User talk:JimWae/Archives/2007


Your reversion on the SUNY Stonybrook page

Hello sir.

Thank you VERY much for removing the section of my edit that I worked on for over half an hour! Lots of people say that I "ruin others' hard work" when I vandalise a page by adding things, but YOU sir, oh... YOU have ruined MY work. I think it's NICE to describe how the intricacies of the phone system at SBU work and how to "hack" on public phones. Wouldn't you find that interesting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.225.64.229 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

It is not notable enough, nor of enough general interest, to be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a blog site. --JimWae 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, go throw yourself in a ditch! Who are YOU to set the standards of what's appropriate? I shall reverse your reversal, you swine! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajo Mama (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Marbel Hill

Thanks for remembering it in the New York City revision!!!--futurebird 13:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dual nationalities/citizenships

Why are you both a citizen of the U.S. and Canada? Make up your mind and pick one. After that, owe allegiance to only ONE "country."

Many people, like me, in the U.S. do not like people like you with dual nationalities! YOU CAN NOT OWE ALLEGIANCE TO MORE THAN ONE "COUNTRY"!!! PICK ONE AND STAY WITH IT, OR LEAVE!!! -- Unsigned comment by anon IP June 2005 Special:Contributions/4.226.240.86

- Why would I care what people like you like? Why would I bother explaining anything to an anon Dallas IP with no other edits? Are you perhaps projecting your difficulty reconciling your allegiance to the USA with your allegiance to the Confederacy? --JimWae 05:38, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

While I have no problem with a person having dual citizenship, I do understand why many people do. Many of these people are nationalists, and I am sympathetic to their view of things as well. But to accuse a nationalist of being a confederate, thereby implying nationalists are racist, hateful, and nazi-like is completely INTOLERANT of you JimWae. Of course, there is a spectrum of views within nationalism itself, I am sure; a right-wing (nazi-like) and a left-wing. I assure you that mosts American nationalists are simply proud of their country and want to protect it from people who abuse it. This group of people is far from being racist. (Gaytan 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
  • If you want me to take you seriously, you will please refrain from trying to create mountains where there is not even a molehill. Nowhere did I ACCUSE the offensive anon IP of anything, though, of course, my QUESTION does raise the possibility of his being conflicted about his own allegiances. (Incidentally, given other editing events around that time, I had some reason to believe there were indeed some neo-Confederate attitides involved too.) Your attempt to make this an issue of racism is either completely incoherent or ignorant of you. Do you subscribe to the view that all neo-Cons are racist nazis? It appears to me that you just wanted a punching bag & chose me because you are having problems dealing with the other articles which we are already both editing--JimWae 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this real? Some Belgian Francophones easily accuse the Flemish of being (regional-)nationalists and separatists, as there is a what is here in Belgium often called 'extreme'-right Vlaams Belang party with a Nazi-associated historical background, that has been getting some political weight. As everyone here, I know several assumed VB voters and none of them has ever suggested having a problem with my wife's double nationality. "One cannot have allegiance to more than one country", hm. I thought the United States were more united than the countries of the European Union, and now the difference appears to be even more overwhelming than I had assumed. Or is it in fact much less united because of the southern versus northern nationalist feelings not having been overcome internally? — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 22:11 (UTC)

Jim, just wanted to let you know that I too have lived in two English speaking countries in North America and have ancestors in Europe. I recently learned that I could regain citizenship in the other English speaking country for just $100. I think it might have something to do with the right to return to the country of your birth. You might want to check out human rights. --Jbergquist 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Time

Your first edit sujmmary read: "aren't measurements real enough?" This made no sense; the text that you removed concerned the perfectly legitimate distinction between the absolute and relative time. The former view holds that time is real, the latter that it consists in the relationships between events.

Your second edit summary was: "Undo revision 99745266 by Mel Etitis (talk) remove editorial QUESTION - again!)". Leaving aside the incorrect implication that you were giving the same reasson, this is not an editorial question. Philosophy texts, including encyclopædias, often use a question as a way of bringing out a distinction between two positions.

That the article, including this sentence, could be improved is beyond question; the same applies to most of the Wikipedia articles on philosophy. Removing this sentence doesn't improve the article, though, and it's difficult to tell why you think that it does. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • And what does "So, is it (being time) a real thing that is all around us, or is it simply just a human measurement?" add to the article? It is barely grammatical, it asks a question that never gets answered (and that wikipedia can never answer), and the simplified dichotomy (as explicitly presented in the question), suggests that measurements are not "real". Plus, we are "hearing" the voice of the editor. It reads like a high-school kid asking for an answer for his essay assignment. --JimWae 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it could (like the rest of the article) be improved. The question is rhetorical, as I've already pointed out, not editorial. Moreover, it certainly doesn't imply (not even remotely) that measurements aren't real. If there are only measurements, then time isn't real, but instrumental. You are familiar with the the subject, and with philosophy in general, aren't you? (Sorry, that reads more aggressively than I intended; I ask only for information.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider please that you might be using "real" in a very narrow "physical reality" sense? Are promises not real? Why should time's being defined only by measurements make time "unreal"? --JimWae 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in original research here; the article refers correctly to a standard debate between philosophers such as Leibniz and Clarke concerning the reality or relativity of time. It does so using the standard terms in a standard way, as a Wikipedia article should. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin's deism

JimWae - In the "religion" section of the Benjamin Franklin article you commented that a true deist believes that "Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it." This implies that a deist believes he can change God's divine plan for the destiny of humans everywhere depending upon the behavior and actions of an individual. Now, my quotes in the Franklin article came from Isaacson which are ultimately based on the deism expounded by Matthew Tindal in his "deist bible", Christianity as Old as the Creation in 1730). As for the position you take on deism, it was expounded by Lord Herbert of Cherbury during the early the first half of the 17th century. Because deism has evolved over the centuries, expecially over the question of prayer, we have to compare Franklin to the deism that was prevalent in his day. So the question is, which of these men's ideas were more prevalent in Franklin's day, Lord Herbert of Cherbury or Tindal? Franklin's (1706-1790) early brush with deism in the 1720's probably was more akin to the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. But for the second half of Franklin's life, Tindal's work was predominant, which taught that prayer was fruitless due to their understanding that God put everything into motion a long time ago and that man has no say in it (see deism). During this latter part of Franklin's life, he was definitely out of step with most deists. Today, deists seem to be changing their tune on this doctrine, reverting back to some doctrines found in the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and away from Tindal. Isaacson argues that Franklin was not a pure deist, as many biographers also believe today (in comparison to Tindal's deism), but was actually a man who believed in the value of good deeds and prayer to influence god to change the course of humanity. If you disagree with Isaacson, please provide your reasoning, with references please. (Gaytan 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

RFC

JimWae... As a major editor at George Washington and religion I thought you should know that I have started an RFC on the whole "Washington was not a communicant" issue. You may want to toss in your two cents. Blueboar 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Founding Fathers and deism

I have corrected your misinterpretation of Tindal on his view of prayer in the George Washington article. Yes, he did view particular kinds of prayers as a duty of mankind, but not all of them. He spoke harshly against prayers that sought to alter Deity's divine plan by stating "There are few so gross to imagine, we can direct infinite wisdom in the dispensation of providence, or persuade him to alter those laws he contrived before the foundation of the world for putting things in a regular course." No interpretation is needed; he clearly denounces prayers which seek particular blessings from God. That is, like all deists of his day, prayer should be done only to thank God for his role in our lives, not to suggest ways for him to to improve our lives. Prayers of gratitude are those prayers which he specifically states are "a duty, as it raises in us a due contemplation of the divine attributes, and an acknowledgment of his great and constant goodness, and serves to keep up a constant sense of our dependence on him; and as it disposes us to imitate those perfections we adore in him, in being kind and beneficent to one another." While Washington's statements are replete with expressions of gratitude toward God (prayers that Tindal explained were "a duty"), he also suggested that Americans "implore His protection and favor", to allow the national government to be wise and just; to "protect and guide" all nations; to promote "true religion and virtue, and the increase of science"; and to "grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best" (from Washington's Thankgiving Proclamation). All of this, according to Tindal, is "gross to imagine" since Washington asking all Americans to "direct infinite wisdom." And, although you may not find it in your personal library, my personal library is full of biographers and authors who believe Washington was not a deist. So, I have changed the article to express this fact by saying "some" biographers believe Washington was a deist, and "some" don't. I am not arguing that any of the Founders were "kinda Christians," I only wish to point out that while they were not Christian, they were not typical deists either, thereby leaving them in limbo with respect to their preferred religion. But, they were all, God-fearing men who entreated God through prayer regularly. Gaytan 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • He is not actually even denouncing such prayers - he is describing as gross those (few?) who imagine such prayers to be less than futile. (He does not say if he values every act of prayer, but even those asking to suspend the laws of nature would qualify as being mindful of mankind's dependence on him.) Prayers that the US government be wise are more directed at a change in people than in a change in God's plan. When one prays to be worthy of something, one is not usually asking the rules be relaxed for worthiness --JimWae 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am concerned about what you said elsewhere about masquerading - was that directed at me? Should I take you seriously or not? --JimWae 04:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have edited GW & religion agins: Tindal does not DENOUNCE any prayers - and he presents a positive view of prayer FIRST, he clearly values many kinds of prayer - including praising as well as thanking - & mentions another gross thing: praying to alter "natural laws" --JimWae 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK JimWae. Looks like your idea of Deism is actually evolving into something almost compatible to Christianity (but with no belief in miracles or divine revelation, of course). My problem is with those Wiki editors who claim that Deism is closer to Atheism than Christianity, that is why I say that "deism is a code work for atheism", as it is used by some Wiki editors. Now if you are not one of those people, then I believe you and I can work together without butting heads so much. But for anyone to rely on www.positiveatheism.org in order to argue that the Founders were deists, to me these people are nothing more than undercover atheists, pushing their secular agenda all over Wikipedia. Now that is an "agenda". My "agenda", again, is to simply show that the Founders were God-fearing men and that they believed it was man's duty to pray and live morally and often urged their fellow man to do likewise; I have never stated that these men were card-carrying Christians. These men were spiritual men and, although many of them would not espouse any particular Christian creed, many of them did believe in worshipping God and stated that religion, in general, was essential to morality and would benefit mankind. Yet many of them were anti-Church, that is they were suspicious of organized religion and blamed it for many of the crimes committed during the Dark Ages. Now if I lived during their day, I would have to agree. But that would not make me an atheist, as some undercover atheists in deists clothing would argue. Gaytan 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But I still have to disagree with your analysis on Tindal; you are trying to stuff all prayers into Tindal's view of acceptable prayers by claiming that ALL prayers are acceptable to deists as long as they do not seek to petition an alteration of God's "natural laws." Exactly the opposite is true! Most deists reject most traditional forms of prayer and now you are trying to redefine prayer in order to fit it into the deist definition of an acceptable form of prayer! Defining "natural laws" would enter a whole new discussion, so I won't bother. Now you said yourself, deism is not a religion, it has no established creed. As such, I will no longer bother discussing diesm's view of prayer with someone who will not admit that deism has some sort of regulated belief system or some concrete views. It is pointless. Because of deism's varying and undefined characteristics (according to you), a deist claiming to be very spiritual-minded person can effectively argue their case using deist thought, just as well as an atheist, who claims to be a deist, can argue their case for deism's uninvolved and impersonal God. Deists today have such a wide spectrum of beliefs, I cannot even understand how they can classify themselves together in any way. But good luck to them. I just can't stand when people say that the Founders were non-God-fearing men who acknowledged only a God who basically made a clock (the world and all life) and carelessly left it to tick on its own forever. Thereby leading people to believe that the Founders did not care about God (since He cared not for them), that for them faith is useless, that for them intellect replaces faith, and that for them, everything is man's doing, no thanks to God. This is the atheistic spin on deism. You do not seem to be spinning deism this way, but rather toward a more spiritual outlook with a respectful and grateful view of God. Gaytan 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Jefferson...

I notice we have a disagreement on how the article should be written. Please go to Jeffersons talk page. Thanks, JJstroker 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the several anti-govenment orgs, can examples be provided? Marktunstill 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just Frustated with Atheism Protection

Jim, I'm new to wiki editing and thus I am pretty green. The atheism talk page is very long and its its been hard to find the most important edits on it. Some of the stuff there needs archiving, for I think it would help draw attention to your contributions. Yesterday was my first read of the atheism article/discussions and much of it was precursory.

I think your contributions are on the right track and it would be great if we could refer to an existing survey of the literature that supports making the 3 distinctions. Without such a reference, it may be best to state only that there are "different accepted definitions of atheism" and then procede to iterate these with examples. Not numbering the different meanings would prevent discussions getting too dogmatic if something slightly different or completely new crops up.

By the way, I earned a BS in CSC at NCSU a long time ago, but then left the computer field because I didn't like being wedded to the machines. Now I can't seem to avoid them again!Modocc 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaminade High School

Collin Finnerty is a notable alumnus of Chaminde High School in Mineola, NY.

Please do not edit his name out.

-- unsigned comment by new user Special:Contributions/Alexcavaluzzo

See Talk:Chaminade High School --JimWae 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That edit to Secession

It's just another Confederate apologist; specifically, taking the Confederate stance that the United States was a voluntary association, and that when the secessionists pulled out, there was no longer a valid "United States" against which they were rebelling, just a gang of old ex-partners unwilling to let them go. --Orange Mike 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram article

Please see Kilogram talk. That paragraph you’re defending is still all wrong. Greg L (my talk) 21:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Alumni list on Chaminade High School

I did an alpha sort because it makes it quicker for those who learn of a prominent alumnus, but don't know his year, to insert him into the list. Most such lists are organized that way; a few are first divided by reason for notability, then alpha-sorted.--Orange Mike 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See reply at Talk:Chaminade High School--JimWae 06:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The chap is Don Murphy and he strongly objects to his article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination). While the article will likely remain given his objection and that his notability is as a film producer it feels like a good idea to not have the school he went to, which has nothing to do with his notability, recording the fact. Its a highly problematic article and the guy is very pissed off with wikipedia. Hope this helps and am willing to discuss further, SqueakBox 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

MLK

Do you think you might take a look at the recent talk on the MLK page? I would be interested to know if you have an opinionDie4Dixie 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominion issue again

It doesn't stop. Please help. {See Canada Talk Page) --Soulscanner 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

American Civil War GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed American Civil War and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention this to you since you are a significant contributor to the page and, if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates & needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Image:Clipboard01.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Clipboard01.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD I6.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. SQL(Query Me!) 13:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Richmond, British Columbia

Hi Jim,

You made an unreferenced addition to the Richmond, British Columbia article, and I wanted to know whether you determined that from a verifiable source or if they are your own observations. For example, from my own observations (despite trying to find verifiable information via the City of Richmond website and Google), City Hall is not the tallest building in Richmond (both of my grandmothers live in Richmond in taller buildings.)

Thanks, Andrewjuren(talk) 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Jefferson & Berkeley Counties, WV

Dear Jim, you added some info on the Border States re: Jefferson & Berkeley Counties which I don't think is quite accurate. Jefferson & Berkeley were made part of WV in 1863 by the Wheeling Restored Government, and a poll was conducted that year in both counties and those who were allowed to participate voted to join WV. They didn't join after the war, the lawsuit by Virginia to recover those two counties was won by WV in the Supreme Court, which settled it once and for all. It makes it sound like the citizens of those counties had a poll after the war and voted to join WV, which is not at all true. Thanks, Dubyavee 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Part of likely confusion is Emancipation Proclamation which specifies Virginia, but specifically excepts "the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth" (Jefferson not there either) --JimWae 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Dear Jim, 50 has usually been the number quoted for the formation of West Virginia, even the Virginia Historical Society gets it wrong though, they refer to the "50 Unionist Counties", which makes me laugh, they don't even know their own history. Anyway, if you don't mind, in the next few days I will rewrite that section, and put the Jefferson/Berkeley conflict in perspective, with an inline quotation from Fast & Maxwell's "History of West Virginia", which lays it out fairly logically. Wheeling took control of those two counties during the war, appointed officials, conducted polls for the 1864 election and used troops to keep the populace in line. I didn't want to get too detailed, since the article is on the Civil War, so I will keep it as short as possible. Thanks, Dubyavee 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see now my sources do support 50 - but I think for the Civil War article we have to watch out we do not get too specific. Saying 50 is fine in the general article, but any great specificity would be more appropriate in the Border states (Civil War) article - including mention of the Restored government of Virginia (a crucial yet often omitted step in any discussion of the constitutionality) - and of course in the History of West Virginia article --JimWae 04:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I saw your question on the History of WV about the map. I see how it might be confusing, I will go and retitle the map to make it clearer. The map is intended to show the counties of WV which ratified Virginia's Ordinance of Secession, not the counties which voted for separate Statehood. I will retitle the map, thanks.Dubyavee 04:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I eventually figured out what was intended, but the change will reduce future confusion. Btw, do you know where there might be voting results county by county. It would also be interesting to compare each vote - for secession from US, for secession from VA, & final one for statehood --JimWae 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oyster Bay

First off, I'd appreciate it if you were calmer. I am quite aware of policy, and I'm assuming good faith on your part; I'd appreciate if you did likewise.

As far as the move: please see the categories of towns in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin: the eight states that are divided into towns. Unless I missed some, or unless you change some, you'll observe that there's only one other town in all these states with the format "Town of ___, ___": the Town of Rye, New York in Westchester County. Wikipedia is not to be a chaotic place: we establish consensus, including naming conventions. Whether or not your preferred name for Oyster Bay is the best choice, it is an obvious violation of the standard for such names — surely there would be more names like this otherwise. If you want to see these places changed, then take it up somewhere where there's tons of visibility, as such a change will have wide-reaching implications. And don't think that it's just New York towns, or towns in these eight states; I expect that my hometown is named the Village of Belle Center, but we simply have it as Belle Center. Your preferred naming convention will likely require the renaming of every single incorporated community in the United States, so be prepared for the controversy that will come if you follow this path. Nyttend 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • While Town Of Oyster Bay may be a difference from usual practice, it is not a violation of any "standard" (in the sense of policy). What do you hope to achieve by your changes & moves? Are you expecting people to type in xTownNamex (town), XStateNameX in the search box? While this may not be an issue for your village in Ohio, the issue for LIers is that all but one Town name is also the name of a place within that town. People do not say East Hampton meaning to also include Montauk - when they say East Hampton unmodified, they mean the village - not the town -- similarly for the other towns --JimWae 05:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my last reply if you continue to present yourself in this manner. Please write more civilly.
I expect people to go to Oyster Bay just as I expect them to go to Barre, Vermont. When you type that, do you expect a disambiguation page or do you except the city? Admittedly, it's not the most convenient, but that's the way it is in all eight "town" states. Are you going to try to change every single community with this sort of disambiguation? If so, go ahead — but unless you so desire, don't try to have one or two changed. You speak of errors that result (for example, the Oyster Bay disambiguation page) — I do my best to fix wrong links as a result of changes such as this, but I don't see why I must be held responsible for every single wrong link. If you never make mistakes, that's good; but I suspect that you so do. So what? It doesn't matter if you make a good-faith error, especially if you try to fix it once you realise that something's wrong.
By the way, if you put "Oyster Bay, New York" into the Census Bureau's Factfinder, you'll get this page: it's the town. Barre, Vermont is similar to what we'd call a disambiguation page; the city is listed as Barre city, Vermont. This, I expect, is the reason that these articles are named this way: the Census is our source for the names and the basic information, and therefore we entitle our articles likewise by this reliable source. Nyttend 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit comment on Current Era...

Specifically:

...It's 2006 this year for anyone on Earth that is participating in day-to-day world commerce and communication...

You need to update your calendar. It's currently 2007, and it will soon be 2008... ;) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, guy -- I was quoting from the cited article --JimWae (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

History of New York

Because you placed the "unbalanced" tag on the History of New York article you are required to indicate on the associated talk page the reasons why you placed this tag on the article so that the issue can be resolved. BradMajors (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit comments I left in the template tag gave the reasons, but I added to the talk page as you wished - but NOT BECAUSE I was REQUIRED to do so --JimWae (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"vandalism"

I have been with Wikipedia since 2006, check my contribs. I think you are unqualified to decide what exactly constitutes Jesus Christ within Wikipedia. My image is perfectly acceptable as historical fact, please refrain from calling me a vandal as this is defamation of my character. (WP:NPA). Thanks! --Zcflint05 (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, Zach - not an toilet wall nor an art museum --JimWae (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, Jim. I have been helping build this encyclopedia since 2006. Please do not treat me as an unexperienced editor or a child. I suggest you review our NPOV policy before further enforcing your point-of-view on Wikipedia pages as you have been doing at Jesus. Thanks! --Zcflint05 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Leave me alone"?

Your attempt to bully me is not going to work. I have deleted all of those templates you added to my page, and should you continue to harrass me I will seek admin assistance. BTW, the next time you leave a comment on my talk page -- which I strongly discourage from this point on -- please sign it and be accountable. Rollosmokes (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)