User talk:Christianjb

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. 24.107.227.12 07:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
Just a short note to thank you for your work on the AiG and Ken Ham pages. I think you are doing a marvellous job in ensuring that the Creationist POV does not dominate the article, by your rational, critical and useful contributions. Bravo! Maustrauser 03:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Vic Chesnutt
''If you had looked at the discussion page you would have seen that Chesnutt is a quadriplegic, not paraplegic. Thanks, Christianjb 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)''
 * And if you had followed the edit history correctly, you would have seen that edit was made by 69.224.7.168 and not me. Thanks, -- JLaTondre 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies! Sorry for the annoyance. Christianjb 00:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what I did- I clicked the last comparison link and then clicked on the username associated with previous, not next edit. Sorry again. Christianjb 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. As I re-read what I wrote, it comes off a bit harsh which wasn't my intent... -- JLaTondre 01:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Red String
(Correspondence reproduced from User_talk:IZAK) Sigh- so it's come to this. Your comments in the discussion have sank to you claiming support of creationist beliefs over evolution science. Firstly this has nothing to do with the article- so there's no point putting it on the discussion page there.

If you want to argue with the science- then bring it on. I'll wait for you and everyone else to bring forth mountains of papers published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals that support your claims. (I've been waiting for a long time now.) If however you want to attack my opinions in the same spirit that you think I've attacked yours... I haven't attacked your beliefs. I haven't denigrated your beliefs. I've repeatedly said that people's beliefs are their own right. It's only when they make pronouncements about the physical testable factual world that I will step in and ask them for proof. Please stop lecturing me about what you think of my beliefs (which you don't know). Oh- and don't insinuate that your religion is being victimized here because people are too scared of Islam. Yeah- right- Islamists are going to look up my IP address and hunt me down. Maybe you'd like to guess my religion? Maybe I'm Islamic, in which case your comments are in incredibly bad taste. Maybe I'm a 'heathen' as you put it- in which case I presumably have no right to edit religious Wikipedia pages.

The most ridiculous thing is that we actually helped put together a reasonably unbiased page. There's really little need for insulting me- telling me that I've 'trivialized' concepts etc.

I think you need to take a chill pill. I'm going to leave by thanking you for the work on the article and on Wikipedia in general.Christianjb 12:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

AIG
Hi, I've ben following your edits in this article for a while. Nice job at writing a balanced article. David D. (Talk) 07:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my eyes open and put the other page on my watchlist too. David D. (Talk) 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the AiG attack, I'll keep my eyes out too. Maustrauser 21:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Sarfati
I didn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=30177337&oldid=30131794

User:156.110.211.130 did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=30192958&oldid=30177337

Keep up the good fight. Josh Parris #: 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figure you might need some sleep. Josh Parris #: 23:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarfati
(moved from my talk page) agapetos_angel 02:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is opinion- and one I'm perfectly happy for you to accomodate in the page. Many would feel that being explicitly compared to Nazi's is deeply offensive- especially groups that were singled out during the Holocaust. For instance- Feminazi is dumb and insulting, but Jewnazi would be far more offensive given their history of persecution. There is room for both points of view in the article. Christianjb 02:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, as a Pole with relatives who were actually persecuted. Besides, that WAS my point. That insult is merely your opinion, as represents POV. agapetos_angel 02:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At the moment there is no point of view in the article. There are just the exact quotes and a historical mention of the persecution of gays in the Holocaust.  It's then written that "defenders would reject that the quotes are a reference to these events".  All fairly NPOV in my opinion.  Do you honestly doubt that homosexuals would (in general) find the neologisms homonazi and sodomofascist insulting?  Also do you honestly doubt that part of the reason they might find it insulting is due to the history of persecution?


 * You said that you're a Pole whose relatives where actually persecuted. Well, homosexuals were actually persecuted as well. I'm not going to get into a debate about the relative degree of persecution- people of both communities were killed (for respectively ethic and gender reasons) and that seems all that's relevent Christianjb 10:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Update- I have sent the following email to glbtjews.org

Dear Sir/Madam,

I've got some tough questions regarding an encyclopedia article I am helping to edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

This article in part covers a page by creationist organization "Answers in Genesis" in which the neologisms "homonazi" and "sodomofascist" are used. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0218.asp)

These are the questions (and I'm sorry for putting them so bluntly).

Would the neologisms "homonazi" and "sodomofascist" be offensive to most homosexuals? Would they be considered particularly offensive because of the documented persecution in the Holocaust?

Could it be considered offensive for an encyclopedia article to point out the connection between these neologisms and the possible connection with the Holocaust? For instance, would the Jewish community in general feel that it diminishes their suffering for each group to claim they were persecuted- when it was one particular group, the Jews that suffered the worst destruction?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. I personally consider the neologisms to be offensive, but as this has been the subject of some dispute with other editors I would like your input.

I want to be accountable for this email, so my full address is: (removed) Christianjb 10:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (I was criticized by Agapetos angel for putting some of the above information on his/her talk page, which s/he immediately deleted. Agapetos insinuated I was hiding information by not placing it on the Answers in Genesis talk page for all to see.  Anyone has my permission to post any of the contents of this talk page over there- I'm not hiding anything.  It appears that Agapets has closed her/his account, so this particular discussion probably won't continue.)  Christianjb 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you up about? Please stop cluttering my talk page with drivel that attempts to push your agendas! It will be removed  agapetos_angel 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't respond to personal attacks. Please read No personal attacks.  Thanks Christianjb 09:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuals and the holocaust
Hello. I was wondering why you added a section on the holocaust page to talk about the group 'Answers in Genesis'. I can't see that this is directly related to the issue of the German concentration camps so am puzzled, other than it uses the terms fascism and nazi. I think it can only serve to detract from those that died in the camps. 61.88.7.202 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, can you please sign in and I'll respond. Thanks. Christianjb 03:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not above user, but I'd like to hear that response. It seems that you are merely spreading POV agapetos_angel 02:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove it if you want, but state your reason on the talk page. Thanks  Christianjb 03:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

AiG (2)
Stay with it. Your patience is an inspiration - just make sure you get some sleep! Mloclam901 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Stick at it
I'll try and chime in where possible. I think the best thing is do exactly as you are doing. Incorporate their edits where acceptable and revert where their POV is obvious. As well as bide our time. It looks like AIG has their insiders working here, they seem very knowledgable of the arguments. But, at the end of the day, they cannot deny the actual quotes from the AiG site, even if they are uncomfortable with the content. Actually I wonder if that content will disappear from their web site as they play with their smoke and mirrors. Basically it's politics as usual, so much for the science. David D. (Talk) 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. No problem with regard to misinterpretation.  i think those rants are a bit garbled so I'm not surprised that my points do not come across so well.  If nothing else its a good way to help me formulate my stance on these issues. David D. (Talk) 10:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I'm done editing in that section. Feel free to go in and adjust as necessary.  I'm a bit brain dead from reading all the AiG literature.  Where do you start a critique when there are so many strawmen being contructed by AiG? David D. (Talk) 06:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vicchesnutt.jpg
Hi, I have a question about the image you uploaded Image:Vicchesnutt.jpg. I used it in the article on the music of Athens, Georgia, and there is a concern at Featured article candidates/Music of Athens, Georgia about that image's copyright status. You tagged it as public domain but indicated it was licensed for non-commercial use only. If the copyright holder licensed it only for non-commercial use, it needs to be deleted because it is not free. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 07:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you got permission to use it on Wikipedia, then does not necessarily make it free, because other people need to be able to use it too. What did the record company say?  Did you contact them? Did you ask if you could use an image on Wikipedia, and they agreed?  If so, you need to find out if they'll release it under a free license, or it will need to be deleted. Tuf-Kat 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to your advocacy request
First, sorry for the delay! You should know we're in a restructuring process in the AMA and anything is a bit chaotic there.

I'm interested in the case, but I'd like to know more and also some diffs could be very useful for me. I tried to read the talk page, but aything seems as disordered as in the AMA!

Reply me on my talk page. I'll try to respond you by Tuesday. --Neigel von Teighen 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis
Hi, I couldn't answer before because I got my motherboard burned. Excuse me, please!

This case is very similar to one I had in Jehova's Witness, so I take the case. I will put the article in my watchlist and begin to work.

Some diffs could be useful to me. Send them to me by email (imaglang@@yahoo.com, with one @), but there's no hurry of course. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Water 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Water 5.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Penta.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Penta.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Vicchesnutt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vicchesnutt.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CLW 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vic Chesnutt
Just a heads up, I'd like to try to get Vic's article up to GA or FA status and I assume you would like to help. Katr67 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

red string
In the Old Testament, t he midwife tied a RED STRING around the ankle of the baby who was about to be born prematurely, and crammed him back into the uterus. Over the years, this has been misrepresented to designate which twin was the oldest, but evidently the red string thing existed way beck then--else, why a RED string, and not just any color string? --Mata Hari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.207.222.130 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)