User talk:A.J.A.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you seriously think there is anything in the least useful or constructive about that comment, other than as a minor Personal Attack, then by all means re-insert it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] St. Clements University (Diploma mill)
I put that article up for afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University, and want to know if you can find some information about? I didn't really have any luck, as of now it fails WP:V. Arbusto 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] punctuation
I see that you are wikistalking me again and reverting my edits. The problem this time is that you are reverting in order to re-introduce puncuation errors that I fixed. I will assume good faith that you are doing so out of ignorance of proper use of punctuation, and when you blanked material in your rv here [1] it was by accident. You should review the rules with comma, and stop wikistalking me. If you are not sure about the rules you should not revert others. I have reverted all your below reverts of me as they simply re-introduce the same punctuation errors:
03:02, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m 2006 Thailand coup d'état (fix punctuation error) 02:53, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Walt Whitman (rv punctuation error) 02:51, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Norman Finkelstein (rv punctuation errors) 02:45, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Amy Goodman (rv punctuation error).Giovanni33 04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question on Crown College
I saw you did a lot of changes to the Crown College article, and it looks good. But I do have a question on the categories, you removed several of the categories, like "Christian universities and colleges", I guess this is a wiki policy question, but that seems to me to be appropriate, why do we get rid of it? Mgroop 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question on Almeda University
Why would you invalidate true and factual information that is validated by accurate links? You are NOT NEUTRAL, but providing only the negative comments without providing a fair and factual representation. For example, the article about a dog getting an Almeda degree is completely inaccurate. According to the BBB, Almeda has rejected (turned down) over 90,000 applicants that didn't meet the requirements. Furthermore, Almeda requires a valid identification before it confers a degree. That article has been proven false several times as the author has failed to provide a copy of Rover's diploma even after numerous requests.
Next, Almeda was never closed down in Florida by legal action. The Oregon website quoted was wrong. The Florida news article quoted by Veronica was accurate. In it, it states that that in 2003, Almeda reached an agreement with the State of Florida to cease issuing degrees from within the state of Florida and to cease direct advertising to Florida residents. If you do some research, you will find this is accurate and your statement is false. There was never any legal action.
Now you are threatening to block this accurate information in favor of inaccuracies. What do you require as proof that your information is inaccurate?
The dog item getting a degree is not true. Perhaps I am biased, but you fail to give both sides of the Almeda argument. Only one. At least I give both sides. I am much more neutral than are you. Do you think everything in the newspaper is true? The news article has given no proof at all to the validity of the dog story. Did you know that when you get a degree from Almeda they validate your Identification? Do you want me to prove that? Where did the dog get his I.D.? It didn't happen. No "doggie diploma" has ever been produced because none exist. Yes, it has been requested numerous times. There's no doggie diploma issued by Almeda anywhere. Period!
[edit] removal of content regarding Kepler College
Please stop removing legitimate, reliable content regarding the programs of study at Kepler College. If you don't agree with the existence of the college, that's fine, please add your opinions and comments under Criticism and Controversy. But please don't remove factual information and quotes, especially about the description and history of the college! Thank you, Gary Lorentzen
- The material is unsourced ad copy rather than encyclopedic content. A.J.A. 15:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- While I understand your perspective – I acknowledge and agree that Lorentzen is certainly far from an impartial judge of the College or its article – I would appreciate it if you wouldn't slice out chunks of text with the summary 'rvv'. While the remarks may be biased in tone, they're certainly not vandalism. Please consider, instead, revising the section in question to include factual information couched in more neutral terms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- No. A.J.A. 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
A.J.A., what do you mean it's 'unsourced ad copy'? I simply stated the facts about the founding of the college, its authorization and its mission. What source should I use to describe the college? I could copy and paste the actual catalogue description and history, and I'm authorized to do so, but a simple, short summary should suffice. True, I'm not 'unbiased.' I developed the curriculum and instructional designs and worked with the State for authorization. My post simply stated facts. I did shorten Enid Newberg's response to the criticism and controversy section--I didn't realize it was so long, sorry. But this section is for expressing opinions and pov's, is it not? As long as you keep deleting, I will keep posting. Gary Lorentzen
A.J.A., please stop edit warring at Kepler College, and please refrain from using edit summaries that imply the other party is a vandal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you TenOfAllTrades! Although I doubt A.J.A. will stop... Gary Lorentzen
[edit] AJ
AJ, It seems that we have been butting heads, so to speak, in certain articles. I would like to take this opportunity to open up a dialogue and see if we can come to some sort of reconciliation. I am under the impression that you consider my changes either malicious or, at the least, nefarious. Let me just assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, let me here say that I thoroughly appreciate your spirited contributions to wikipedia, and I do look forward to working with you in collaboration. I especially am thankful that you are so knowledgeable in Calvinism and Reformed Christianity, and I think this knowledge can only help the articles we work on. I will also say that I am a bit puzzled that we have so butted heads, even more so now that I have read your bio, since we are really so similar. Christian, pro life, you take the Bible seriously, — you even like coffee. I was raised in Dixie, both in Virginia and the Deep South, so (if I may venture) I am familiar and comfortable with the same culture and values that you exhibit. Our only real difference seems to be that I am Catholic, but I will say that I find myself far more comfortable with Reformed Protestants than liberals who fancy themselves as "catholics". So, at any rate, I really think we can work together, and I would like to try and come to a fresh understanding of each other and our past differences. Lostcaesar 11:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:
Good idea on the templates; it will take some time to implement but it seems like the best solution. I appreciate the kind words you had for me, and look forward to collaboration with you. Please don't stop keeping me honest. Your comments on my summary of Calvin were indeed off, he was speaking of the source of the authority of scripture more than interpretation, and I mistook the passage in question. I think my mistake was the source of much of our confusion in this instance. Lostcaesar 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
Please stop using vandalism templates and vandalism-related edit summaries in point-of-view and neutrality disputes.
You have been blocked for 24 hours; longer blocks will follow if you can't be civil in editing disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] oops
I did not mean to rv the wording, my apologies. Lostcaesar 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your protection request
Sorry, but I'm not convinced semiprotection would be the legitimate thing to do here at this point (WP:SEMI). Can you find other ways of dealing with it? As long as it's still on the level of a "normal" content dispute and not an extremely fast revert war, semi is really not the way to go. But please let me know if things get more disruptive. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ESV userbox
Thought you might be interested in the new userbox I created: {{User:HokieRNB/userboxes/ESV}}. Grace and peace, HokieRNB 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Smile
Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
[edit] Autoblock
unblock-auto|1=67.150.80.130|2=
This IP address has been blocked temporarily.CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively;the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse.If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a notereferencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message).Administrators: Please consult with the checkuser who placed the block before unblocking. |3=Essjay
- User:Crzrussian already forwarded your request to Essjay, please wait for a bit until Essjay respond to this request. Apologize for any inconvenience caused. --WinHunter (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Apologies
I apologize for my accusation; I will be sure to look in depth into a situation before reverting in the future. Sorry for any inconvenience. --// >|< Shablog 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:christianity
I didn't change too much, did I? Lostcaesar 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Bold text
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz
Please be informed that a request for comment involving a user with whom you interacted on Christianity has been started. Beit Or 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CHICOTW
I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:
 |
|
 |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
|
||
|
|
|
TonyTheTiger 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Huckabee, yet again.
I've refuted your allegations of Plagarism. A comaprison of WIkipedia's 3 Jun 2006 version to that on that other site, which was last edited 4 Jun 2006, shows that they took Wikipedia's copy, replaced some proper noun 'Huckabee's with pronouns 'him' or 'he', as appropriate, and then posted it. They ripped off Wikipedia, not the other way around. I asked you a week ago to follow up on this. As you chose not to, I have. ThuranX 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- No reply or response to my investigation of plagarism, and no replies nor help on the article. I am finding that I can no longer assume good faith regarding your participation in this article. You've been asked to be clear and asked for specific information on the talk page multiple times. Both ai.kefu and myself have tried to engage you on the talk page, but your only reply is essentially a big flipping of the bird. You dismiss anything we say as either ignoring your points, which, in fact, were all addressed, or by claiming we're out to get Huckabee. You ignore us in favor of essentially vandalizing the page. Either start working on building the section, or admit your bias against anything disparaging to Huckabee, or just leave the page alone. But continuing your vandalisms is unacceptable. You need to respond on the Talk Page to the comments left for you regarding your criticisms. ThuranX 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The atmosphere at the Christianity talk page
Hi, I wonder if I could persuade you, as a gesture of goodwill, to go back to the Christianity talk page and strike through or otherwise modify your comments. Things can get quite heated on the talk pages of controversial articles, and sometimes when you're frustrated, speaking your mind may seem to make things better for you in the short term, but in the long term, it can be counterproductive. And in any case, it was most unfair to include SOPHIA among those who "hate Christians", when she actually restored the text of the Creed, and tried to calm things down after the "prayers are offensive" remark, and when (you may not know this) she was extremely helpful and concerned last Easter when some Christian editors from the Christianity article became victims of some very nasty stalking, wich their real identities (contact details, etc.) posted on some website. If you think that SOPHIA's edits are motivated by hatred for Christians, you're the only Christian editors who thinks so. "Hate" is such a strong word, suggesting that someone is consumed with a desire to hurt and destroy, that I'd hesitate to use it about any of our editors. There are undoubtedly some editors who believe that Christianity is the root of all evil, and I suppose we just have to try and show them (as far as possible, without turning Wikipedia into a debating forum) that they're wrong.
Anyway, if you could soften your remarks, that would be appreciated. The people with opposing views probably feel that they're right just as much as you or I might feel that we are, and a provocative remark will invite a provocative response, making it difficult to keep the discussion on topic. I'm not going to vote either, by the way. Musical Linguist 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- A.J.A., I specifically requested on the Christianity talk page last night that there would be no reference, direct or indirect, to past misbehaviour of any editor, unless there was evidence that the misbehaviour was continuing. I'm a little distressed to see this. As far as I recall, last summer, when Giovanni was facing the possibility of a community ban, and I and others agreed to a last chance, I gave some kind of undertaking to Giovanni that if the puppetting stopped, we would not use it against him. It was for that reason that I suggested, and other admins agreed, that the puppeteer tag should be removed from his user page, in order to make it easier for him to make a fresh start.
- I suppose that the assurance I gave Giovanni was not mine to give. I could only speak for myself, in promising that there would be no ungenerous references to past incidents, no attempts to humiliate him in front of new users. I suppose the reason I felt safe making that promise was that the people who were opposing Giovanni were Christians, whom I felt I knew. It's disappointing to see that I was mistaken, and that even after a night's sleep, and time to cool down, you are still posting things that make the situation worse. The reference yesterday to "Storm Rider the Mormon" could be taken as quite offensive; certainly, it's clear that you didn't mean it as a compliment or as a neutral observation. And in bringing up another user's history of puppeting, despite the fact that that behaviour has stopped, you also took the opportunity to make a snide remark about Mormonism.
- I asked Str1977 to stay away from the page where so many inflammatory posts were being made, and he agreed. When he came back the next day, he apologized for his part in adding fuel to the flames. Agathoclea made the same request of Giovanni, and he agreed. Sophia, who had not been disruptive in any way, also said she would take a break from that page. In recent months, we have all worked together well, so I was hopeful that when people had had time to calm down, this would blow over. I do appreciate the small gesture you made, in at least changing "hate Christians" to "hate Christianity", though I feel that what you changed it to is still unjust and unnecessary. I would love if you could bring yourself to remove your last comment, but even if you can't I would earnestly request you not to post any more of the same. The preview button is a great way to help editors not to post inflammatory stuff. I use it myself, when I'm annoyed with another editor; it helps me not to post things that will make the situation worse. Musical Linguist 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- A.J.A., I don't recall what I said to Giovanni at the time, and I don't have time to go looking for diffs. I certainly didn't make an explicitly-worded promise about exactly what people would or wouldn't say, on behalf of people who should have been consulted. I was, at the time, sending a few private e-mails to other editors. Suffice it to say that I would have felt comfortable in saying that I felt that my fellow Christians (and my fellow admins) would not stoop to taunting, or to making ungenerous references to something that I hoped would become a part of the past, and which, I think, has become a part of the past. It is indeed sad that I should be proved to be wrong in saying that Christians would not engage in such pettiness. I suggest that your inflammatory posts are likely to cause more damage to Christianity than Giovanni's annoying edits about Christianity being a self-styled monotheistic religion based on stories about a character called Jesus. Certainly, they are more damaging to Christianity than the removal of the Creed (replaced by a link to the full text) from the article would be, because they make Christians (and consequently Christianity) look bad — look really bad, in fact. I can assure you that "Storm Rider the Mormon", as you so insultingly called him, and Sophia, the atheist who "hates Christianity", as you also said (have you ever looked into the help she gave to Christians who were being stalked last Easter?), would never do what you have been doing in the last two days. I ask you to consider:
- Have your recent posts to Talk:Christianity been in accordance with what you feel Jesus would want?
- Do they make Christians and Christianity look good?
- Are they helpful in calming down the situation so that we can all start working together again?
- Do they have any advantage (other than perhaps giving you some kind of release from feelings of irritation) that you feel outweighs the disadvantage of offending others?
- I really hope that you'll agree to stop making derogatory remarks about non-Christians, regardless of your opinions of them. I'm not going to take any admin action on a page I'm active at, but another admin might become interested in this squabble, and I can tell you that people have been blocked for less. Please, don't let it come to that. I think the atheists are big enough to let this blow over and make a new effort to work together, so the question is: are the Christians? Musical Linguist 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- A.J.A., I don't recall what I said to Giovanni at the time, and I don't have time to go looking for diffs. I certainly didn't make an explicitly-worded promise about exactly what people would or wouldn't say, on behalf of people who should have been consulted. I was, at the time, sending a few private e-mails to other editors. Suffice it to say that I would have felt comfortable in saying that I felt that my fellow Christians (and my fellow admins) would not stoop to taunting, or to making ungenerous references to something that I hoped would become a part of the past, and which, I think, has become a part of the past. It is indeed sad that I should be proved to be wrong in saying that Christians would not engage in such pettiness. I suggest that your inflammatory posts are likely to cause more damage to Christianity than Giovanni's annoying edits about Christianity being a self-styled monotheistic religion based on stories about a character called Jesus. Certainly, they are more damaging to Christianity than the removal of the Creed (replaced by a link to the full text) from the article would be, because they make Christians (and consequently Christianity) look bad — look really bad, in fact. I can assure you that "Storm Rider the Mormon", as you so insultingly called him, and Sophia, the atheist who "hates Christianity", as you also said (have you ever looked into the help she gave to Christians who were being stalked last Easter?), would never do what you have been doing in the last two days. I ask you to consider:
[edit] Curious about Huckabee edits
It seems like there were a few POV eidts in your large edit of the Huckabee article. I am curious as to the intent of the mass change and POV statements added in? Thanks - Eisenmond 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Mike Huckabee and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism
The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
 |
--Flex (talk|contribs) 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Calvinism
We need more input on what should be in the Template for Calvinism. Please share your thoughts in the sections of the talk page starting with Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Calvinism news
Hi. I'm recommending to all participants in WikiProject Calvinism that they keep up with at least the News page ({{Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/News}}) for this project. The methods I'd recommend for doing this are any or all of:
- Add the abovementioned page to your watchlist
- Include the page on another page you look at regularly; in my case, this is my user page, since I keep my personal "todo" list there. That would look something like:
The new project WikiProject Calvinism has started.
[edit] Most important tasks
- Please vote on our stub category
- Help is still needed with the basic setting up phase. Tagging as a drive is indefinately on hold (see discussion at Talk page claims); feel free to work on assessment
[edit] Current discussions
Any important discussions -- any discussion inactive for a week should be removed
- We need more input on what should be in the Template for Calvinism. Please share your thoughts in the sections of the talk page starting with Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists (TimNelson 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
- In particular, please vote on whether or not to include Reformed Baptists in the template at Template_talk:Calvinism#Reformed_Baptists_straw_poll. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The assessment stage and future direction of the project are under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Calvinism#Stage change: Tagging to Assessment
-- TimNelson 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Malhotra
Why did you revert my edits on Malhotra? They were in good faith. The version you reverted to contains absolutely unsourced lies about Malhotra's being descendents of the Hindu Lord Yudhishtira, who is revered by most Hindus as a symbol of the ideal Hindu. You would thus understand the motives for wanting to say that all Malhotras are descendants of Yudhistira. The article also contains emphasis on the presence of an elite Dhai Ghar which rules over all other Kshatriya (rulers and warriors) in Punjab. This is unsourced and I believed Wikipedia relied on it's most basic policies like WP:RS, thus I am most disappointed and disconcerted by your revert. The version you reverted to also contains the names of non-notable people who's EXISTENCE is not even referenced. My version, if you check, contains only sourced and verifiable facts. I will not revert you for now because I want no conflict, but I would aks you to review your revert and revert yourself. dishant 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] =
[edit] Reply - Edits by Dishant55555 ========================================================================================================
The edit by A.J.A removed edits by Dishant55555 which a number of users have put down as Vandalism by Dishant55555. The article mention's a Dhai Gar but does not as you claim, say they rule over everyone in Punjab, but it is a prominent grouping within the Khatri caste and does not give it undue note. This existance of this is clearly a historical fact (Google has 1,600 articles on it)
I have checked your other edits and note that you have made claims that Luthra 's (the page referes to Dishant55555 as Dishant Luthra) ruled over India with the Gupta's, and that Luthra occupy the senior army ranks and are ruling class, for which there are no sources. This is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies.
I note that Dishant55555 having repeatedly undone reverts from other users who have removed people who are clearly not prominent as per wiki guidelines indeed none of those listed appear to fulfil wiki guidelines -
Please see wiki notes on editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest such as a family link.
For example - You have repeatedly entered a Semma Luthra - as a politician - who another user has deleted as not being prominent citing that the link you have provided shows she is one of the losing politicians in a small municipal election.
Wiki guidelines state to enter a politician they must -
* Politicians:
o Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.5
o Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.4
o Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
Dishant55555 please familiarise yourself with wiki guidelines before undoing other user edits.
[edit] ============================================================================================
[edit] AfD nomination of Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America
An editor has nominated Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. --Orange Mike 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
