User talk:Jeff3000/Archive08

Time in Argentina

In December 2008, you did some general cleanup on the Time in Argentina page, and added a request for citations of reliable references. At that time, most of the page had no reference citations. Since then, I've done my best to track down citations for as many of the facts on the page as possible. Since you were the person who originally requested more citations, when you have a chance, could you take another look at the page and see if it is up to Wikipedia standards? Thank you! Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Potluck

So, I understand why my links were removed from other wiki pages, but the potluck link is a relevant link that has been there for 20 months. I, along with many other users (who I interact with on food forums) have utilized this free tool for over 2 years. Why call it spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrljr (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

edits

y do u keep changing my edits?? i have not lied in any of them and i have used sources from well researched historians and scholars. i have also kept the neutral tone throughout my work. so will you stop editing every bit of work i write —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

no. your bieng very picky and unreasonable. there are lots of articles which have the dates of people written in them. also many of the other articles include sources from their own religion. try the islamic pages...plus, what gives YOU the right to go around telling me what is right and wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i no u didnt make them up, but ur bien unreasonable cos your picking on me in paticuliar. every peice of writing i right you find something wrong with it. do you spend all day on wikipedia or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Dear Jeff3000,

I wanted to apologize to you and the non-Bahai Wikipedia staff for how much I have been a trouble for you all. I understand that my actions were not so reasonable, and that I should have been more serious about Wikipedia. I promise never to vandalize anymore, knowing that if I don't vandalize it will be for my own good. Yet it really stings me to see how the Bahais are controlling wikipedia, and the proof is present in this URL: http://bahaikipedia.org/Main_Page

Google is trying to compete with you guys for a reason. They probably want less bias info, or they have an ego problem. Either way, it seems that Wikipedia needs 'some clean-up'.

Coming back to me, I promise that from this day forth, I shall be a true wikinerd (inside joke)/wikipedian, and I will make my edits constructive (if I even edit). In fact, I might even make a new Blog called "The Confessions of a Wikipedia Vandalizer". I am sure you'll enjoy it. When it's made, I'll send you a link. Once again, sorry for being such a burden on you and your fellow co-workers (the non-Bahai workers). Tell Jimmy Whales I said "Thanks For Making Such A Great Site", and give him my warning, "Watch out for the scheming Bahais!" LOL. Just a little joke here and there. Good luck in all your future articles. I will join as a user soon. Thank you so much for your cooperation.

"Yahya Al-Shiddazi"

Jeffy, sir, do you have any comments about this?

Based on your comments and your actions I doubt you can edit neutrally. Even when you claim you'll be a productive editor you keep attacking Baha'is and making fun of them, which is against Wikipedia policy. See assume good faith and no personal attacks. You've been also making baseless claims against Baha'is with no proof on a number of other's pages. There has been no proof that Baha'is are controlling Wikipedia. In fact most of the Baha'i pages are referenced by very reliable academic sources. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. These reliable sources include academic publishers, and do not include self-published sources or polemic sources. Bahaikipedia is not related to Wikipedia in any manner. Also, please don't call me "Jeffy", it is condescending. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Islam

Hi Jeff, can you clarify why my edits on the Islamic prophet Muhammed were removed? There wasn't a single fact that I added that is not true, indeed, the facts have been sourced from Islamic texts. His marriage to Aisha at 6 years old and consumation of this marriage at 9 is a historical fact and this is definitely not an accusation that can be levied againsts Abraham, Moses, Israel, or Jesus thus I believe it worthy of note. The charge of Jews and Christians being inconsistent that has been left in the article deserves to be answered by highlighting that inconsistencies are numerous within the Quar'an itself.

I can appreciate why some facts might be considered inconvenient for some religions however suppression of the facts in the interest of 'fairness' is surely biased?

Kind regards

JCCauseofthejust (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious minorities in Iran merger

Do you have any objection to merging Religious minorities in Iran into Religion in Iran? Discussion I'm asking you since you seem quite involved in some of the issues.

Peace, --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jennifer Michaud

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jennifer Michaud. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token e6184d8d10a7fa1fa5048e6cfc589b5b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

God as the devil

Hi there,

I noticed you did a neat cleanup of Devil here;

A new user has created an article on God as the devil, so I wondered if you might have time to look over that; I think it needs improvement, but could hopefully become a good article.

(My only involvement was in dealing with the editors helpme request)

Thanks,

--  Chzz  ►  16:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel and Bahai Faith

Not sure that I disagree that the article is irrelevant, but it is included in one of the Bahai Faith by countries templates. Generally, any article which a project includes in one of its templates is an article which that project, at least implicitly, will assist on, and also is one of the more important articles to that project. After all, if it's one of the comparatively few articles included in one of the project's generally few templates, it has to be important to that project, right? That was the reasoning behind the banner placement and tagging, anyway. Personally, if you want to remove the article, it might be best to start a stub on the Bahai presence in Israel, and no longer redirect to the main Israel article. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. Like I said, though, it might be best to make at least a stub to take its place. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Other banners

I can understand your thinking that, for instance, Jesus may be more important to the various Christianity projects, and that the Bahai project, which doesn't place as much significance on him, might be a form of undue weight. Part of my reasoning for putting the banners where I did was because by doing so we can keep those articles in the article alert box I recently added to the Bahai Project page. That function tracks articles based on the presence of a given project's banner, so, in effect, a few issues the Bahai project might be able to help on in the future it wouldn't necessarily know about without the banner being in place. Also, while I can and do understand that most of those articles aren't of "Top" importance to the Bahai project, that doesn't mean the banner is misplaced, if there is in fact interest in helping develop the article. They may not be of "top" importance, and that can be indicated in the banner, but as long as this project clearly relates to the subject, and in all these cases there is a fairly clear connection, than the banner can be kept in place to both try to develop the article and keep up if there are any divisive matters being raised on those pages. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, you did note that I didn't place them on the same status, right? That would be determined by the importance allocated the article by the project, which I didn't set. Also, as indicated, particularly on the "daughter" articles, like Gautama Buddha in world religions and Religious perspectives on Jesus, which are, basically, about how those subjects are seen in other religions, it could be argued that those articles are more important to the Bahai than they are to the "parent" faith. And, particularly for those articles, being able to keep up with them through article alert would be very useful, because, speaking as the lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject, I know that the few editors there who check on our article alerts can't get to them all and still do anything else, and we would welcome having a few other eyes on those articles. However, clearly, you have decided that you are in the best position to decide these matters. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, aren't they all contained in the Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith? That would seem, at least to me and I think most independent editors, to indicate that they are related. And if you have any idea where that previous discussion took place, I'd love a link to it, because it sounds rather atypical to me. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Religion

As one of the previous editors/maitainer of {{Religion}}, I thought I'd personally ask for your thoughts of my proposal at Template talk:Religion#Metatemplate selection, namely that as a meta-template for creating religious sidebar navboxes, it should really use the {{Sidebar}} rather than {{Navbox}} - this would allow optional addition of 2nd article-specific images (per request I had at User_talk:Davidruben#Shinto_template_again). David Ruben ^Talk 12:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bahá'í in Iceland

Thanks for fleshing out that article! I'm curious why the Bahá'í faith got such an early foothold in Iceland, why it grew so rapidly until 1990 and why it has not expanded since then. Saying that Icelanders are open to religious innovations doesn't really explain as no other world religions really got going here until the 90s. But, then again, maybe no-one else sent missionaries here until much later. Haukur (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk page vandalism

It has been semi-protected. Please advise me of any other similarly vandalized pages (e.g. "Do not delete. This page is the property of ____") and I'll protect those as well. Thanks for letting me know about it. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Thank you for your message. I have removed your 3RR warning from my page on the basis that it makes a possibly libelous assumption that I am attempting an 'edit war'. I'm afraid i'm not sure what that is or why you have responded to my attempts to seek clarification and build consensus in this way. I'm not sure how to 'revert' a page and would be grateful for your guidance since it seems likes it's something i'd want to avoid. I assume that you are acting in good faith and willing to engage in dialougue since I am aware that this is an important principle in wikipedia Nernst (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It means that if you revert an article more than three times, unless it's for vandalism, you will be blocked. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you revert an article ? I AM NOT being sarcastic, I honestly don't know how to do it. I'm not an expert at this and have just about got my head around 'editing' pages Nernst (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you go to "history" and hit "prev" (previous), you'll see an "undo" link. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously I didn't do that but I presume that manually changing a 'controversial' word back and forth amounts to the same thing. Presumably Jeff3000 is just as 'guilty' as me or is the editor that makes the accusation first immune ?Nernst (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made comments regarding your approach to my edits on MARussellPESE 'talk' page. I don't know if this is of interest to you or not but am informing you to avoid accusations of gossip and in case notifiying you is required by 'wikipedia etiquette' Nernst (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You clearly know more about wikipedia policy and guidelines than me. In my defense, I was simply responding to a question by your colleague and I think it's a bit of a stretch to label my comments as 'personal attacks'. I'm sure your also aware that "WP:please don't bite the newcomer" states that Ignorantia juris may excuse and that "you yourself violate wikipedia's policy and guidelines when you attack a new user for ignorance of them."

Regarding your assessment of my motivations. I think that it is unlikely that "I was hurt that my viewpoint has not been accepted by others" since a non-Baha'i editor did accept my viewpoint, yet despite this I withdrew from the discussion again demonstrating that the point was not particularly important to me.

On reflection, I think I was more surprised by the manner of the response rather than hurt or annoyed by it. I certainly wish you well in your future edits. Kind Regards - Ali Nernst (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better for me to say 'an editor' agreed with my viewpoint. I would comment further but feel we're going round in circles. I agree that this not is a productive use of either of our time. Again, thank you for your guidance. Good luck and all the best - Ali Nernst (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been further edits on my talk page. You obviously have a right of reply but I would suggest drawing a line under this. Regards - Ali, Nernst (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Restore dashes in links

Thanks. Had noticed and was fixing my error in editing Bahá'í Faith. You did a thorough job.--User:Brenont (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of War Before Civilization

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article War Before Civilization, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

National Hockey League GAR notice

National Hockey League has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

apparently there's a new template being rolled out elsewhere

But the Baha'i Faith isn't on the listing. See [1] for an instance of it being rolled out but see Template:Religion country lists for the listing itself. Should something be done about getting the Baha'i Faith listed? Are we ready for it - I know our list of countries is far smaller actually developed. Smkolins (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Baha'u'llah's photo in Firefox

Hi Jeff, could you tell me how to do this in Vista if possible? AdibMasumian (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Canada at FAR

User:Oei888 has nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: triple manifestation

(This is a reply to what you wrote on my talk page months ago.) Are you implying there is some kind of reliable religious source? I would be interested if there was one. I think some of what I wrote was cited or citable, and the rest is just written according to definition. I guess you could call it OR though. I do not recall connecting (m)any multiple sources that were at least not connected by someone else beforehand. The main reason I wrote about it in the major religions--using ideas that are not at all my own--is that I did not want to leave any out and imply it was not philoosphical, because the article is about a philosophical idea independent of any one religion. For now I just deleted almost everything new I wrote.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversion of edits in Names of God in the Qur'an

While I agree this is an important thing, both as a Wikipedian and as a Baha'i, technically it's removal of unsourced material, which is in his rights to do. So this tells me that we should, if we're going to keep the content regarding the Mahdi revealing the 100th name, find and cite sources that are appropriate to the matter. Baha'i sources would be fine, though it might be appropriate to make it clear that they are such (with something like "Baha'i sources claim" or perhaps even quoting a specific author) I'll look myself for sources when I find a spare moment, but if he removes it again we should probably consider letting it stay removed until we can source it. Peter Deer (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Navváb article

Hello, thank you for helping with the Ásíyih Khánum article. I am sort of confused as to a certain user who keeps changing the edit of Khánum saying it is a Turkish word. Yes, she was known by one Turkish title, but Khánum is a Persian word. Have you tried speaking to the person and asking why he keeps doing this? As far as I know the word if Persian and perhaps a source could back this up. Thanks xx --Lizzie1988 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Khanum is a Turkic (and Turkish) word. It is not Persian, however Persians used it due to Turkic influence. Saying "Khanum is Persian , not Turkish" would be same with saying "weekend is not an English word, but a French word." Khan means King in Turkic languages, Khanum (Khan-um) is Lady. Such as Beg is a Turkic male title, Begum (Beg-um) is a female title (used in Hindi languages due to Turkomongol influence). If you want confirmation, just look at dictionaries instead of changing my correction.

You said "As far as I know the word is Persian"... Well Lizzie1988, here is the thing, you do not know, you assume. I appreciate your efforts in that page. But you should keep in mind that not knowing is not a bad thing. Not everybody can know everything, however there is no way to justify ignorant obstinacy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.242.14 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE and People of the Book

I noticed the message you recently left to ReligionScholar. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Prodego ^talk 04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What you need to do is assume he knows nothing (because he doesn't), and instead of aggressively telling him he is wrong, discuss with him what it is he wants to do, explain why it is the way it is, and then make any changes that your discussion has lead to. I agree his edit is wrong. But you still need to help him, rather than stop him, because even though his edit is wrong, that doesn't mean there isn't some improvement there. As long as someone is trying to help, they should be helped, especially when they are unfamiliar with the way things work. What I'd suggest is a personal talk with ReligionScholar, on his talk page, about what he wants to do. Explain what parts of it you can do, what parts you can't, what parts you agree with, what parts you don't, etc. This way he learns, makes a contribution, and is more likely to stay and make more edits. But simply telling someone they are wrong, and pointing to a policy while asking them to stop isn't likely to turn them in to a long term contributor. Prodego ^talk 04:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it worked for me. If not for the very supportive help I received, I would not be here. Prodego ^talk 05:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. :) Prodego ^talk 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion in Iran

Can you please explain me why do you force PROPAGANDA against Iran? Are you a racist? Did your mother teached you to HATE people and LIE about foreign cultures?

Persecutions against Bahai is just American accusation, and it should NOT be at article's entry. Let me explain you more clearly; I'm Christian from Europe who visited Iran and guess what - I didn't see any stoning, 'moral police', persecution or any problem for Christians. So can you explain me why is so badly do mention FACT that Iran has 600 active chruches and largest Jewish community, but it's OK to start with American BS propaganda about "persecutions"? I'm gonna revert your edit again. --93.142.148.237 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I didn't remove any links about Bahais; I added them on Bahai section. --93.142.148.237 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not American accusations. I can source hundreds of United Nation's references, and Amnesty International references, and FDIH references, and on and on that the Baha'is are persecuted in the way that it is sourced in the article. All the reliable sources also mention that the Baha'is are the the second-largest religious minority in the country. That's how Wikipedia works, verifiability. It is clearly an important aspect of religion in Iran. That the Jewish community is the second largest in the Middle East is also important, so add it to the lead, don't remove other important aspects. Another important policy is assume good faith and your actions above clearly are against that policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jeff3000! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 964 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John Oakley (radio host) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal update for wikipedia editors concerning prophecy

Quote from Jeff3000 : "Wikipedia has a number of policies that I've seen you have already had problems with."

Firstly, Jeff3000, it is not grammatically correct to end a sentence in the English language with a preposition when it is possible to express one's written idea otherwise. Although this may seem difficult at first, I have found that it seems to get easier. Your first sentence quoted above should be written "Wikipedia has a number of policies with which I've seen you have already had problems."

Secondly, as to the content of the sentence, I have corrected the policy of No original research to include the exclusion of any application of crime in cases when an editor does not have any inclination to commit crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=313123193

Copyright law in the United States of America requires you to remain in abidance with this exclusion. Prior to my discourse at the above link, wikipedia was in violation of not only copyright law, but criminal and civil law as well. So the statement by Blueboar that the policy would not change is totally incorrect. I have changed it to exclude crime for those not inclined to commit crime, even to the extent that a prophet and/or prophetess may publish in wikipedia if necessary without any violation of wikipedia policy.

Aside from this, I agree with your statement except that "we" have had problem, in example, wikipedia was abusive to all prophets and/or prophetesses prior to my fixing the problem. This improvement is global for anyone using wikipedia. And it is not exclusively up to you to decide what is or is not necessary to publish.

As for your limiting the Holy Bible to being a Christian source, you are in error. The Blessed Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - Three Persons in One God. A properly cited sentence which improves the article "Prophecy" at wikipedia should not be taken lightly. The final version of the opening sentence of which I support has three references supported by Three Persons. That is a total of 9 (nine) reliable references. It has been mentioned that when one searches "prophecy" they will come to that page. A powerful and correct statement should be at the forefront.

I offer no resistance to improvement. The rest of you should follow suit. Your thoughts and ideas on this may be helpful. - Edward Palamar (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to BBC Persian Television appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Rapido (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Rapido (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido in the BBC Persian article is undoing and editing without logic or sufficient citation. If you need any help or you want us to pursue to take his opiniated BBC pov editing to Wikipedia editors and admins, I am here to back you up. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

God in the Baha'i Faith

I understand that the suggested changes to the "God in Baha'i Faith" article are more than expected, but your reasoning for undoing my edits do not follow from the existing content of the article which sites several primary sources. I suggest you work with me to include a section on the Holy Spirit, which is arguably essential. The section on Manifestations of God that I edited/replaced sites primary sources. By your reasoning, I am justified in deleting associated content. The content I added is not original research and is clearly stated in the source material. Thank you for your diligence in guarding the content of the articles on the Baha'i Faith. The rest of the article needs to be revised and I intent to work on it in the coming week. I will not accept a onesided deal on this. The rules that apply to my edits should apply to the rest of the article.

AShipway (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you the unofficial guardian of Baha'i content or are you self-appointed?

AShipway (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)