User talk:TrueCRaysball

	Christianity portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
Free subscription to our informative newsletter
Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

Join today!

This user is a member of WikiProject Florida, which seeks to expand information about the state of Florida. Please feel free to join us.

This user is a member of WikiProject Tampa Bay, which aims to expand coverage of Tampa, Florida and the entire Tampa Bay Area. Please feel free to join us.

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Yes, this is still the talk page of Hornetman16, I just cleaned it up so it wasn't so cluttered."-- Hornetman16 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Moved here, because the conversation above is a little chaotic :)

From my talk page: what do you think of the one I have above [in my talk page, that is]? I can change the icon set for you to any you like, really. Some folks use the Crystal icon set. I chose the ones above because they're small and intricate. Mind if I snag a copy of your userpage, sandbox it and play around with it? I'll give you a shout when it's done & you can tell me what you think? I did this guy's the other day in about 15 minutes. It did look like this. What do you think? - Alison ☺ 04:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and snag a copy, Genius (meant to be a compliment)!-- Hornetman16 04:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - snagged. You can see the ongoing work here - Alison ☺ 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to add some stuff to your userspace; navbar templates and stuff. Just so you know! :) - Alison ☺ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try and keep my championship belt tables.-- Hornetman16 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. Will do. Leave it with me & see how it goes - Alison ☺ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, if you like redesigning userpages, mines a bit... chaotic. :P Regards, Navou 04:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 100) I'll take a look if you like. I'm no professional, though (that'd be User:Phaedriel :-) ) - but some folks seem to steal the look of my own page because they like it. User:Kukini was the latest! - Alison ☺ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed I'llbe back tomorrow afternoon! NIGHT!!!-- Hornetman16 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the navbar just now and did minor tidies. The Edge icons are really sweet (why didn't I use those?) Let me know what you think in the morning. All licensed correctly, BTW - Alison ☺ 05:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not being sooner but thanks for the new nav. bar!!!-- Hornetman16 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I'll have your userpage finished sometime soon, too ... I've not forgotten - Alison ☺ 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you a updated version of my userpage to work with.-- Hornetman16 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - thanks! I'm going to put your userboxes behind a collapsible template but will leave your faith ones on display, ok? - Alison ☺ 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PERFECT!-- Hornetman16 04:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I doing? - is it kinda heading in the right direction? The group of userboxes in the collapsible template is broken so don't mind them! - Alison ☺ 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's heading in the right direction!!! ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺-- Hornetman16 21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hornetman16/ScriptureStub

Article content should not reference user pages. Please see WP:ASR. There is a process for proposing new stub types - that way, everything is kept organized. In general, there need to be 30-60 or more articles available for the stub for it to be accepted. --BigDT 04:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place it on evry article of a christian bible scripture and you'll get like 200 of them!-- Hornetman16 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it needs to be proposed first. Also, something like John 3:16 is not a stub. A stub is a paragraph or two at most. But if you are interested in pursuing it, read the instructions at the page I linked ... it's probably a good stub to have - it just needs to be done right.--BigDT 04:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it get's created it would show up the way I had it right? And for that matter could you help me suggest it so it get's done right?-- Hornetman16 04:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... first, find every article you can think of that should be a part of that stub category. Don't create new ones just for the sake of having something to put in there - find ones that already exist where "scripture stub" would work better than what is already there. Once you have that, I can help with the proposal. --BigDT 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get started on that tomorrow cause I'm getting sleepy. NIGHT!!-- Hornetman16 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chris Benoit death.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chris Benoit death.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. — Moe ε 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Do not under any circumstance replace free images with nonfree like the one you inserted. Do it again and I'll start handing out vandalism warnings. — Moe ε 03:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one's better cause it shows his face which is the purpose of a photo there.-- Hornetman16 03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preference of Wikipedia is to have no photo rather than to have a non-free image. (Moe could have said it more nicely, though, but he is right - uploading non-free images when there is already a free one = very bad.) --BigDT 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I could have been nicer. Then again, checking the history of the Chris Benoit article right now isn't making me kind :/ — Moe ε 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ... true that. I went through that feeding frenzy with Virginia Tech massacre and Jerry Falwell. I've done my bit for king and country - I'm taking this one off. ;) --BigDT 04:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's not what I read. I forgot what I read but it was but I know it wasn't that.-- Hornetman16 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but free images are prefered over non-free. — Moe ε 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then where the hell can I put that photo on that article?-- Hornetman16 04:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere. We don't use non-free photos when there is a free one available. Wikipedia's mission is to create content that is free of copyright restrictions. WP:FAIR#Policy is the policy for non-free content. The specific requirement is #1 - we don't use a non-free image when a free one can serve the same purpose. Also, there are two other considerations - (1) Copyright law doesn't recognize Wikipedia's attitude of "if I want to use it, it must be fair use". We can't just go take random photos off of someone's website - if it is not a photo that was produced for the purpose of promoting the work in the media, we really have no legal claim to using it. If the copyright holder makes an image for their website, they are doing that to attract traffic (and thus sell ads or their product). By distributing their photo, we infringe on their right to profit from their own creative work. (2) As long as we are willing to settle with a non-free image, we will never get a free one. Most people with Wikipedia articles have a vested interest in that article being as nice as possible. So frequently, if we just ask for a GFDL photo, we will get one. But if we are willing to use a non-free photo, nobody is going to give us a GFDL photo because there's nothing in it for them. I hope this long-winded explanation helps. If you want the even-longer-winded version, take a look at my user page. ;) --BigDT 04:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if I got permission?-- Hornetman16 04:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for assistance with writing a letter to ask for permission. The short version is that simply having "permission for Wikipedia to use" the image or a "non-commercial use" release is NOT enough. We need for the image to be released under a "free license", like the GFDL. --BigDT 04:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wm23

Don't keep adding Chris Benoit's death to the article, Eddie's last WM was WM21, but it isn't listed. Are you going to list Backlash as his last Backlash and One Night Stand as his last One Night Stand. Leave the trivia out of it. Darrenhusted 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get mad at me...all I wanted was a reason which you gave me and I agree with.-- Hornetman16 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.175.239.114

I think he should be permanently blocked cause he'll probbaly go back to the same crap after the block has expired.-- Hornetman16 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really permanently block IP addresses, as they tend to be transient in nature anyways. Too much collateral damage - Alison ☺ 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am patching this over from my talk page so you will see the answer. Alison said it perfectly. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE pic

Why do you insist on replacing the current picture (which is fine and looks nice), is it because you just want the picture to be one you uploaded? The two look like they are the same pic, the only difference being yours is .png while the previous one was .jpg. TJ Spyke 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the photo's instead of just reverting my edit and you'll see the difference it's the same way on the Brand pages and everyone agrees with those!-- Hornetman16 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Boy

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. "[A]ny material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source". McPhail 12:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Will report you if you don't stop! Despite what those policies say. If there were things likely to be challenged the admin would take care it. So stop or I will report you!-- Hornetman16 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippians 4:13

Hornetman, please note that I reverted your edit on Talk:Philippians 4:13 regarding the status of the page from sub to start. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Assessment#Quality_scale in which you will see that this does not contain any of the required elements yet. Please continue to contribute on the main page and it will eventually reach this status on its own. Tiggerjay 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ecw logo.gif

Regarding Image:Ecw logo.gif, I restored the PNG version of the logo on the Extreme Championship Wrestling article. PNG versions tend to be favored over GIF images - see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading a transparent PNG version. I'm tagging the old logos for deletion. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome!!!-- Hornetman16 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are not to change an image's copyright status just so you can include it on your userpage, as you did here. It is a violation of the owner of the photograph's intellectual property, and it is not tolerated on Wikipedia, as well as being a likely violation of United States Copyright Law. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you cannot simply perform copy-paste moves on Wikipedia. The license that Wikipedia uses (GFDL) requires attribution. You copied text from somewhere to User:Hornetman16/sandbox/Infobox championship/WWE Championship. The page has now been deleted as it violated copyright. Please, in future, make a note of what article you are copying from so as to not violate copyright. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted it deleted anyway!-- Hornetman16 01:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will NOT warn you again. Further tagging of that image as GFDL is in violation of our policies. "GFDL" is different to "permission given". You will be blocked if you continue. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what goes on there? What tag?-- Hornetman16 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag that's currently on it. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to leave it alone. I've blocked you for three hours. You're not to violate someone's intellectual property in this manner. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock I was just trying to do the right thing by finding the right tag I'm sorry!-- Hornetman16 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By randomly changing it, when your intent was to make it free so you could use it on your userpage? Despite the fact that I warned you not to change it? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was trying make where I could use it on my userpage I'll admit that. But Iwas trying to find the correct tag because there's correct tag for everything and I believe no license isn't I won't touch it again I've got better things to do with the Championship pages! Please unblock me on those grounds.-- Hornetman16 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith and unblocking you. Something tells me I'll regret it. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My IP is still bocked and I can't edit.-- Hornetman16 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 72.184.88.30 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thankx!!-- Hornetman16 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Homeland Security Advisory System on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --HBow3 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USF Color changes

Your recently changed all versions of USF gold to the incorrect color. According to USF's own visual standards at http://usfweb2.usf.edu/ur/identity_standards.pdf and http://usfweb2.usf.edu/ur/logos/ , the official USF colors for the Web are Green: #336633; Gold: #CCCC99, which was my earlier revision.--BaRiMzI 02:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this before putting the incorrect colors and reverting edits.--BaRiMzI 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That CCC99 crap isn't gold! I'm reverting it so it is gold!-- Hornetman16 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem here? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H says that USF gold for web is #CCCC99 which isn't gold I made it gold and he reverted it! I just trying my look correct not exactly correct!-- Hornetman16 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hornetman - chill out. BaRiMzI is quoting you the official colour standards here. We need to stick with these for a number of reasons - Alison ☺ 03:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Alison.--BaRiMzI 03:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it alone if you give me the policy that says so! If you don't I keep reverting!-- Hornetman16 03:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you revert, I will block you for edit warring. How's that? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the links the other editor has provided. Colours have a very clear standard and remember that the colours we see on our display may not be the same as ones other people see, for a whole myriad of technical reasons. See white point, gamma correction, color temperature etc for the reasons why - Alison ☺ 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quit now but I still want to see the policy!-- Hornetman16 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy? WP:3RR will do it. Read the links and learn up on colors. It's quite interesting - Alison ☺ 03:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are school color's even alound to decorate the infobox with?-- Hornetman16 03:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello TrueCRaysball! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

Getting Started
General • Task for You Wikiproject Talk Page • Templates
Useful Links
Project Category List of Christian Topics Christianity Portal Sign up for the Newsletter
Miscellaneous
Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know? • Forums

Work Groups
Anabaptist Work Group • Core Topics Work Group Iglesia ni Cristo Work Group • Jesus Work Group Outreach Work Group
Projects
Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics
Similar WikiProjects
Anglicanism • Bible • Calvinism Catholicism • Lutheranism

~ Wikihermit 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I have closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hornetman16 2. In the sole hour of its existance, you gathered 8 opposes. Now is not the proper time to run for adminship for you, seeing as you just came off of a hot dispute and have issues concerning fair use and images on Wikipedia. Please hold off for a couple months.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you let it go untill it's closing time cause it might surprise you!-- Hornetman16 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend signing up for an editor review. -w p k t sfs 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I just don't think it fair for the discussion to be shut down 30 min. after I submit it when it scheduled to go for 7 days. That's not right.-- Hornetman16 06:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An ideal administrator candidate would be aware of the logic behind and application of WP:SNOW. Daniel 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean it's fair!-- Hornetman16 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is fair. Primarily on you. Seriously. Think about it ... - Alison ☺ 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True now that i REALLY think about it.--06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know you, and I didnt vote in your RFA. But I want to encourage you to let it go, keep working hard, and to not be discouraged. Maybe try in a few months time. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will get it. the trick is to have patience, to wait it out. To wait for ages, until your clear. Keep your head down, do the right thing, steadily contribute, and you will eventually pass an RFA. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

This could be argued is a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and consider changing your wording. Corvus cornix 06:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, i wasn't calling him a baby I meant he acted like one like I been doing on that stupid photo!-- Hornetman16 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:NPA? Corvus cornix 06:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i have and I didn't attack him!-- Hornetman16 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you politely to remove the personal attack. Are you going to do it, or not? Corvus cornix 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will since everyone is making it look like something it's not!-- Hornetman16 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the cooperation. Despite the ill will with which you did it. Corvus cornix 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did it with ill will cause no one would listen to me.-- Hornetman16 06:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may give you a clue. It's 3 o'clock in Florida, maybe you should go to sleep and edit again when you have a clearer head. Corvus cornix 07:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point...night!-- Hornetman16 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I reviewed you. If you have any questions or comments, please ask them on my talk page. Wishes, --w p k t sfs 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you Review!-- Hornetman16 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hornetman

May I ask what this is in reference to? I'm curious because Coelacan has not been active in some time, so it may help to explain why you are annoyed with him. Please feel free to answer here. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 06:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He blocked me and it was immidiatly undone by another admin.--Hornetman16 06:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan hasn't blocked you - check out your block log, it's here - are you sure? ~ Riana ⁂ 06:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I swear that's what I read on my talk history!--Hornetman16 06:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's weird! Well, can you please retract your statement? Just post on Coelacan's page that you made a mistake, or whatever? It looks bad otherwise. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure will--Hornetman16 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. You might want to adjust your sig a wee bit, it's a bit dark ATM. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Would you mind toning it down a bit? Keep in mind that wikipedia is not a soapbox or a social networking site. We don't mind you having user boxes for your faith, but having so much of your page focused on your religion is distracting. I'm not saying don't mention your religion at all, I mention mine on my page, but please just take it down some. I really don't want to see you get in trouble for your userpage. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it the way it is and I'm not taking off the flag!--Hornetman16 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you can post the flag, but the...eh...current size of the flag is the online equivalent of shoving it in people's faces. —Kurykh 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm showing I'm a proud Christian would you do the same to a gay person with a gaypide flag...I think not.--Hornetman16 23:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm bisexual (like Kinsey scale 4). Do you see any flags on my userpage? Did you even know? I'm also a member of a non-Christian religion. Any flags? Nope. Doing so would be rude and in-your-face, just as .... - Alison ☺ 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify; it's a little matter of showing respect for those of us who are different. Sure, one may be x/y/z and be proud of it. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with userboxes, flags, etc. But yours?? C'mon! Note that we even have admins on here that are Evangelican Lutheran pastors & are highly respected in the community here. Ask yourself why ... - Alison ☺ 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing it cause I'm not offending anybody.--Hornetman16 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I'm offended. Will you change it? (And remember, I already designed one of those big flags into your page. What does that say about me?) You might also want to check out the policy on soapboxing and also WP:UP#NOT. Being nice here ... - Alison ☺ 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not puting ya'll down so what's your point.--Hornetman16 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, and I owe you mail, Elinor!) You didn't read a word of what I said, did you? And please - it's not an "us vs. them" thing at all, so don't go there. As an aside, have you thought about applying to the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User program? - Alison ☺ 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that on Wikipedia, your userpage does not belong to you. The community is fairly tolerant, and does close its eyes to a certain amount that does not help in building an encyclopaedia. But once a few people have gently suggested that the contents are not appropriate, it would be advisable to listen. If you want to host a page about yourself and your religious beliefs, why not get your own free webpage? ElinorD (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have one...and by the way, asking me to take off my christian flag is like taking away my constitutional right of freedom of religion and how to express it. It's not on an article so I see no problem with it.--Hornetman16 00:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* - it's not like that at all. Wikipedia is a private website. There are rules and regulations and codes of conduct here. There is no freedom of speech here, for example. And, like any community, if you abuse it you get sanctioned. If I went along to your church and started shouting all sorts of stuff, I'd get ejected (and rightly so!). Think about it some more and read those links I just gave you. I'm personally not all that caring, one way or another, but I can see where the issue is for others around here. And you must have respect for others. You must, and I must. That's how it works around here. I had a lot of respect for your beliefs and opinions when I redid your page even though I vehemently disagree with so much of its content. I still did it, and did it well. Once again, ask yourself why ... - Alison ☺ 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be privately owned but the servers are ing the US so this has no choice but to listen to the US laws which includes the contitution.--Hornetman16 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech does nto apply to private property. Viridae ^Talk 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nope. I have my own private webserver (I do, actually!). If I restrict its access to vegan Colombian Jains, who like the colour pink, I'm well within my rights to do so. You can throw as many constitutions as you like at me, but that doesn't matter. Do I have a constitutional right to quote from .... ohhh .... The Satanic Bible in your church?? Terrible example, perhaps, but if not - why not? And another thing. You're. Not. Listening. To. A. Word. I'm Saying. Not a word - Alison ☺ 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Hornetman, you are grossly misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - Note that nowhere in there does it say that someone must allow people to say what they want in their place - just that Congress cannot. Such as if a Satanist was trying to convert people in your church- you'd have a right to tell them to get out, as it is private property. Subnote: I wrote this before reading the above post. Spooky how similar it is --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Satanists are everybody's stock boogeyman example, I suspect :) - Alison ☺ 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (no, not a Satanist, Hornetman)[reply]

Well I don't suppose having a Buddhist in a church would be quite so alarming. "So uh, don't be mean to people or lie, don't do bad stuff, don't do things that hurt people- even for money. Try to improve yourself and don't just be good- think good. I think that's about it..." compared to "Give into sin, ignore your religious teachings- they're full of it, only care about people that matter, if someone fucks with you you fuck them up real bad, I think that's about all that matters right now." ^^ --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - I see you've read it, too. Smite/smash? - Alison ☺ 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (strange conversation to be having here :) )[reply]

You would certainly lose this case. There's a secular hegemony here. They may not be satanists, but they'd be more accepting to an editor who was one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.127.22 (talk • contribs)

Frankly, if some Satanist shows up here and plasters a giant Baphomet on their userpage, I'm going to have a problem with that in the exact same manner, trust me on that - Alison ☺ 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing; you've been in one conflict after another after another around here and just about all of them have involved your complete lack of respect for the opinions of your fellow-editors. Another question to maybe ponder on. It really doesn't need to be like this. Wikipedia is built on people working together to achieve consensus, not who's the biggest shouter. We're not here to "win" battles - that's not what it's about - Alison ☺ 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me have my userpage the way it is so when can achieve more on the Articles!--Hornetman16 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not. Listening. To. A. Word. :( The only thing you'll listen to is when it goes to crisis and some other admin comes along and nukes your page (as happened last time). No lesson learnt, it seems. Only this time, I won't be here to intervene and pick up the pieces. You're already in conflict with policy and I'm trying in vain to get you to do something before it's too late. Listening yet? - Alison ☺ 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a flag dang it. what matter's mor is the article's not my user page. What do you want me to do with the flag?--Hornetman16 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"what matter's mor is the article's not my user page." - correct! "What do you want me to do with the flag?" - I want you to think, and to start showing respect for the beliefs and opinions of other editors. As Feba asks, is it too much to ask for you to tone it down just a little? - Alison ☺ 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this is not yet another "battle" of you (Christian) vs. the rest of the world (Us Whatevers), so don't paint it in that light. It's about respect and consideration for others, is all - Alison ☺ 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is too much to ask. But I shrink it if it'll make ya happy and get you off my back about it!--Hornetman16 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind the editor review that I just gave you, please see that the majority of editors in this discussion agree that you should tone down your userpage. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Your RfA got so many opposes because of things like this. If you give some you will gain some. This discussion should be ending soon, before it evolves into more of a fight than it already is. BTW, we are not asking for a kidney, just a size reduction. --w p k t sfs 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your user page isn't important, why don't you just clean it up so it isn't A- annoying and B- offensive? Look at my user page. I have many more religious beliefs than "Athiest/Agnostic", but you don't see me spouting them off. You don't see a This user laughs at organized religion, or This user celebrates Christmas as a holiday about Santa, not Jesus on my page- just because something describes you doesn't mean it's appropriate, and definitely shoving it in your face isn't. How would you feel if you opened someone's user page and came across a giant image of a Pentagram or Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spagetti Monster filling up half your screen? Nobody is asking you to remove the references to your faith, just tone them down so they aren't being shoved in your face. Remember that a user page is supposed to help people identify with you as an editor, and get an idea of what you do on wikipedia so they they too might help. Not to go around spreading your religion- you can use myspace for that. Not to mention, plenty of people on myspace have trouble in their lives- some of them could probably use some of Jesus' love. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]