A35821361

A35821361, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi A35821361! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Teachings

This Baha'i actually agrees with you about the need to mention apparent contradictions (among other reasons, from my point of view, because it gives legitimacy to the rest!) - there is no need to insert facts that are already there, however - nor to use polemic language where they have not been mentioned - hence I have cut the reference to UHJ membership as repetitive, and reworded the reference to "review" as being a bit "strong". We could never get away with an equally strong PRO-Baha'i wording on such a point, after all! And quite rightly too, in a neutral encyclopedia. As for Baha'i holy sites and gardens being built on "Palestinian land" - this is extremely unlikely - the actual core sites were either purchased during Ottoman times or during the British Mandate. If some extensions, that have been purchased since, were really expropriated illegally or unfairly (as is possible) then this needs a reliable source reference, and to be expressed in more dispassionate language. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you include Palestinian land in quotes, as if to ironically delegitimize rightful claim to property or, indeed, a homeland. To cite one example of Bahá'í holy sites being built on expropriated property...

The closeness of the Bahá'í administration to the government of Israel is illustrated by the transfer of the mansion of Mazra'ih from a Muslim waqf to the Bahá'í administration subsequent to the establishment of the state of Israel.

"Masra'ih is a Moslem religious endowment, and it is consequently impossible, under existing laws in this country, for it to be sold. However, as the friends are aware, the Ministry of Religions, due to the direct intervention of the Minister himself, Rabbi Maimon, consented, in the face of considerable opposition, to deliver Masra'ih to the Baha'is as a Holy Place to be visited by Baha'i pilgrims. This means that we rent it from the Department of Moslem and Druze affairs in the Ministry of Religions. The head of this Department is also a Rabbi, Dr. Hirschberg. Recently he, his wife and party, visited all the Baha'i properties in Haifa and 'Akka, following upon a very pleasant tea party in the Western Pilgrim House with the members of the International Baha'i Council." (Baha'i News, no. 244, June 1951, p. 4)

"The Mansion of Mazra'ih, often referred to by the beloved Guardian as one of the "twin mansions" in which the Blessed Beauty resided after nine years within the walled prison-city of 'Akká, and dear to the hearts of the believers by reason of its associations with their Lord, has at last been purchased together with 24,000 square meters of land extending into the plain on its eastward side." (Messages from the Universal House of Justice 1968-1973, published 1976; Ridván Message 1973, p. 119)

May 2016

Your recent editing history at Bahá'í gardens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
and also Bahá'í World Centre buildings reverts Smkolins (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of former Bahá'ís has been accepted

List of former Bahá'ís, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former Bahá'ís, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahd-i Ulya. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added this to the talk page for the "Criticisms" article.

Apparently the whole question of The Bab and Baha'u'llah owning slaves was raised by one Peter Terry in 1999 - in an email message to the Universal House of Justice. Can’t find his original email – but a copy of the reply is readily available in several places, both Bahá'í and “otherwise”. You can surely locate one of these through a Google or Yahoo search “Servants in the Households of Bahá'u'lláh and the Báb”. Interestingly, all the texts you refer to in the new version of the “Slavery” section of the “Criticisms” article (as well as several others) are mentioned in this email – even the supposedly suppressed Black Pearls. Etexts of most of these are also available – and they are, not surprisingly, quite innocent of any allegation that Baha'u'llah himself ever bought or sold slaves. (I have personally “electronically scanned them” with “cntrl F”). Where this matter is referred to in any of the Bahá'í sources you cite (you don't, I notice, include any non-Baha'i ones) it is stated that Baha’u’llah freed all the slaves in his household as soon as he could (presumably on the death of his father, when they became his to free) – and gave them all the option of entering his employ as free paid servants. Unsurprisingly they took the choice of leaving his household – all but one who chose to stay, with his new status as a free paid servant – the loyal Isfandiyar –(who is of course a Bahá'í hero in his own right). Apart from this your new section could have well been directly derived from the text of “Servants in the Households of Bahá'u'lláh and the Báb” – since it contains no references not mentioned in that work – and only its single most damaging statement specifically contradicts that work. As for the Báb owning slaves (apparently the receipt for the purchase of one exists in Bahá'í archives – so this fact is certainly not a “secret”) it has to be remembered that the Báb was at no time subject to Bahá'í law. It is still interesting, at least, in view of the very powerful and unequivocal condemnation of slavery in the Kitab-i-Aqudas!

I will leave your work up for a day or two, to give you a chance to get it straightened out - otherwise it will just have to go. Nonetheless - the subject is a fascinating one that I hadn't come across before - a really good "Baha'i Faith and Slavery" article might even be possible, but it would have to avoid any opportunist jumping on half-truth or direct falsehood to attack the faith - at least as bad as doing the same to proselytise !!

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Díyá'u'lláh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahd-i Ulya. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Disputed succession of Bahá'u'lláh

The following statement was deleted from articles about Bahá'u'lláh, Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and `Abdu'l-Bahá with the spurious claim that it is not reliable.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

So, what part of the statement do you perceive to be not reliable?

1) Is the official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy not disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants?

2) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí?

3) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not subsequently led by Shua Ullah Behai?

4) Were the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants not declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi?

The works of Smith, Bausani, Momen, and other Bahá'í historians do not dispute these basic facts, although they would certainly disagree with underlying causes of the dispute.

A35821361 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Complaining your points on every talk page of every article and my talk page and here doesn't improve it's character. It's a bad source and frankly mentioning Smith, Bausani and Momen in company with it doesn't do them any service.Smkolins (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you complain about the source from Covenant-breakers, which you mischaracterize as being self-published, I will provide some additional references from official Bahá'í sources.

The official Bahá'í narrative of the succession controversy is disputed by the majority of Bahá'u'lláh's descendants who, initially led by Mírzá Muhammad `Alí and then Shua Ullah Behai, were also subsequently declared Covenant-breakers by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.

Ways to improve Ibrahim George Kheiralla

Hi, I'm UNSC Luke 1021. A35821361, thanks for creating Ibrahim George Kheiralla!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Break the article into sections, categorize it and increase the content. Thank you for contributing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith by continent, North America, Thornton Chase

In 1894 Thornton Chase became the first North American Bahá'í who remained in the faith.

The text in bold above has been deleted, purportedly for being "original research" and "synthesis." Please note that the reference provided, Robert H. Stockman's "Thornton Chase: The First American Bahá'í," not only had to pass vigorous Bahá'í review on account of Stockman's being a Bahá'í, but in fact was published by the official press of the Bahá'í administration in North America. - Regards A35821361 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Assumption of "Good Faith"

I'd like to assume good faith on your behalf - basically, that you're genuine, and not attempting to "have us on". I have been wont to assume this whenever our paths cross, and I am trying hard to continue to do so. Acting in this way is a basic Wiki principle, and if expressed in slightly different terms, a good Baha'i one too.

But dearie me if you're not making things hard for me!

You express an "interest" in the Baha'i Faith on your "main" page. In fact every one of your wiki posts and edits, in whatever article they might pop up, come across as being from the point of view of a self-appointed opponent of the Faith. To be blunt, the overall impression is that there is something basically rotten in the state of the Faith, and you mean to expose it.

In a number of instances you have inserted contentions that I suspect you know are either untrue or very doubtful, and on having them shot down in one article you switch to another. This looks very like a cynical ploy designed to "get something in", regardless of whether it will stand up or not, or what relation it bears, or fails to bear, on the usefulness of Wikipedia, or the quality of a particular article.

Having a hobby horse like this is rather fun, and not in itself a failing as such. I have a few obsessions of my own - but on the whole I avoid editing Wiki pages about them. Compare my own editing record with yours, for example - I edit many articles on a variety of other subjects, and my thoughts, while guided by extensive reading, research, and cogitation, are (right or wrong) my own.

The aim of every intelligent, articulate editor of Wikipedia ought to be the improvement of the encyclopedia - not the pushing of a barrow. Obsessions are best left elsewhere.

To go out on a positive note - in a few cases I have been left with an impression that an article over which we have been contending has ended up in a genuinely improved condition. I am starting to doubt even that - have you just pulled out because you were bored and wanted to try a new line of attack? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Your initial statement purporting a desire to maintain good assumptions is belied by your subsequent statement, "In a number of instances you have inserted contentions that I suspect you know are either untrue or very doubtful." This statement is patently false as every single one of my edits is a well documented and referenced fact, admittedly not always comforting to an invested ideologue who does not wish to see blemishes in the officially-sanctioned narrative of his religion, whether its fanciful view of its history or the utopian vision of its future. I understand that the initial flood of light into a dark room can be painful, and such an awakening can be uncomfortable. These are not my concerns, however, but yours, for it is you who is disturbed by my objectivity. I do hope you remember one thing you mentioned above, "The aim of every intelligent, articulate editor of Wikipedia ought to be the improvement of the encyclopedia - not the pushing of a barrow. Obsessions are best left elsewhere." - Regards, A35821361 (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Very glad that you agree in principle with what I say - I have always done my best to apply it to myself - all I can say is "go thou and do likewise!" But really, kidding aside, if there is an ideologue in evidence here, invested or otherwise, it most certainly isn't me. I have always tried hard to understand exactly what you were driving at - and where, and in what sense, you might have actually been at least partly right. I have always read any source you have cited when it has been pat all possible. Some of your edits I have even left well enough alone, as "fair enough". The wording of several articles has ending up being changed (I hope improved) in the course of an "argument" between us. I have been prepared to admit myself wrong and to pursue entirely new (to me) topics. This, if nothing else, confirms my own good faith. My object has always been (and for that matter remains, in spite of silly diatribes like the above, to improve Wikipedia, not to score off you, or anyone else). The great majority of the more factual parts of your attacks are actually confirmable from Baha'i sources as you seem to have noticed yourself lately. If it's actually true, you can very probably find it in various official accounts. Such classics as God Passes By and the Dawnbreakers are very much "warts and all" when it comes to the events themselves - a lot is unequivocably stated that would have been long suppressed by an "officially-sanctioned narrative". All kinds of thing that would be suppressed by anything of the kind are in fact common knowledge. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk at the Maxwell's Home in Montreal in the Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans article

The following passage was deleted from the Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans article, under the section about `Abdu'l-Bahá, by an editor who states it is synthesis that this quote being presented as relevant to issues of Indians/Native Americans and the Baha'i Faith...

During his tour of North America, `Abdu'l-Bahá gave a talk on September 2, 1912 in the Montreal home of William Sutherland Maxwell (later named a Hand of the Cause by Shoghi Effendi in 1951) and May Maxwell, the parents of Mary Maxwell, the future Amatu'l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum, wife of Shoghi Effendi.

Consider this Canadian country during the early history of Montreal when the land was in its wild, uncultivated and natural condition. The soil was unproductive, rocky and almost uninhabitable—vast forests stretching in every direction. What invisible power caused this great metropolis to spring up amid such savage and forbidding conditions? It was the human mind. Therefore, nature and the effect of nature’s laws were imperfect. The mind of man remedied and removed this imperfect condition, until now we behold a great city instead of a savage unbroken wilderness. Before the coming of Columbus America itself was a wild, uncultivated expanse of primeval forest, mountains and rivers—a very world of nature. Now it has become the world of man. It was dark, forbidding and savage; now it has become illumined with a great civilization and prosperity. Instead of forests, we behold productive farms, beautiful gardens and prolific orchards. Instead of thorns and useless vegetation, we find flowers, domestic animals and fields awaiting harvest. If the world of nature were perfect, the condition of this great country would have been left unchanged.

This passage is directly relevant to native North Americans. `Abdu'l-Bahá's asserts that pre-Columbian North America "was in its wild, uncultivated and natural condition" that "the mind of man remedied" so "it has become the world of man." The passage is unambiguously pertinent.l A35821361 (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I am as sympathetic to the plight of dispossessed indigenous people as anyone (I actually have relatives in that category) - but pre-Columbian North America WAS in a comparitively "wild, uncultivated and natural condition" (that is the very virtue of any land inhabited by its "natural" or indigenous inhabitants, of course - they don't stuff it up like us (so-called) "civilised" types). Remembering the extemporaneous nature of the translation one cannot be too sure about the "remedied" either - without a Persian text of `Abdu'l-Bahá's original talk he may very well have used a word without the precise connotations of the English. Taking the passage as an intended belittling of indigenous people is in any case very highly strained, and (which is perhaps the point anyway) very contradictory of Baha'i teaching (and specifically that of `Abdu'l-Bahá himself) on the unity of humankind and the great importance, especially in a spiritual sense, of indigenous peoples. BUT none of this is the point in any case - the article is about "native North Americans". However you strain and stretch `Abdu'l-Bahá's remarks, they have pretty-well nothing to do with the subject. The very worst connotation you can put on them, after all, that `Abdu'l-Bahá was not an extreme "greenie", and saw some virtue in "civilisation". I must admit I'm less than totally convinced myself that the "works of man" are totally or invariably deletrious. Anyway IF all this belongs anywhere in Wikipedia at all it is very plainly in an article about (criticising?) the Baha'i Faith. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually missed the point here slightly (oops) - not so irrelevant as I thought, as the article IS about both the Native Americans and the Baha'i Faith!! Main point remains valid of course - this is a very highly strained (and partisan), not to say speculative, interpretation of a statement that does not even mention North American native peoples (directly) at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on Cognitive dissonance and True-believer syndrome

Today, October 22, happens to be the anniversary of the Great Disappointment, when, in 1844, the Millerites expected the return of Christ to the Earth. Although the prophecy was not fulfilled, the Millerites would go on to form the various Adventist churches. Bahá'ís believe that Miller's interpretation of biblical prophecies for the signs and dates of the coming of Jesus were correct and fulfilled by the Báb who declared that he was the "Promised One" on May 23, 1844, and began openly teaching in Persia in October 1844.

What is interesting about these events in general is the manner in which individuals react. In the classic work of social psychology, When Prophecy Fails, Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter studied a small UFO religion in Chicago called the Seekers that believed in an imminent apocalypse. They describe the coping mechanisms after the event did not occur, and their findings have been generally applicable to a wide variety of scenarios involving cognitive dissonance and true-believer syndrome.

Festinger describes the basic hypotheses of cognitive dissonance as follows:

1. The existence of dissonance [or inconsistency], being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance [or consistency].

2. When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.

Festinger and his co-authors conclude that the following conditions lead to increased conviction in beliefs following disconfirmation:

1.The belief must be held with deep conviction and be relevant to the believer's actions or behavior.

2.The belief must have produced actions that are difficult to undo.

3.The belief must be sufficiently specific and concerned with the real world such that it can be clearly disconfirmed.

4.The disconfirmatory evidence must be recognized by the believer.

5.The believer must have social support from other believers.

Festinger describes the increased conviction and proselytizing by cult members after disconfirmation as a specific instantiation of cognitive dissonance (i.e., increased proselyting reduced dissonance by producing the knowledge that others also accepted their beliefs) and its application to understanding complex mass phenomena.

When Prophecy Fails was published in 1957, the year that Shoghi Effendi died without having written a will as prescribed in Bahá'u'lláh's Kitáb-i-Aqdas and without having designated a successor Guardian as stipulated in `Abdu'l-Bahá's Will and Testament.

From the Kitáb-i-Aqdas:

"Unto everyone hath been enjoined the writing of a will. The testator should head this document with the adornment of the Most Great Name, bear witness therein unto the oneness of God in the Dayspring of His Revelation, and make mention, as he may wish, of that which is praiseworthy, so that it may be a testimony for him in the kingdoms of Revelation and Creation and a treasure with his Lord, the Supreme Protector, the Faithful."

From `Abdu'l-Bahá's Will and Testament:

"O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of the Guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words:—“The child is the secret essence of its sire,” that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the Guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the Guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him."

A35821361 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, A35821361. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reason for `Abdu'l-Bahá's knighthood

Only Bahá'í sources refer to `Abdu'l-Bahá's being designated KBE due to "humanitarian work" related to sharing of grain from his storage. On the other hand, contemporary British sources give a different reason. According to Harry Charles Luke, an official in the British Colonial Office who served as assistant Governor of Jerusalem, `Abdu'l-Bahá "on the 4th December, 1919, was created by King George V a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation." `Abdu'l-Bahá was ceremonially knighted on April 27, 1920, an event which was prominently reported in the Star of the West. A35821361 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC) …

Alessandro Bausani is the source for your reversion, not Denis MacEoin. As you may be aware, Bausani was a prominent Bahá'í who served on the Italo-Swiss National Assembly and later on the National Spiritual Assembly of Italy for twenty years. Bausani served as a delegate for the first election of the Universal House of Justice in 1963. MacEoin, on the other hand, is former Bahá'í and academic who was declared an "apostate" by Momen. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

…

You weren't thinking of Bausani, you actually cited him as a reference, although you seemed to think you had cited MacEoin when in fact you hadn't. The British colonial officials explicitly stated why they knighted `Abdu'l-Bahá, no reason for you to go "digging" to find a narrative that fits your agenda. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

…

As the exchange above concerns sections of several Wikipedia articles, I had included it in this talk page. However, the other conversant objected to having his responses on this talk page and has redacted them. Interested parties may read the full discussion here. A35821361 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Accord with the state of Israel

Please read the discussion here. The mention of an accord between the Bahá'í World Centre and the state of Israel was repeatedly deleted under the pretense that it is "nonsense" and "started with the conspiracy theory of a secret accord," although the reference to the accord is none other than a letter from the Universal House of Justice detailing the contents of the accord and the historical background that led to its signing. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Stockman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Stockman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Presence of a Russian military escort in Bahá'u'lláh's entourage during his exile from Iran to Baghdad in 1853

The discussion linked here was started from the objections of another editor for my use of a reference that introduces the fact that during his exile from Iran to Baghdad in 1853, Bahá'u'lláh was accompanied by an entourage that included a Russian military escort. The topic discussed concerns multiple articles, including the Síyáh-Chál section of the Bahá'u'lláh article and the Russian ties section of the Political objections to the Baha'i Faith article. The initial work referred to in the discussion is Nabíl-i-A`zam's The Dawn-Breakers. The second work referred to is Helen S. Goodall and Ella Goodall Cooper's Daily Lessons Received at Akka: January 1908.

National census data compared to Bahá'í-cited sources of membership numbers

Figures quoted in Bahá'í-cited sources often differ markedly from those tabulated from official government census data.

Nation	Census data	Bahá'í-cited data
Barbados	178	3,337
Belize	202	7,742
Canada	18,945	30,000; 46,826
Guyana	500	11,787
India	4,572	1,897,651; over 2,000,000
Mauritius	639	23,742
Norway	1,015	2,737

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Smith (historian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akka. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR block

You've been blocked from editing for 36 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 07:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

A35821361 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request a reconsideration of my having been blocked from editing for 36 hours. I believe the relevant information for the reconsideration can be found in the Talk page of the relevant article. In short, the lead section for the article mentions the arrest of the founder-prophet of the Bahá'í Faith as simply being persecution, when in fact it occurred after a failed assassination on the ruling monarch of his homeland in the wake of a failed apocalyptic insurrection. While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order. In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater). Thank you.

Decline reason:

Edit warring and violation of the WP:3RR rule are not allowed, even if you are right about the content (after all, everyone thinks they're right, don't they?) That is the only thing you should address if you wish to make a new appeal, and leave the content dispute for discussion at the appropriate talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Universal House of Justice

This came up years ago and the conclusion was that simply being a member of the Universal House of Justice does not meet WP:Notability standards:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Membership alone does not make them notable unless they are written about extensively by reliable and independent authors. I think Stephen Birkland is even pushing the notability, but since he was smeared by the dissidents for his involvement I guess that makes him stand out a bit.

I'm mentioning this because you just made a page for Stephen Hall (Bahá'í) that probably should be deleted based on the criteria, and I'm guessing you're planning more. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry

The relevant accusation was made here. My response is as below...

A35821361 is the only account I have used for editing on Wikipedia. This allegation of sockpuppetry is part of a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order. In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater). Sincerely, A35821361 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that you think I'm somehow harassing you. Your edits have a clear negative bias and I've been trying to make them neutral and in line with guidelines. By the way, I was right about two of those accounts and they were blocked. No harm in checking. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

My edits, like yours, speak for themselves. Unbiased truth should not cause so much fear. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is someone afraid? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Hermann Zimmer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hermann Zimmer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Zimmer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Since article has improved when i nominated it for deletion. to avoid such thing in future kindly use under construction template. Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

House of Arbob

Tell me again about how you're here to bring academically sourced neutral edits to the Baha'i pages... http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2012/09/should-bahais-replace-uhj-by-uha.html

You are a deceitful attacker with a negative bias that far exceeds any positive bias that you could possibly point to among the Baha'i editors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what your link to your blog has anything to do with any of my edits. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Death by burning

Hi, I'd like to ask that everyone refrain from making undiscussed deletions and reversions on Death by burning. As the recent series of edits appear to be controversial, it would be most constructive to discuss any changes to the article on the talk page going forward. The current cycle of deletions and reversions is only going to lead to protracted edit warring. I'm going to restore the article to the version I contributed; if there are any changes needed, please discuss them first. I've also posted this notice on Cuñado's talk page. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As requested, please refrain from reverting well-sourced edits to Death by burning without discussing changes first. If you continue, I will report your behaviour as edit warring. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 02:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I discussed my edit in the talk page. Please feel free to take whatever steps you feel are appropriate. My edits and conduct in general are well within the rules and regulations of Wikipedia as well as polite society. The quote from the Aqdas is wholly in context and entirely relevant to the subject matter. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. If you have any further comments on my response to it, please feel free to share them. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Birkland

Please do not add content or create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 13:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The page to which you refer, Stephen Birkland, is/was in no way, shape, or form an attack page that threatens or disparages the subject.

The content matter to which you refer is below, Regards, A35821361 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)....

The balance of the article as it was created is devoted to the "Controversy" section which is entirely negative in tone, which is inappropriate for a biography; see WP:COATRACK. As well, notability outside of primary (i.e. Bahá'í-related) sources has not been established, therefore the article fails the test of notability. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 11:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, the "controversy" is not negative in tone at all, as all relevant perspectives of the Talisman investigation are covered, including the letter by the Universal House of Justice. The article was not framed as an attack, but an unbiased accounting of the incident. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your contention that the article is an "unbiased accounting", but even if it were, the article as written places undue weight on the investigation, to the point where its purpose is essentially to recount the story of the investigation. This makes the article a coatrack for the Talisman investigation, which is a form of attack and unacceptable for a BLP. Creating an article about an otherwise non-notable individual for the purpose of highlighting one specific event is at best a mistake, and potentially duplicitous. If you're so intent on seeing the incident covered in some form on Wikipedia, I would suggest you try to work it into Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith, seeing as it's not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your contentions. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been a week since your last contribution, so I'm assuming you're busy. This is just a reminder that, as mentioned on Talk:Stephen Birkland, if you are interested in retaining this article, then please provide some sort of independent, verifiable proof of the subject's notability; otherwise, I intend to move ahead with a merge into Universal House of Justice. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

On another note, a merge discussion is still ongoing at Talk:Death_by_burning#Section_merge_to_Capital_punishment, and we haven't heard from you there. Feel free to contribute your thoughts if you have the time. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Birkland has served in various roles within the hierarchy of the Bahá’í Administrative Order. Since 2010, he has been a member of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing body of the Bahá’í Faith. Before his election to the Universal House of Justice, in 2008, he was appointed to the International Teaching Center. The International Teaching Centre, whose seat is at the Bahá'í World Centre in Haifa, Israel, is composed of nine Counsellors appointed by the Universal House of Justice and tasked with duties to stimulate and coordinate the Continental Board of Counselors and assist the Universal House of Justice in matters relating to the teaching and protection of the faith. All of the current members of the Universal House of Justice previously served as members of the International Teaching Centre. Prior to his membership with the International Teaching Centre, Birkland served as an Auxiliary Board member beginning in 1976 and a member of the Continental Board of Counsellors for North America from 1993. He also served on the board of Trustees for Huqúqu'lláh in the United States for 10 years.

Background

A native of Minnesota, Stephen Birkland holds a Bachelor of Science from the University of Minnesota and a Master of Science in counseling from the University of Wisconsin at River Falls. He has previously worked as psychotherapist and organizational consultant and taught at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Stephen Birkland and his wife, Nadjla, have two adult sons.

Controversy

In the 1990s, as a member of the Continental Board of Counselors in the Americas, Birkland led an investigation of Bahá'ís running an internet forum independent of the Bahá'í Administrative Order known as "Talisman" where members could openly question and debate issues regarding the management of Bahá'í communities. Birkland contacted a number of the "Talisman" participants, warning one "your words could be construed as being in conflict with the Covenant and to warn you against the potential spiritual danger they imply" and telling another "The International Teaching Centre has asked me--with the knowledge of the Universal House of Justice--to warn you that your promulgation of views contrary to the Teachings was damaging to the Cause. If you were to resume in any fashion this course of action, the effect would be to bring you into direct conflict with the Covenant. Several Bahá'ís, including prominent academics Juan Cole, John Walbridge, and Linda Walbridge, chose to resign rather than be condemned as Covenant-breakers for taking part in "Talisman," which was then shut down.

The only public acknowledgement by the Universal House of Justice of Birkland's activities came in a letter addressed to all National Spiritual Assemblies on April 7, 1999, which noted "a campaign of internal opposition to the Teachings is currently being carried on through the use of the Internet" and that "Early in 1996, the deliberate nature of the plan was revealed in an accidental posting to an Internet list which Bahá’í subscribers had believed was dedicated to scholarly exploration of the Cause. Some of the people responsible resigned from the Faith when Counselors pointed out to them the direction their activities were taking. A small number of others continue to promote the campaign within the Bahá’í community."

Good morning

Coffee for you.

Glad to see you're back. If you have some time, please take a few moments to contribute to the discussions that I highlighted in the above section, so we can move forward instead of prolonging an edit war. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues on the talk pages. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Am I to take this to mean that you've given your final word on the matter? Or does it mean you implicitly agree that, for instance, the sources on Stephen Birkland are primary sources and cannot be used to prove notability, meaning that it is impossible to establish the notability of the subject as the article now stands? If so, it would be helpful if you'd make an explicit statement to that effect. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On that note, by the way, you probably noticed the AfD entry for David Ruhe. You may want to restate your position there. A few editors have already shared their thoughts, but since you've been involved with the article recently, it'd be good for your thoughts to be included in the discussion. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages for the relevant articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Everything you've written on the talk pages so far seems to be a restatement of the same thing you've been saying so far (this person is notable, sources are clear and objective, etc.) without actually answering the questions that people are asking you, or showing actual evidence that your edits conform to Wikipedia policy. If those two things don't start happening soon, don't be surprised if your edits keep getting reverted—and not just by two or three people.

If this is some kind of an act, I hope it doesn't keep going much longer. I can see that you've make some really good contributions here, but contributing to Wikipedia takes collaboration, and not just hard work and skill in writing. As others seem to have noted elsewhere on this talk page, your seeming unwillingness to work with others is making it hard to focus on the positive. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Biographies

You have created several biographies lately, but your use of sources has been violating policies such as WP:ALIVE and WP:NOR. In most cases I have addressed the issues on the talk pages and you have reverted without discussion. This is your only warning. If you restore deleted content on a biography of a living person without addressing the reliability and original research problems, I will pursue getting you blocked. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to take whatever steps you feel are necessary. You know very well I have addressed the issues raised in the talk pages of the relevant articles. The biographies are of notable individuals and are well sourced from third-party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the past week you have reverted edits to Gustavo Correa, Farzam Arbab, David Ruhe, Douglas Martin (Bahá'í), Kiser Barnes, Glenford Eckleton Mitchell, Payman Mohajer, and Paul Lample without appropriately addressing the issues raised on talk pages (currently Talk:Gustavo Correa, Talk:Farzam Arbab, Talk:Paul Lample). A week before that you had the same problem on Stephen Birkland. The great majority of third party sourced you have used do not mention the individuals being biographied, and you have added substantial information about individuals that is not supported by any of the references. Declaring them notable means nothing when Wikipedia has a definition for notability: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To take a few examples from your list...

The article for Glenford Eckleton Mitchell was initially written in 2007, and in fact you contributed to it with several edits in 2007 and 2008. Somehow ten years later you have decided to delete the article for reasons that are unclear.

The article for Kiser Barnes was initially written in 2007, and in fact you contributed to it with several edits in 2007 and 2008. Somehow ten years later you have decided to delete the article for reasons that are unclear.

The article for Douglas Martin (Bahá'í) was initially written in 2007, and in fact you contributed to it with several edits in 2007 and 2008. Somehow ten years later you have decided to delete the article for reasons that are unclear.

The article for David Ruhe was initially written in 2007, and in fact you contributed to it with several edits in 2007 and 2008. Somehow ten years later you have decided to delete the article for reasons that are unclear.

The articles for Gustavo Correa, Farzam Arbab, Payman Mohajer, and Paul Lample all use material that is well-cited and from objective third party sources. The individuals who are the subjects of these articles are notable for a number of reasons. What is the reason for deletion of the relevant material?

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not that this has anything to do with the current situation, but if you're accusing me of changing positions, I'm the one who proposed merging the biographies in 2008. See here. You'll see I made the same arguments, quoted the same policies, and linked to fish. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion referenced above is archived here, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to Subject Ban

Because of my contributions creating articles dedicated to the current members of the Bahá'í Administrative Order, Cuñado has suggested that I be imposed "a subject block," a suggestion he has introduced on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on two discussions regarding the biographies of Farzam Arbab and Gustavo Correa.

However, as my edits are entirely based on objective, third-party sources and are entirely inline with Wikipedia policies, he has been unable or unwilling to pursue his suggestion any further. His suggestion remains yet another example of a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who continue to present objective, unbiased information about various aspects of their religion, including its Administrative Order, history, and teachings.

Regards, A35821361 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello, you have been mentioned on ANI. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It would have been more helpful had you linked to the specific discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard. Regardless, having read your post there, you never mentioned what the "issue" with which I may be involved is. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above has been archived here. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, A35821361. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey A35821361. Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. If you don't want enable email just for this, you can email me at pearleywikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Best, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

As you have not engaged in discussion and reverted me repeatedly on many pages, I will report you for edit warring if you continue. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I engage in discussion for every article that I provide edits for. Please feel free to take whatever steps you feel are necessary. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your statement is demonstrably false, even when considering the tirse comments that amount to "My edits are good." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The irony of your allegation of "edit warring" and accusation of my not engaging in discussion is that less than fifteen minutes before you posted your message, at 22:06, another user reverted your wholesale deletion of my edits on the Religious censorship article for the very reason that you did not engage in any discussion. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I echo the warning C has provided you (though I don't think the apparent assertion of one-sided lack of discussion has any merit). However, it appears to me that you're both stepping pretty close to the boundaries, for example at `Abdu'l-Bahá William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't solve content disputes by edit-warring. The solution to the content dispute is to bring in uninvolved editors and seek consensus at Talk:`Abdu'l-Bahá for a version you can live with. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to your input. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

This is Dale Husband. Dale Husband 20:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A35821361. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A35821361. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mirza Badi'u'llah Effendí, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Soheil Afnan.png

Thanks for uploading File:Soheil Afnan.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Appreciate your hard-work and love your inputs in the Baha'i pages. Hope to learn things from you. Keep up the good work. Serv181920 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Gustavo Correa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gustavo Correa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Correa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Serv181920 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Farzam Arbab for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Farzam Arbab, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farzam Arbab until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hi A35821361, Your contributions are valuable, why have you stopped editing wikipedia?Serv181920 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

His contributions are more inclined to blogging, where he can say anything he wants without anyone fact-checking him. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I am sure, you are always there (full-time) to correct him. :) Serv181920 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)