User talk:CPRice

Hi Chris! I hope you will stick around to do more than add links.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Peter Kirby 16:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Gospel of the Hebrews; the Historical Jesus
I would like to get your feedback on the information contained in two early-stage drafts of articles to replace existing ones, User:Peter Kirby/Gospel of the Hebrews and User:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus. Thanks. --Peter Kirby 20:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Response
Peter, will do by this weekend. Layman 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about reverting you on the Jesus-myth. I saw that it wasn't vandalism and went to replace your edits, but you had already done it. My mistake. Peace, delldot | talk 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem Delldot, a group of Jesus-Myth proponents have laced the entire article with POV. I'm just trying to restore it while keeping some of their input that was not POV. Layman 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam
I see that you've been adding links to "Christian cadre" pages to a large number of articles; please don't do this. First, Wikipedia policy is to keep external links to a minimum, and secondly, spamming links across multiple articles is frowned upon in itself. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct me to any policy that I am supposedly violating? The links are all directly on point, and the ones I added today were to pages that did not have an over-abundance of links. Is this a "I know it when I see it standard"? Perhaps more to the point, I do not just anonymously drop in and add links to pages, I've identified myself on this page and have contributed to a number of wiki-articles in a substantive manner.

In any event, I'll lay it down for now unless I'm contributing to a particular page in a more substantive manner. Layman 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The main source is External links; the section What should not be linked to includes:
 * "Standards are just as high, or even higher, for material linked to externally as it is for content added internally. Pages that are factually inaccurate or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to."
 * (My view of one or two of the links you provided is that they fitted this description.)
 * "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose."
 * "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates."
 * "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article."
 * (This is the one about which suspicion is raised when one editor adds lots of links to the same site.)
 * In general, the use of links to evade the NPoV policy is deprecated, and adding links to two polarised sites doesn't help (NPoV isn't the same as balance).
 * The Meta-page, When should I link externally starts with the sentence: "Not very often." and that's a good rule of thumb. It goes on to say: "If the content is free (in the w:GNU FDL / free as in speech sense), consider copying and wikifying it for us. If it's not, you can cannibalise it. Extract the facts and rewrite it (in your own words since their words are copyright) or alternatively place a link to it in the talk page so that someone else can do so."
 * There are times when links are to sites that provide very detailed inforamtion that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, but none of the links to Christian Cadre were in that category.
 * I hope that that helps. To a certain extent it does involve an "I know it when I see it" standard, but there are more concrete standards and guidelines too. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian propaganda
Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. Please do not promote your own point of view in articles. (Sugar Bear 19:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

It is not propoganda to correct a factually incorrect description of the game. The game does not put players on a mission to "convert or kill" nonChristians. It is hate speech like yours that needs to be countered. It is an outright lie to claim that the game is as you have described it on the relevant entry. Layman 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your source of reference is a blog. That is not a valid source of information. (Sugar Bear 15:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC))


 * From Talk2Action's front page: "Last November, we launched Talk to Action as a national, interactive blog site on the religious right."

Did you notice that your source is an anti-Christian blog? Check the Discussion forum at the relevant entry. My sources are those gamers who have played the game and published reviews in gaming magazines. Yours is hate speech. Layman 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that not all websites are blogs. Please do not try to claim otherwise in an attempt to claim that this website is not a valid source of information, which it IS, unlike the BLOG YOU linked to. (Sugar Bear 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


 * From Talk2Action's front page: "Last November, we launched Talk to Action as a national, interactive blog site on the religious right."


 * It certainly appeared to be a blog. It features short to medium range articles in sequence and allows comments (so long as you do not contradict the author).  I care not whether it is a blog or a site.  Neither one affects the credibility of the source.  There are good blogs and bad blogs.  Good sites and bad sites.  Whether a blog or a site, Talk2Action has proven itself uncredible.


 * I also help maintain a website. So are you saying that if I moved my blog post on the subject to the website that it would instantly be rendered credible?  Funny.  Layman 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your block
Hi, I noticed on Talk:Left Behind: Eternal Forces that you thought you were blocked. I looked into it and you were indeed blocked, but only for 24 hours because of a WP:3RR violation. You should be unblocked by now. Also, please note that I am the one who protected the article, but that protection is not at all an endorsement of the current revision. I protected it because of the revert war going on which was getting people like you blocked for 3RR. If you and others agree not to revert war any longer I'll unprotect the page. I'm sorry I missed your comments which were removed from the talk page. It is good that you at least made the attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. Cheers, jaco ♫ plane  19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I truly appreciate your efforts, but since the "other" side will not even discuss the game on the discussion board, how are we to avoid another revert war? Honestly, I think Wikipedia could get into trouble for disparaging -- with notice that the entry is wrong -- a commercial product that another company is trying to launch.  Layman 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Left Behind company are the ones who are going to be in trouble, judging from the content of their propagandic video game. (Sugar Bear 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Since their game is less violent than most of its kind and since you have been lying about the "convert or kill" mission of the game, I don't think they have much to worry about. Layman 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your work regarding the article on the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" game. It's amazing how people are so obsessed with spreading lies about Christians and Christianity even in the face of undeniable facts. Please keep up the fight for truth and accuracy. God bless! Jinxmchue 03:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the comment. Most of my links have been wiped out since then (except in the discussion page) but I think I got the word out about how some were so distorting the game.  Layman 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)