User talk:Cuñado/Archive 1

Referencing
That template looks really good in combination with tags, and the full cite book template in the references. It has to be done correctly, and well though. The divisions page could really use it. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The linking is quite interesting. Once they get the cite_book, cite_journal, template working we should switch over.  -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Snagged your userbars
Hope you don't mind. I was particularly pleased with the one regarding 'singular they,' as it has always annoyed me that it hasn't been adopted officially. Peter Deer (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

| Response
I have thought this for a long time. I want to get to the point where language facilitates rather than inhibits communication.

I personally love the english language and I consider myself to be particularly good at it (to the point of hubris, I do not doubt) but there are so many useless letters and rules and annoying homonyms that just make it harder to learn, even to native speakers. It's so convoluted that I am not even sure that the previous sentence was correct english.

Several things I think are important regarding a universal language.


 * A practical alphabet that is conducive to fast writing and easy differentiation.
 * A comprehensive guide to phonetic pronunciation (so that pronunciation of words is apparent in their spelling)
 * Spelling that indicates the nature of the word immediately (noun, adjective, verb, etc.)
 * Universal systems of plurality and singularity.

There are many more if I could think of them right now. I should actually be saving these somewhere... Peter Deer (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffmichaud
I've removed your notice from WP:UAA. There is nothing promotional about using his own name as his username. Your concerns about his signature should be brought up in the proper place. - Revolving Bugbear  00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If not on the board about user names, then do you suggest I post it to the main general board? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since it seems to be part of a content dispute, it may belong in dispute resolution process as part of the larger process. If you have concerns about it outside the dispute itself, try WP:ANI. - Revolving Bugbear  12:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

''I'd appreciate you looking over this conversation for two reasons. You seem to be familiar with the user name policy, and none of the other admins there seem to know what to do about a controversial user name, and also because I think there is a problem with the procedure if there is a debate over whether or not a signature is acceptable when the policy states that controversial user names can't be used, equally applying to signatures, but my initial attempt to post it at WP:Usernames for administrator attention was declined because I raised the issue over a sig and not the actual user name. Did that make sense? So the debate that would usually go on at WP:UAA is now going on at WP:ANI only because it's a signature, but the policy applies equally to both. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)''


 * I have commented, as requested. I will continue to monitor the conversation.
 * As regards the UAA request, UAA exists for a very particular reason: to report usernames which indicate that the user "needs to be immediately blocked". This is mainly for GFDL reasons -- as the licensing requires that attribution be complete and public, we don't want history logs filled with entries like "Revision 12345 by The Guy Who F---ed Your Mother". While I agree with your assessment that the signature is problematic -- although not necessarily for the same reasons -- it is not that sort of situation.
 * As I said, I will continue to the monitor the conversation. If you have any further questions or concerns, related to this incident or not, I'll be glad to help.
 * Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature discussion
I have sent an email to Jeffmichaud regarding his signature, as a result of this discussion. Regards, Rudget . 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Attar
Thank you for correcting the spelling. I have put some addition information to the article. Cheers. --Al-Fanā (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Deleting" category
Huh? First of all, you did not delete the category, you simply blanked it; the category remains, just without any content. Secondly, you did not apparently submit this for Categories for Discussion, so I have no idea why you are deleting it at all. Why did you ignore the procedure? Why do you want this deleted so badly that you can't discuss it with other editors? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah User:Jeff3000 has updated me on a discussion that I did not see for a similar category I made earlier. This one addresses some of the issues raised in the prior discussion, but not all. I apologize for my own ignorance, and I suggest that if you want it to be deleted, you post on CfD. As I told Jeff, I'll give my own take, but if it is deleted, I won't try to recreate it without some further support from the community at large. I hope this sounds like a fair approach. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting "Getting rid of" and deleting a category are not the same thing, as simply removing all of its members still leaves the category itself and it lends itself to being recreated. If it was nominated for CfD and actually deleted, there would be a deletion log and one would not repopulate it. This way, CfD works better for anyone who wants it deleted or anyone who wants it to not be deleted. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Category Removal
It would seem the big problem I have in this regard is it does not display on the page its inclusion in the category when linked secondarily to subcategories. The only indication would be if someone were to go to the category itself, which the pages included don't link to. One would have to specifically look up Manifestations of God, look into the Prophets of Islam subcategory, and then into the Muhammad category to even be aware of this distinction, or (even worse!) in the reverse order. Frankly it seems like this action taken is making it less informative in an encyclopedic sense, as by looking at the Muhammad categories area there is no overt indication of its inclusion in that category, which in accordance to your edits is now by proxy. You have been working very hard on this particular issue and I would like to know why this seems to be of such importance to you. Peter Deer (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That certainly seems fair but the Baha'i faith, while being a minority viewpoint, is not an insignificant viewpoint. Frankly, the Baha'i views of Jesus are noteworthy enough to be included on the page, I certainly don't see why the Baha'i category would be not noteworthy enough. Peter Deer (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the way you are organizing the categories is completely backward. While I disagree with the category, it passed CFD, and thus it should be organized in a way that consistent with categorization in Wikipedia.  Also, there is no secondary source that clearly states that all the prophets of Islam and the Hebrew prophets have the station of a Manifestation of God, so I'll be adjusting those as well. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guardianship Article
Allah-u-abha! I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me with a project I've been working on. I was hoping to separate Shoghi Effendi's biographical page from the page on the Guardianship itself, to make a page specifically about the authority, responsibilities, and prerequisites for Guardianship, and go more in-depth on the position as opposed to the sole historical occupant (though I do of course intend to include Shoghi Effendi, but in more of a summary fashion with a Main article: Shoghi Effendi deal).

I was originally going to work on this with LambaJan but I haven't heard from him in quite a while. Frankly my main headaches in this regard are just that I still stumble a bit with wikiformatting, so it means I have to go back and pick apart whatever code I've used quite a bit.

I've been constructing it around pieces taken from the Shoghi Effendi article, but I am hoping to expand on it. Here's my Sandbox page on it, if you have any suggestions. In fact, I give you full permission to edit it yourself, and hopefully we can copyedit it and make for a smooth transition into two articles.

Hope you're doing well. Sincerely, Peter Deer (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thamirih
FYI - MARussellPESE (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My side project
I've had a side project underway for some time. Well, it's finally cleared and I could use some more. Could you take a look at the project, and if you see something worth contributing please do so. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hindu gods cat
Why are you replacing specific Category:Hindu gods by the general Category:Hindu deities? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * gods denote male deities and goddesses female ones. Category:Asian deities hasCategory:Asian gods and Category:Asian goddesses. Further discussion can be on WP:HNB. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Category:Gods by culture and Category:Goddesses by culture.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhagwan Swaminarayan
Thank You for you edits to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan Page, but since you don't know the actual facts, I had to undo it. I understand what you were trying to do and will help with doing so. Juthani1    22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits you made today were a lot better. You may continue to do this. Thanks    Juthani1     16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you know your facts before you edit. I put the name Sahajanand Swami (the name on all official documents) and you changed it to his childhood name!! Moreover, removing referenced information as well as references is not acceptable. Its fine if you want to remove POV, but that does not mean you remove important information. I suggest you know your work before editing. If you go on removing refrenced information/references, I will be forced to take the matter up with administrators. That is something I would like to avoid. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to tell you that all the sources on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page are reliable. Most of those references have references on top of them too. Also, its a direct source which is backed by third parties. They are probably the best sources. Juthani1    20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Before editing again, I would like it if you brought up the discussion on the talk page rather than reverting me over and over again. By trying to take out POV you are also distorting FACTS which is never a good thing. I do agree that there is POV and am workin on getting rid of it. I again ask you to start a new discussion rather that starting a editing war. It will be easier for both sides. I would appreciate it if you talk first and then edit if the regular editors on the article including me agree. We know the facts and we are working on finding POV. I would also appreciate it if you would reconsider the sources. They are original sources written by expertson the topic. All the work on the page is from these sources. Juthani1    21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Will do that. I hope these discussions and working together put an end to the POV all together. It has been a problem for some time. Thanks     Juthani1     19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Alos, please take a look at the talk page before reverting. I have made it as POV free as I possibly can or the intro paragraphs. if you object any of my statements, put ti on the TALK PAGE before reverting or editting at all. Again, you are distorting the facts, not just POV, but FACTS when you edit. this should never be done since it is vandalism. I know it isn't intentional and I understand your concerns, but don't edit because you are distortng all of the facts. Also, I would like to know why the references which are reliable because they are written by experts in the field into the notes section and then marked everything as unreferenced. Please do respond. I'm trying not to get personal, but I'm ust doing what is best for the article. Thank you. Juthani1    19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS iTS Crucial for making a few decisions!!! You can ask any Hindu and they will tell you the literal meaning of "Bhagwan" is god. Also, Swaminarayan is a Hindu sect. His official name is Sahajannd Swami. Again he was a sadhu (monk) and but later recognized as a GOD. "Swami" in gujarati refers to a sadhu or monk. He was definetly a saint and his offcal name was Sahajanand Swami. Bhagwan Swaminarayan later became his name after his death to prevent confusion. The articles name sould be changed to this (Sahajanand Swami) which was his offical name if you really want to change it, not Swaminarayan. There is absolutely no POV. Ican't ake that anymore clear. Second he s the diety of the modern fom of Hinduism known as the Swaminarayan Sampraday or Swaminarayan Sect not just Swaminarayan Sect. Saying just "a modern form of Hinduism" is not clear enough to any reader. No POV in that. It is a fact that he is the main diety in the Swaminarayan Sampraday (this is official). Again I can't make myself more clear. I will add more refs, but I still want to know why you moved the refs to the notes section? You are continuously DISTORTING THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the time. Please be as specific in your response as possible to anyhing you object. This has been copied to the Swaminarayan Talk Page    Juthani1     23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For proof that Bhagwan means God click on this link. Bhagwan and read. Juthani1    00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove all the citations. Now for every place that needs a citation, I am adding two citations from different websites to varify. Juthani1    00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove any Citations PLease. Thye take forever to find and put in Its horrible to revert somethng when someone else has put in a lot of time putting them in. I'm adding a varity of Web Sources.

Swaminarayan isn't his name. A Swaminarayan is a follower od Sahajanand Swami. His name can be Sahajanand Swami, Lord Swaminarayan(though not prefered), or Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Officially his name is Sahajanand Swami, but Swaminarayan alone isn't his name. Thank you    Juthani1    tcs 02:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion on the talk page of the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article. I would suggest first concluding the name of the article before warring with each other on use of the name in the article. Wikidās ॐ 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the thing above. I have also placed this on the talk page, but Williams refers to Lord Swaminarayan as Sahajanand Swami, so does the his signature on the Desh Vibag no Lekh which is officially recognized, and this name is more well known than Lord Swaminarayan or Swaminarayan which is a sect or a follower. I placed this here to add emphasis Thank you and please reply    Juthani1    tcs 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Oh click on the excerpt secton on the side. Juthani1   tcs 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully the reason you expressed a delete in this recent afd?

Are you a Bahai? Do you know any Bahai? Did you study Bahai? ( Ah. I see you got a barnstar for Bahai contributions. )

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan article
This section was reverted diff but it seems to be poorly sourced. What is the importance of it to the biography? Wikidās ॐ 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its very important because it shows that various scriptures have said that Swaminarayan will take manifestation on earth, such as the bhagavad Gita, Skanda Purana, Vishnu Khanda, Srimad Bhagavatam, Shikshapatri etc. The sources of all quotes are mentioned, such as the Bhagavad Gita 4/7-8. Please note that this is not POV as it has no explanations, just quotes and english translations - which are self explanatory. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can translate any Sanskrit sloka in about 10 different ways, we should look at what secondary sources and translations of the religious leaders say about each particular selection. Some of the sources seems to be unreferenced and at least one or two secondary sources are needed in order to retain this section as relevant. I trust you, but WP:RS and WP:NOR is a strict procedure, and you can not just pull in a few slokas and prove something based on an unreliable sources or translations. I had made the same mistake before, and now I follow the scheme very rigidly, I know it takes time, but rules are the rules. Wikidās ॐ 12:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Temple Ahmedabad
Pl. state issues instead of reverting reverts. You removed important information such as date of construction, deities installed in the temple, name of person supervising construction etc. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)same with the Bhuj article. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you add unclear or citation needed tags wherever required inststead of removing things and I and other editors will try and solve the problem. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry I am aware of 3RR. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have the choice of adding unclear or citation needed tags and I request you to do that. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars on Swaminarayana articles
There appears to be edit war on some of the articles - I suggest to always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. Im not taking any sides - I just want to make sure you understand each other. Wikidās ॐ 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Title of Acharya
If you see the title of articles on the Pope (leader for Roman Catholics), it says Pope John Paul II, instead of his name, John Paul. Hence, the title of these articles too should contain the full title of the Acharya and just not his name only. BTW the full title of an Acharya is not just for eg. Tejendraprasadji, Acharya Tejendraprasadji, the full title is Sanatan Dharma Dhurandar Acharya Maharaj Shree Tejendraprasadji Maharaj. I hv given a ref. showing his full name on the article. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome to help out with Swaminarayan articles and your help is appreciated. I totally agree that the articles need to be simpler, more enclyclopedic and have translations of all Hindu centric words used in them for the articles to be rated well. Pl. remember that I am not the one to give him the title nor have I insisted on having the full title as the article title. Around The Globe Contact 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I was unaware of that in particular. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Peter Deer (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of edits to Bahai Teachings
Please familiarise yourself with the manual of style's policies on capitalisation and religion. In particular, we do not capitalise pronouns or common noun god. These reverential practices are fine for user pages and talk pages, but they are inappropriate for the encyclopedia itself. Ilkali (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Setting the foundations for future Islamic articles
Join us here, you can certainly help with everything, but transliteration is something we really need: User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam -- Enzuru 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Andrew Corporation
A tag has been placed on Andrew Corporation 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 indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ros0709 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Alláh-u-abhá, thanks for the formatting help on Bahá'í laws. I am new and the citation instructions are confusing as all get-out. Gerald T. Fernandez-Mayfield (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Krugerrand
If we deleted everything that doesn't have a source, there would be nothing in Wikipedia. I understand WP:V and I understand WP:RS, but nowhere does it say "delete something that doesn't have a source." All that's needed is a "citation needed" tag and a discussion on the article's Talk page. If, after discussion, there is no source made available, then we can delete the material. But to just delete without prior discussion is tantamount to vandalism. Only BLP violations that are not cited require immediate deletion. There is no deadline. Corvus cornix talk  19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Corvus cornix talk  19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He dejado un mensaje en la página del artículo. Está bien insistir en que la información tenga fuentes, pero tampoco hace falta entrar a borrar secciones enteras a menos de que estés convencido de que son totalmente incorrectas, y en ese caso deberias de dejas una explicación en el sumario de la edición o en la página de discusión, para que otros editores sepan qué era lo que estaba mal, porque puede ser que no lo vean a simple vista. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: merge
I agree that some of them do not pass notability, but the correct procedure to my eyes after a failing merge proposal would not be to merge them anyway but to place the notability tag on the articles instead. This gives other editors the chance to find sources, fix the articles, and give their feedback. Another option is to create an article like this: Best, T0lk (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you find it acceptable to take unilateral action with no discussion following a failed merge proposal, threaten me with "pursue help from an administrator" while stating "It doesn't really matter how a few people voted". You obviously think you have some authority here you don't.  I'll continue to revert these changes.  T0lk (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wives of Baha'u'llah
Hi Cunado, Thank you for removing the ostentatious sub-heading "Facts" from this section. But the remaining bit above "Baha'i apologia" where it says that Baha'u'llah was following Islamic laws I still find troubling. Baha'u'llah was a leading Babi & it is irrational for him to have been following islamic laws. Quite frankly, it gives a strong impression of 'spin'.

The best thing is simply have one sub-heading: "Baha'is assert"... It says: There, take it or leave it, this is what Baha'is accept. I can live with that. And it gives you more freedom to write what you want. Regards, Thereisnohope (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant
I've blocked you for 8h for edit warring on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. Please make an effort to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been blocked from editing for  in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below.  The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question.

Sorry chaps, but wikipedia is not your personal battleground. You've both been warned, now you've both been blocked. While I'm here, let me note that asserting that X belongs in/out during an RFC doesn't really work William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New wiki
Hi Cunado, i've made a wiki that's specifically designed to cater to baha'i; particularly as a method of collecting and disseminating good practice/learning. since i've seen you keeping your eyes on the baha'i articles, i thought you may be interested in this one. please take a look if you've got the willpower to see more wiki's... http://bahai.intodit.com k1-UK-Global (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Baha'i Faith
No worries. Personally I would have left it - but I can see why you wiped it. My answer was less to the person concerned than to make it obvious how unjustified the remark was to anyone else reading the exchange. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what happened to the idea of collapsing the photo of Baha'u'llah on that page or at least placing a warning at the top ?

I scrolled down too far and was kicking myself when I got to the bottom of the page. Cheers. Nernst (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert.

I'd worked that one out but thanks for getting back to me. To be honest, this all goes well above my pay grade as a junior editor, so I think I'll step back, let alone get involved in the photo. I've managed to get firefox to block images and that stops me being in a bad mood for the rest of the day when I stumble on the image. Thanks again Nernst (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith
Hi, I'm wondering why you moved this article. Was there discussion of this in the Bahai wikiproject? (I see no discussion on the article's talk page.) The name from which you moved it had been discussed at WT:LGBT and consensus was found for it. Obviously, if another project disagrees, we need to discuss it together. Lady of  Shalott  15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

TY
Hi thanks very much, I just think that the quality of some these articles should be improved so I endevour to use both non-Bahai and Bahai sources. However I do have a slight issue and are hoping that you can help me? I've just added some more refrences for Abdul Bahas marriage however it wont work? This is what i propose to be written:

As a young man speculation was rife amongst the Bahá’ís to whom `Abdu’l-Bahá would marry. Several young girls were seen as marriage prospects but `Abdu’l-Bahá seemed disinclined to marriage. On March 8 1873, at the urging of his father, the twenty-eight-year-old `Abdu’l-Bahá married Fátimih Nahrí of Isfahán (1847-1938) a twenty-five-year-old noblewoman. Her father was Siyyid Muhammad-`Alí Nahrí of Isfahan an eminent Bahá’í of the city and prominent aristocrat." Fátimih was bought from Persia to Acre, Israel after both Bahá’u’lláh and his wife Navváb expressed an interest in her to marry `Abdu’l-Bahá. After a wearisome journey from Isfahán to Akka she finally arrived accompanied by her brother in 1872.<ref name="bne" The marriage resulted in nine children: two boys: Ḥusayn Effendi (d. 1305/1887, aged five) and Mihdí (died aged two-and-a-half) and seven daughters: Ṭúbá (died sometime in Akka), Fu'ádíyyih (died in infancy), and Ruḥangíz (died in 1893, she was the favorite grandchild of Bahá'u'lláh). Four children survived adulthood all daughters; Ḍiyá'iyyih Kh ánum (mother of Shoghi Effendi) (d. 1951) Túbá Kh ánum (1880-1959) Rúḥá Kh ánum and Munavvar Kh ánum (d. 1971).

The marriage of `Abdu’l-Bahá to one woman and his choice to remain monogamous, from advice of his father and his own wish, legitimised the practice of monogamy to a people whom hitherto had regarded polygamy and a righteous way of life.

If you could add this to the article and see the problem that would be great. Thank you --Lizzie1988 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up categories
Please explain You claimed that you were "cleaning up categories" with this edit, which I do not understand. Is it your contention (e.g.) that Bahá'u'lláh was not Buried in Israel? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Your removal of articles from Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith goes against consensus. If you want to find consensus for deletion or removal, you will need to go through the CfD or RfC processes. We've had this discussion before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you I appreciate your response. You are correct that there is such a thing as overcategorization. I suppose the questions are 1.) Is (e.g.) burial in Israel a significant feature of Bahá'u'lláh's life and 2.) if not, is it a significant feature in anyone else's? If you really think these are contentious, this may be a good time to post on talk as a.) clearly, I think they belong, b.) they are technically accurate, and c.) they will probably be added again at some point. Regarding Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith, there was consensus on Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Jesus to leave them in these categories, as I recall. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agre with your cleanup edits, Cuñado. Adding far-fetched categories like Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith to articles that are not focussed on Bahá'í at all (such as Krishna) is essentially spam. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion
Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith has been nominated for deletion. Please share your thoughts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing my talk page
Okay, I read it the first time. Point?Ekwos (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sub-Article of Mahdi
You deleted the sub-article I added to Mahdi, and you gave reason that my addition was unreferenced. Obviously you deleted it without reading it. What I added was completely referenced. I added viewpoints of Maududi, Imadi, Kandhlwi and Allama Iqbal. I gave references of the books of these scholars.The books of these authors I refenced to are: Tajdeed-o-Ahyaa-e-Deen

Nazool-e-Mehdi-o-Maseeh

Mehdiviyyat nay Islam ko Kia Diya?

and Iqbal Nama (A colloection of Allama Iqbal's Letters)

I wonder why have you deleted my addition. If there is some descripency in my reference, please talk to me about it. Establish correct reason for deletion or revert your action. Suhayli (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Discussion on BBC Persian Article
My discussion was valid, nothing to do with soaps, and if so, it is your opinion. Please verify exactly which parts of my discussion violated which parts of wikipedia guidelines and try not to generalize. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

draft of Abdu'l-Baha'is journey's to the West?
How's that draft coming? I'm pausing on country write ups (though looking at wiki articles in other languages on articles for respective countries at least alittle - speaking of which, is that you on the spanish Wikipedia?) and have gathered some material for this article (so far looking at 1st trip - leaving Haifa through UK segments.) Very rough but progressing. Smkolins (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A preliminary draft of just the 1st segment of the trip is at User:Smkolins/Sandbox - material above and below isn't ready. And there are a couple points in that 1st segment needing info/refs or being dropped.Smkolins (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been redone again - now it's all at User:Smkolins/Sandbox and I'm wonder a couple things. I've tried various schemes on basic structure. So far I like the present one the best. What do you think? Also should I post as is, as is with flags for expanding sections mostly towards the bottom, or keep plugging away until the content is reasonably even and then post? Smkolins (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ok - it's live! `Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the WestSmkolins (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Hey, just so you know... adding or removing any actual information from an article should not be marked as a minor edit. Minor edits are only those such as changes to grammar, spelling, wikilinking that do not affect the content of the article. :) Lady  of  Shalott  00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

this may require some attention
Portuguese Bahá'í Summer Schools isn't notable enough. I've not ever tagged a page but also thought perhaps I'd seek out your skill in this. I've already tried to nicely inform the editor that the article should be considered as part of a broader article. Smkolins (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bahá'í Faith in Portugal
A tag has been placed on Bahá'í Faith in Portugal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shadowjams (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Terraces and the disambiguation page
Personally I don't think that the Terraces really belong on the disambiguation page at all - but if they must be there then they do NOT need to be grouped with other headings leading to articles about varieties of the Baha'i Faith (a legitimate disambiguation goal). I must admit on reflection that where I have put them looks a little odd too - but this is really because the true "disamgiguation" function is so marginal. If the gardens were purely of concern to Baha'is then they would definitely NOT belong on this page at all - it is only because they are an internationally recognised treasure, enjoyed by so many people who are not Baha'is, or who are not even aware of the Faith at all in any other context, that they might scrape in. In this case the separate line is definitely called for, I think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011 • Haifa, Israel, August 4-7, 2011
Hello Cuñado. Are you going to visit the Wikimania in summer? I am Baha'i Wikimedian from Belarus and it would be nice to meet you during the event. --Da voli (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Project 25, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages TDMA and FM. 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) 10:24, 10 May 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 A35821361's talk page. --dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 14:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Glenford Eckleton Mitchell
Just curious as to why you created a redirect after the article's AfD discussion resulted in a delete decision rather than redirect? Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Warning: 3RR
You need to be more careful of WP:3RR, and indeed edit warring in general. Your edit comment here shows that you are fully aware of the rule, but your edits, for example at `Abdu'l-Bahá, indicate otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have any advise, I'm listening. I have watched him for a year ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and providing just enough discussion so that it looks like he is engaging, but edit conflicts tend to go on for a few days until he gives up. I tried reporting him twice but no admin responded. He only edits Baha'i pages and only with an obvious negative bias. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  17:58, 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)


 * I would love to have more editors. Are you volunteering? Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  18:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's well outside my normal range of knowledge, so it's near impossible for me to adjudicate on how much of the disputed material is WP:UNDUE, which is your stance as I understand it. The sources appear reasonable, so I would think that the presumption would be to include the material in some form.
 * You may decide to suggest alternate wording, or quote rebuttal sources if you think those sources are disputed. You may decide to accept 's revision. If you decide that the entire content of the edit should be removed, I suggest your first port of call might be Third opinion as there are only two of you involved in an actual dispute. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You may decide to suggest alternate wording, or quote rebuttal sources if you think those sources are disputed. You may decide to accept 's revision. If you decide that the entire content of the edit should be removed, I suggest your first port of call might be Third opinion as there are only two of you involved in an actual dispute. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

advancing the Louhelen Bahá'í School article
I'd welcome advise on User:Smkolins/Sandbox6. Earlier parts are highly processed. Starting the 1940s I have more to polish and it needs more and more work towards the present. But I'd welcome input on style and other ideas about the content as well, if you have any. Smkolins (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Considering that the current article is a stub, go ahead and post what you got and I'll edit over. My first impression from just glancing at it is that it might be a little long. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  04:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok - i know it delves into detailed lists of names sometimes which I was trimming back in some places… I'd summarize more but that should really be more of a sourced based summary. But part of the usefuless of the amount of detail is it gives a view towards the patterns of change over time that can be of use. Anyway - it's a start. I also have a biographical article coming along that will hook into it and others. Smkolins (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk

to
 * : Cuñado ☼ - Talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Payman Mohajer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Martin ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Payman_Mohajer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Payman_Mohajer?client=notify 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) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of the founders of religious traditions for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of the founders of religious traditions 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 Articles for deletion/Comparison of the founders of religious traditions 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. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There is more to this (I now see)
Recently someone added names to that inline list. And with no indication that Zoroaster and Krishna are correct additions. (I think you might know better?)

In any case, it is astonishing to remove Moses without particularly detailed/specific reasoning.

What may be needed is to return to the list as prior to the recent additions, thus
 * ... Buddha, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad being the most recent ...

I would like that. Shenme (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The reasoning is that Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad represent the three most recent, and three with by far the most numerous adherents in the world today. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are stalking on Wikipedia
Please stop your harrasment as you do on Baha'i related pages or we will have no choice but to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.31.203 (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you wish to be taken seriously, make an account and stop editing from a variety of IP addresses to avoid blocks. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  22:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Baha'i statistics
Yes - "1850" is far too early, fair enough - but "1950"? That must be wrong too, surely. 200,000 Worldwide, almost all in Iran? 90% from 200,000 would have left only 20,000 in all of the world outside Iran. This looks more like something from the late 19th century. Someone really needs to have a look at the original source and correct this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, having a look at it myself! The source DOES say 1950, and places 90% of 200,000 (= 180,000) in Iran. It goes on to detail "fewer than 10,000 Bahá'ís in the West and no more than 3,000 Bahá'ís in the Third World" - which, given the very approximate "guestimates" is just feasible - although there are still 7,000 or so Bahá'ís floating somewhere. But my goodness, doesn't one live and learn! Thanks for your vigilance by the way, not just against my well-meaning innumeracy but more serious and organised on-line opposition. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Dispassionately - this still looks extremely pessimistic, but even if the source were not so impeccably authoritative, questioning it (or even leaving out the "90%' bit as internally inconsistent, as I thought for a moment of doing) was never "on". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes quite an interesting subject. US Baha'is in the 1940s were very small, and it seems many of those took off in the 1950s to go around the world teaching. Remember the 10 year crusade was opening virgin territories, and that was most of the world. Here's a good blog about Baha'i numbers in the world, discussing the 2 million in India. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  20:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! As you say, very interesting. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

al-Qaim ali Muhammad
Thanks for taking down my stuff. I realize now that that article would take much length if each position of the Qaim were put on it. I'll save my additions for Bahai-library.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadyoung (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That material might better fit on the page about the Báb, but it is not directly relevant to the page about the Qa'im. Good luck. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  20:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrative sanctions in the Baha'i Faith
Hello and Good Day,

I have undone the reversion regarding "administrative sanctions", can you please let me know why it "doesn't fits the article"? You may correct the grammar, rephrase the sentence or place it in some other section if you wish so, but honestly, it should be there in the article.

Thank you. Serv181920 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being bold and I have tried to move it to the appropriate place with some wording updates. It was previously in the section on "Covenant", which is unrelated to administrative sanctions. Covenant-breakers are a special category for people trying to impose an alternative leadership, and they are shunned. Administrative sanctions are for people openly disregarding the Baha'i teachings, and they are not shunned. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  06:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Official Census of Bahais of Govt. of India, Bahais of India page
Dear Cunado Greetings 1-We cannot consider 2.0 million and 4572 as two opinions but certainly one is true and the other is untrue. 2-I have given the official census of three consecutive decades which points that 4572 is the correct one. Govt of India has no personal animosity towards any Faith. 3. When I wrote to ARDA they say we have taken the census from WCD. So WCD and ARDA are using same data. 4-Why doesn’t The Apex organisation of Bahais the Universal House of Justice comes out with real number? 5- This data of 2.0 million is being used to obtain minority status.

Be assured that at any point of our talk I will not be disrespectful. Jammu58 (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Jammu58, I'll respond on the talk page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  06:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Jehangor S. is a Bahai
Der Cunado Earlier you removed the edit by saying that It is not proved the Jehangir is a Bahai. When I gave the reference that he is Chairman of Local Spiritual Assembely of Bahais. You say Both the articles do not connect. It is not clear what you expect?Jammu58 (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Cunado
 * Please see a new Reference added http://www.uppercrustindia.com/ver2/showpage.php?postid=1128
 * which proves Dr. Jehangir is a Bahai and son of Former attorney General Mr. Soli Sorabjee. Thanking youJammu58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Cunado

It is well accepted by me about what you did for "Panama Papers".But in all the three references which you quoted 57,58 and 59 no where it is mentioned that "Jehangir is a Bahai".A question whivh you posed to me.Jammu58 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Manifestation of God
This article, which used to reference the concept in the Baha'i faith, has been changed to redirect to a more general topic (Theophany). The Baha'i article has not been lost in this - as I feared for a moment it had, but renamed as Manifestation of God (Baháʼí Faith). This is apparently NPOV and "good faith" in itself - but it does result in many references throughout the articles on the Faith to the general subject of theophany, most of which, at least, are not helpful. I have fixed this is one or two articles, but clearly there is some more work to be done. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They're all fixed. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  07:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ten Year Crusade
I see you merged the Pioneering page with the teaching plans page. Looks great. Since you're the one consolidating the page, just wanted to check with you if it would be okay if I also merge the Ten Year Crusade page into the teaching plans article? It is a stub and poorly sourced – I think better chances of getting the quality up as part of the larger page. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (It's non-controversial so I don't see a need to have the full merger discussion on those pages.) Gazelle55 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh—ditto for Knights of Baháʼu'lláh for the same reason. Seems even less likely than the Ten Year Crusade to develop into a full-fledged article any time soon. Let me know. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Following up here: Talk:Baháʼí teaching plans <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  08:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mason Remy section
Hi Your edit is biased you retained that “Remey was not senile or unbalanced but he was carrying out a well thought campaign to spread his claim.” But removed the other sentence which was just the continuation in the book of Johnson. It is just selective and not NPOV.Jammu58 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

In regards to your edit on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Remey

Dear Cuñado,

Kindly do not revert on the edits without understanding and giving a valid reason. I have already put the link of image of Charles Mason Remey and hence it cannot be proposed for deletion. Request you to read the terms and conditions of Wikipedia instead of blindly making reverts. Wikipedia is no monopoly of you that you go and remove factual information from a page. Asad29591 (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"Terry is not a reliable source, doesn't list a source for the statement"
Hi , Why do you believe that Peter Terry is not reliable? And why do you believe that Azer Jafarov is reliable? Both are "not listing the sources for the statement"? One is not reliable and the other is reliable? Why so?Serv181920 (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Peter Terry appears to have written a lot, but most of it is informal and unpublished. I see three articles in Baha'i journals and one book that would count as having been peer reviewed and published. The book review that you were quoting is published on Baha'i Library Online, but I think BLO is more of a library than a publisher. It's better than a blog, basically, but not as good as a journal. I should have said, "not a reliable source for this statement", because he is quoting Shoghi Effendi's comment on Avarih but doesn't mention the source. I did some checking and couldn't substantiate the comment. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the same sentence has a factual error, which doesn't make the source look very good. I also found several references to Avarih in the published writings of Shoghi Effendi, both before and after his falling out, which I haven't added yet.
 * Regards. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  23:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Azer Jafarov made a statement in a published book. Completely different. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  23:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Without giving a source! And the book is published under the supervision of the NSA!! Anybody can publish a book without giving a source and claim anything!? Some website then publishing from such sources makes it reliable!? How?
 * "Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses like W.W. Norton and Greenwood which emulate the university press standards. Reputable history books and journal articles always include footnotes and bibliographies giving the sources used in great detail. Most journals contain book reviews by scholars that evaluate the quality of new books, and usually summarize some of their new ideas." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Serv181920 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Help the article - don't vandalize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Shahid I am adding the citations, now. Why are your vandalizing the pages of descendants of Baha'u'llah? Because they don't follow the mainstream Baha'i religion? Because they are believed to be Covenant-breakers by your mainstream Baha'i administration and they are "execrated a thousand times" in the Baha'i writings? That's not good. Wikipedia is not a place to show your hate towards these people. Write facts from good sources. If you don't have sources, try to find out, if you cannot, tag the sentences. Remove only if you believe they are false.Serv181920 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In the case of Biographies of living persons, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That page is policy, not guideline. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  19:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There was nothing questionable. You could have tagged the sentences. In stead of helping the article you tried to vandalize it. I know Baha'is hate the covenant-breakers but wikipedia is not the correct place to express that. Serv181920 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Leila Shahid is not a Covenant-breaker and Baha'is do not "hate" them. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  18:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Munib Shahid??Serv181920 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edits without giving a valid reason
Hello Cunado,

Before I escalate this further I would like to give you a edit revert warning that you are making to Baha'i pages without specifying valid reasons.

Revert 1: Baháʼí teachings ‎-> The statement that UHJ is supreme body requires citation as it is disputed through primary and secondary sources both. Also anything put on Wikipedia which is disputed needs proper citations.

Revert 2: Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh -> The Quote I have put is with proper undisputed reference and since the page is about covenant a relevant quote does make sense. By reverting it you are just promoting your own POV. It looks more of a personal attack than a veteran's positive revert.

Revert 3: Baháʼu'lláh -> you are correct in saying that the quote I have added is summarized however it doesn't give a correct representation of the saying of Baháʼu'lláh. In the past I had put the quote content in summarized form with which you had problem and you removed it. Now when I have put the exact quote you still have a problem.

Lets ensure we both make wikipedia pages better and not use it as personal blogs where one person POV is the only thing that matters.Asad29591 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope Cuñado won't mind me popping in a quick observation, but I saw your post at the Teahouse (as I'm a Host there), and checked out the edit you wanted to add the lead of Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh. I'm afraid I agree with Cuñado's removal of that edit. They did give a clear and valid reason for its removal, and that is that it was not appropriate to add that content in that form to the lead. Had you managed to properly cite it, it might have been appropriate lower down in the article. If you read WP:LEAD you'll appreciate that a lead paragraph forms a short introduction to the topic, and that such details should go in lower down. In fact, I also find the first sentence of the article itself in the wrong place. I would expect an encyclopaedia entry to tell me firstly what the Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh actually is, without needing to explain what a covenant is. That would normally just be wikilinked, or explained further on. But as religious topics aren't my strong point, I'll just leave that thought there for others to resolve. You did the right thing to ask here, and I'm sure you appreciate that had you added it back in again without consensus, that would have been WP:EDITWARRING - so thank you for not doing that. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . Thank you for popping in. Firstly did you check the citation that I had put before saying that it should have properly cited. Had it been a citation issue Cunado could have put a citation needed template and I would have provided more references and failing to do so Cunado could have removed the same. However if you see the edit reverts of Cunado, there is a trend that wherever I have edited he has reverted to my edit. As you have correctly mentioned that it should have been added down somewhere so I shall do the same. Also if you go to the pages and see, a discussion is going on here and on all three pages Cunado has again reverted back my edits.

Secondly I have given edit revert warning to Cunado on three pages. Did you check the other two pages as you have just mentioned one here.

Thirdly, I had asked on teahouse how to escalate or raise a dispute in regards to the inappropriate edit reverts done by Cunado request you to help me with the same as well. Asad29591 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC) <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  18:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)