User talk:Smkolins/Archive 4

Thanks for the welcome too or 2

Appreciate the welcome for my first posting "Baha'i Faith in Hong Kong". I will add a paragraph to Baha'i Faith by Country as you suggest. May have two more articles once I get some feedback\input from knowledgeable persons. It should be easier to get them done now that I have a little knowledge of Wikipedia (although a little is a dangerous thing - sorry I don't have the reference on that  ;-) JohnC JiCservant (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome!

Thanks so much for the welcome and helpful hints, look forward to collaborating and helping with any of your projects. Phoenixthebird (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bahai in Italy

Ciao Smkolins, I pubished Bahai in Italy. It is not a large voice, but i had not many references. I cannot translate it as my english ( from italian to english; it is easier for me from english to italian) is very poor. If you think that it worths to be published in enwiki and you cannot translate in english I could try to translate it in my sandbox, just to give you its meaning, and then you could transalate in good english. I am continuing in translating bahai voices in italian. Ciao,Giorces --giorces (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith in Haiti

Hi there, I was going through some new articles and I found Bahá'í Faith in Haiti. I think it is great and have nominated for DYK. Thanks for the good work.--TM 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues have been raised on that DYK nomination. Please address at T:TDYK.Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bahá'í Faith in Haiti

On February 25, 2010, Did you know?was updated with a fact from the article Bahá'í Faith in Haiti, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page(here's how, check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you

Hi Smkolins. I'd love to see the sandbox, but unfortunately, my knowledge of the Bahai faith is virtually 0 - 0.1%. I only wrote the article because of the fact that I'm trying to improve Italy related articles, and 'cause my decent knowledge of Italian made be translate it. But, thanks for the message, and I'll see the sandbox soon :-)--Theologiae (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's impressive :-). But, as I said, I literally know nothing on the Bahai faith, I just started the article to make people want to continue it by translating info from the Italian wiki version. Anyway, it seems highly readible, and personally it might reach good status, so put in the info now! Ciao!--Theologiae (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I say you post it now. There's no reason why not to ;-) Unfortunately I don't have the material time and enough knowledge of the Italian language to actually translate it, but you can translate material from different wikis, just like I did with the Bahai article. Anyway, post it now, in my opinion. At least, tell me when you've posted it--Theologiae (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith in Italy

...great, :):) --giorces (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Susan Audé

Hi there - thought I'd drop you a friendly note on your talk page regarding this article. I can see you're clearly passionate about this biography; however, there are some pretty serious issues with the article that contributed to my choice to propose it for deletion.

• It lacks in-line citations for statements that are somewhat POV and in need of reference if they are to stay. Examples of statements that need to be sourced or removed ASAP:

• "...one of Susan’s proudest moments was bearing the Olympic torch as it passed through Columbia in 1996." "Proudest moments" is a POV statement, and there ought to be an in-line citations supporting the fact that she bore the Olympic torch in that year and that she considers it to be a proud moment.
• "Susan is equally respected for her service to the community and is a much-requested inspirational speaker and a trail-blazing role model for women and persons with disabilities." This statement may well be true, but again, these things need specific citations.
• "Susan often credits Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center in Fishersville, Virginia, with changing her attitude and outlook on life in a wheelchair." Again, we need a citation that shows when and where she made this statement.

• It reads like an advertisement in a few ways, notably for the subject's personal website and for the rehab center cited above.

• The two pictures included don't appear to be free images, as is claimed in their summaries; they both seem to be promotional images for the TV station where the subject worked, and although their use here may fall under the fair use rationale, this should be cited.

Again, I didn't mean to step on any toes or be a jerk, but there are some pretty serious issues with the article. I'm going to re-add a BLP citation tag to the article, because there are some highly POV claims made in the article that need in-line citations ASAP if they are to stay.

Thanks! Petitscel (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm only mildly passionate, though I do see it worthwhile. I don't disagree the article has problems but I'm not an editor geared by making the flags of the problems of articles. Mostly I do the work of making them better within my limited skills. Perhaps I'll spend some time on the article though there were other editors historically who've spent more time on the article. Smkolins (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to you comment:

1) I think that's a mischaracterization. Look at the year worth of history in both the page edits and the comment edits.

2) Whether or not that's true, Jeff3000's undo's do not meet editing standards for WP -- he mass reverted a series of changes without even looking at them individually, and gave no rationale during his undo, and did not check the discussion page before or after.

new topic

User talk pages are not the place to have these conversations. That was a private comment between me and Jeff. I placed it in his user talk only because I was concerned with his specific behavior, even more than with the minutiae of his edits, as explained in #2 above. One can disagree on consensus and on content without being a thoughtless editor. BTW, he gave me an angry, lash-out response. I just don't think he's a very civil person. Dovid (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

funny thing is last time this happened I was angry and lashing out and he was restraining me. Uncivilly claiming to act with consensus just flies in the face of any good faith argument. Might as well make sweeping changes to any article and then claim you were acting on consensus. Tends to make interested editors angry when the rules aren't even being abided by. I thought the some of the recent activity was so egregious it merited someone being banned or at least blocked for a time. I've avoided learning too many rules and reporting procedures and general "mark it up" editor tools as basically my interest is in creating good articles and not just using rules to club up others or the work itself.Smkolins (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think that's a mischaracterization. My impression is that consensus was reached. I'm not using a club here, I'm doing what I think is right within the bounds of WP. Dovid (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Show me a link to a consensus. Smkolins (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So I take it you can't find one? Smkolins (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

another topic

hey. is it possible you ould give me a link for Baha'i prophecies or miracles websites.? thanks in advanceJigglyfidders (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

None that I can think of as third party unless you can dig up old old newspaper accounts of things. There is already a article from a Baha'i pov of Bahá'í prophecies. There are some sources there but none really applicable in a context beyond a Baha'i oriented article. Smkolins (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

this might prove interesting: "Now Baha'u'llah turns to a prophecy similar to but more specific than his jeremiads in the Tablet of the Premier (Surat ar-Ra'is) addressed to Ali Pasha. Speaking with the voice of God (using the royal "we"), Baha'u'llah predicts that Ali Pasha, then grand vizier, will be deposed (the verb is `azala, which is used of deposing kings). He says, too, that God will "lay hold" (the verb is akhadha, to take, seize) of Sultan Abd'laziz (he is called amiruhum, literally, "their prince" or "their commander"). Although Bahá'u'llah was correct that neither of these powerful men had long at the top in 1869, his prophecy, if taken literally, actually reverses their true fates. Ali Pasha was never deposed, but rather died in office in 1871. It was Sultan Abdá'laziz who was deposed, in the Constitutional Revolution of spring, 1876, shortly after which he committed suicide. Obviously, if Baha'u'llah had merely meant to predict that eventually these two men would die, then the prophecy was not very remarkable. Rather, he seems to have believed that á'li Pasha would fall from the sultaná's favor, and that some dramatic event would overtake the sultan. Even contemporaries such as Mirza Abuá'l-Fadl Gulpaygani, who became a Baha'i in 1876 on hearing of the sultaná's fall, had demanded that the latter meet some extraordinary fate before he would accept that the prophecy in the Tablet of Fuad had been fulfilled. Taken together with Baha'u'llah's prediction in the Tablet of the Premier that turmoil would overtake the Ottoman empire and his advocacy from his early Acre years of parliamentary democracy, he does seem to have been prescient about the imminence of the First Constitutional Revolution. Indeed, the matter of Ali Pasha never being deposed seems minor in comparison."[1] by Juan Cole.Smkolins (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

how to delete unsourced material

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_footballers the above link has a list of players without sources to their religion. do you know how it could be deleted? or given a reference request please? thanks..Jigglyfidders (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

it's a messy business. I don't like it when people do it to articles so it's driven me to find sources even on articles I don't care about so much. It's part of life in wikipedia but if you go down that road you have to develop various skills. Among them as a starter is to use the comment line when editing. Any edit page will have a comments line just below the edit window. Near it are check boxes whether the change is minor or not. Look through article histories and you'll see comments that were made. However major changes to articles, even with comments, will attract attention and often challenge from folks who care about the article so major changes should be discussed on the talk page of the article or proactively on the talk page of frequent editors of the article in question (visible through the history.) There are also templates of flags that can be placed on pages noting that something is wrong one way or another. See Category:Article_message_boxes But too often people do that without substantiating their comments on the talk page and eventually the template warner will get deleted because it's not useful or seem to be going anywhere. So my best advise is to invest in the time to make articles better by finding sources as you contribute or make changes, followed by talking to frequent editors of pages before they come to you. After that struggle for a good character in the tests of life and keep your nose clean. A contextual aid, to give an air that you look like you know what you are doing is greater use of wikipedia programing. For example you used the full url link to the fooballers article. A much savvier way would be to use [[List of Muslim footballers]]wikilinking. Some people take to the point of using shortcuts like these regularly even when talking about wikipedia policies and such.Smkolins (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should have mentioned possibly the easiest and simplest flag - {{fact}}.Smkolins (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Baha'i

since baha'i is an abraamic faith why did it take me (a new editor) to include Baha'i into the list of abrahaic religions? why didn't you guys include Bhaa'i in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions ? should i edit it and change it to "four primary monotheistic faiths" instead of 3?Jigglyfidders (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not yet please.

Also, since Baha'i is abrahamic, shouldn't the jerusalem article include baha'i in the[[2]] article on religious significance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders(talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Jigglyfidders (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand what you are saying but you need to see more about things in Wikipedia. Seek out a grasp of history. Look at the talk pages. And to contribute to pages about Jerusalem we'd need secondary refs on a Baha'i stance about the city and from what I know all the refs are metaphorical. The actions of the highest order of character are to drive content based on as neutral and scholarly a reference as possible. There are several thousand articles that reference the religion even if slightly. I'm working on a project which easily outlines at least over a hundred articles yet to do and with one iteration could easily add several hundred more. I'm also working on a significant expansion of the article on 'Abdu'l-Bahá. But even these need to be drive by as neutral and scholarly a set of references as possible. If the religion gets presented by shabby references then it and wikipedia will not be served.Smkolins (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The user Deconstruthis is saying that adding Baha'i Faith to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions , means undue weight and he swiftly removed my edit, however, Baha'i is currently the 7th largest organized religion after judaism and sikhism, and peer-reviewed articles such as this one http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.htmlclaim Baha'i will overtake Judaism as the 6th largest religion in the 2030s. The only reasonable explanation i can think of for his refusal to allow this edit is that he could be a muslim who condemns the thought of another abrahamic religion after Islam. Thoughts?Jigglyfidders (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC) You are over-reacting. Slow down. You are looking into a future for justifying the present. Please stop. Please. Pray, listen, read what's been going and and is going on. Do not keep jumping on impulse. Smkolins (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i noiced that the special number in the Quran is 19, and worship is also on the 19th baha'i month. Did i just discover a Baha'i prophecy?Jigglyfidders (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually you've tripped over the background of the development of the Bahá'í Calendar which has roots in the Qur'an in a number of ways. See here on page 29–30 especially and here for more. Did you get my other message?Smkolins (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

which other message?Jigglyfidders (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

oh, i seen it. but im not going to take your advice to heart sorry. i dont feel like playing around in sandboxes. I do the real thing which is editing *wink*Jigglyfidders (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

hey, my adopter is absolutely useless. do you mind adopting me instead? i will most likely be asking you a LOT of questions so bear with me if you answer yes. *wink*Jigglyfidders (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the urge to get your hands dirty. But this isn't a place for grity hands. People can make a case that your contributions are problematic and use it as an excuse to excise other things. It's happened before and will again. If you act responsibly according to wikipedia standards then your contributions will last and the topics you contribute to will be honorably grown and hopefully mature into Wikipedia:Featured_articles and be archived into special projects. I'm not sure about taking you on as an adoption if you just ignore my first best advise, ya know? Many people have worked on sincere reputable contributions and it's sometimes been a lot of hard work. Being the new guy on the block gives you a fresh perspective and freedom to try things others think can't happen. Wikipedia has an allowance for that in the sense of encouraging being bold. But it's not an invitation to being irresponsible. I know the rep in the wider world is that wikipedia is just a place where you can say what you want or argue with others to get your way but the standards have changed a lot internally from how it started. This isn't like an email list where you can argue or not pretty much as you please with anything that might convince you or someone else. For example the statistics page you pointed out for the eventual place of the Baha'i Faith being larger than Judaism is not a really strong ref. It's very weak and informed people will recognize it evolving out of the contentious history of the Claims to be the fastest-growing religion article. And btw that comment you found was not what I meant by the other message. DO NOT get into that article. It's been the cause of tons of edit wars. It takes time to craft a good article that stands up to lesser quality edits and attracts people to defending it. Despite the fact that the Baha'is have been near the top in many of those statistics the history of the article has included every kind of bias and argument and for a long time it was almost a satire of what an article should be as the "claim" was all hot air and people applied the name in various contexts. But you can at least keep asking questions. Smkolins (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

uh, im so scared, i might be blocked, im shaking now, lolJigglyfidders (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jigglyfidders: If your behavior keeps up like this, Jigglyfidders, your useless adopter will assure that blocks are issued. Although one can have fun on Wikipedia, this is not the site to joke around (see your comment right above mine). I have asked countless times if you had any questions and many editors have attempted to help you; your response each and every time shows that you are not taking it seriously. Please show us that you are willing to improve. Stop now (or forever hold your peace). Regards, Airplaneman ✈23:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been indef'd. Airplaneman ✈ 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I actually saw the tagging. Sad but unavoidable. Smkolins (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

yo

hey, i want to create a new article. 1 on david wood. 2 on sam shamoun. Jigglyfidders (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you open up a sandbox page and see what references you can gather. I may be able to find to time to look but I've got a lot on my plate. Smkolins (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Note comments about this here and here. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 23:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jigglyfidders it seems that some people have looked for refs and found nothing significant on those people. Unless you can come up with reasonable sources of their importance they don't deserve an article. From what PrincessofLlyr is saying it seems there is almost nothing about the these people available. Time to look for other topics for an article. It is possible to do substantial serious work but not doing something about them. Smkolins (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Smkolins. You have new messages at Stillwaterising's talk page.
Message added 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stillwaterising (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First Universal Races Congress

Thanks for creating this new article. :-) It was one that I meant to start but got put too far down on my to do list to happen. I was surprised that we had overlooked this event since it has loads of mentions in Wikipedia and ample references to create a decent article. FloNight♥♥♥♥16:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I created it exactly for those reasons. I'm sure there are more refs to add. I hope someone nominates it for a DYK. On brief review it looks like a good sounding board for attitudes on racism (both good and bad) even today.Smkolins (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services

I have nominated A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services, an article that you created, fordeletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dates

You may care to review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates. The format "mm-dd-yyyy", which you've been using, is not a valid date format. As per the Manual of Style, date formats used within an article should be consistent throughout the article. Where an article has strong ties to a country, the date format used should be the format used in that country. For Australian articles, the format is "dd Mmm yyyy", for example, "28 April 2010". --AussieLegend (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to change and every article seems to use it's own system. If you'll check Wikipedia:CITET all the variations are used. I also get push back becuase of - vs – and frankly it seems drive by PC norms. God help us if Windows7 changes the default on the keyboard. Smkolins (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that every article uses its own system, it's that editors don't follow the policies and guidelines.--AussieLegend (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

By articles I didn't mean wikipedia actually - I mean the sources. The world uses allot of dating coding. Forcing everything to fit one pattern makes for lots of extra work which sometimes still doesn't make any difference.Smkolins (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes it much easier to read an article, or a series of articles when you don't have to chop and change between different layouts and date formats, which is why we put in the work to make everything consistent.--AussieLegend (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate it I'm grateful for the nice note you put on my talk and still more than a little put out by that ridiculous block. Wikipedia is not worth real life stress, and kind words defray tension. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Journey to the West

I would go ahead and make a page, then I'll start editing. That looks like you did a lot of work. A summary of the page would go well under Baha'i history. Sorry I haven't contributed much lately. Extremely busy getting ready for summer schools and other stuff. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm worried that there is a high degree of reference variation ranging from "??" which means I'm sure it exists but don't have the page number, to a kind of bare bones Harvard style which needs fixing in many places. I've only rarely done Harvard style and most every time someone had to fix even my attempts. There are also a couple broken refs probably from an article where a borrowed without bringing the whole entry.I've also begun to really run into limits of what's available for free. Some of the content is free if you check from a university campus that has an agreement with the company hosting the data and sometimes it requires a registration. I've generally referred to it as needing a registration in the page number entry. There are also a couple broken refs probably from an article where a borrowed without bringing the whole entry. Anything glaring that should be fixed before I post it?? Smkolins(talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to go for the be bold attitude. For something like this that's not controversial, do your best and don't worry about getting perfect references. If something is challenged then it may need to be revised. In another week or so I'll come and edit through it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Google search is back

I worked out how to fix User:Henrik/sandbox/google-search. If you bung the code from that page into your vector.js and clear the cache you should be away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Really well done! Thanks! Smkolins (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

interesting about Bahá'í Faith in Mongolia

Greetings, I made the article because I noticed Mongolia was a redlink down in the "Bahai in Asia" template. I'm not particularly involved in Bahai subjects, but just noticed the template at the bottom of the Bahai in Afghanistan page while looking at various articles on religion in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, the same book mentioned that the only countries that officially have no Bahai are Vatican City and North Korea. I was debating whether it's worth it to have a Bahai Faith in North Korea article which points out their unique absence, or if it's too odd to report on an absence vs. a presence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:46, 13 June 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, is currently undergoing atwo-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bahá'í Faith in Mongolia

— Rlevse •Talk • 12:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, the nominator should have included you in the list. It's okay for multiple deserving people to get credit. Good work! — Rlevse •Talk • 12:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a nice Father's Day present! Smkolins (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting book!

I might even look up a copy! I'm a bit too preoccupied lately with "things non-Wiki" to do anything more than scrape the vandalism out of my watchlist articles I'm afraid. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I originally borrowed a copy way back. Since then I've bought and handed out a couple but they are hard to find these days! Smkolins (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

IM quite new

Im quite new to this place and wondered if its okay to move this page Physics in medieval Islam, to Physics in the Caliphate. I gave reasoning here. Do i need to consult someone or is it okay? Someone65 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have great energy. Fortunately there is lot's to do! Operating in consultation vs being bold is always a balance. The more major the change the more likely you should consult. You may have to seek out past editors to get input. In that specific case another tact would be to note the medieval terminology is really very western and has no basis in Eastern terminology. However just making fairly radical changes can invite hostile confrontations. Post your comment like you did, see if there is response. If there's little response I'd suggest reviewing the history for substantive editors and invite their opinion. Smkolins (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Smkolins's Day!

User:Smkolins has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Smkolins's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Smkolins! Peace, Rlevse 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Smkolins (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello hello

You left something on my talk page recently and I wanted to say thanks. This seems such a cluncky and clumsy way of communicating. My email address here seems to be enabled ... but doesn't seem to help ... anyway, very interesting note you left, thanks. LookingGlass (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I'm confused. I seem to have lost the note that you say I left on your page? Smkolins (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bah'ai / Abrahamic

Sir Smkolins, I appreciate your recent edits to Abrahamic Religions, specifically in greatly trimming the Bah'ai section. My impression is that you have included the essence without too much detail, making it far more appropriate for this article. Thank you for your efforts, patience, and persistence. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. While the main balance may be settled for the moment there is some fine tuning. But I'm also willing to wait for other input on the overall balance. Smkolins (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally - while any fair-minded person (basically anyone other than a rabidly antagonistic Christian or Muslim) would accept the obvious fact that the Faith is "descended" from Judaism, through Christianity and (especially) Islam -I would not make a great fuss about calling the Baha'i Faith "Abrahamic". Depends a lot on how you define "Abrahamic" -to many Christians and Muslims in particular there are three and three only Abrahamic religions - if they want to insist on this I'd leave it there - it's their classification, not ours, after all. Making too much of it obscures the much more important fact that The Cause of God is a totally independent revelation, and that the Blessed Beauty is not "just" the Lord of Hosts, the Return of Christ, and the 12th Imam, but also the promised one of ALL the world's religions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see some of what you are talking about Soundofmusicals, but I guess the point is that "fair-minded" and "obvious fact" have in large part been ignored by some so the time has come to be more forthright about the appropriateness of the classification. Bahá'í content has been repeatedly stripped entirely out of the article and that's just wrong. I think every interested editor has now agreed that is so. Perhaps the years of cyclicly being stripped out are over. Certainly no section of the article is a densely referenced and has attacted third party editors in defense of it as well. Baha'is do have their own attachment of Abraham and his covenant. And I've made plane the extension of the pattern of increasing universalism through the Abrahamic religions that the Baha'i Faith recognizes a broader sweep of religious history than just in the Abrahamic tradition. Perhaps in the Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religionsomething could be presented about that. In the main article it would way extend the content on Baha'i issues which is a key question - how much space the Baha'is can have in that article. It's been strongly argued that it must be limited because most sources don't mention it at all as Abrahamic. So be it. So such subtle questions will have to find a home in other articles and or in other times as sources are developed. Smkolins (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We classify to arrange things that are different from each other to differing degrees - we do so when and if it is rational, and useful, to do so. For instance the detailed classification of the different "races" of man - with all humanity divided into Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, and each of those divisions into innumerable subdivisions (and this was common quite recently) are irrational and useless if you believe in the oneness of humanity. In fact physical anthropology has largely jettisoned the whole idea of race classification. The classification, when all's said and done, was never much use except to racists. Similarly a classification of religions is really pretty irrelevant if you believe in the oneness of religion. The main usefulness of this sort of thing is to people who are stuck with the idea that there are only two kinds of religion - "true", and "in error". There is only one really true religion, of course, and that is theirs - but the others are more or less in error depending on how closely they may be related, in a classificatory way, to what ever they have been taught to believe themselves. From the Baha'i point of view this is obvious tripe. For (say) the fundamentalist Muslim who has been "carefully taught" (Oscar Hammerstein II) that Baha'i is utterly evil it is tremendously disturbing to think that the Faith and Islam have so much in common.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Baha'is in Australia

Yeah - had a look at the article. Even edited a sentence in the lead that needs rephrasing. Would have fixed it myself but it is so cryptic that while I reckon I probably know what it means I am by no means sure!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that (or something very like it) was what was meant - the point is that it didn't say it, and not having the source cited I didn't like to guess. If you have a copy of the reference perhaps you could fix it?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

commons:User:Smkolins

I assert I am the same user as commons:User:Smkolins

Bahai Faith in New Zealand page

I'm bringing up an issue on your talk page because you seem to be active on "Baha'i faith in..." pages and clearly know your way around Wiki. My concern is about the section

Bahai Faith in New Zealand - Development

Readers get the impression the individual who "agitated for change of fundamental rules of the religion" (no actual evidence of such agitation is provided) is the same as the one who "launched into a 'whistle-blower' role" (again, no actual evidence of such launching is provided).

Readers also get the impression that both these events happened in the late 80s. Yet the second chain of events took place in the early 2000s.

I accept there are probably no sources that Wiki finds acceptable for setting the record straight, so I'm suggesting the removal or flagging of unsubstantiated material from the article.

Thanks for listening. Steve Marshall 118.93.144.5 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The characterizations are cited and the timeline is vague ("later") but clear from the citations. I don't think there is an intent to mislead. I don't know who the person(s) were/was who "presented at a recent New Zealand Bahá'í Studies conference" according to the first source to know if they are different from the whistle-blower and associate in the second source - but clearly these were part of the same process ( advancing the same agenda....) I wouldn't object to more particulars on the dates or try to make clear what seems confusing - except that specific dates imply specific actions and the idea is that things took a while to come about which is what I think the thrust of the article is going for. As for cutting the whole section - if we starting cutting material because it's uncomfortable then we're not upholding the goals of wikipedia and there are so many accusations of coverup flying the blogosphere. Substantiated content has a place. People in various places make accusations about misleading content - I try to present all the notable verifiable content. I'm open to better phrasing of course but the idea here is to convey that an understanding was promulgated and when it became clear it couldn't be agreed to by common understanding more dramatic choices were made. "Agitated" seem to grasp that the efforts were not a normal part of discourse but resorted to extraordinary means which seems pretty clear. But again while I see why the words were chosen I'm open to alternatives. BTW, as the subject has been worked on recently, you may be interested inBahá'í_Faith_and_gender_equality#Serving_in_administration especially towards the bottom of the section "in administration". Smkolins (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

* However since there may be some confusion perhaps it can be redone to clear things up... let me take a look....Smkolins (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Better? Smkolins (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to improve the section. I also don't think there is an attempt to mislead. The writers have simply made assumptions to fill in the apparent gaps. The person who read, but didn't write, the "Service of Women" paper at an NZ Bahai Studies confence in the 80s was JT. In 2000 she was an ABM and contributed to the removal of membership of AM (the person described as a whistle-blower and associate). AM was not at the Bahai Studies conference where the "Service of Women" paper was delivered. Conflating the two people and linking the two events -- or even calling them part of the same process -- cannot be justified and is in error.

I'm not suggesting cutting anything because it's uncomfortable. For a start, I don't have any discomfort about what went down in NZ being written about. I'm simply advocating the removal of unsubstantiated material. I'm also saying that most of the material is unsubstantiated, and that an edit here and there is not going to be sufficient to save the piece. Cutting the unsubstantiated sections out seems to me to be the best course.

Best to stick to what's actually in the notable verifiable content and not to try to fill in the gaps with guesswork.

-SM (yes, married to AM) 118.93.242.77 (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How's that? Smkolins (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Now that I re-read what Moojan Momen wrote in "Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community" - material implying that AM had a particular interest in the subject of women on the House from 1980 onwards - I can see how you could, mistakenly, have linked her to the delivery of the "Service of women paper". Research is so tricky - there are gaps, and there are clues that seem to lead a certain way.

I'm pleased that you haven't used Moojan's paper much, because most of what's in it has been fairly thoroughly refuted in follow-up articles, in "Religion". I think I can send you copies of those if you're interested.

As for the notes taken at Peter Khan's informal talk - in my opinion, those don't qualify as notable verifiable content, but readers can figure that out for themselves. More importantly, the talk, in which Peter Khan referred to the allegedly distasteful letters, is a minor side-issue (and I'm really only guessing, because Peter was not explicit) to AM's removal from Baha'i membership for reasons unknown. That act of removal, and the way things played out in tribunals and courts, is closer to the core of the controversy that was going down in NZ around 2001-2004.

None of this is important. I'm just offering a few more dots to connect, should you be interested. My original objections have been well and truly dealt with.

ka kite Steve 118.93.242.77 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Kanichi Yamamoto

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that your notes on this article aren't lost. :) The listing period for it closed before you completed your rewrite, so I have restored the last clean version of the article, but I merged your notes into it in case you need them later. You'll find them here.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Been a rough couple weeks. I'll see about re-development of the article. Smkolins (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"principle", not "principal"

(Sorry, that annoys me) I reverted it because it had already been included in the article, in the "Apparitions" section. It certainly did not belong in the lead, as it is not confirmed as a Halley observation.Serendi^podous 10:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Smkolins. You have new messages at Talk:Obligatory Bahá'í prayers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mecca holy for Bahais?

Since the Bab went to Mecca and Medina should the Mecca article state that Mecca is holy for Bahai's as well?Someone65 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

While what you say is true, almost all references I think of only mention it in relation to acceptance of Islam as a basis for that idea. So it would be pretty indirect. So ultimately until a very fine tuned article were developed any mention would be more distraction that conveying central issues on the topic. Smkolins (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!Acalamari 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Garden of Ridván Map

Let me know if you need help with the map of Baghdad. I was just looking up the location of the Najibiyyih Garden the other day, so I'd be interested in helping to improve WP coverage on it. Also, I have access to Photoshop and Illustrator if that could be helpful (creating close-ups, or even redrawing a new locator map based on the existing ones). --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a little searching and found this map, onthis page—note that a Bahá'í in the UK has already provided acoloured version. That's part of the 1902 Encyclopedia Brittanica. There's a template on Commons,PD-Britannica, that indicates everything in the 12th and previous editions of EB (this one's from the 10th edition) is now public domain. If we're looking for a clear map indicating the location of the garden, this one would be better, since the other one gives the greater Baghdad area and is really too big to show clearly where the garden was in relation to the city/citadel. ...heck, I'm just gonna upload it right now. :) --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

aaaaaand uploaded, as File:Baghdad-map-1854.jpg. :)--dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent source. Well done! I think we can use this 1853-4 map to suggest the period without being specific. The source [3] specifying the garden in the map may be insufficient to use as a source unless we can find the original comment that lends itself to that interpritation. I vaguely recall a comment like a garden outside the city walls. Something like that.Smkolins (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yeah, there's no way we could use that site as a source imo, since it seems to be self-published. It'd be great to see if we could find some source that explains where the garden was—maybe search out 'Abdu'l-Bahá's or Bahiyyih Khanum's descriptions of the time around Bahá'u'lláh's Declaration. Using the coloured map as inspiration, I've spent a little time today trying to track down the history of the green area, and I've managed to find maps as far back as 1928 (here) that show a "Royal Hospital" on the site. This may correspond with the "Al Majeedi Hospital" mentioned at College of Medicine University of Baghdad. Hard to find anything older than that though. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 22:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and expanded the article, partly with material from the Ridvánarticle and partly with my own contributions based on the article linked from there. I've also added the map and a note regarding the 1928 map showing the hospital, for convenience. BTW the Walbridge article does describe pretty clearly where the garden is, so it's pretty safe to show the 1854 map and draw the conclusion. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've left a request about this article on Wiki-uk's talk page that you might be able to help with. I'm thinking of submitting the article to DYK, and it needs just a little more original text (i.e. not copied from other articles) to be eligible. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith country articles

Just a note to say thanks for the excellent series of articles you've helped to pull together on the Baha'i Faith in various countries. I saw a recent newspaper article on the Bahá'í Faith in Vietnam, thought "that would make a great start to a WP page" but see you've written a much better one already! AndrewRT(Talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done about 80ish such country articles. A lot of work and still less than half. I've been on a weak wikibreak since last august or so. I still poke around a bit. And I'm sure I'll comes back and do more. The original vision was not only countries but prominent cities etc. Wherever enough relevant info exists. I also tried to do the work in a random walk so there was broad coverage and and explicitly including well known countries and less well known.Smkolins (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)