User talk:Jeff3000/Archive06

WP from China
Look at me I'm in China editing Wikipedia! I'm leaving tomorrow but I thought I'd check anyway. Let's hear it for freedom of information! Wait... never mind, the Chinese WP is blocked still. Cuñado  -  Talk  02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

link to Defender
OK, Excuses me.

Regards, -- Raymond Cruise 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving location of province section (2)
You may wish to add your 2 cents.

Talk:Canada

Hi
I'm a Baha'i from the Los Angeles area and I noticed that you edited a lot of the articles on the Faith so I just wanted to say hi :) Great job with all your work. --T0lk 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I assume then you have sent a similar message to The Behnam? Perhaps you would like to help open the matter for some sort of moderation? Alexander 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Coming
There has been no discussion polite or otherwise concerning my arguments. Nor has there been negotiation. Instead a handful of people have decided to omit it based on their own POVs without even giving my arguments the dignity of a response.

Is this how wikipedia works? A sum total of 5 people yields a consensus and what they say goes ignoring all logical arguments and the rules of wikipedia itself? I have asked several times for someone to point out how the tag is not in keeping with wikipedia's very rules on the subject. Until someone does so I feel inclined to keep the tag. Please, tell me wikipedia is not a mobocracy and that logical arguments and rules do stand for something here. Thank you. Jstanierm 13:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

More Baha'i Places photos
Hey Jeff3000—it's a blast from the past! I've uploaded some more photos from my pilgrimage to the Baha'i World Centre to the Commons. See my talk page. I'll go ahead and add them to Bahá'í World Centre buildings; let me know if I've overlooked anything... Keep up the great work! --dragfyre 15:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaaand more! I've catalogued all my photos on my Commons user page. --dragfyre 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As noted on Talk:Bahá'í World Centre buildings, I've received permission from the authors of the following sites to have any of their pilgrimage pictures included on wikipedia and/or wikimedia commons: Cheers! --dragfyre 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.arashcity.com/PilgrimagePictures.htm - Author: Arash Hashemi
 * http://martinsquest.com/pilgrimage/index.html - Author: Martinsquest.com

Image:Featuredcountries.png & Chad
With its recent promotion and you being the primary contributor/modifier to the image would you be so kind as to update it? Thank you either way. 74.13.94.166 21:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 74.13.96.60 13:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia
I am not sure what edits you are talking about.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think I made a mistake, reverted wrong article sorry.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:05_NHL_Shield.png
Thanks for uploading Image:05_NHL_Shield.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikitables on Baha'i House of Worship.
Thank you, I would kiss you if you wern't just an anonymous user on the internet. Zazaban 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution
Do you think it would be possible for the evolution section of "Bahá'í Faith and science" to be revised in such a way as to avoid presenting the view that humans derived from animals as the Baha'i viewpoint. For example, here is one quote I find particularly objectionable:

"Thus in Bahá'í view, humans are anatomically connected with the animals as in scientific thought".

This quote makes it appear that all Baha'is accept that humans are anatomically connected with animals. I do not believe this reflects what 'Abdu'l-Baha has said in Some Answered Questions at all. If 'Abdu'l-Baha believed that, He would not have spent so much effort presenting what He calls 'proofs' that the current theory of evolution is flawed.

Here are some other problem quotes:

"The Bahá’í perspective that religion must be in accordance with science seems to suggest that religion must accept current scientific knowledge as authoritative."

The teachings on harmony between science and religion do not state that scientific knowledge must be accepted as authoritative. Where does it say that??? Actually, on the issue of evolution, Shoghi Effendi wrote:

"You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts." (Shoghi Effendi, Arohanui - Letters to New Zealand, p. 85)

Religion is always true, whereas science can change from time to time. It seems that current scientific knowledge ISN'T authoritative.

No mention is made of the fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha denied the possibility that a missing link between man and the great apes would ever be found. Instead, the attempt by several Baha'i scholars to explain away what 'Abdu'l-Baha was saying is mentioned. This can be mentioned, but the article makes it appear that this is the accepted Baha'i understanding.

Another problem quote is the following:

"`Abdu'l-Bahá rejected the interpretation that the common ancestry of humans with other animals implies that humans are animals."

This is making it appear that he accepted the common ancestry of animals and humans in the first place. This is not mentioned in the Writings.

I think the quotes about the common origin of life should be removed entirely, as they do not appear to be relevant, in my opinion. One quote says for instance "Verily, the origin of all material life is one and its termination likewise one." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 350) When I quoted the Promulgation, I was informed that it is not reliable as a source, was I not? Well, it may not be, but why does this quote make its way into the article. However, only the first part is mentioned, because "its termination likewise one" doesn't really make any sense, if He is saying that animals, plants and humans came from one biological origin. The Origin referred to is probably God. The other quote mentioned is from Paris Talks. Is that more reliable than the Promulgation of Universal Peace? Not really. NicholasJB 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada-article lead
I'm having another go at a one-thing-at-a-time approach to editing the lead, beginning with whether or not the first paragraph should be exclusively geographic. Please look over how I've shown the views given so far, at the talkpage and ensure that yours is accurately shown by my treatment. Thanks. The goal, of course, is a definite result to build upon. -- Lonewolf BC 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ridvan Article
Hello there Jeff3000. I see your point on my original edit. In the original edit the phrase was "Bahá'u'lláh made his station known for the first time"  Made his station known indeed implies that Bahá'u'lláh is stating a fact, and that Wikipedia wants to maintain a Neutral Point of View, and thus stating such religious things is a no-no.

However, for my second edit, I hope that you may agree with my assertion that it's a slightly different case. The phrase that time is "Bahá'u'lláh announced his station for the first time"  The statement here is that Bahá'u'lláh made a statement. That's what happened. Now, some people might disagree with his statment, and that's ok. However, Bahá'u'lláh did make the statement. And, stating the facts doesn't conflict with a Neutral Point of View.

I'm going to change my edit back. You are of course free to perhaps point something out that I might be missing, and revert the article again or whatever. It's all good. Have a good day sir.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Bisco (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canadian Coat of Arms
The old copyright information is as follows. If you are going to add this to the new version of the image, be sure that it truly is the same drawing of it by the same artist. Also, be sure to give credit in the copyright to the user who altered the format. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

{{scroll box
 * width=100%
 * height=365px
 * text= coat of arms of Canada. Converted to PNG by Fibonacci.

The present design of the arms of Canada was drawn by Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, office of the Governor General of Canada, and faithfully depicts the arms described in the words of the Royal Proclamation dated November 21, 1921. The present design was approved in 1994.

This image is copyright © 1994, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and is held under Canadian Crown Copyright. In addition, the Trade Marks Act, chapter T-13, Revised Statutes of 1985 (sect. 9), protects the Arms of Canada against unauthorized commercial use. To obtain permission to use the arms of Canada commercially, see the previous link.

{{Non-free symbol}}

Fair use for Canada
I, Jeff3000, feel this image is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: }}
 * 1) it is a low resolution copy of symbol;
 * 2) it is not being used for commerical use, which is against the terms of use
 * 3) the image is only being used for informational purposes.
 * 4) the image portrays Canada, for which it is being included in
 * 5) Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it portrays the official symbol of the principle subject of this article.  Jeff3000 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Hossein amanat.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hossein amanat.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada AGAIN
Please comment on Discssion page. It needs to be settled once and for all or we'll come back to it again and again. --Soulscanner 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:"The Protocols → Template:"The Protocols"
Appreciate your cleanup. Now can you help me make the above (uncontroversial) Move? --Ludvikus 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So where Exactly do I go for Administrator help? Also, the actual title of the 1934 book is "The Protocols". Therefore the Template should have the same. Thanks. --Ludvikus 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I've got (by error) only one quotation mark - please check the above carefully. Can you make the Move? --Ludvikus 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada
Thanks for your support and kind words. I feel a bit like a voice crying out in the wilderness. Although if I have both sides of the Dominion argument against me, perhaps I really have found the middle ground... - Eron Talk 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to avoid adding my proposed text to the article until some consensus can be reached; I'm not interested in edit warring. I want to know what the specific concerns with it are - all of it, not just the dominion bits. I'm not sure whether the complaints that I have rewritten the whole paragraph are legitimate or just a smokescreen. - Eron Talk 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to restore the long-standing version, if I can find it... - Eron Talk 18:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that all worked out well. I am at a total loss now about how to proceed with the lead. I feel like I am being bombarded with arcane constitutional minutiae in response to a simple compromise to clarify a contentitious paragraph. (And I usually like arcane minutiae.) I literally do not have the time or energy to respond point by point to several paragraphs of commentary in response to a suggested change to three sentences. (Let alone tracking all the changes that keep being made to those several paragraphs.) Any ideas on how to address this? Or should I just walk away? - Eron Talk 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: 3RR
You have also been warned; as well, if you do not compel for said changes with reliable, impartial sourcing -- as requested -- the article will definitely be subjected to additional scrutiny and additional actions taken. Quizimodo 18:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is you who does not seem to be listening and is also escalating the situation. Compel or desist. Quizimodo 18:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They are warnings. Your comments, as has been your behaviour throughout, is an over-reaction.  Calm down.  Quizimodo 18:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 10:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

new page patrolling
Thanks for new page patrolling, with the new function, please remember to log pages as having been patrolled, saves looking at them multiple times. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars Season 5 Table
Can we take the 80% font size off after the dances are removed. The table would probably look much smaller? 75.117.123.195 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They were in the table for season 4, but were later removed. It should be returned to it's normal font size when the dances are removed. 75.117.123.195 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Iran is Persia
Hi,

I would first like to refer you to an article I’ve read recently.

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/dec/1130.html

as I see that you are a respected Wikipedian, I would like for you to promote change for greater ideas. I believe Wikipedia is not only an informative tool but also a tool for improvement of ideas. Iran is truly Persia, and wrongly it has been cut from its rich past in 1935 by the shah. Egypt, China, Greece and many other countries are called differently by their native speakers but have never changed to unrecognizable names such as Al-Mesr.

Thanks for your time, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argooya (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,


 * According to this reference:


 * 1.	^ Pejman Akbarzadeh (2005-09-20). A Note on the terms "Iran" and "Persia". Payvand's Iran News. NetNative. Retrieved on 2007-05-03. “After some Persian scholars protested this announcement, in 1959 Prof. Ehsan Yarshater made a committee to research this matter. The committee announced that "changing the name has not been right", so Mohammad Reza Shah announced ...”


 * Iran and Persia can be officially used interchangeably after 1959, therefore I strongly suggest that the page name of Iran be modified to Iran (Persia), Iran / Persia or the like.


 * It is authentic and official, and I do not see why your opinion should have any priority over others, especially with authentic referencing.


 * Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argooya (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but with this so called undue weight policy only the people with one point of view are represented. I’m not asking to remove Iran from the naming, just adding Persia in parentheses next to Iran which I think is reasonable for people to be able to make that critical connection. My reasons are summed up bellow:


 * Firstly Persia is not archaic, it was used solely as Iran’s official name until 1935, we still have people living from that era!


 * Secondly, as I have displayed the reference, Iran and Persia can officially be used interchangeably. Please search for Prof. Ehsan Yarshater and his work on this matter.


 * But most importantly is that I as an Iranian-American always call myself Persian, all Iranians call themselves Persian, we have the Persian Gulf, Persian Rugs, Persian cuisines, Persian cats and many more present usages of Persia that undoubtedly reflect the Iranian people and culture.


 * As a summery, Iran is Persia solely until 1935, interchangeably since 1935, and commonly used in many vocabulary in Present English. Therefore, it is rational to place an indication of this undisputable connection of words as the name of the article at hand.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argooya (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits, Harmony of Science and Religion
Hi Jeff,

You said that neither of my sources say that the Bahá'í Faith subordinates some scientific conclusions to its own doctrines, but Shoghi Effendi states (in my first citation): "You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts." I don't know about you, but I understand by this that what science says ultimately does not matter in relation to Bahá'í doctrines. Is that not subordinating science to religion? Why not?

The second citation I provided shows that the UHJ regards homosexuality as both unnatural and reversible. Both these assertions are contrary to modern science. So in maintaining its position despite being at odds with science, the UHJ is subordinating science to its own doctrines. Do you not agree?

Therefore, I hope you do not mind if I undo your revision of my last edit.Mavaddat 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems we actually agree. Science is provisional. You are saying that religion may subordinate science because science is always provisional. So how is that not subordinating science to religion? My contribution is not synthesis; the point is explicit in the quotations and in your response to me. Please stop suppressing my contribution to the page. Regards,Mavaddat 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly the page should be as neutral as possible. I agree. But I do not see how stating that the Bahá'í Faith subordinates some scientific conclusions to its own doctrines suggests that those scientific conclusions are in anyway definitely correct. Could you please explain that to me? After all, for all we know, it is justified in its subordination. But that it is subordinating, there seems to be little doubt. Regards, Mavaddat 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I mean, if I told you that "The 18th century English subordinated the conclusions of Galileo to those of Newton," does that suggest anything whatsoever about who I think was right? No. It only suggests that the English took it that Newton was the one who was right. Do you disagree that the Bahai Faith prefers to maintain some of its doctrines in lieu of what modern science tells us about their truth? If not, then we seem to be in agreement. Regards, Mavaddat 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mehanian and Friberg suggest that science must conform to religion sometimes?
Hi Jeff,

I've read the journal article that you cited to support your suggestion that religion need not always accept current scientific knowledge as authoritative. But it is very long. Could you please add the the exact quotation or approximate area of the document where this issue is specifically addressed in that work? Until then, I have added a tag to the end of your citation. Regards, Mavaddat 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jeff. Good work. I hope you will not mind if I edit the wording to reflect that the view you have described is the of Bahá'í scholars, and is therefore not authoritative. I will also remove the and add the quotation to the references, if you have no already. Regards, Mavaddat 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not true that the article you cite (or any other for that matter) is authoritative in any way or reflective of the views of the current Bahá'í administration. The UHJ specifically says that the review process is a way to root out gross misrepresentation of the Faith. In a letter dated 10 December 1992, they write:"Secondly, it [an 'imprimatur' system such as used by the Roman Catholic Church] would give force to the erroneous concept that there are two kinds of Bahá'í literature: books which present the 'official' view and those which are the free personal opinions of individual Bahá'ís, thus obscuring the essential Bahá'í differentiation between the Writings of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, those of `Abdu'l-Bahá, the letters of the Guardian and the decisions of the Universal House of Justice, which are authoritative, on the one hand, and all other writings by Bahá'ís on the other, which have no authority at all apart from their own internal reasonableness. That a book has passed review in no way guarantees its correctness; it is merely an assurance by the National Spiritual Assembly concerned that, in its view, the book does not seriously distort the Faith or its Teachings. [Emphasis added]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavaddat (talk • contribs) 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)