User talk:Jeff3000/Archive09

Transliteration

My apologies for any inadvertent breach of policy on transliteration - you mentioned in your reversion [[1]] to the Huqúqu'lláh article that: "special characthers should not be used throughout except in the lead as per MoS." Could you point me in the direction of that reference? I checked the relevant portion of the MoS and can't seem to find it; I just want to make certain that any future contributions don't cross the line. Thanks! Keldan (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Threating

I am so sorry that you instead of presentation of sound documents to prove your idea, threat users for blocking.--Shayan7 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan7 (talk • contribs)

RE: PERSIAN

RE: But I already present you sound historical documents but you ignored that; same for UN document. --Shayan7 17:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan7 (talk • contribs)

Yeah

I think I am out of it - just was there for the afterlife art and talk page not becoming a soapbox - bit tired of it all now SatuSuro 13:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

goldfish and Haft Sin

The goldfish: I'm sorry but the bowl with a goldfish is not a persian tradition. It's more or less a modern occurence (since around 80 years)leading to abuse and death of millions of goldfish. Looking at the natural distribution of the grey carp (which was domiesticated by the chinese to the goldfish) we can see that you can not find them in the near east where Iran is placed. You can only find them living in east Asia. How could it be possible for the ancient persians to get that fish from kilometers far away just to put them on their Haft-Sin table? So the information given here is wrong. It would be nice to change that. But in ancient persia they did have a bowl filled with fresh water! Inside that you could find a red apple or a pomgranade. If you look at old paintings of the Haft-Sin you will see that but you will never find a goldfish on them. Thank you! Saman02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saman02 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Newroz

Happy Newroz. Some IP had also the tempered with the sourced statements [2], I've corrected it now. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of Abrahamic religions

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

Details

Jeff3000, You have repeated reverted consensus-based removal of Baha'i material from Abrahamic religions. As I see you are an experienced editor of WP, I can't assume good faith. Please stop. If you like, you can re-open the discussion about inclusion on the article's talk page, but please wait for a new consensus to emerge before applying your edits again (or reverting to your preferred versions) again. At a minimum, a revert requires an explanatory note in the edit summary, and preferably a full explanation on the talk page to open discussion. Dovid (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'll state it here too - there had never been consensus about removing the Baha'i Faith from the article. IN recent history it is you and another have acted unilaterally in removing material. Smkolins (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Newroz / noruz

What are you talking about? Show me your sources about newroz, and that it is a Turkish tradition.

I bet you wont find any sources. Newroz is celebrated by iranians..kurds..afghans...but not turks.

Read the article about the noruz and tell me if you see the mentions of the turks. Dont make me take this to a higher level. cause i will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlefighter (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you should´nt say "some communities". you should write kurdish communities. Cause no one in turkey or pakistan, expect the kurd, celebrates newroz. Newroz is a kurdish festival, like noruz is a persian. It is wrong to say "some communities".

I dont say that Hannuka is celebrated in the USA. i say that hannuka is celebrated by the jewis community IN THE USA. there is a BIG difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakhajir (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

aqdas

if its just 1 of many central texts, why does the aqdas page say it is the central text then? Jigglyfidders (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hey. is it possible you could give me a link for Baha'i prophecies or miracles websites.? thanks in advanceJigglyfidders (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Unitarian Bahaism's talk page.

COI Noticeboard

I have started a noticeboard discussion regarding your apparent undeclared conflict of interest with Bahá'ísm. Thread can be found here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the hassle. It did seem appropriate to bring up however I should have discussed it with you first. Glad you put the userbox on your userpage. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

recent reference changes at Baha'i divisions

Alas, these have produced some "red" errors at the bottom of the page. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this too but didn't have time to fix them. Please look at the structure of refs in the Unitarian Bahaism page. The use of a refs= simplifies these problems and makes editing easier. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a compromise offer. I read this diff and I realized I don't have a counter arguement to that. The way things are now there's no context for the article so it's very hard for me or the casual reader to understand what really happened.

Here's what I propose: (in no partic. order)

1. Come to a consensus at Afd to merge the page into the Divisions article.
2. I'll change my vote to merge with the provision that the Afd be closed without restrictions on the page being represented.
3. Userfy to the current UB article to an editor's userspace (I'm not interested)
4. Require bipartisan cooperation on the Divisions article and elsewhere in the project.
5. All participants are expected to post their religious affiliations on at least the article talk page. With all the problems we've had I think this guideline will prevent mistrust and resentments.

I do want to resolve this in a way that benefits everybody, including Wikipedia.

Thanks - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. I always thought that a redirect to the Divisions article with any reliable sources that we have placed on that page. That page already discusses the disagreements and fights to some extent, and definitely could be improved with more reliable sources. As I've noted, I try to be as neutral as possible by forcing myself to use sources are as reliable as possible. For example, on the divisions page (as you've noted) I tried to remove a lot of the self-published and primary sources that a pro-Baha'i point of view. Thanks for reaching out. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to merge in the Afd. As far as sources go, I can only say that I hope the merger goes smoothly and fits within guidelines. - Stillwaterising (talk)

Fasting

The fasting page has 41 references right now. Where do you draw your conclusion that it needs more ? And in which parts ? Because the health effects section seems pretty well-rounded, and the sections on religion seem overdone to me. The problem with the flag saying the page needs more references is that is widely diminishes the credibility of the entire page. I believe there are enough references, and that the flag should be removed yet again. If you want to continue to develop the page, that is the point of Wikipedia.

`Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West

Several of us have for some time wished to lengthen the journey's article. Still lots to do but it's been suggested to go ahead and post it so more hands can easily access to improve. Smkolins (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith

Recently an IP made strange edits to the article. I'm sure you saw them. Should we be concerned? --Buster7 (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is not only vandalism. He threatens to blow up the Shrine of the Bab. It may be an idle threat by a foolish 12 year old. And then again....maybe not.--Buster7 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

About Redirecting

Dear Jeff3000, could you pay attention on that Babism, Religion of the Bayan, Religion of the Bahai are different religions, please? In the Religion of the Bayan the Messiah is Nukta (Primal Point), Ali Muhammad of Shiraz, and their Holy Scripture – “Bayan”. Babism is period of “Minor Mystery” for religion of the Bayan. Redirecting of art. “People of the Bayan” to art. “Babism” is not correct action.Inventcreat (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Oakley (radio host)

The article John Oakley (radio host) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP (does not qualify for BLP PROD), Written like an advertisement, claims of notability read like puffery

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Quasihuman (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Iranian anti-Bahá'í conspiracy theories

Could you please explain why you feel this article is not a copyright violation? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Already described on the talk page. Could you prove that it is? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forgive me, I just saw your note on the article's talk page. While much of the article has been rewritten, there remains alot of close paraphrase which is still a problem, and the copyvio which they added needs to be removed from the article history. And it's not that alot of AdibMasumian's additions were copyvio, it's that almost every single one which involved creativity is a copyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree AdibMasumian's edits are mostly copyright violations, I heavily edited and changed that article in question, and most of is not referenced from your proposed copyright violation. Fix the particular issues, instead of blanking the whole article. Regards, --Jeff3000 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that the article is not referenced to the source, but it was indeed closely paraphrased from the source. This is present through much of the article, but for an example the article says:

Iranian conspiracy theorists have also accused the Bahá'í Faith of having ties to Freemasonry.[19] Freemasonry had been introduced to Iran by Iranians who first encountered it in India and Europe. Contrary to anti-Bahá'í claims, the earliest lodges, such as Malkom Khan's faramush-khanih (founded in 1858), were not officially tied to European lodges.

The source says:

One of the groups around which elaborate conspiracy theories have been

woven are the Freemasons. Freemasonry had been introduced to Iran by Iranians who had encountered it in India and Europe. The earliest lodges, such as Malkam Khan's faramush-khanih (founded 1858) and the lodge initiated by Mu`in al-Mulk in 1890, were not formally affiliated

to any European lodges.

As I said, this is just an example, but it will take some time to fix all of the issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving the house now, so I don't have time to fight you, but I strongly believe you are wrong in your notion of blanking the whole page, when the problem is only limited to a number of statements referenced to one article. I'll fix the article later on tonight with the statements I see, and I hope you are more reasonable at that time. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the statements referenced to that article. Given all of the other contributions by AdibMasumian, we have to assume that everything that they added to the article is copied or closely paraphrased from somewhere. Your contributions appear to be clean, but that still leaves about half the article that appears to be clearly based on their work which has a very strong presumption of being a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

your picture of Wilmette's House of Worship

An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status Your image, File:Willmette how.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Edge3 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

Excuse me, but if you are going to make such claims as to "neutrality" of my words, then please provide adequate reasoning to suffice them. Don't think that just because you moderate wikipedia to a great extent that you have some sort of bullying entitlement. You changed my comments, and reverted them disagreeing that there is any truth to your claimed justification. You changed them back, and then responded to me restating your original claims without any further explanation.

If you believe this wording is not neutral (i disagree), then lets have that discussion. but don't simply make brash changes and accusations on the basis of "because i said so." Kmehrabi (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

my response to you

For 1, 2, and 4, even if just some portion of Bahá´í's consider him as such, that is a fair assessment, and clearly constitutes the term "widely considered." It is juxtaposed beside other comments of his accomplishments etc, SIMPLY to suggest that not everyone feels he is some hero. It is simply a statement of retrospective consideration by some group of people. Such statements have a place yet are rarely backed by some sort of polling or whatnot. This particular statement of the sort is clearly warranted.

For 3, I respect your caution, but advise you to look at the context of the edit. It is not simply stating it for the sake of saying it, but to give a proper context for an outside reader to understand the significance. It is a bare minimum, and if a reader wants to learn anymore than can click on the hyperlink. It would be awkward to just name figures without any sort of framing of who they are.

5. I accept this point, you are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Number 1 is non-negotiable, Verifiability is a key policy of Wikipedia, and any unreferenced work can be removed. Number 2 goes against neutrality which is again a key policy of Wikipedia. Number 4 is unreferenced and goes against verifiability, and would never be true. Instead of assigning feelings to people you have never be substantiated, facts need to be defined. For number 3, Wikipedia articles are not essays, and there are wikilinks for context. Wikipedia is not a place to battle for Truth, but it is about verifiability in reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Change the religious percentage of Iran. The shia popoulation is 90%, not 89%. I have already sent you those articles which are totaly reliable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denniturk (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

HI !

please click on Persia than you can see this page refer to Iran .Persia = Iran but in most of the western languages such as English the country known as Persia .this encyclopedia is in English so we have to use English words . and about the citizens of Persia , most of them call themselves Persian when they speak English . there is some country in world which have to name such as Egypt , Russia , Persia ,and ... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Marteen (talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi jeff3000.check this link . it will help you .http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bExLwg9BOm0J:www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/iranorpersia1.htm+hitler+persia+iran+1935+Professor+Ehsan+Yarshater&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Marteen (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not agree with you the most common name in politic is Iran but in cultural things is Persia, and this make people thing the name Persia is about ancient time or thats other country which is not true . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Marteen (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not using anything, its users are using the different term of the name! its better to look other pages in Wikipedia than you can find there is a lot of pages which using the Persian term . Persian is not a ethnic today , its a supra-ethic and the history of the many people is behind that even the Azery and Kord people who live in Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Marteen (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My friend . please go too Persian page and as you can see is not any difference between this two. like I said before Persia is not ethic today it is a supra-ethic and all of these people such as azery, kord, balooch, lor, people also speaking Persian.ethic is the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group. in Persia is a lot of other ethic such as khorasani, alborzi,esfehany ,and ... which they have their own cultures, cloths, with different physical body but all of them call themselves as person from Persia even the azery, balooch, kord and lore people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Marteen (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Iranian V Persian

I see you asked about this on the Wiki Project Iran talkpage. Iranian, originally meant the Iranian peoples, which are a number of ethnic groups including the Persian people. The Iranian sate was named after the Iranian people and many dynasty's that ruled Iran historicly were not ethnically Persinal at all. Despite being known as Iran internally, for it's entire history, the Greeks refered to the country as Persia, in reference to the country's most important ethnic group at the time and this name was later adopted by the Roman's and then used throughotu the West until 1936 when Reza Shah got the Western states to officially recognise the country's name as Iran. Now although, in today's world "Iranian" most commonly refers to citizen of Iran and "Persian" to the ethnic group Persian people (not all of which are from Iran, since there are milions of ethnic Presians in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), with the term "Iranic" being commonly used to refer to the "Iranian Peoples" in the sense of all these different ethnic groups (Persians, Pashtuns, Kurds, Baluchis, ect.), however, due to wikipedia policies of English being Wikipedia's language here, Iran historicly is being refered to as the "Persian Empire" or "Persia" (which is infact a region in Iran), it's citizens as "Persians" (although many of the notable Iranian citizens of the past weren't ethnic Persians and infact none of the kings of the "Persian" empire from 1501 (re-establishment of Iranian state) until 1979 (abolishment of monarchy) were ethnic Persians) and so on wikipedia Iranian individuals prior to 1936 are refered to as Persians and Iran is refered to as Persia in articles concerning pre-1936 history.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Persia is as historical as Iran. always eastern countries Use the Iran term and western countries use Persia term. still today western people use the Persian rugs, cats ,and ... and for them Iran is new country which its not true. Its not any difference between the history or BOUNDARY of these names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Marteen (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy site

Is Mecca holy to Bahais? I'm pretty sure it is, because we know Bab used to go there for pilgrimage. Someone65 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Mecca is not considered a Holy site for Baha'is. The holy sites in the Baha'i Faith are those that hve been dedicated as Shrines which are mostly in Haifa and Acre, in current-day Israel. That the Bab travelled to Mecca does not make it holy to the Baha'i Faith. The Bab travelled there to make a public proclamation of his mission in fulfilment of Islamic prophercy regarding the time of the return of Imam Mahdi, and that does not make it holy. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

With much love and respect to Jeff, I have to disagree on this particular point. Mecca is not a site of pilgrimmage for Baha'is, however as a place of immense signifigance in the life of a great Messenger of God it most certainly is holy similarly to Bethlehem or other sacred sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel De Mol (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be for you, in particular, but you need to prove your assertions with reliable sources. I highly doubt you can find a secondary source that states the above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, I do not know of secondary sources, and do not wish to add this to any article, however the Tablets of the Divine Plan written by beloved Abdul-Baha state, "Likewise, Mecca and Medina have achieved illimitable glory, as the light of Prophethood shone forth therein. (Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 61)

You would be quite correct to state that this is against wikipedia's original research policy, and therefore should not be added to an article though. Kind regards Daniel De Mol (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the above quote doesn't say it's holy for Baha'is, just that the cities reach illimitable glory. You're interpreting the statement to mean something else. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalism

It looks like its been taken care of, for now anyway. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Oakley (radio host)

The article John Oakley (radio host) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has been flagged for over a year without being referenced and without indication that the subject meets the notability criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllyD (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I subsequently noticed from your page that this article has been proposed and disputed previously. So I've removed the notice. (Be good to get the article referenced though, if possible.) AllyD (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A list of questions about Baha'is

Seeing you're an expert on this, i though of asking you about it:

Is bahai just another name for believing theres many pathways to god?

If baha'i is abrahamic then why isnt jerusalem holy to bahais like other abrahamic religions?

If you're a member of a sect in Bahai, will you be accepted in the Bahai community gatherings ?

What are the specific requirements of the Bahai prayer in terms of gestures and postures?

Can you use musical instruments in the prayer?

Does bahaullah hav any other niocknames or bynames or monikers?

Does the Universal House of Justice proselytize?

What is the bahai festival day?

Why is there nothing in the baha'i articles about bahaullah being the 2nd coming of christ?

Who do bahais consider to be the dajjal?

Thanks for reading. Someone65 (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT articles in Brazil

Hello! In FEBRUARY, in the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil will be aproved the *SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL* ([3]), and the pages LGBT rights in Brazil and Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil need of you. Because will generate a heavy traffic on these pages, and we need you to help in the English spelling of these pages, you understand me? Please help me. Hentzer (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually you jumped two levels, to Master Editor. Congratulations, and thank you for your many contributions! Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

interesting new feature

Take a gander to the bottom of Bahai_Faith_in_Northern_Ireland#External_links. Smkolins (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite interesting. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011 • Haifa, Israel, August 4-7, 2011

Hello Jeff3000. Are you going to visit the Wikimania the upcoming summer? I am Baha'i Wikimedian from Belarus and it would be nice to meet you during the event.--Da voli (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I won't be in that neck of the world at that time. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

opinion on image usage

Hi, Take a look at [4], with copyright into at [5]. Do you think we can use it, or a segment, for context at Garden of Ridván, Baghdad? Smkolins (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's an 1849 engraving, it's probably in the public domain due to the lapse of 70 years since the author's death by now, no? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 04:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Dragfyre is right. I would upload the picture, and put a public domain tag on it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've actually gone ahead and found an even better image that clearly indicates the garden in relation to the city, sourced from the 10th Ed. of Encyclopedia Britannica (1902), which is in the public domain. Joy! (See more here.) --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Magi in Baha'i Faith

Hi Jeff,
Please kindly inform me why you removed the Magi in the Baha'i Faith from the Biblical Magi page?
Is it because you feel it is not fundamental to Baha'i belief? If so do you think that there is some other way it could be mentioned such as a more factual, "Baha'u'llah cites the traditional Gospel story of the Magi in His doctrinal exposition Kitab-i-Iqan"?
Kind regards Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For three reasons, all fundamental policies in Wikipedia:

• For something to be in Wikipedia it needs to be notable, and notability is defined by the number of reliable secondary sources that talk about it's significance. You'd be hard-pressed to find secondary sources that indicate the Biblical Magi's importance to the Baha'i Faith
• Your edit explained primary religious work which is against the no original research policy, which again requires secondary sources.
• Based on the undue weight portion of the neutral point of view policy, a view held by a small minority should not be included in an article, and for a term that has such importance in one religion, and very little (no secondary sources) for the Baha'i Faith, your inclusion goes against undue weight.

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for your advice Jeff. Daniel De Mol (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabic source

Hey—do you know anyone who can read Arabic? I've found a source I think might tell us a little history about the establishment of the Royal Hospital in Baghdad, which we could use to expand Garden of Ridván, Baghdad, which I've nominated for DYK (see Wiki-uk's talk page). I've tried Google Translate and the PDF copies over all wrong (boxes, etc), so that won't work. We just need around another 200–300 characters to qualify for DYK eligibility. It'd be nice to have it pass so that it could have a chance of going up on the main page again before the end of Ridván. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know any Arabic speaking people. Maybe posting it on the Arabic language talk page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok -- thanks for the suggestion, which I've done. I'll see if I can get friends here to help me out, too. The DYK went up on the main page last night, BTW. :) --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Reversions on Shiraz

Hey—you might have noticed, but there seems to be a persistent fellow, an IP user whose host resolves to Iran, who's insisting on removing the Báb from the Famous people section of Shiraz. I'm fairly sure it's one person who's made several edits under multiple IPs (94.183.235.171, 94.183.225.189, 31.56.219.107) since the edit summary has been the same each time: "Bab as a famous people of Shiraz is removed because it may trigger religious anger". His last reversion was around an hour ago, and I just reverted it, leaving messages on the talk pages of all three IPs asking him to join in the discussion on the talk page. Hopefully he will and we can resolve things that way, but somehow I suspect that might not happen. Any suggestions on what to do? Obviously if it comes to a revert war I'll back down and take it elsewhere, but I thought you might have a better idea of what to do in that case. Thanks! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

First off, sorry for labeling your edit in the page history as vandalism, clicked the wrong link. Second, though, why did you do this? That was a perfectly good addition. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the category doesn't exist. I would remove it once again, but I'll let you do that. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Any comment here on the Bahá'í approach? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Bahá'í history

Category:Bahá'í history, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)