Revision as of 20:37, 17 January 2006 editCalifornia12 (talk | contribs)344 editsm →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:54, 18 January 2006 edit undoDaycd (talk | contribs)7,074 edits →InclusionistsNext edit → | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
:By the way, what is your opinion on whether or not LBU is a diploma mill? It seems that you have been following the conversation without giving your opinion on the talk page. | :By the way, what is your opinion on whether or not LBU is a diploma mill? It seems that you have been following the conversation without giving your opinion on the talk page. | ||
--] 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | --] 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
==Inclusionists== | |||
I doubt whether yuckfoo cares about them being . He consistently votes to You could use that to your advantage. They are known as ] ] 06:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:54, 18 January 2006
Bullets
No, this isn't a threat. I'm just letting you know I added the bullet "This Wikipedian is a Christian" and the category "Christian Wikipedians" to your user page. I hope you don't mind. You should explore Wikipedian categories. I've got several on my talk page. Harvestdancer 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Jason Gastrich 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Christian Rock
I'm not the anon user that made all those changes, but I think he or she was trying to remove those contemporary Christian music artists that shouldn't be described as "rock". Jpers36 00:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Jpers36. Nice to meet you. I've spent a lot of time on the Christian rock entry and the artists that are listed can be considered Christian rock. There might be a couple that are marginal, but as a rule, I didn't include any gospel, rap, or hip hop artists. The ones that were included fit the entry. God bless, Jason --Jason Gastrich 01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Richard Kiel and Christians in Entertainment
Hello; I believe you added the Christian Actors Category to Richard Kiel. I wondered if you were aware there was a bit of an edit war over it.I've already reverted back twice in favor of the category. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Richard_Kiel
Also I was wondering if you might be interested in this? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:List_of_Christian_Entertainers --California 12 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the RK page.They were level headed and got the point across.I am shocked at how anti-Christian bias is rearing it's ugly head at wikipedia.Are there any areas where Christians at wiki are speaking out about this? Take a look at the intro on this page- http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_christians Look at this sentence "Croaking along in it's own righteousness?" What a shame that people need to use a supposedly neutral internet site to spread their prejudice.
--California 12 12:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
WarriorScribe's deceit and poor personal research
While occasionally poorly worded WarriorScribe's perspective isn't merely held by him and his friends. Since LBU is unaccredited its entirely reasonable to question the academic credentials they bestow. I'm uncertain how WS & friends being in a minority or LBU statistics changes that. The entry indeed does not define LBU as a dimploma mill, but rather states "some assert" it is. Of course there is good reason to object to that as its a weasle term, and indeed no verified source is cited. And yes, I agree the actual criteria should be mentioned. Please make further suggestions on the article talk page... I appreciate you would like to correspond with me, but my talk page just turns into another battleground; which is okay, but little is accomplished and the discussion gets fragmented... which is not okay. cc'd to article talk page. - RoyBoy 05:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No personal headings
Per Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, please do not personally address headings to people on talk pages. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles, not their contributors. Headings on article talk pages should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page. Thanks. -Will Beback 06:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Will, I didn't know this was a rule. Thanks for letting me know. RoyBoy has addressed me on the LBU talk page, so I went to his talk page and addressed him there. However, he moved my response to the LBU talk page. This is why I addressed him with a heading on the LBU talk page. I'm happy to comply with the rule, though.
- By the way, what is your opinion on whether or not LBU is a diploma mill? It seems that you have been following the conversation without giving your opinion on the talk page.
--Jason Gastrich 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Inclusionists
I doubt whether yuckfoo cares about them being Christian entries. He consistently votes to keep everything. You could use that to your advantage. They are known as inclusionists. David D. (Talk) 06:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)