User talk:Rdjackso

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rdjackso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Liberia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Cross-cultural psychology. JSpung (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Secondary school has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Secondary school was changed by Rdjackso (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.889429 on 2017-06-13T19:56:29+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Arroyo v. Tucker, 372 F. Supp. 764 (E.D. Pa. 1974)

The article Arroyo v. Tucker, 372 F. Supp. 764 (E.D. Pa. 1974) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is not clear that this district court decision is of historical or continuing interest--it would seem to need later references to show that. .

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Ramadan Article

This article shows a pattern of bias which facilitates anti-Muslim racism. The article includes a large amount of information that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic of Ramadan. Not only do these inclusions contribute very little to knowledge about fasting in Islam, the inclusions are also overwhelmingly negative. The bias is most apparent when juxtaposed to the absence of such irrelevant negative information on Wiki pages which cover comparative topics (in this case Fasting-Generally, Christmas, or Hanukkah)

Example (Fasting-Generally) This inclusive 36 page ~1300 sentence article covers fasting across a large spectrum which includes religion, culture, politics, and health. Under the subheading 1.4 entitled Complications, only one sentence speaks of the negative health effects of fasting. Overall, within a 14888 word article less than 21 words (one sentence) is dedicated to the possible negative health consequences of fasting. This is a negativity ratio of .0014%

Ramadan Compare this to the 21 page (7144 word) article on fasting during Ramadan. In the ~800 sentence entry, the article (correctly) establishes the exemption of pregnant women from fasting in four different places. This exemption is bolstered by footnotes from both medical and religious sources. Despite establishing this exemption, the article goes on to dedicate 21 sentences (315 words) to publishing the studies of negative health outcomes of Muslim women who don’t follow this exemption and fast while pregnant. These inclusions amount to a negativity ratio of .044%. Publishing articles on the negative outcomes of pregnant Muslim women who fast during Ramadan, despite establishing that they are not required to fast, add no new relevant information about Ramadan to the overall article. The negative inclusions however provide fodder for a general campaign of anti-Muslim racism, by unfairly associating the month of Muslim fasting with harm towards Muslim women.

Conclusion In short the article on Ramadan is half the length of the article on Fasting-Generally, yet it contains 31% more negative health related information than the general article on fasting across all religions (including Islam). I have not included the negativity which was brought about by the earlier inclusion of crime and criminality among Muslims during Ramadan. In order to promote tolerance and decrease bias I have deleted the irrelevant negative inclusions. Rdjackso (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)rdjackso[reply]

Ramadan Article

This article [[1]]shows a pattern of bias which facilitates anti-Muslim racism. The article includes a large amount of information that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic of Ramadan. Not only do these inclusions contribute very little to knowledge about fasting in Islam, the inclusions are also overwhelmingly negative. The bias is most apparent when juxtaposed to the absence of such irrelevant negative information on Wiki pages which cover comparative topics (in this case Fasting-Generally, Christmas, or Hanukkah)

Example [[2]] This inclusive 36 page ~1300 sentence article covers fasting across a large spectrum which includes religion, culture, politics, and health. Under the subheading [[3]] entitled Complications, only one sentence speaks of the negative health effects of fasting. Overall, within a 14888 word article less than 21 words (one sentence) is dedicated to the possible negative health consequences of fasting. This is a negativity ratio of .0014%

Ramadan Compare this to the 21 page (7144 word) article on fasting during Ramadan. In the ~800 sentence entry, the article (correctly) establishes the exemption of pregnant women from fasting in four different places. This exemption is bolstered by footnotes from both medical[[4]] and religious[[5]] sources. Despite establishing this exemption, the article goes on to dedicate 21 sentences (315 words) to publishing the studies of negative health outcomes of Muslim women who don’t follow this exemption and fast while pregnant. These inclusions amount to a negativity ratio of .044%. Publishing articles on the negative outcomes of pregnant Muslim women who fast during Ramadan, despite establishing that they are not required to fast, add no new relevant information about Ramadan to the overall article. The negative inclusions however provide fodder for a general campaign of anti-Muslim racism, by unfairly associating the month of Muslim fasting with harm towards Muslim women.

Conclusion In short the article on Ramadan is half the length of the article on Fasting-Generally, yet it contains 31% more negative health related information than the general article on fasting across all religions (including Islam). I have not included the negativity which was brought about by the earlier inclusion of crime and criminality among Muslims during Ramadan. In order to promote tolerance and decrease bias I have deleted the irrelevant negative inclusions. Rdjackso (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)rdjackso[reply]

Draft:Harry Rozenburg

Your recent item has been moved to draftspace as it is currently not ready for publication as an encyclopedic entry. Biographical articles cannot be accepted without sourcing (see the linked page for more information) and would also suggest a review of the guide to article creation and the manual of style. Please develop the item in draft and submit for review when completed. Please do not move to mainspace without significant improvement or it could be proposed for deletion. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you provide general guidance on how to get it into draft space? Rdjackso (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Hebrew Israelites moved to Draft:Radical Hebrew Israelites

I moved your article because it is not ready for mainspace yet. See WP:YFA for more instruction on how to develop the article. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was working on it. Do you know how to keep it in draft form until ready? Rdjackso (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Harry Rozenburg

Hello, Rdjackso. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Harry Rozenburg, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Radical Hebrew Israelites

Hello, Rdjackso. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Radical Hebrew Israelites, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]