User talk:Jdhunt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jdhunt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! } Pilatus 03:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment on your editing of Bill Hybels - discussion is to take place on the discussion page. And Welcome to Wiki - May your contributions be long and lasting! Oyvind 08:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rivendale AfD Comments toward ceejayoz

First I would like to thank you signing up for a Wikipedia ID. You'll find that if you are serious about being a contributor to Wikipedia having an ID will make communication and discussion much easier. With regard to the comments that you made under the IP address on the AfD pages for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivendell Christian Fellowship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivendell Christian Communities toward user:ceejayoz, I really have to encourage you to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Good luck and have fun on Wikipedia. Stu 13:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

STu,

Sorry, I sounded snippy responding to a similar comment you made about reading rules and no personal attacks. That particular post came accross snippy, but after reading this personal post I see that you are nice and civil. (J. D. Hunt 06:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for that clarification. Here's my reasoning for being on point with Wikiepdia rules. It can be really easy in an electronic forum to repsond immediatly. Wikipedia has rules that dictate what should and should not happen in certain sections. These rules exist not only betterment of the online community, but also for your protection. Karma on Wikipedia can come around and bite one where it hurts - trust me, it happened to me once and I learned my lesson. In the event that a confrontation escalates, you are more likely to earn the support of others if you follow the rules. Do I think that one must always stay in the lines exactly as they are drawn? Certainly not - every now and then you'll find a holier than thou wikipedian who thinks that their a Wiki-God, and its OK to tweak their nose. but until you have expirience with the rules its best to follow them as best you can. The best advice I can give you is know where you are on Wikipedia, know what the purpose is for the place that you are and debate the issue, not the whatever personal shortcomings that you think that the other person has. Best of luck... Stu 13:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Almost a warning but not one

the stuff in the article is not correct please discuss things on the talk page if you are not certiant on them. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+ 07:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] warning

maijor pov on jew


I warned you not to and you add the exact same thing --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+ 07:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


One) i didnt get your first almost warning, until after all my additions were done.

two) I thought any one could add to a wikipedia article.

three) these are facts about what the apostle paul, a jew, did believe about the criteria that made one a jew or not.

      and there are jews who believe Jesus to be the messiah, jews who think him a great teacher and jews who think of as a      heritic.

(four) how is adding to an article vandelism (J. D. Hunt 07:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC))


One of the main differences between a jew and a christian is that chrisitians believe Jesus is the messiah. So in response you are right but they are know as chrisitians.

+ think about this Chrisianity apparently traces jesus to Moses. But says taht he was not a decendent of Moses's father, which I believe is a big flaw in it.

It is still major pov. Put it on the talk page as I think.... if you must not in the article

--☺Adam1213☺ Talk+ 09:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean david I think

[edit] can you help me

can you help me with this page. I am disagreeing with user:Fides Viva about the neutrality of Willow Creek Community Church article, and I saw that you did some work on it, I was hoping you could be another voice in this discussion. check it out on the talk page. thanks --Mshuflin 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nominating "Richmond emergent church movement" for deletion

JDhunt -- is the Richmond emergent church movement for real? I can't find any references to such a movement in the websites you've included in this article. I suspect you may be pulling our leg. If not, please comment by following the deletion notice at the top of the page. Regards, technopilgrim 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{NPOV}}

Please don't use tags as a starting point - you should only use NPOV tags if you have discussed the issue and failed to find a solution. It's a last resort, not a first. Guettarda 05:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its so sickenly biased I figured I'd get no where with discussing it first. I figured it would get attention if I started a fire.
Your response is the model of how not to approach editing a wikipedia article. Please read the Talk pages and contribute to that discussion. Do not start fires. bikeable (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I normally would not want to do that, but this article is so biased and protected by the evolution-nazis what else is a man suppossed to do.

From the evolution talk page:

Point of view throughout article
one example:
Because animals that are (in their view) "inferior" creatures do demonstrably exist, those criticising evolution sometimes incorrectly take this as supporting their claim that evolution is false.
second example:

It doesn't call it the 'theory of evolution'. A former talk section said it shouldn't be called the 'theory of evolution' because its scientific fact. poppycock! it isn't scientific or fact. It is theory because it hasn't been proven.

I'm putting a POV template until this has been honestly and fully discussed. Their are real valid scientific desentions that should be listed in a con section, just as pro-evolutionists have done in the intelligent design articles. Who put the ban on evolution debate on this talk page and moved it to a talk page where it will make no difference to this article. J. D. Hunt 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I normally would not want to do that, but this article is so biased and protected by the evolution-nazis what else is a man suppossed to do. How about "act civilly", and don't forget the core tenent of wikipedia, assume good faith. Calling editors "evolution-nazis" is extremely inappropriate. I replied to your points on the Talk page. bikeable (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


A scientific theory is a hypothesis that explains observable facts. A theory can be modified to take account of new facts as they emerge, or can be replaced by a theory that better explains the facts. Until a better explanation of the observed facts can be produced, a theory can be regarded as close to the “truth” as science is able to go. The theory of Evolution by natural selection though the agent of genetic mutation is perhaps the most robust and longstanding of scientific theories, and is the cornerstone of modern biology and other lifesciences. --Michael Johnson 07:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. See also Evolution is Both a Fact and Theory, J.D. Hunt. -Silence 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deists

Did you mention you are a deist on the evolution page? i bring this here since it off topic for the evolution talk page. I'm intrigued, i thought deists believed in a hands off God. If that was the case evolution would not seem to be a problem. What role does a deist see for a God with respect to life on earth? David D. (Talk) 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be poly-theistic deists, but to the best of mt knowledge deists are monotheistic. Besides almost all polytheists have a creation story of a god or gods who created the earth and/or cosmos. Some polys are evolutionists and some are not. But, I'm not talking about religeous views necessarily (I just mentioned the fact that I am a deist to stop these guys from pigeon-holing me because of their prejudice againt religeous(mostly Christian)folks contributing to the debate on wiki, the media , acedemia, think tanks and labs, treating them as religeous zealots. The same could be said of many of them. I am trying to bring up the valid science of those who scientifically refute evolutionist theories of the validity of evolution, as well as, that have valid scientific theories for young earth.J. D. Hunt 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a full explanation of what I call deist beliefs but, it is generally true of my beliefs. deist is as close as I can come to describe it. deists
I'll read it. i think you are the first deist i have knowingly met (if this can be considered a meeting), so please excuse my ignorance. David D. (Talk) 00:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

Please discuss the changes on the talk page before reverting to them. Also, please be careful of the three revert rule. JoshuaZ 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You do the same, when someone edits, ask before you revert.

Uh, no. Josh is correct. You are the editor making a significant change, one that alters the mean substantially, thus it is incumbent upon you to explin why the edit should stayy by providing sources that meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. •Jim62sch• 10:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comment

The proposed change is being discussed right now on the article's talk page. Seraphimblade 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved discussion

I took a huge liberty in moving the discussion from talk:Evolution to a subpage of your userpage. I certainly hope it wasn't out of line, but I thought it might be a good place to continue without impacting other editors or violating the discussion area. CMacMillan 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Chief Anne Richardson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chief Anne Richardson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Chief_Anne_v2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chief_Anne_v2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jdhunt, thanks for uploading Image:Chief Anne Richardson.jpg and Image:Chief Anne v2.jpg to Wikipedia! I noticed that you noted the source is "Rappahannock Tribe promotional image". Are these images from any particular online source? If so could you provide the URL to the page that includes the images? Also, what are their copyright license? Or are they unlicensed? Although it can be tedious, the questions do need to be answered or the images will unfortunately have to be deleted. But note that, even if you get this message after the images are deleted but have the necessary information, you can still contact an administrator and get the image undeleted. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me here. Regards, Iamunknown 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jdhunt, regarding your edit to Flyleaf, please see: WP:DICK Use the sandbox for your ridiculous propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparenti (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png 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! --SineBot (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Christian right. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Christian right. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research. I lost my source pages when my browser crashed. But, I decide to add the content I had, then come back and add them, but you reverted my edits and kept reverting (violating the three-revert rule) my work before I got to add them. J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Find the sources FIRST, then attempt to re-add with them (but they better be of better quality than christianactionforisrael.org -- which is neither WP:RS nor even verifies that statement cited to it). I have not violated WP:3RR. HrafnTalkStalk 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I had the sources first, but lost them as I was about to add the sources and the text. You have reverted my changes three times. Unless I missunderstand the three-revert rule? I'll read it again. It's been a while.J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Christian Action for Israel is part of the religeous right and sites the scripture they and the other Christian Right uses to defend Israel. Its not my opinion of the Christian Right's views toward Israel; its theirs. I am not a Christian, but a Diest. One state solution, two-state solution or no state solution; its matters not to me. J. D. Hunt (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not violate the three-revert rule, so I will come back and add it all when I have the edit and all the sources another day. I study religion and it is fairly common knowledge that the religeous right hold these views. You can find many of the religeous rights views via the organizations and the people, like Tim Lahay, on their websites, as well as, on many wikipedia articles covering the organizations and people in the movement.J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)