User talk:C.m.jones
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Young_Earth_Creationists
[edit] Cut & paste moves
Hello, I agree that the page needs to be moved (see talk), but please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. You can join the discussion on the talk page to discuss the best name for this article, or file a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thank you. --Muchness 15:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cow Tipping
I think that with the article's revision history intact, a well sourced scholarly article would not be a wasted effort for your consideration. MMetro (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverand Wright
Hello, I noticed that you uploaded the picture of Rev. Wright with former president Bill Clinton, what was your motive here? I suspect you're trying to knock Hillary Clinton, so please! Why not stick a photo of Obama and Wright in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeronicaPR (talk • contribs) 06:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Both photos would be good, but the one with Obama is not free per Wikipedia's definition. C.m.jones (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The image of then PO Wright at Bethesda is great but is slightly inaccurate in the title. While Reverand Wright did initially join the Marines, he transferred to the Navy in 1963. As a Navy medic he may have served in a Marine unit, but he was Navy personnel. The Marines use Navy medics (and Chaplains).DavisGL (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous isn't it? I was working on restoring it when you showed up. Grsz 11 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Please go to the talk page and explain, or do so here, why it is important who the congregants of a pastor who comments on Wright are and why you seem hell bent on including that the Clintons were parishioners.--Die4Dixie 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
- How about some discussion about the asinine edits that you are making on Wright's page?I find your edit summaries to be less than adequate. I am ready to request arbitaration .Let me know if you are--Die4Dixie 11:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
I would argue that the persons you've quoted are just as extreme from the perspective of the left. So, if you value "tolerance" and the right of more conservative thinkers to have their opinions too, you'll revert to my edits, which provide a more balanced view of the reactions to Reverend Wright's sermons.-Schlier22 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I made this edit on the page, removing responses listed that were not directly responses to Wright or his statements, like McCain's, the one listed in the section by Marty, and the one's added by Schlier. Let me know what you think, but I think it's a step towards appeasing both sides of the aisle. Grsz 11 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Against Consensus
Please go to the talk page and review why this that you keep replacing have been removed and how your edits violate Wiki policy.I think your bad faith snotty edits are coming to an end. I no longer must assume good faith in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- ROFL. Yea, right. C.m.jones (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, Right.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please Preview, Group, Summarize
Thank you for your edits. Please consider 1) Using the Show Preview button (beside the Save Page button), 2) Grouping edits together to avoid clogging the page's edit History which makes it hard for fellow editors to monitor the edits, 3) Describing each edit with the Edit Summary box (above the Save Page button). Hu (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good work
I've only recently joined the fray at Jeremiah Wright, and I don't yet have any opinion about the changes on that page, but I'd like to thank you for the work you've added to Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago. You've clearly taken the time to find and read relevant print sources, which is something Wikipedia editors do far too rarely. I want to commend you on your diligence and your substantive contributions to that article. (Does that mean this comment is a letter of commendation?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, Josh, thanks much. :-) I plan to work on this article for the rest of the day and into the night if need be. I hop you'll give your input again after the first draft is done! C.m.jones (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for your hardwork on Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago. You've transformed the article from a melting pot of various accusations to a very good article on the history of the church. Now, to protect it from the all that crap to come. Thanks, Grsz11 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) |
[edit] Julia Speller
Could you please send me a link to Speller's dissertation? I see that you last accessed it on 04/04, but I cannot find it online nor a link. If it isn't online, and you have an electronic copy, I would very much like to examine it. It could be sent through Wikipedia, as I have email enabled.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's available through ProQuest Digital Dissertations. The database is available through most college or university libraries. C.m.jones (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see you posted this link after I had found it and reported it's location on the respective talk page to give the appearance of being "helpful". I also noted your comments that were intended to offend, but were merely laughable.Have a fantastic day! BTW, my institution only has abstracts.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jeremiah Wright and presidential campaign
Your unwelcome snide remark, "purely presidential campaign politics", made me laugh, especially considering the fact that my experiment worked in under 10 minutes. Exactly what is it that makes the specific content of Wright's sermons notable, other than the fact that it's strongly connected to the Presidential campaign? I strongly suggest that instead of reverting other editors' valid, properly sourced, and relevant edits because it doesn't suit your political views, you visit the article's talk page and attempt to participate in consensus there. --DachannienTalkContrib 03:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Malcolm X Chicago Muslim Rally by Gordan Parks.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Malcolm X Chicago Muslim Rally by Gordan Parks.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Muhammed Speaks to the Blackman - Nation of Islam Publication.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammed Speaks to the Blackman - Nation of Islam Publication.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:M. William Howard.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:M. William Howard.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Editintrosection
A tag has been placed on Template:Editintrosection, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sceptre (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SaipanSucksDOTcom-website.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SaipanSucksDOTcom-website.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 02:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
