User talk:Cunado19/archive6

Houri

 * Thanks for helping me out there. I wish that my faith was strong enough to defend my position on my own, but unfortunately it's not. :( Danny Lilithborne 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Help
Could you talk some sense into this guy: Talk:‘Abd ar-Razzaq --Striver 12:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted. Please comment, he does not get it that Arabic names are not build like english names... Talk:‘Abd ar-Razzaq --Striver 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

your sig
Two versions:

Cuñado  -  Talk

Cuñado  -  Talk

The bottom one looks sharper (cleaner edges and points) on my monitor (CRT, 21"). Just a friendly note. Have a good day =) &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yarr, it's probably just my single monitor on the entire Internet =) Say I've got a question for you. What do you see to be the obvious functional differences between Bahai and Unitarian Universalism? (I'm not linking to the UU article because Wikipedia's coverage is both decent and simply terrible, so if you aren't already somewhat familiar with UU then I'm not sure my question is really helpful). &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Right on, thanks for the answers, Cuñado. When/if you're in the mood, I've got some old standards that I like to dust off in the wind from time to time. I assume you've thought through a great many things and so I'd like to hear your perspectives on a few. Have you an explanation of the Problem of Evil, especially the Epicurean formulation thereof? An answer to the Euthyphro dilemma? Does God know the future, and if so, how can God then be said to have free will? And is there any evidence, scientific, logical, or otherwise, that demonstrates the existence of God, or must it be decided entirely on faith alone? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 11:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a good while to read that and the links you gave, so I don't have a whole lot to say at the moment. I'm moving our discussion off my talk page, because my talk page is full of "how dare you chide me for vandalism!" and accusations of all kinds. I'd rather put this somewhere peaceful. So you can go ahead and copy some free-will / future stuff over to User:Coelacan/Cunado19 discussion and I'll pore it over. Peace, &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read that images should be used in a signature because of its effects on server load. Use a Wingding font instead. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Cunado—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Tony 10:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

On the definite article, again
You claimed that "You can also look at a Arabic Quran, which usually has every diacritic marked, and you will see a hamza above or below every initial alif."

I pointed you to a photo of an Arabic Qur'an page, and the photo had no hamzas above the alif in the definite articles.

You just removed my message, and never replied. You also kept inserting apostrophes into every transliteration of the definite article that caught your eye.

Please, either back your claim with a reference (would you?), or I'm starting to remove all the apostrophes that you have inserted in the meantime. --tyomitch 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That issue is irrelevant since most people favored the ALA-LC version, which does not combine words. So `Abdu'r-rahman should be `Abd ar-rahman, etc. and the issue is avoided.
 * But you have put the apostrophe in Hezbollah irregardless of this rule, haven't you?


 * I recall that I did go read through an Arabic grammar book and responded with the reference. If you are dying to find out I could go scan it in and email it to you, but the issue is irrelevant now if we use ALA-LC. Cuñado 14:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not see that you responded with a reference. In particular, you didn't edit my talk page since August 29. Where did that reference go? --tyomitch 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

template
Thank you :) --Striver 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Book
What do you think about this? --Striver 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arabic
''If you're interested in standardizing things, Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib should be moved to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. I've sort of given up on trying. Cuñado 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)''
 * I'd like to, but I can't, because ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib has already been edited (by a bot). Only admins can move a page onto an existing page. --tyomitch 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to me that you, being the only (non-bot) contributor to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, can put on it to mark it for speedy deletion. Then it will be possible to move Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib over it. --tyomitch 14:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the hamza in "al-’A‘ẓam" isn't at the beginning of a word; it's in the middle, right after the definite article, which is part of the same word, too; so you'll have to find another wording to get your idea through. But anyway, it's kind of not nice to change MOS without any discussion. It looks just as bad as when you changed the transliteration chart in the middle of a poll on it that you set up. --tyomitch 09:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not attack you. In fact, I pointed out that I put that initial hamza just because you previously made the MOS to require all hamzas transliterated. And then you just went and improved the MOS, and accused me of straying from it -- even though at the time of my edit, it was entirely MOS-compliant. As for examples where initial hamzas are transliterated, here is one. They have their very own system of transliteration there, but it's absolutely consistent and reversible -- unlike ours. The other thing that I pointed out is that the current wording on transliteration of hamza is not precise enough, so that other people might not understand it the same way as you do; namely, the hamza in question is not at the beginning of a word. The guidelines for transliteration must be completely unambiguous; otherwise each one ends up with his own understanding of the same document (and that's exactly what we have now). I'm trying to help you to improve the MOS; I don't know what made you so furious about it. --tyomitch 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

revert
And whats wrong with the sentence "modern day Iran"?--Bangabalunga 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you no problem. But lets look at it from pure logic and I will give you two examples. Imagine Iran right now was an awesome modern beautiful great country. Imagine being Iranian is a great thing. An anvy of anyone. Would you still feel ashamed to give it a connection to modern day Iran? Scenario two. Imagine reading an article about the Gobi desert. You keep reading about it not knowing where it is. However, imgaine the article mentioning Gobi desert, then right next to it in parenthesis it says (modern day Mongolia). Then your like "oh I know where that is. I know what the authur is talking about. Its that country above China thing. Now I know. Or imagine reading something that occured "in the Russian Empire". Would you not like the sentence to continue saying (modern day ukraine, modern day Moscow region, modern day Kazakhstan, etc...)? I only put modern day Iran just for a reference for people trying to learn about the Bahai faith. Even though Iran is nothing to be enthralled about, it does quickly tell people where in the world we are talking about. Have a great day!--Bangabalunga 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

signature
I did see your comment, and I read the rationale about why not to use them. I left it because the concerns mentioned don't seem to apply to my case. It's a standard image used on multiple templates and pages, so new image upload is not relevant. The image is very small and doesn't reduce searchability, actually I think it adds to searchability because my signature is easier to pick out. Not potentially distracting, again because it's so small and simple. The scale to text would only be relevant in extreme cases, because the image is already very small (I could make it even smaller if that is a concern). Clutter up file links, maybe; but so do templates that use the image. Drain on server, not really; my image is half of one kilobyte when on the page. Once the image is loaded once, it is stored in the cache, not downloaded multiple times.

I think some of the reasoning there is flawed, and if you want to push the issue I'll get involved in the policy page. Cuñado  -  Talk  08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not too concerned with the image in the signature. The problem is that if you were to ever go for adminship, you would probably get turned down simply for having an image in your signature.  — Mets501 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you could find a UTF-8 symbol that is the Bahai star, however, you might want to use that and not the picture. Just a suggestion. { Slash -|- Talk } 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shia.PNG
The image you've inserted in various articles has no historical significance, is created by a Wikipedia user, and contains sectarian messages. See Image vandalism. Kaveh 11:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Islam
Regarding the revert you just made, can you elaborate what changes you disagree with? Besides, there was no need to even revert the font size and colour changes. --Bluerain talk 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Al-Kindi
Hi Cunado. I would appreciate your input in this debate. Thanks. ← A NAS  Talk? 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Signature
I think you should check this, and talk about your opinion. 85.185.21.7 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble...
Just browsing the userpages of fellow PDX Wikipedians, and I saw you aspire to visit the Kaaba. Unfortunately only journalists, confirmed muslims or their blood relatives may enter Mecca. So you'll have to get a press pass bro. VanTucky 05:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * but, only Muslim journalists are allowed in Mecca, man. Anyone whether journalist or not or Saudi or not, must be Muslim to enter Mecca. RebelzGang (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:RE: WP in China
haha, so ironic that they removed the block just as you're leaving. Have a safe trip home and welcome back to North America :) -- Jeff3000 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is great news, the world of the internet is pourous, and I would never have considered while you were away that Jeff3000 would have been 3RRed. Now that you are back on line with your new experiences I hope things will have a new mind set. RoddyYoung 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adib.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Adib.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 05:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Images in signatures
Images in signatures like you have are not allowed in Wikipedia. That help section gives some alternatives to images, please see that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe that the rationale behind the guideline doesn't apply in your situation? At least these four reasons do apply to images in your specific signature: Sancho 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) they make it more difficult to copy text from a page
 * 2) they are potentially distracting from the actual message
 * 3) in most browsers images do not scale with the text, making lines with images higher than those without
 * 4) they clutter up the "file links" list on the image page every time you sign on a different talk page
 * Cunado19, you have to respond to this issue or I'll let the ANI know that you're not listening. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned this above in a previous conversation, I'll repeat it here...
 * "It's a standard image used on multiple templates and pages, so new image upload is not relevant. The image is very small and doesn't reduce searchability, actually I think it adds to searchability because my signature is easier to pick out. Not potentially distracting, again because it's so small and simple. The scale to text would only be relevant in extreme cases, because the image is already very small (I could make it even smaller if that is a concern). Clutter up file links, maybe; but so do templates that use the image. Drain on server, not really; my image is half of one kilobyte when on the page. Once the image is loaded once, it is stored in the cache, not downloaded multiple times."
 * Copy and pasting is not relevant to the day-to-day happenings of wikipedia. Not too relevant or important. Once again, it's a guideline and not a policy. Cuñado  [[image:Bahai star.svg|20px]] -  Talk  02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is simply against policies for good reasons, otherwise anyone else could start using images in their signature too. I'll see to it that your image is removed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Images in sigs are against the rules because they pile up and get in the way. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cuñado, while I respect your aesthetic sensibility, it's made very clear on the signature guideline page (Signature) that images must not be used in signatures. I'd love to have a small image myself, but it's not allowed. Please remove it from your signature - I'm sure that there's some alternative, like for example Unicode symbols like ◈, ◌ , ☆ , ☼ , ✰ , ✬ , ✭ , ✱ , ✲ ... et cetera, which I found among many at Unicode/Character reference/2000-2FFF. Thanks, Nihiltres ( t .l ) 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you until you remove the image from your signature. Counter to your beliefs, WP:SIG is not optional, and you are not allowed to have an image in your signature. The developers have stated this very clearly. No images in signatures. -- Cyde Weys 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." -Signatures


 * Contrary to your belief, the guideline page clearly states that this is not mandatory, and that exceptions are possible. It's obvious to me that I can be an exception because my situation doesn't cause the problems that this guideline is designed to avoid. However, I removed the image, so you can unblock me whenever you feel inspired. Cuñado  -  Talk  05:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How can it be fair to make an exception in your case? Then I could want an image too and someone else too. Why should you have the privilege? Exceptions are to be made using commonsense and fairness as the guideline says. Good that you removed it now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked you because you have removed the image.  Leebo  T / C  12:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * helloooooooo is anybody out there, I'm still blocked here. I can only edit this page. Stop laughing Matt57. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lingering autoblock; try again? – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That worked, thanks. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk

Image:Hajiakhund.jpg
I have tagged Image:Hajiakhund.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Rettetast 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Divisions_of_Islam
Please respond about the issue as it is turning into an ongoing edit war. I have requested the mediation of Itaqallah for the issue & would appreciate your support for it. --Doc sameer 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the picture of Subh-i-Azal
Unless you can provide a good reason, desist from changing the picture of Subh-i-Azal again Thamarih 11:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude!
I'm not someone who can counsel finding inner peace and tranquility while editing with idiots — there are too many Vikings and Irish in my heritage. But you've been pretty far over the WP:Civil line in two different places these past couple of days. It doesn't help and actually compromises your contributions. Consider editing someplace fun for a bit. Cheers, MARussellPESE 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Name
Thanks for the message - i'm not sure what to do in this situation because i don't want my full name to be known to other internet users, hence my current user name. is there any way i can hide this? k1-UK-Global 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Horace_Holley.jpg
I have tagged Image:Horace_Holley.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Rettetast 16:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring on Leland Jensen. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Shell babelfish 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot
Your recent edit to Pepe Remey (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)