User talk:Saksjn

SAK Comedy Lab
It looks great! Good luck with future wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Signing your posts
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. 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! --Davidkazuhiro 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary edits
Saksjn,

Some comments on your most recent edits to Pine Castle Christian Academy:


 * Please don't change the link from "Imporivsation" to "Improvisational Comedy." The former article exists; the latter doesn't.
 * "Notable atheletic alumni" refers to students who were notable to the school, but not to Wikipedia. It is unnecessary to mention them, much less to give them their own heading.
 * You added the category "religious affiliation" to the wikitemplate. Don't bother; changes to templates do not appear in the article.

All above edits have been reverted.

--Autumn Forrester 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

KKI
Saksjn,

Good news; this is positive.

King's Kids International is actually a good stub. Sucrine's edits look pretty basic; most of the article is your own work, and it reads well.

I cleaned the article for you, added internal links and created some redirects.

Thank you for the good stub.

--Autumn Forrester 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SAK Comedy Lab
The "Notable Alumni" section (which I changed to "Further Careers of SAK Performers") has been tagged as unreferenced. I think I saw you looking at the notable performers' names on the SAK website. It would be great if you could add the page as a reference and remove that nasty tag. Also, see my comment on the SAK discussion page about adding what each actor did afterward to the list.

gtg

--Autumn Forrester 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Paula Pell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jdchamp31 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to have some context in the article before publishing it for public viewing. Also, please do not insult me onmy talk page either. I am helping wikipedia avoid pointless articles and obviously an admin sided with my tag. So please dont be mistaken. Jdchamp31 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I really do not know it must have been whoever the administrator that deleted the article. Once I tag the article it is out of my control. Someone must have deleted it Jdchamp31 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sak Comedy Lab...
Just responding to your question...no, I am not employed by, nor do I work for Sak. I do, however, personally know many of the members and have been trained by two of the hosts on separate occasions. Good luck with the article. I believe that it is within the standards and criteria for notability. User:KennyBee 8:55, 24 April 2007

Simple WikiTrioOne
Yeah, I like the idea of a trio on the Simple English Wikipedia. I'll recreate the template as soon as possible.

--Autumn Forrester 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks! I had a few stressful days but things appear to have gone quiet for now - although I'm expecting a second AfD on the article I've most worked on.. I'd appreciate it if any of your group could take a look at the page - Starport: Galactic Empires - and I'd also appreciate any feedback on (particularly if it states notability) how the page is.. or how it could be expanded. Nothing major though, I'm just trying to figure out how to talk about recent criticisms on which no secondary sources have yet commented.

I'll have a look through the pages you three are editing and see if there's anything I know about (particularly history based) I might add some stuff in.

Thanks again for your offer of help, shas 07:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Farewell, Autumn
I'm discontinuing my alter ego, Autumn Forrester, and replacing her with Mayor Coffee Bean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayor Coffee Bean (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Halo help.
Please go straight to Covenant Elites and help get rid of double redirects. Send messages to anyone you know Kinkijui KNK! 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image
If you already have the image uploaded on Wikipedia, the code for placing an image looks like this:. If the file isn't on Wikipedia yet, go here to upload it. Make sure you follow copyright/fair use rule (that includes an explanation for fair use!!) or the bots will remove your picture. --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did you find the picture? --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Underoath Genres
I don't know how often you contribute to the Underoath Page, but I feel that I should inform you that there is an edit war going on over which genres should be in the info box. Since you have a stance on the matter I would encourage you to go see the Talk page, and voice your stance there, because chances are, someone will revert the infobox. Axcess (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

YWAM Issues
FYI, I deleted the entire "controversy" section of YWAM. Regardless of whether or not L. B. Brown's accusations are true (from first-hand experience I know they're not, but that's OR), that section violated WP:NPOV and WP:NN, so Brown's case for its inclusion on Wikipedia was pretty thin. --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Eighth Hour Romance
I don't know anything about them. I read the discussion and I'm afraid Inhumer is correct—MySpace is not a reliable source. You'd be best off finding an official music review site and listing EHR as whatever the site says they are, even if it's not emo rock.

--Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been unjustly blocked
Some idiot vandals at my school have caused our IP Adress to be blocked. I'v been a constructive editor here for a year and a half and wish to be reinstated. Please consider a block only on IP adress only edits, allow registered editors like me to edit from this adress as long as we aren't vandals. I know who the vandal is at my school and have asked him to stop. He won't so I can't do much. I reguarly patrol pages that are frequently vandalized from our school.

Boxes (!!!)
Wow.

Sweet boxes! (Maybe you should put them in a three-column table?)

On another note, what is it that needs sourcing on KKI?

P.S. If you click on the "coffee plant" internal link on my user page, it will take you to a sub-page where I've organized the projects I'm working on.

--Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PCCA Theater section
I have a few questions regarding PCCA's theater department: Other than that, I think it ought to be noted that the Improv team was only named NotW for its first season.
 * Is PC still competing in the SAK league?
 * Is the Improv team even official?
 * What is the 08 Spring play?

Thanks!

--Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Is there not a traditional play this Spring? --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Band list
I don't know any local bands. Besides, are you sure that any other than Eighth Hour Romance would be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Eighth Hour Romance
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Eighth Hour Romance, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Eighth Hour Romance. Thank you.  Donald Albury  21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

TEHR reply
Because they need to be at least of national notability.Inhumer (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Central Florida Local Bands
An editor has nominated List of Central Florida Local Bands, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
Use a table. --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Expelled
Ah. I never did appreciate Moore as a movie critic. He honestly hates movies, if you've read his reviews. --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Explelled Discussion
Hey Saksjn, its getting rather nasty against us in there, isn't it? I was wondering if I should get an admin involved, or if it's a little early for that. I'm rather new at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.40.4 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could at least offer some moral support for you (not sure how well I did with arguing with them). It can be rather terrifying with so many people... disagreeing, with oneself. I really should get a username. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, user IP address 67.183.40.4 is now TempUse (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Conduct
I am impressed how you handled yourself with User:Angry Christian. It is important that we wikipedia users maintain our cool, and you did just that. You seem like a cool guy. 08:05 User:Uriah is Boss 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Expelled Talk Page
What do you need help with? I don't know anything about this movie, so I'm afraid I would add nothing to a discussion about it. --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Hey, keep up the good work, Saksjn! You're about the only one here who has any brains in their heads. Kookywolf (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory comments
Please refrain from making off-topic, inflammatory comments. Not only is your statement "[e]volution takes blind faith as well" insulting nonsense, it also has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Much like the "civility warning" that you added out of the blue to that talk page, it does nothing but provoke an annoyed response.

That sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, to accuse someone of writing "insulting nonsense," as you did, seems to me to be much more inflammatory than simply expressing the opinion that "evolution takes blind faith as well." You might think his opinion is nonsense, but it is not "insulting."   Expressing an opinion different from your own is not an insult, but to accuse someone of writing "insulting nonsense" certainly is an insult. NCdave (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with NCdave. The claim that "evolution takes blind faith", unless aimed at a fellow contributor, is not an insult - any more than Filll's comments below are:


 * We have to beat the living $#%^&* out of the concept, because otherwise people like you complain. So if you do not like it, I am sorry, but that is why these articles are written that way. People who support intelligent design challenge every statement, even though it is obvious. They challenge that it is not supported by scientists. They challenge that it was ruled to be creationism or that it is thought to be creationism. They challenge that it is a religious idea. THey challenge that it is not part of science. So, in reasponse, we are forced, over and over and over and OVER, to answer people like you, to put a huge amount of material in every article. And if you look, with time, the articles get more and more of this stuff. Exactly because of people like you. Because you cannot leave well enough alone and want to pick fights. So we have to protect ourselves and defend the truth.


 * If I were a sysop empowered to block user accounts for violating Avoid personal remarks, I would be issuing warnings for phrases such as:
 * your statement is insulting nonsense
 * you cannot leave well enough alone and want to pick fights


 * Neither of these two is related to improving the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm challenging you—
—To a fist-fight. In real life. Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha I wasnt being serious dude lol. I'm never really serious about anything. Which is why half the people at my work hate me. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

75.112.134.34
This is my schools IP adress. I put it here for two reasons. 1. If there is vandalsim conected to this adress, its not me. 2. I want to keep this as a reference soo I can spot anything unregistered users from my schools do. Saksjn (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Returning your comment
Interesting, I was really considering it, till I saw you don't like Mondays, lol. Okay, I cant become a part of a commitment, and I am only started on Wikipedia a week or two ago. But I will be willing to work with you guys on creating articles, editing, etc. I also love Libertyville's UserBoxes. I agree with most of your UserBoxes. I will now be watching your page, and I will talk or hear from you soon. In Christ, Jay (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S.
I was just wondering, what is your denomination? With what you posted on my page I like what you are talking about. So are we going to do something, like tag team workers? I sort of want to know more, like when we want information for articles then we ask each other? And like helping each other in editing and creating. I am learning how to work this stuff and make my way around here. I will talk to you soon. Jay (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

archiving
Saksjn- All you do its create a page off user talk page like this [User talk:Saksjn/archive 1] and then move the entire talk page from your to there, and put a link in its stead on your talk page (perhaps with a date range so folks know what time period that archive covers). Does that make sense? Hope things are well in Florida! cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good answer
That answered my question more than you might think. I was thinking more, what do you believe, than what is your denomination. Like some Catholic or Jehovah's witnesses believe so many things differently than myself. I read the article on YWAM and was the same as most of things I believe. For know I am going to be editing till I find a good thing to write about. Talk to you soon. Jay (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just made an article and was wondering if you knew how to categorize it? I went to the page but didn't really understand. Oh, did I mention I made my first article that didn't get deleted, yet. It is called "Caaing Whale", ya I know, but I couldn't find much info online. Just from our big set of enclyclopedias we have that contains like 30 books. And may it be the first of many. See ya, Jay (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the categories, I had never even heard of an Cetaceans. About the YWAM criticisms, I completely understand. Doesn't seem like Christians are being criticized and tagged like the bad guys in our society? I am going to try to come with a new(Longer) article to create with better links. Sincerely, Jay (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That was quick, I made it already. I set my mind to do it and got it done. You can visit it here I had to change its name, it is now Hector Wagner but before had an E with a squiggly line above it. When I searched for it didn't any results with only an E. I found my user name linked with a talk page with somebody requesting it be deleted HERE, along with a one called like Muslim warrior or something like that. But I was sort of forgotten in the following comments. See ya... er post with you soon, Jay (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can fill out a request at WP:RFPP. –Cheers, L  A  X  20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave
Are you aware that you were responding to comments that were made three years ago? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Saksjn. I am JBFrenchhorn. You may have seen some of my comments at pages such as the Expelled talk page and NCdave's talk page. I was rather confused after looking at your user page and the link to User:Autumn_Forrester. Was Autumn Forrester a sockpuppet of Mayor Coffee Bean. Who is Mayor Coffee Bean? Are you Mayor Coffee Bean? Please explain. Thanks. I'm not accusing you of sockpuppetry or anything. I'm just slightly confused. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It does. Thanks for explaining it. You know, I just checked my edit count and your edit count and found that we both have exactly the same number of edits. 522 What a coincidence. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Less controversial subject
I see you play the guitar. Electric or hollow body and what kind? Angry Christian (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:
I saw your response at User_talk:Bless_sins/Why_Bless_sins. Its good to know that someone agrees. Add yes I'd like to discuss religion with you. Should I mail oyu, or is discussing on your talk page fine?Bless sins (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your kind words here. Drop me an email. NCdave (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

pcca
Hi. Since the last vandalism was a month ago, it is unlikely that the page would be protected. Most of it seems to come from one named user - if he does it again, we can simply report him and have him blocked. I'll keep my eye on the page for a while- thanks for the note. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So?
What did you learn at the screening?--Filll (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RE one man battle comment
I wouldn't say I was on anyone's "side" per se, but I am interested in reducing the amount of bias in the Expelled article. Fortunately, it seems to be getting better, since there is now more published material available about the film itself; but the article still needs a lot of trimming, IMO. I'd be happy to work with you on that.

As to being an administrator, it doesn't really make any difference in a situation like this, since we are expressly forbidden to use admin tools in content disputes in which we are involved. WaltonOne 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the rules are in place for a good reason, and I agree that admins should not abuse their tools by using them to gain advantage in a content dispute. Unfortunately, these boundaries occasionally become blurred in practice. I can't comment on the particular incident to which you refer, since I'm not familiar with it. WaltonOne 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for practicing the Socratic method. It is not our job to spoon-feed you what's already written in the article because you didn't bother to read it. You are expected to read the article before commenting on it, and most certainly before making biased, factually inaccurate edits. (As this edit proves you did, which you subsequently admitted) Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled
Ask the people on Talk:An Inconvenient Truth. I never edited there. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never saw it, sorry. =) Going by the content, it's probably at least somewhat controversial in America, but not so much in the rest of the world. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Art Smart (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you label their edits as disruptive. Saksjn (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit was disruptive, and I reverted it for having been severely malformed. Have you even tried reading it?  It looks like a load of garbage.  How can you possibly defend it?  Next time, use Show Preview and look at it before you hit Save Page.  Do a bad edit again, and I won't hesitate to revert it.  Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with.  Edit responsibly or not at all.  --Art Smart (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Malformed/broken references on An Inconvenient Truth
Sorry if there is any misunderstanding. I don't agree with your addition of "controversial". However, I and other also tried to point out to you that you somehow got the syntax wrong, and jumble all the other references. When I write "click on the reference" I literally mean you should click on it (in any of your recent revisions) to be taken to the references section and see how it is broken. Of course, then you should click on the link to the article and see that I'm right about the content ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Poll From Expelled talk
Saksjn, as your well intentioned poll has turned into a breeding ground for personal insults and topics unrelated to improving the article I am therefore moving it to your talk page. Angry Christian (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

put your name here if you've actually seen the film

I want to know who has actually seen this, so lets start a list here Saksjn (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Saksjn - Hi. I don't really think it is necessary to editing a neutral article on this topic, but I'll play anyway. It does seem that there is a vehemence here among some that seems a bit comical in the absence of knowing anything about the film. --Davidp (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no immediate plans to see the film. I have seen maybe 45 minutes or so in assorted clips. I have listened to maybe 4 hours or more of interviews with the star and the producers of the film. I have read 100 or more reviews of the film, including a couple of summaries. I have read maybe 200 or more articles about the film and the controversy. I have read everything I could get my hands on about the film since July or August of 2007. I have personally spoken privately to a couple of the people appearing in the film and obtained their impressions. I think that qualifies me to actually follow what the sources say. If you disagree, then that speaks volumes.--Filll (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I don't dispute your right to edit the article in any way. Even if you didn't read a single review or see the movie.  However, relying on a single position on the movie would severely impair your ability to avoid POV, though I'm also not suggesting that you have only absorbed one "side". --Davidp (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This question has no relevance to the article. For us to interpret the primary source (the film itself) ourselves would be WP:SYNTH. We are expected to rely on reliable secondary sources (i.e. reviews, etc) for this. HrafnTalkStalk 13:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing" per WP:SYNTH --Davidp (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. It is generally accepted that section "Plot" or "Summary" describing a film does not need any sources, other than the film itself. --RenniePet (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the film itself is a source (a primary source) for what is in the film. However, to summarize it necessarily one has to interpret it. The filmmakers and the film's star have one interpretation. Christian media have another, which is very similar. The mainstream media has another interpretation. And the scientific media has another interpretation. That is why secondary and tertiary sources are favored, although primary sources may be used sparingly. Otherwise, the Book of Mormon would have to be accepted as completely accurate and true as a primary source. And the accounts of Joseph Smith as completely accurate. We have to accept statements of assorted Muslim fundamentalists about 911 and the United States as completely accurate and factual. Without secondary sources or tertiary sources, we are not very encyclopedic.--Filll (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You forget that primary sources are deprecated in favor of secondary and tertiary sources.--Filll (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw the movie, which is why I came to Wikipedia to see how it was received. I had not heard of the movie before I saw a trailer last week. I was able to form my OWN opinion without coming into it with any preconceptions formed from reviews, negative or positive. Interesting that Fill is such an expert on something he has no first hand knowledge of. Kind of like reading the Cliff's Notes to do a book report instead of actually reading the book. :) DrHenley (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw it. Took two friends to go see it. Absolutely irrelevant yo me ability to help right an article on the subject. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw it. I agree that whether or not someone has seen the movie is obviously relevant. The Wikipedia article is highly misleading, as anyone who has both seen the movie and read the article can tell. NCdave (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw it and took notes using a digital audio recorder and almost got thrown out of the theatre for doing so. (Too bad, it would have made a great news story if they called the police ;-) By comparing my careful notes to what reviewers claimed the movie said, I was able to point out errors in numerous reviews. Apparently, putting words in someone's mouth is one of the most effective ways to "win a debate". What are ID opponents so afraid of? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(with irrelevancy noted above) JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What does this section have to do with improving the article? This is a poll and does not provide any useful ideas we can incorporate. Angry Christian (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE THE WARNING GIVEN AT THE TOP OF THIS TALK PAGE. SPECIFICALLY THIS ONE:

'''This is not a forum for general discussion of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.'''

ANYONE would be well within their rights to delete this section without notice. Angry Christian (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AC, in answer to your question, this section is relevant to improving the article because people who have seen the movie are more qualified to write about it than people who have not. NCdave (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, we cannot rely on the personal unpublished views of those who saw the movie for anything. That violates WP:NOR. And so we rely on WP:RS. And among the WP:RS it is clear that people either love it, or hate it, depending on their views of the subject matter beforehand. If you believe in creationism or subscribe to intelligent design, you will dance and cheer and shed tears of joy at this movie. If you do not, you will see it as a vile piece of manipulative crap. So people who experience the movie will come away with widely divergent views of it, depending on what their views were before they saw the movie.--Filll (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

American Eagle > America Needs Jesus
My username was changed, because it was "forcing my beliefs on other editors". I saw you were also on the your other page. I am also, under the same American Eagle name. I left you a message there, a lot less controversy. Don't you think? Cheers, American  Eagle  00:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing warning
I've just about reached my fill with your tendentious editing on creationism/evolution and global warming related articles. Consider this a final warning - the next time I see you POV pushing, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that your insertion on An Inconvenient Truth, is so broken (as has been pointed out to you  as you are aware  but haven't checked . (hint: scroll down to the reference section). At this point this makes a revert of you technically a vandalism cleanup. And i haven't even begun on tendentious and ignoring consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What were the edits in question, Saksjn? Can you show the diffs? Was it the neutrality tag? Nightscream (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This user had edited in good faith, just because he wrote something that you think is "not neutral" doesn't mean he should be blocked. He just wants his side to be showed too. I think that should be at the top, it is on of the most unproven and controversial movies, why does only Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed say that at the top, wait! Isn't that what Expelled all about? People getting Expelled (blocked) for saying what they believe in? SAKSJN I left a message on your "Other" talk page, read it there. Cheers, American  Eagle  20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it "editing in good faith" if you repeatedly revert to a version of the page that breaks the page? You aren't engaging in "good faith editing" if you keep inserting malformed text.  Blind reverting is bad enough - blind reverting to a version that breaks the formatting of the page is either tendentious editing or outright vandalism.  Whatever it is, it most certainly isn't "good faith editing".  Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sakjsn, my advice is just to be careful and make sure you use the talk page. See WP:1RR for a rule I've basically adopted for myself, and I think is a good idea. This may seem unfair compared to others, but how often can you really get an edit in just by reverting it once more? I'm not saying you do this, as I don't know, but working to get consensus on the talk page is the best approach; if someone doesn't like one edit, then suggest another. If you do all that and you still get blocked, then I'll be there to support you :) Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits at An Inconvenient Truth are disruptive. Your motivation aside (and it does look very tit-for-tat), the fact that you are willing to repeatedly insert text that breaks the article formatting makes it pretty clear that you are not intent on editing that article constructively. That sort of behaviour will get you blocked. The argument about whether one admin or another is overly involved is beside the point - someone will block you if you consider to edit disruptively. That isn't a threat - I am not threatening to block you. It is merely a statement about how things work here. Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the format broken? I really would like to know. Saksjn (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Raul & Guettarda, will you please identify the edits by Saksjn that you believe violated policy? To toss off accusations of "tendentious" and "disruptive" editing without identifying what edits you believe to have been tendentious and disruptive is not helpful.  I've not done an exhaustive examination of all Saksjn's edits, but I did review some of them, and they all seem reasonable to me. NCdave (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters there's his revert warring against concensus on the Inconvenient Truth article:       

Then there's this factually incorrect edit on the Expelled page (which it is apparent from talk page discussion that he didn't bother reading the next two sentences to know why his edit was wrong):  And him revert warring to keep it in:  

This is him watering down the language of the article, without even spell checking his edit first: 

Here's him adding more factually incorrect material (again, with typos), based on his own personal misunderstanding of what Dawkins said in the movie (Dawkins explained his point at length in the PZ Meyers interview):  ...and him revert warring to keep it in:  

Here's him white-washing the article to remove language about the misquoting of Darwin: 

And finally, there's him revert warring to put the POV tag on:    

In summary - basically every edit he's made to both articles has been biased, factually inaccurate, full of typos, or all of the above. It's the definition of tendentious. If he continues this behavior, he can expect to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the diffs. I've examined every one of them, and I'm astonished at how completely inaccurate those accusations are.  Saksjn's edits have been consistently balanced and factually accurate, albeit with a couple of minor typos.  His supposed "revert warring against consensus" is actually edits for balance and accuracy, in some cases correcting clear violations of well-established Wikipedia policy or guidelines.


 * Here are my conclusions about each of the named edits:


 * This is a one-word edit he supported with no fewer than four references! The edit is obviously correct, and serves to make the article a tiny bit less biased.  You should be issuing warnings to the editors who keep reverting this needed change, for violating WP:NPOV as well as edit warring.


 * This is him trying to follow WP:NPOV policy, by removing "sneer quotes," which in this context are inherently POV-biased.
 * "The effect of using scare quotes is often similar to prepending a skeptical modifier such as 'so-called' or 'alleged' to label the quoted word or phrase, to indicate scorn, sarcasm or irony. Scare quotes may be used to express disagreement with the original speaker's intended meaning without actually establishing grounds for disagreement or disdain, or even explicitly acknowledging it. In this type of usage, they are sometimes called sneer quotes."


 * This is correcting a standard NPOV problem with the use of the word "claim."


 * This is Raul654 reverting Saksjn's perfectly accurate contribution to the article, which he had supported by links to multiple confirming secondary sources. Preposterously, Raul still calls it "factually incorrect."  This is not a reasonable dispute: the issue is simply what Dawkins said in his interview in the movie, which anyone who sees the movie can confirm.  (Raul, have you seen the movie??)  What he said anywhere else is irrelevant.


 * Here is Saksjn slightly toning-down the article's completely false accusation that the film misquotes Darwin. In this case, I fault Saksjn for being too willing to compromise the truth for the sake of consensus.  The truth is that the film's quote of Darwin was accurate and fair, and the article's accusation of selective quotation is just plain false, as has been amply proven on the Talk page.  But Raul preposterously calls Saksjn's edit "white-washing the article to remove language about the misquoting of Darwin."  That's absurd -- and a severe failure to assume good faith.


 * As for the POV tag, I think dozens of editors have noted that the article is biased in the extreme, so the "neutrality-disputed" tag is obviously needed. (Really, IMO, the article needs a much stronger warning that simply "neutrality disputed.")  Everyone editing the article, including those who think the article is just fine, know that many editors dispute the article's neutrality.  Even if you disagree with those editors, that fact of their opinion is sufficient to warrant the tag.  The way to resolve that dispute is to seek consensus by polite discussion on the Talk page, not by deleting the tag and accusing the editor who added it of misbehavior.


 * Even the accusation that Saksjn's edits are "full of typos" is exaggerated. I spotted two typos.  If two (or ten!) typos is a blocking offense, then someone had better block me, too.  Maybe some editors never make typos, but most of us do.  I've made far worse typos than those which Saksjn made.  If you view my contributions history, you will often find my edits are followed within a few minutes by minor corrections, of typos that I've made & soon spotted; others go unnoticed for much longer.  I've even made typos that completely reversed the intended meaning of my words!  (I hate that!!)


 * The rest of the accusations against Saksjn are all untrue. NCdave (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NCdave, if I wanted your grossly distorted spin on the above diffs, I would have asked for it. Needless to say, while I could go through and rebut each of your distortions, that would be a waste of my time. My warning above to Saksjn, as well as my earlier one to you, remain in effect. Raul654 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn wrote:''Where is the format broken? I really would like to know.'' Have you not bothered to look at the page after you've edited it? A quick look at the page history shows that you have broken the page at least nine times (and I may have missed some). ,, , , , , , ,.

If you bothered to read the talk page or the edit summaries of the people who reverted you, you'd know that. You even claimed to have fixed the problem in one of your edit summaries. You can't pretend to be unaware of the problem now, when you already acknowledged it in an edit summary. Guettarda (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Though some may disagree, it was a very controversial film, and it is disputed by many users. It needs to be Neutral point of view. If many editors wish an article fixed, and others still disagree, than it should be discussed, not the users who try to even it out be threatened! This user tried to make the article better (with references), and that doesn't warrant this kind of criticism. The tag and should be put on until the dispute is resolved, not removed and said that they should be blocked. ~ American  Eagle  16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has the right to edit Wikipedia. If someone adds a load of malformed crap into an article, the correct thing to do is to remove it.  If Saksjn were actually editing in good faith, he would have fixed the formatting.  Instead, he simply re-inserted the malformed text.  Quite frankly, for that sort of blatantly disruptive behaviour and refusal to heed warnings, he should have been blocked.
 * What sort of tag do you have in mind anyway? A dispute as to whether we need to have broken text in our articles or not?  A dispute as to whether vandalism should be allowed to stand or not?  Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, not an exercise in performance art.  The idea that every stray character and broken link must stand is ludicrous.  If you really believe that, then you are clearly in the wrong place.  Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by tag was that the article may not be neutral, which to many it isn't. Like the fact that all mention that it is controversial is at the bottom, while most such articles say it at the beginning. Blessings, American  Eagle  16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those that have defended me here. In response to Guettarda's latest comment, I think calling my sourced information crap is un-called for. If you are reverting my edit on AIT because of a problem with formating, then do us all a favor and fix it instead of using it as a convenient excuse for reverting. The only unsourced claim I have put in either of the articles was the Dawkins stuff and that sorta had some sources. Besides, I quit fighting for that statement in order to wait until a better source could be found. I believe that is a sign of smart editing. Now if Raul wants to continue to use his admin powers to push his agenda, then so be it. At least I admit that I have biases, we all do. It's just a question of whether we're man (or woman) enough to admit it and at least try to be nuetral. Saksjn (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you had actually tried to understand the context, he is not talking about the sources. You would have noticed that your insertion is "malformed crap" - no matter how good and true the references might be. Its "malformed crap" because it breaks all of the reference section - because you haven't taken the time to correct it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok - i'm going to assume that you still haven't understood what the problem is (despite your edit summaries). Take this insertion, please check it - more specifically scroll down to the reference section, and notice how its completely broken. Thats because your insertion is breaking it, by not being formatted correctly. And this is what is referred to as "malformed crap". Ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think calling my sourced information crap is un-called for. Again - have you looked at your version of the page? Ever? Did you look at any of the nine versions I linked to? What else do you call an edit that leaves a page looking like this? (Yes, that's the TEXT you added to the page, not the wikicode, that actual TEXT)

http://haacked.com/archive/2006/06/25/AnInconvenientTruth.aspx/ref> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003526592_federalway16m.html ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271256,00.html ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303525,00.html ^  ^  ^  ^ An Update with Former Vice-President Al Gore (2006) (V) ^  <li id="cite_note-9">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-10">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-11">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-SFGate-12">^ a&#32;b </li> <li id="cite_note-13">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-14">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-15">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-16">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-17">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-18">^ 'Last Stand' delivers IMDb, 2006-05-30, accessed 2007-01-10</li> <li id="cite_note-19">^ BIFF EXCEEDS ALL EXPECTATIONS (Adobe Reader format) accessed 2007-01-10</li> <li id="cite_note-20">^ Documentary Movies Box Office Mojo, accessed 2007-06-09</li> <li id="cite_note-21">^ Housewife addresses climate conference Flanders News, dated 2006-11-16, accessed 2007-01-10</li> <li id="cite_note-22">^ Governing Council The Alliance for Climate Protection, accessed 2007-01-10</li> <li id="cite_note-23">^ Roger Ebert An Inconvenient Truth Chicago Sunday Times, accessed 2007-01-10</li> <li id="cite_note-24">^ Ronald Bailey Gore as climate exaggerator Reason, dated 2006-06-16, accessed 2007-01-10</li> <li id="cite_note-2007_Oscar-25">^ a&#32;b </li> <li id="cite_note-26">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-thehumanitasprize-27">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-stanleykramer-28">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-presidentsaward-29">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-nobelpeaceprize-30">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-31">^ An Inconvenient Truth - Awards and Nominations Yahoo, accessed February 10 2007</li> <li id="cite_note-32">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-33">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-34">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-35">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-36">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-37">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-38">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-39">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-40">^ Central Ohio Film Critics Association (COFCA) - Awards</li> <li id="cite_note-41">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-42">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-43">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-44">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-45">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-46">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-47">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-48">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-49">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-50">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-FedWayBan-51">^ a&#32;b </li> <li id="cite_note-FedWayLift-52">^ a&#32;b </li> <li id="cite_note-APBush-53">^ a&#32;b&#32;c </li> <li id="cite_note-54">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-55">^ url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=143315</li> <li id="cite_note-56">^ Full text of David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference, Guardian Unlimited, 4 October 2006, accessed 25 November 2006</li> <li id="cite_note-57">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-58">^ Al Gore - The Prince of Asturias Foundation</li> <li id="cite_note-59">^ Gore climate documentary to be shown in schools, Expatica, 7 February 2007, accessed 11 February 2007</li> <li id="cite_note-60">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-61">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-GoreSpoof-62">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-63">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-64">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-dimmock-65">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-66">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-67">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-68">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-69">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-70">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-71">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-72">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-73">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-74">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-75">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-76">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-77">^ Richard S. Lindzen There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming Wall Street Journal, accessed 2007-01-10</li> <li id="cite_note-78">^ Questions for Al Gore by Roy Spencer TCS Daily - Questions for Al Gore, 2006-05-25, accessed 2007-03-13</li> <li id="cite_note-79">^ U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works</li> <li id="cite_note-80">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-81">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-NYT1-82">^ a&#32;b </li> <li id="cite_note-83">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-Houghton-84">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-85">^ BAS Statement about Channel 4 programme on Global Warming</li> <li id="cite_note-86">^ NR+EFC Statement</li> <li id="cite_note-87">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-88">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-89">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-90">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-91">^ </li> <li id="cite_note-92">^ </li></ol> }}

You added several screens worth of unformatted junk to the article. If you don't like people using the term "crap" to describe your additions to the article, might you consider not adding stuff like that? Once is a mistake. Nine times...the degree of contempt for your fellow editors is mind boggling. The nerve that it takes to be upset when someone calls that "crap"...Wow. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And, um, by the way...some of these refs have absolutely nothing to do with the movie...this last one jumped out at me, but picking a few at random supports the pattern. This is just junk...even if it were formatted correctly, it's still just junk. "Ron Paul Shocks GOP With the 'Inconvenient Truth' About Islamic Terrorism"?!! Wow. Wow. I can't believe that. Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - i have to defend this abit. Saksjn actually only posted 4 references where one of them had a /ref> tag (ie. without the &lt;) - that made the whole reference section break. The text you are pasting is the unformatted (and thus broken) references from the rest of the article. The Ron Paul reference is used in AIT to show that the sentence "inconvenient truth" has spread to other uses now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, OK. My mistake.  But while it isn't as bad as it looked, they're still pretty random.  Reference 1 appears to be a non-notable blog post.  The second one is about a controversial decision by a school board; it doesn't call the film controversial.  The third ref, apart from apparently misrepresenting a ruling by a British judge, questions the accuracy of the film...it uses the term "controversial" or "controversy" in the context of the 2000 elections and global warming, not the film.  The fourth ref calls the film "alarmist" and only uses the term "controversy" to describe global warming.  So while a tad less egregious than I originally read it, using those references to label the film as "controversial" is, at best, misleading.  Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say that i disagree on the references, but that is something for the talk page. This here is about the repeated insertions of broken references, ignoring other editors, ignoring consensus, ie. general tendentious editing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kim. Long time no see. But getting to the point, you and Raul seem to be accusing Saksjn of the same things JoshuaZ et al accused me of. It all comes down to a matter of policy:
 * 1) Should an article on a controversial matter be scrupulously neutral, or
 * 2) Should such an article emphasize the "scientific" or materialistic viewpoint?

I can understand how some new contributors would become frustrated when there attempts to do #2 are treated like crap. But I hope we can find a way to describe criticism of the Theory of Evolution in such a way that opponents and advocates alike will agree with the description. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed, except that this case has nothing to do with #2. Its about #1. Neutral in wikipedia is defined by WP:NPOV. And what is being discussed on the article talk is more specifically WP:WEIGHT. If 2 people say something is controversial and 200 others say not, then WP reflects the 200 and not the 2.
 * But even this is not the case were discussing here. Its a repeated insertion, that breaks the article - because there is a broken tag. Something which has been pointed out repeatedly here. Content disputes belong on the article talk pages. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi,

I saw your message here and you said it'd be ok to correspond on your talk page. I wanted to ask you what's your idea of God. How do you imagine Him (or Her/It) to be? Do you think God is present everywhere (inside all objects), or God is in Heaven but he watches us from there at all times? Do you beleive God takes a particular shape of form, or that His physical description is beyond comprehension? Take your time in responding. Meanwhile, may God bless you.Bless sins (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all thanks for the The Islamic Barnstar, I appreciate it. I'd give you a similar Barnstar in return (because you deserve it), but I've got to find my own way.

Regarding our discussion. I completely agree with your approach to describing God. We must describe god in terms of God's attributes, and qualities, since (in my belief) God transends space and time. Thus, I also describe God as my relationship with God: God's love for me, God's ability to do all things, God's complete awareness of creation.

The God's Omnipresence is a bit of a trick question. Yes, Muslims believe that God is everywhere, but we also believe God, like you say "is not bound by the laws of nature" including the laws of space and volume. I know some go very far and beleive that God is present everywhere to the point God is within us.

You believe that God can take a physical form (such as that of Jesus). I want to ask you, do you consider Jesus to be a human being (in the sense the term is used)? If you believe that he was human, do you believe he was part human (or flesh) and part God (like his soul/spirit)?

I think it has been an interesting discussion so far. Remember, please take your time in responding back to me.Bless sins (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Terra Terra Terra
After a quick google search, I don't think they pass WP:Notability for music, despite some coverage I can find: 1, 2, & 3. One review in a paper isn't enough, and the events & venues they've played don't seem to be nationally notable, even though they clearly are way more than your basic garage band. Am I missing one of those criteria lines they meet?

I hope you're having a good Monday! cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: I love the Gadsden flag on your user page, I've been seeing it in opening credits to John Adams all last week. If you haven't watched it yet, I HIGHLY recommend it.  cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Throwback Apparel
Well when the new threads came out last November, I wasn't just going to throw out the old ones! I like the old ones, but I'm open to the new ones and I'm happy that most of the fans that I see at the games aren't boycotting the team because of the change. I don't think they needed to change their look, but it doesn't matter to me as long as they win! The only thing I didn't like about the old look was the home jersey that looked like a vest. It just looked weird to me without sleeves... But we need both of the old color schemes to remind us that we didn't have it as easy as our expansion brothers in the desert, the Diamondbacks. Tampabay721 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the awards. I see the activity on this page has slowed. Anyway, I thank you for the awards -- American  Eagle  06:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?
Thanks for the concern. I am still able to edit the List of Christian Punk Bands article so I don't know what it hurts. There wasn't any reason for them to block me though. Mentalhead (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are You
Are you from Tampa (or a surrounding area)? I've browsed your userpage and noticed that you're involved in music. I'm trying to start a band and looking for some people to jam with. phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hell yeah! That'd be fun!  I watch them on the TV all the time and go to as many games as I can.  But that doesn't really answer my question :p phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's kinda ironic actually, cause I'm a vocalist. I've done vocals for all the bands I've been in.  I love a lot of things, from stuff like Brand New to metalcore stuff like Poison the Well.  I'm generally a metalcore vocalist, meaning that I can do loud screams but I can also sing calm as well.  What about you? phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I pretty much do vocals, but have piss-poor skills on guitar and bass. Vocals are definitely my strong point.  What'd you say you did again?  Guitar? phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 01:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I finally found what I sound like. Literally, I sound pretty much EXACTLY like this (screams and calms) link phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 05:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I see the game.... IS THE POPE CATHOLIC? phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely... my entire family is ecstatic about this! I can't believe they're in first... they have a great team this year! phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On Top of the World!
Man, that was a great way to end the game last night. Ok, maybe not so great when Percival blows the save and it keeps me on edge for the next hour, especially since the Magic blew it in Detroit just before that. But when Gross hit that grounder to center, I just started screaming "RUN JONNY! RUN JONNY RUN JONNY RUN JONNY RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!" It's just so great, and now they have the best record in the AL! The dream is becoming a reality a little more every day. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Help...
...with this. Cheers -- American  Eagle  19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks S*A*K*S*J*N, I hope that it will help. Thanks -- American  Eagle  19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian Rock project or subproject
Can we start a Christian Rock project, the articles need a heck of a lot of work and a project would make it easier to collaborate. Saksjn (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already a Contemporary Christian music workgroup which covers many of the Christian Rock articles. There is also a seperate Christian metal music wikiproject. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian Rock Wikiproject
There are those of us that have absolutely no interest in editing CCM articles and would rather have a project/workgroup that only concentrates on the culture and bands of Christian Rock. Saksjn (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would encourage you to address it on the work group's talk page. If there is enough interest you can certainly form a Christian Rock workgroup. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Best in the BIGS!
I was there last night, it was great. The Cowbell Kid was there, a lot of the other fans there were getting into it, Kazmir was on fire all night, Hinske went deep and the horns went off. Then after the game they flashed the AL East and overall MLB standings on the board, and seeing us on top of both of them was awesome. I'm going back Thursday because I have to use up my free tickets that won't be good after then. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Response
Definitely... I'm amazed by him! More importantly, I'm amazed by the Rays! They're great! Hopefully they'll stay on this streak. Hope you guys can go to a game soon, cause my brother and I came up with a new fan thing... we're going to reveal it at a game. It will be funny :) phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rays-Red Sox Series 6/30-7/2
Are you going to any of the games? Tampabay721 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder
Re:this - in case you are contemplating resuming your old disruptive editing habits, I'd remind you that my previous warning above remains in effect. Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
Well since they're on the road for the next two weeks, I'd say I'm not going to another game until then, maybe. This whole week has been crazy for them, right? The only thing that could make it better is if they can gain some ground on the Red Sox, but every time we win, they win, and every time we lose, they lose. I'm already counting down magic numbers. I checked it last week and now I can't stop thinking about it. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Magic Number
After tonight's win, the Magic Number to win the division is at 40, and I think the Magic Number to make the playoffs is 37. Tampabay721 (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind that Magic # for the playoffs... It's actually 38. You can find that out and a bunch of other cool mathematic stuff related to playoff implications here. It's crazy that the Rays have been given just less than a 90% chance to make the playoffs as of now, but back in March it was only a 7.5% chance. (The Yankees now have a 9% chance just to make the playoffs, rofl. They're almost a complete non-factor now.) Tampabay721 (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome
I wouldn't rate the chances of getting the propaganda category applied more consistently all that high, but we'll see. skeptical scientist (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello. I am wanting to know if you work with King's Kids. Please let me know. From RobScheurwater (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of King's Kids International
I have nominated King's Kids International, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/King's Kids International. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whpq (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled religious predictions
You may be interested in this AFD, given your contribution to the talk page for that article. Phiwum (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heaven's Wager


The article Heaven's Wager has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Self-published book, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:BOOKS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)