see the need when I last read the complete article (which has been a while), but thats exactly the point: we have a different perspective on the matter so we will see different things, thats fine as long as we both know how to use NPOV to come to an agreement. The problem you face is that bad editors like NCdave have soured everyone who doesn't hold a position simmlar to his (and perhaps those who do, as well), so it's far less likely that the other editors are even willing to discuss these matters with you. There *are* other editors who should be able to work rationally with you, but everyone has a differing tolerance level... and I think that most have crossed that bound already. It's very difficult to edit out bad POV inserts made by bad-actors like NCdave, so at some point editors break and just start removing everything on that side.... It's not right, but from their posistion it seems unlikely that additional edits will be NPOV (because in their mind it's already in a good state), and it's too hard to sort things out if you're just going to have to argue with a brick wall at the end. Because of this issue I've started speaking up on your behalf, thought not yet in the Terri talkpage (because I'm still resisting getting sucked back in, perhaps if NCdave ends up barred from making edits there...). It is my hope that I can advance the idea that you are someone that editors on the other side should strive to work with to improve the article. You might be interested in my comments on User_talk:Professor_Ninja. --Gmaxwell 02:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jdavidb, I hesitate to jump into such troubled waters, but I feel obliged to offer my comments on some of your recent contributions. I am doing this because I believe you are commited to NPOV (your treaty comments were very well put), and hope that you will be big enough to accept these remarks in the spirit with which they are intended. I have observed your use of terms like "anti-Terri" and "pro-Terri" to refer to those with POVs supportive of Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers respectively. Given that Michael alleges (and the courts have, at least to some extent, agreed) that he has enacted Terri's wishes, I'm asking you to give some consideration to whether these terms are appropriately NPOV. I realise that you're using them in talk (and off Wikipedia), not in articles, but I hope that you can see how people may find these terms pejorative amd inflamatory, and consequently doubt your commitment to NPOV. Bovlb 04:26, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Hello. Since you were part of an earlier discussion on the name of this page, could you take a look at it again? This page was originally at Yogurt but some time ago it was moved to Yoghurt (where it is now). There is a request on WP:RM to move it back, and I think the policies say it should be, but that is being disputed. Regards. Jonathunder 16:53, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to get rid of link spam. Ive removed a lot myself in the past. If you ever need support on somthing, over a dispute or whatever, let me know. There have been cases where I clean up an articles external link section (Literature comes to mind) and ive removed dozens of links leaving just a few, all of them self-serving advertising. It would be good if Wikipedia had a better policy for external links, such as requireing an explanation on why its relevant to the article is one thought. Stbalbach 16:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message of support! Jdavidb 18:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with your attitude to linkspam. You have summarised its characteristics very well your page dedicated to the topic. I have seen (and reverted) enough of it in my time to know. Cheers --PhilipO 23:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hey David, I just thought that Restorationism is one article you may want to look at. I've done some minor stuff to it, but it needs a little more work. Carltonh 23:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're high quality articles from an encyclopedic source, and on topic. I'm inclined to keep most of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From User:AFethke, moved from my user page:

Well it may be generally acceped, but I don't and it is my page, thank you very much! Play police somewhere else.

11:16, 3 August 2005

I notice you've been removing this category from various roguelikes, some of which I probably added myself - apologies if that was inappropriate.

In my experience the phrase "open source" is regularly used in two quite distinct manners, one being the strict sense promoted by FSF, and the other more vernacular sense of "you can download the source code and compile it if you want".

It is additionally confusing that Category:open source claims to be in the process of deferring to Category:Free software, but I haven't yet found the discussions that led to that. However presumably there must still be a category that does catch the "you can download ..." sense where the stricter sense doesn't apply, and I don't know of a name to call it other than "open source" - do you know of such a category? Hv 02:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JDavid,

I left you a note on the homeschool article talk page and then I went to my talk page and read your welcome and comments about how to do things. I think I made some more mistakes(didn't put the post at the bottom, didn't use the~~(okay, I just found that little mark on my computer keyboard. You're right, I should figure out how this works before posting again. I'll read the articles you recommended. Thanks for being understanding.~~Linda Kelley~~ Did I do that right?

Can I ask you to consider, on the category talk page, whether this is really an appropriate Wikipedia category? DJ Clayworth 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the project wholeheartedly. Part of the problem I see is that the ambiguity in Wikipedia:Spam, and even Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides a means for spammers to (intentionally or not) game the system. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that I'm going to be on an indefinite WikiBreak soon. After this weekend, I'll be gone, but I'll probably make an appearance next weekend if I can. Anyway, for what it's worth, I'll sign on. Tell me i there's anything you want my help with this weekend. And I suggest that you publicize/ask for comment on the Village Pump, see what happens. Sorry that I can't do more than that, but this is a Good Thing to do! Dmcdevit·t 21:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind directly signing the consensus statement with ~~~~? The user is currently complaining about his block. Add something stronger if you like. - Taxman ^Talk 19:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jdavidb, we don't often edit the same articles, but anytime I've been on one of the pages you were active at, I could see that you care a lot about NPOV. If you have time, and if this doesn't clash too much with your main interests, could you have a quick look at Bernard Cardinal Law. I found what I considered to be clear NPOV violations (e.g. "the infamous Cardinal Law" . . . "Law's name has become known nationwide for his scandalous behavior in the Church, and he is arguably recognized as the most corrupt official the Roman Catholic Church has had in centuries"), and I removed them as well as doing a little bit of rewording. The editor who had put them in reverted me with an edit summary "rv false pov claims by Ann Heneghan". I reverted again, objecting again to the use of the word "infamous". The editor reverted me, but then voluntarily removed "infamous", though leaving the other changes.

Because I'm a Catholic, I'm not necessarily the best person to have a clear idea on NPOV for this article. I have a strong sense of outrage at Cardinal Law's reassignment of offending priests. I also have a strong wish not to have the Church in general appear in a bad light. (I have heard that Pope John Paul was never made aware of the Law situation, though obviously people who don't want to believe that won't believe it.) I think I'm going to stay away from that article for the moment. It might be good if someone who isn't Catholic or anti-Catholic took a look at it, solely for the purpose of making it NPOV. I promise it wouldn't be as time-consuming as getting involved in Terri Schiavo! Thanks.

By the way, I like the photo of the baby! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I just wanted to take a moment to say first, congratulations on the marriage! Looking at the data, it looks like your honeymoon was right about two weeks long :) Second, congratulations on your new boy! I've got little ones of my own (youngest less than a year). Editing Wikipedia is difficult with a writhing little infant on your lap :)

For what it's worth; I really think you'd make a good admin, if only you had more exposure to admin-esque areas of the pedia. That's my only strong hesitancy. I think your RfA is going to pass with flying colors. But, if it doesn't (and even if it does) please spend a bit more time in areas other than the article and user namespaces. I think your contributions would be most welcome in those areas in addition to your work in the above two namespaces. All the best, --Durin 22:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please go here and express your opinion on whether Category:Handbook of Texas citations should be deleted. As a Wikipedian in Texas, your opinion on this topic is particularly valuable. 66.167.253.162 17:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of my talk page. Please do not modify it. If you would like to comment about anything on this page, please use . No further edits should be made to this page.