User talk:ChristianHistory

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ChristianHistory! Thank you for your contributions. I am Alpha Quadrant and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ChristianHistory. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 14:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Hello, User:ChristianHistory and Happy New Year! I am presenting you the following award! I hope you will not mind if I add a section to your user page! With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Thanks for all your contributions to WikiProject:Christianity related articles! Keep up the good work! With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did in this edit. See WP:NPA if you need further guidance. Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your admonishment really means nothing so long as you let others get away with the same thing.--ChristianHistory (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer you on what Rivertorch told me you said on her/his talk page, you have accused me of being "racist" - I have said nothing racist - that is a nonsense "if you say I did it I say you did it" kind of response - besides, what race am I supposedly being "racist" towards? I did not attack you for your views, I stated that they existed to indicate that you had a strong and intransigent POV that would not accept opposing opinions, as can be seen on the Fascism talk page. Plus excluding scholars because of their heritage - as you suggested of Jewish, British, and American authors because they are allegedly and automatically "unreliable" is prejudiced, discriminatory, and xenophobic; and a violation of NPOV.I have encountered publicly-stated neo-Nazis and neo-fascists (who say that they are such) on Wikipedia before, I didn't know that you would claim it was insulting, but as I said, your claims sound very much like those of neo-fascists, and they still are openly anti-Semitic in claiming that Jews are unreliable sources and that there is a Jewish conspiracy against the accurate representation of fascism. The fact is that you repeatedly mentioned that Jews were "unreliable sources" as well as British and Americans and goes on to explain that there is a conspiracy by Jews and anti-fascists against accurate representation of fascism - that is outright xenophobic and anti-Semitic; that seems to be very good reason for me to deduce that you are a neo-Nazi or an anti-Semitic neo-fascist. Multiple users rejected your arguments and said that you were posting anti-Semitic material - you refused to accept their criticisms and grew angry with them. Considering that Rivertorch believed that you have been harassing her/him, and that you have falsely accused me in an aggressively natured and groundless personal attack of racism. I am considering reporting you for inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia - particularly personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you finished with your aggressive attitude towards me? Or should I report you right now for your personal attacks?--R-41 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I being "racist" towards on the Fascism article?--R-41 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could stop editing for two minutes and let me get a word in edgewise... --ChristianHistory (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you finished with your aggressive attitude towards me? Or should I report you right now for your personal attacks?--R-41 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was finished with you and your ilk before you came on my page and started rambling. But now that you started up again...

You easily throw around accusations of so-called "racism" and so-called "anti-Semitism", and display an obsession with race. That seems pretty 'racist' according to liberal standards. You keep crying about anti-Semitism, but I never mentioned race; you did.

Regarding the would-be scholars, what I said was (and don't pretend like this wasn't clear; blame your knee-jerk "Nazi" reaction if it wasn't) was that anti-Fascists and supporters of the Allied Powers (Jewish, American, and British -- none of whom are a race, by the way) who are writing about Fascism are unreliable when they write on Fascist ideology while openly contradicting the Axis' own "statements of faith", claiming they believed things that they didn't believe (or at least never said), not giving original sources for quotes, and frankly making crap up without evidence. I don't care if they are the majority; that doesn't make them reliable. Especially not when they themselves are openly contradicting "statements of faith", claiming Fascism is black when Fascism is white, while pretending to neutrally explain the ideology. I want you to respond to my questions regarding National Socialists writing an article on Judaism -- do you apply the same principles or not?

I wasn't surprised by your accusations. You're a notorious anti-Fascist, clearly biased against them, and a bad-willed lover of lies, so I expect your sort to act the way you do.

Report me if you wish -- if you truly feel that threatened by me. I can report you right back if I wanted to for violating NPA: "Comparing editors to Nazis." --ChristianHistory (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you don't mind, stop talking. I'm trying to write something and all your editing here is distracting. --ChristianHistory (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you were a racist, I said that your behaviour appeared to be xenophobic towards Jews, Americans, and British whom you rejected as being reliable sources based on their culture, and you said that Jews were part of an anti-fascist conspiracy. You have given me more than enough evidence for me to report you for personal attacks, you've called me a racist - without evidence, a "lover of lies", etc. If you wish to report me, I'd like to know who I am being racist towards? Racism involves a prejudice towards a racial group.--R-41 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You "never said I was racist". Yeah, you were real sly about that, weren't you? Using casuist tactics to avoid it on a technicality. At least be honest. The user who first responded to me, himself an anti-Fascist and on your side, admitted that would-be scholars themselves are the ones who are claiming a conspiracy -- saying that Fascists statements of belief aren't really their belief. Find me anything from Mussolini supporting anti-clericalism, for example, as part of Fascist ideology. You can't, and no scholar can, because he never expressed anything like that (as a Fascist). The only thing they have is the so-called Ciano Diaries -- which somehow is considered a better source than Mussolini's own autobiography and book on his conversion. In court, that's called hearsay (or "he said, she said"). Go ahead and report me if it makes you feel better -- maybe it gives you a feeling of power and satisfaction, I don't know. --ChristianHistory (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please just answer my question, stop evading it. Who have I been racist towards on the Fascism talk page?--R-41 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're the only one who's allowed to evade questions. I said that your clear obsession of race is 'racism' according to liberal standards (the prevalent position of Wikipedia editors). Personally, I think that's nonsense, but according to the consensus (and you have to respect the consensus, right?) you are a racist. --ChristianHistory (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question - I have personally been involved in including quotations by fascists in the article so that their own perspective and words can be heard, such as in the intro's section of fascism's political position and the article's sections on nationalism. So your claim that I have excluded fascists' own views is false. There, I answered your question. Now, it is time for you to answer the question you have evaded: who have I been racist towards on the Fascism talk page? The consensus on Wikipedia's article on racism says "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination." So what racial group have I discriminated against?--R-41 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that answer, but that's not what I asked. Have you or have you not read Mussolini's autobiography and speeches? That wasn't my question either; that's a new one. If you have, then you would know that claims of Fascism being anti-clerical is absurd (the position of individual anti-clerical self-professed Fascists is irrelevant to the ideology of Fascism itself). You would have to resort to conspiracy, as the would-be scholars have, and claim that Mussolini's ideology of Fascism was all a huge front and that he secretly was anti-Clerical and secretly considered anti-Clericalism intrinsic to Fascism. How convenient. And as for Darwinism, which was my other point, you won't find anything on that either. Mussolini never even stated anything about evolution (nor did Hitler, for that matter). Did he believe in evolution? Considering the times he lived in, probably. But he never mentioned it, let alone social Darwinism. Yet this article presents social Darwinism as if it were intrinsic to Fascism!

To answer your question again, liberal definitions include obsession with race as "racism". And you certainly are obsessed with it. It took you two minutes before you ridiculously threw out the 'anti-Semite' and 'Nazi' cards, which told me that you embrace liberal definitions of 'racism'. --ChristianHistory (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the 1919 Fascist Manifesto wasn't written by Mussolini. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for personal attacks

I have reported you to administrators for the personal attacks you have made against me, you can view the issue and present your case here: [1]--R-41 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with you editing at ANI, this edit wiped out comments in a thread unrelated to the section you were editing.

Also from that edit - do not refactor, "correct", or otherwise change another editor's post to ANI. If you have issue with what they say or a link the provide, address it in you comment only.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to restore my deleted response. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for combativeness, abusing multiple accounts, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, failing to respect content policies despite an avowed four-year history of editing under different account names, and borderline racism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ChristianHistory (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The abusing multiple accounts charge is ridiculous. I never stated I had multiple account accounts. That's just bad-willed reaching. I had one other account last used over two years ago, which was not banned but abandoned, and I have been editing sporadically without an account for the last two years. There's absolutely no evidence of abusing the multiple accounts policy; that's nonsense. Editing for combativeness is also nonsense. I never edited any article relating to the issue at hand. I specifically posted on the talkpage without touching a thing. Soapbox charge is false; I raised a legitimate point, which was dismissed as me using Wikipedia as a soapbox due to the clear political POV of the majority. Even in the very discussion on my ban, more than one users admitted their POV agenda, proving my point. My own question was never addressed, which couldn't be without their hypocrisy being manifested. I'm glad you at least said "borderline" racist, but that's not true either. The label of "racism" is just being used as a political tool, which is all this ban is. It does speak loudly about the way this site works, which is unsurprising. ChristianHistory (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see all the problems with your editing you're trying to deny. Your battleground attitude can be seen in this very request. Max Semenik (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(EDIT: To be clear, this was a response to the unblock request, not its denial.) Wait, so, a number of editors with a variety of political views see you as POV-pushing, and because you can classify them as "anti-fascist" (which is not a POV but the absence of a fascist POV), everyone but you is biased? Wow... And how would you define excluding authors based on the culture they were born and raised in if not racist? I recommend changing your unblock request to show any sort of remorse or regret, or at least the reluctant willingness to accept a topic ban if you want any hope of being unblocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am here for you

I hope you haven't lost all hope and that you haven't abandoned your talk page. But before I get to me, let me say how I found you. It all started when I got curious about what "fascism" was, since it is a commonly thrown insult to be associated with. I never got past the the Contents section of the article since most of the opening paragraphs were as filled with tibbits that were about as relevant as to whether constitutional-monarchies support abortion or not. With a bad taste it my mouth from witnessing the article, I checked up into the talk page to see if there was any others who were like-minded. When I found the topic it was already too late, it was January 10, and I had missed my chance to support you. I have only just signed up, but only to try and give you a leg up. My only problem with my goals of signing up, is that I fear that I might be mislabelled your sock-puppet. I pray that you read this, since I have no way of knowing of your reply. --Soft and Stout (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message, by accident, thank you. I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't come on here to look at an article on Prosper of Aquitaine. The only page I can still edit is my own talk page. I did abandon any efforts, since it's pointless. The admins here have their politico-religious agenda. Maybe they're being paid for it, I don't know. --ChristianHistory (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one here gets paid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed obscene flag and material. http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm --ChristianHistory (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianHistory, the only ones with the agenda were River and R-41, the later of whom was the one that seemed really intent on getting you (which was why he/she brought River into the conflict). I'll refrain from further comments that may look like vilification.

C.H, I understand that you feel trapped, desperate and beaten down. (Whether you were right or wrong is irrelevant to this paragraph) After trying to honestly deal with a seemingly deceptive (or ignorant) foe, you tried to claw your way to her in an effort to beat her using the same low tactics she used, but your foe points out to the crowd "What a lowly specimen you are", and you have lost all credibility. I understand how you feel because I have been in that situation before. While I can draw parallels between our lives, that doesn't mean I am a puppet (I am looking at you, Mr Squiggle). I merely thought that help summarising would of made good counselling.--Soft and Stout (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow I will be discussing the two main paths, which can be summarised by the words of MastCell and Ian.Thomson, which is why I will be dubbing them "The Path of Ian" and "The Path of Mast" (I hope I am not straining myself) --Soft and Stout (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and interest. They really trumped up the charges and made up ones out of thin air. Like sock-puppeting...no proof whatsoever. They didn't care to remove that charge either. --ChristianHistory (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking up the laws of sock puppetry, and I found out that there was a little detail called "Clean start under a new username", which means that provided that your old account wasn't on any sanctions or anything, you can create a new account. Unfortunately, it has been said to be recommended that one should mark their old account "retired", so that they don't get thought up as puppeteers. You did mark it as retired? Do you still even remember your old account's name? And in other news R-41 has unsuccessfully gone off at another user.

I won't keep my promise about the sermon I planned to do today, but I think I'll end the night with a lighter-side note. I got a tad bit depressed when you didn't the Mr Squiggle reference, after I used the words "Draw" and "Puppet" in a sentence, but then again: What on earth gave me the idea that a yank would get a reference to a children's show on the Australian Broadcasting Centre that has been off the air for 12 years. On a more serious note: Your not-backing-down-itude and hard-talking-ness is part of the reason you were flat out rejected from the appeal. I know you were only being honest, but those can be scene as signs of an unwillingness to acknowledge and learn from any mistakes you have made.--Soft and Stout (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To other users: I am checking up on ChristianHistory's appeals to the block. To ChristianHistory, I didn't understand what you were doing by posting out of nowhere some bizarre website link to an article stating that Jews are Khazars - so I looked in your history and some anon user who is Jewish posted an admittingly aggressive response to you - did you have a conversation with this anon? But anyway, in response you posted a website in response that I checked that insinuates that "Khazars"/modern day Jews are insinuators of communism, and the same site - the Watchmen Bible Study Group has openly anti-Jewish and Holocaust denial material, including the article "Did Six Million Really Die?" [2] by notorious Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and by Historical Review Press - now known as Anthony Hancock (publisher) - a publisher that is known for Holocaust denial, the book was declared a fraud by the Supreme Court of Canada and Zundel has been deported from Canada to his home country of Germany to face Holocaust denial charges. The same website you referenced has Henry Ford's notorious "The International Jew" [3]. Regardless of Henry Ford's ingenious automobile design capabilities, he is well known for his anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi views. Plus the idea that you would respond to a personal attack by some flyby anon user by unnecessarily aggressively responding by posting material by a fringe self-hating Jewish person from an anti-"Khazar"/modern-day-Jewish website with works by people like Zundel reveals that you lied when you said that you were not xenophobic to these people, you are. You hate Jews (or as you call them "Khazars").--R-41 (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you kidding? You're not here to check up on my appeals. You and your friends are stalking my page. That's why Baseball Bugs responded less than an hour after I wondered about whether or not some people here get paid to keep a certain slant on this website. And that's why you conveniently happened to be checking here after some Jewish troll stopped by. Heck, one of you probably sent that Jewish troll here in the hopes that I would give an "incriminating" response.

The link I posted was in response to his claims that "because Jesus is Jewish I should be one" or whatever it was he said. Just because I post that doesn't mean I'm anti-Semitic (a ridiculous slur) and doesn't mean I agree with everything on their website. In case you haven't noticed, I work on Catholic articles, and that's a Protestant website. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Soft and Stout: I saw the Mr. Squiggle thing. I thought you were making a reference to a user called Mr. Squiggle and were implying he was a puppet himself. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish anon user went totally out of bounds, he's just some flyby anon user - probably a vandalizer - but your response to that anon speaks volumes - you chose a source that includes Holocaust denial material and material attacking Jews - whom you call Khazars. Why would you choose such an intolerant website that carries Holocaust denial material to respond to a Jewish person?--R-41 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think I read the entire website? I don't know everything that's on there. Type in "Jesus was not a Jew" and that's one of the first sites that comes up. If you're gonna make a big deal about the other material on the site, then why not also question why I posted a Protestant site when I'm not one? --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you just happen to choose one that says Jews are not the real Hebrews but are Khazars, and that includes Holocaust denial all through it - if you are not lying then you have extremely poor choice of judgement in picking the most offensive website to respond to the anon with - and I doubt that was the case - you had the energy to look up a source to respond - you knew what you were doing. And when the anon user posted the flag of her/his country Israel, you said you removed an "obscene flag" - why is it obscene? It is a symbol of Israel and the Jewish nation. It is obscene to you because you obviously hate Jews from that and that you refused to accept material from Jewish scholars on the Fascism article. I haven't talked with BaseballBugs or the Jewish anon user about anything to do with you - you can check yourself - your allegation of conspiracy is false.--R-41 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianHistory, if you're not an anti-semite, you just need to learn to avoid talking about Semites at large, Jews specifically. BTW, just realized that, by your definition of Jews as "not a race," it's hypocritical to ask for the fascism article to be based on fascism sources when you won't accept Jewish sources on Judaism (which do classify them as a race). Secular sources tend to agree. The sources which say they're Khazars almost inevitably include holocaust denial and other conspiracy theories. Think about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found some Catholic sources regarding Jesus's relationship to Jews and Judaism: a webpage, [www.catholic-convert.com/documents/JesusAJew.doc a .Doc file], Google books result, another Google books result, another Google books reselt, and even one by a Jesuit.

"Jesus was not a Jew" is a highly loaded search. Please keep in mind that there are a lot of loaded searches, like "Catholic church Satanic," that will pull up a lot of insane lies that crazy people publish. Keep that in mind next time you perform any searches relating to race, religion, or politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianHistory is lying when he says that he "picked the first source" - I looked up the search "Jesus was not a Jew" and the first source happened to be from the same author as on the link he posted: http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm - but the first website that comes up on the search "Jesus was not a Jew" is http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm. The website he chose is nowhere on the first page or second page of searches. So he looked for this specific website http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm that he knew about and posted it almost certainly to intentionally offend the Jewish anon user.--R-41 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, looking at that search, the .au/Jesusjew.htm result comes first on mine, and the other doesn't come up at all. I gather there is some variation between result order based on prior searches, but regardless, he has no excuse now. There is little to claim that the site he posted was the first result (unless he has been searching for similar material a great deal, which would not help his case), and he has been given reason (assuming he is Catholic) to not accept the material he linked to. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't accept the site's xenophobic material regarding Jews, then why did he say that he was "removing an obscene flag" when he removed the flag of Israel that the Jewish anon user posted. It's obvious that he thinks the flag of Israel is "obscene" because he hates Jews.--R-41 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I said. I said he has been given reason to no longer accept it, not that he did not in the past. I.e. that he did accept it but has reason now to not accept it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about him saying that he was removing an "obscene flag" - the flag of Israel that he/she removed after the anon posted it in a thumbnail in the anon's post.--R-41 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I leave you alone for one day and R-41 has his way with you, and then I procrastinated in replying for 14 days...

R-41 How about you leave him alone? Haven't you caused enough damage? It is clear from your dispute with User:AndyTheGrump that you are so fickle that you resort to call in Admin support at the first sign of you arguing with some one else. If I recall, you pitched the banning of ChristianHistory only after you started banging on his Talk page after Rivertorch twice tried to break up the fight between you two.--Soft and Stout (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I regret the harsh tone I used here[reply]

Now for me to give you some actual tips. Next time you appeal, instead of painting yourself as "Completely Innocent" (regardless of how true it may be), use a coat of "Unlikely to re-offend". Show some remorse, or show why it is no longer necessary. Say for instance, that the dispute has been resolved.

I reckon you still might have a chance of revoking the charge for sock-puppetry if you site the part of Clean Start where the vibe is that creating a second account is permissible provided that the old account has a clean record, and that you have no intention of using the old. More tips to irregularly come.--Soft and Stout (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Icthus

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi ChristianHistory! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]