Category talk:Christian Wikipedians

2005

Is this the sort of category we want to have? It has, to my ears, some overtones that I'd rather not hear. It sounds like we are trying to 'label' Wikipedians (which we already do enough of with the subjects of our articles). Shouldn't this site be about the articles, and not about the people who write them. Frankly, why should we care about this? DJ Clayworth 18:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listing here is voluntary, and there are so many other categories and lists of Wikipedians by which they can label themselves as this, that, or the other thing, what harm does one more do? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 2 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

If someone is Christian, let her/him label her/himself as (s)he is. Halleluja!

If someone is Buddhist, let her/him label her/himself as (s)he is. Om mani padme hum.

If someone is Jewish, let her/him label her/himself as (s)he is. Shalom!

If someone is the follower of Mohammed, let her/him label her/himself as (s)he is. Allah Ackbar!

and so on.

Gubbubu 23:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC) from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Wir haben freiheit im Religion, wir sind kein religionfrei.[reply]

I was actually quite surprised to notice that there is no Category:Lutheran Wikipedians. --Angr (t·c) 19:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall receive. (I hope that didn't sound blasphemous) My older sister is dating a pretty nice Lutheran man and although I have an overall negative view of Martin Luther there have been many good to great Lutherans out there. There's no names in the category at present but it's there for those who want it.--T. Anthony 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuckers no one is using it. Maybe there just aren't many Lutherans here or they reject categorization.--T. Anthony 06:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably they don't know this categorization exists. I knew it also randomly. Gubbubu 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well one person, a Archola, did put themselves in the category awhile back.--T. Anthony 16:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now in general Christian and Protestant to increase visibility if that's an issue.--T. Anthony 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as redundant, just as well.--T. Anthony 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Lutheran category now has four members so it's doing good.--T. Anthony 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

I posted this on many of your individual pages recently, but I was told to instead post it here:

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google. Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him. The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot. Scifiintel 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

subcat of self

The userbox template should not be used on this page, or be altered so that it does not add itself to itself. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to do this by substituting the userbox template, and then removing the category line. --Kevinkor2 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more denominations need to be added

Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian --Ted-m 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd template

I guess we can remove the template since the Cfd was closed here as no consensus. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]