User talk:Jpers36/Archives/2006
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jpers36. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiChristian
Hi
I notice that you are a Christian. Come and take a look at www.wikichiristian.org and consider contributing. It is still small and has very few users. I'm praying that God helps the site to grow and become a forum for Christians to write and read about all aspects of Christianity. It is not meant to be a copy of wikipedia. It is not meant to be purely an encyclopedia. For any given topic, it will hopefully contain a short summary of the topic followed by links to many sub-articles - some containing simple facts; some sharing experiences; some explaining a particular viewpoint and so on.
Take for example the article on grace. It has various "Definition and explanation" articles explaining the meaning of grace. It has a few "Articles / opinions" about grace. It has links for "Quotes' about grace and links to "Songs about grace". The site is also meant to be a resource site containing information about Christian texts, literature, art, music, radio, television and internet.
Take a look at the example article on the song Shout to the Lord. It has links to information about the song, lyrics and chords to the song and links for comments or opinions to be expressed about the song.
The site also intends to explain the history of important events in Christianity. Take a look at The Reformation section. This has links for "Overview" articles, "Opinion" articles, "Quotes" and "Travel" stories.
The site intends to be a reference about major (and minor) figures in the Bible, the early church and today. Take a look at John Stott. It contains "Overview" and "Opinion" articles. It contains texts of "Talks" given by John Stott and links to "Books" by John Stott.
In summary, I suppose, that my hope is that WikiChristian becomes a major reference point for Christians and non-Christians to go to find about any issue related to Christianity. I don't believe that this should be carbon-copy of wikipedia. It should resemble it in some ways, but in other ways, it should be quite different in structure and evolution. I realize that there are different views about different topics - and accordingly, there should always be the opportunity for a person to write his personal view under the "Opinion and articles" section of any given page.
I would love you to take a look at wikichristian and contribute. If you don't wish to contribute, would you consider visiting it's world wide directory of churches we are setting up and entering your church into the database. The point of the database is to state the location of a church with the service times and add a brief description of the church. You can take a look for example at: Church Directory -> Australia -> South Australia -> Adelaide -> St Matthew's Anglican Church
If you don't wish to contribute to WikiChristian, you could consider one of the other wikis related to Christianity that have been set up by other people. These include: Theopedia, Compass or OrthoxWiki.
Thanks
Notes To Self
Somebody needs to fix Boies Penrose. Jpers36 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Done some, take a look. -Falcorian 04:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Baseball. Jpers36 19:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
From the Tribune article: "The organization was founded in 1972, the year Alito graduated from Princeton, by alumni upset that the school had recently begun admitting women". I'm going to put back the co-education reference. Tlogmer 16:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Er. Thanks for correcting all my typos. :p Tlogmer 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hurricane Katrina
Sorry for the misunderatanding, but I'm not a vandal. I really want to contribute with Wikipedia. I have almost ayear reading the Wikipedia without being an user, but I don't know how to do. Please understand me, I have only one month in these project and I'm reading the policies right now. I hope you understand. juan andrés 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for your great edits and catching a lot of the vandalism that goes on here. There are times that Wikipedia can drive me crazy, but it's because of people like you that this site can be self-regulated. Thanks for the hard work. Giles22 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank You, Thnak you 100 times
Your quick and simple edit of style greatly improved the flow of my sentences in the SCOTUS Marshall Court section. John wesley 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello
I put all your user boxes in a... umm.. box. If you want me to change it back just tell me. SaintDante 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm something wierd just happened i do not know why. but i will try to fix it. SaintDante 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I am just going to change it back.
Chicago State
Thanks for the reverts, I suppose I did jump the gun a little with the early removal. Craig R. Nielsen 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
VUPD controversy and such
Thanks for the message. I felt like putting this whole thing in context, and that's why I put in the information on Kinsey Hall. (I took Interpretation in the Social Sciences last year, and our group project was to look into the causes of the fire there in 1970.) I don't have my sources nor the old paper in front of me right now; once I have time I will try to put in citations and make it, well, more accurate. But I agree, there was a lot of bias in some of the older versions of the article, which I'm pretty sure were all done by the Valpo Facebook group members (the 152.228.***.** anonys give it away) to argue their side of the story and discredit the VUPD (and then, on their Facebook page, brag that their case was large enough for mention on Wikipedia ...). Pretty much, this whole episode the past two weeks is dwarfed by the issues from 35 years ago, and I doubt 35 years from now many people will care that a gun happened to be drawn on someone during a suspected drug bust. Spell4yr 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Your hasty decision... again to delete my contributions.
What is the deal with completely deleting my entry out of that article without a good explaination. There are already many links in the article that source things. I don't think it would be appropriate to source every sentence. Then what would the purpose of wikipedia be? I see many other edit histories of that article that are attacked as if somebody is trying to censor a controversial topic rather than make a more suitable article. Somebody actually took the time to do all the google searches sourced in my image and claim it's a possible copyright infringement when the images were taken from public domain and that I'm supposed to go through some lenthy process to prove why it should stay. This sounds like a guilty until proven innocent situation. Still, just because you don't like the topic is no reason to attack my contributions. — (Unsigned comment by Bart80.)
Reply to your reply: You claim I am outlandishly lying about my image. I gave sources for all 3 images so that anybody could find them on the Internet. There is no copyright issue with this guy's blog. It is somebody taking photos on vacation, there is nothing stated there about copyrighting his vacation photos. Nobody copyrights that piece of earth either. These images are of nothing remotely controversial of copyright infringement. Nobody would ever care in a million years. How is that not public domain by your definition? I don't believe anybody would even jump on google to research such a photo that obviously poses no risk to copyright infringement without a pretense for wanting it removed for other reasons. I see you as having nothing better to do than continually check that particular article and deleting any contribution I may make as a whole no matter how much I refine it. I see that article has been under attack before by looking at the edit history. Instead of saving and building upon new discoveries and pieces of information, they are hastily deleted. This leads me to believe that this place is just bent on destroying articles on controversial topics such as that one. If my time and help is not appreciated here, lots of luck. Bart80 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Peer Review of The W's
The W's is going through the Wikipedia:Peer review process. Please leave comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/The W's/archive1. Dan, the CowMan 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Fictional George Bush
Thank you for helping with this article; hopefully it can end an edit war. It needs info and more pictures, so if you ever have some extra time, feel free to continue. --Iriseyes 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Southpark bush.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Southpark bush.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Chicago Blackhawks
This certainly is a good compromise as far as I'm concerned and I added the information on a couple of pages but was immediately reverted. I have raised the point there : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format, maybe you could give your opinion. 86.192.127.194 20:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Christian Metal Project
If you are interested in joining a potential Project Wiki Christian Metal project go here to sign up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Christian_Metal --E tac 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- see project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian Metal