Some of these conversations are copied from my former talk page, User talk:JBJ830726. --Ephilei 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email that I requested my password be sent to my inbox, but I made no such request. (???) --JBJ830726 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good work on Caelestius, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Caelestius? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 05:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Fresh from the update on Pelagius, I tackled the article on Caelestius tonight. The note said it lacked context, so I fleshed it out and added religious context, taking care to remember that non-Christians (and non-theologians!) were going to read this article. Let me know what you think! Nhprman 05:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few chapter references to your suggested bullets on anachronisms - and corrected what I took to be imprecisions and errors. I amnot sure that this material adds a great deal though, as much is already found in the links to Islamic and Christian polemical sites. Demonstrating that the GOB contains anachronisms is in no way a refutation of the thesis of some Muslim commentators that it ought to be preferred to the canonical Gospels. It is axiomatic in Islam that all Christian Gospels are corrupt, except where they conform to the Qur'an. Hence the GOB is not claimed to be free from later corruption, just less corrupt than the canonical gospels. TomHennell 14th Jan 2006

Just wanted to ask, the outdated info you removed (at least with Sony releasing Blu-ray recorders in Japan) did happen, didn't it? I mean, I thought they had some expensive set-top Blu-ray recorder they released in Japan that used caddies for the media (and would actually be incompatible with the final Blu-ray disc format we'll see (hopefully) this year; but it's still interesting from an historical perspective). I believe you were correct to remove the other info about LG Electronics though. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page BTW. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I sharply disagree with your edits. I don't have time to discuss them with you right now, so, will not revert your edits at the moment. But will get back to you soon. --Aminz 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K. Wow, that was fast. --JBJ830726 07:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I am ready to talk. If you would like to revert some of my edits before discussing them, that's fine. I am ready to talk. Please let me know what passages do you disagree most. I need to go somewhere now, but will be back in an hour. thx. --Aminz 06:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delay in answering your comments on the talk page of Haman. I'll get back to you soon. --Aminz 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBJ,

Please put your request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were requesting the talk page be deleted, someone else beat me to it, please let me know if that wasn't what you were looking for -- Tawker 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your objection to the deletion on Tawker's page - You may want to review these articles: Higher criticism, Textual criticism, Criticism of the Bible (has the non-NPOV conforming tag, or Biblical studies as a starting point - wikipedia adequately covers scholarly discussion of the bible. Trödel 14:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks a lot! --JBJ 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an acrimonious debate about the inclusion of individual Bible passages which resulted in a consensus that only those passages which are independently notable should have separate articles. If there is a passage which is independently notable (be it a chapter, a couple of verses or half a book), please do ensure that you provide the context for its independent notability. An article for the sake of having one on each chapter in a given book is likely to cause problems. Just zis Guy you know? 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your support in this voting... somehow it was deleted and I dont understand how it could be with so many Keep votes and so pore arguments for delete?? Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Reserve_Bank --Swedenborg 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion decisions are not strictly democratic, they are based on consensus. I didn't follow the discussion very closely, but the consensus does seem to be delete - simply bc many people gave detailed reasons for deleting and only you gave detailed reassons not to. (Wikipedia will always favor the input of many over the input of an individual, even if the individual is more correct.) Rather than contesting this deletion, take the time to improve the article in the way others criticized, including generally lengthening it. Or, I'd advise, choose another area to contribute. --Ephilei 07:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply renamed the group.--CltFn 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sure I'd be interested in helping draft a proposal. How bout we write it here: Wikipedia:Non-notability. I think the essay should include reasons such as people being deturred from wikipedia - I've heard a lot of people are being frustrated into leaving - a couple of the people i've worked with have said they were leaving because of an inhospitable environment.

However, I think this shouldn't be a 100% inclusionist policy for all non-notable articles. If possible, it would be very significant to be able to draw a clear line as to how to differentiate between articles that violoate *other* policies when they are "non-notable". We need to emphasize that non-notable articles in many cases violate official policy, and that *those policies* should be used as grounds for deletion or revision, rather than notability. We should also include quotes from Jim Wales, and other people that actually work at the foundation to support the proposal.

Any other ideas? Fresheneesz 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an article on Christian Feminism. Please constrain any edits there to ones based on notable sources. Clinkophonist 23:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]