User talk:Jeff3000/Archive07

Picture of Bahaullah
Hi,it is user secthayrabe i was just asking is Wp allowed to show the picture of Bahaullah because in bahai faith you should not have it or show it.here is something about showing the picuter of bahaullah

"There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes" (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 6, 1939) (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 540) thanks please reply on my talk page thanks so much --Secthayrabe (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi agian thanks for telling me ta ta for now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secthayrabe (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry for doing that could you answer on my talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secthayrabe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright conflict with Ishraq3?
Hi there, I see that a copyright tag has been placed on the Ishraq3 image. I had forgotten to mention that that image is actually from the Bahá'í Library, which is hosted by the Universal House of Justice - if I'm not mistaken - the images from which require no copyright in order to employ for personal or public use. However, I don't know how to revert the copyright violation tag that's been set on it. How can this be done? Thanks in advance. --User:AdibMasumian

Baha'is of Afghanistan
The Baha'is of Afghanistan is merged under Baha'i Statistics, I think it deserves a separate page because more information is emerging about it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Master (talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Life on other planets
I felt that my wording was fine, but I think your modification is fair. I opted to split the baby in half, so to speak, but you put it up for adoption. Either is fine by me. Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't smile?
at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.140.104 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Bahá'ís
Per Talk:Bahá'í Faith I've reverted the mass edit out and commented that the as a general statement all these entries are sourced on their respective pages. I don't see any rule they must be sourced on the lists itself. I don't see any discussion of this issue on the referenced Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination)--Smkolins (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * United Nations member states?? No or almost no citations there.Smkolins (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Lists of countries?? yes meet policy and keep things right but I think this would simply remove lists in general as things like this would always require double entry. Why should categories be exempt - it's just code at bottom of a page. I see a few of lists of countries have been flagged with unsourced notes but is this really what Wikipedia wants? And has no one observed if sourcing is on the referenced page - no one has talked about it at all?--Smkolins (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gemsofdivinemysteries.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gemsofdivinemysteries.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 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the CIA disambiguation
Glad to know someone is reading, and you did something very appropriate. I'll be checking the other articles to be sure I don't make the same mistake there.

Any comments are welcome; there have been a lot of touchy people involved in editing here, and I'd enjoy hearing constructive suggestions about content rather than ideological indignation.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

school categories
Various Baha'i schools are listed throughout the Category:International schools and per school by country but I wonder if there should be a Category:Schools by religious affiliation section for specifically Baha'i schools - (either by ownership or by curriculum). I don't know how to create a category.... or perhaps more of a move from a "education by religious affiliation" to "schools by religious affiliation"--Smkolins (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

back to using the F for Faith?
I missed that coming back and welcome it. So are we free to really use the capital f as part of the name again - is there something we should site per Wikipedia to show it's right?--Smkolins (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - does that mean renaming Bahá'í faith in Australia?--Smkolins (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tabernacle-unity.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tabernacle-unity.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 (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

referencing
Let me know what you think of Template:Harvnb. See note 6 on Hinduism. I think this will be useful to use on pages where the same source is quoted from different pages, and it will also remove some of the clutter in the text when editing. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a test page to mess around with the referencing. I think it works much better than what we use now. Check out User_talk:Cuñado/archive1. The first two notes are different pages of the same book, and the third note was a test to see which templates can be linked from a harvard reference. For example, the cite book template does not create an name anchor but the citation template does. We'll have to change the references to the citation template, which I think is no big deal. We could also get all the citation templates to add a name anchor. I'm going to start making some changes on pages. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Template:Cite book. It took me awhile to get anyone to pay attention, and the response was not to change the template. Do you have a recommendation? I really want to use the {harvnb} template and reduce the clutter in the text, but the {citation} template formats in a way that I don't like. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Opinion of editors
Sorry, but I don't have the time currently (at least not for a few weeks) to look into this matter throughly. I strongly suggest you use the dispute resolution process if he continues to revert/add his favored addition of the article, or ask another administrator on this matter. Some helpful admins are located here if you wish to go for the latter option. Sorry if I'm not very helpful, but I am busy with personal issues lately. &mdash; DarkFalls  talk 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration on Dominion issue
I've made an arbitration case on the nagging Dominion issue on Canada and related pages. I'm flummoxed. There might be a need for you to comment. Thanks. --Soulscanner (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for intervening. I'm not going ask you to post again, but could I ask you to contact other editors who may have been involved in mediation efforts or requests? --Soulscanner (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Your help on the Munirih Khanum page was greatly appreciated. Peter Deer (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense
Where did I add nonsense to Wikipedia? --79.210.113.178 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say that: Sometimes even a "long-lasting consensus" might be "nonsense". --79.210.113.178 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Basque Country in Txalaparta
I reverted your link change. I'm not referring to the autonomous community, which represents an irrelevant administrative boundary to this topic, but tothe social and cultural reality of the Basque Country, where txalaparta schools spread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iñaki LL (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't place tag on again
I'm filing an incident report. The both know that it violates Wiki policy to remove these tags. I don't want to get the page locked. We already got the Dominion page locked that way. Let the Administrastors deal with Quizimodo and G2bambino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request
Care to go to the mediation request page for Dominion? Could use someone to support the request.--soulscanner (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert
Care to comment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Quizimodo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Quizimodo. -- soulscanner (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chile2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chile2.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 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:G2bambino
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/G2bambino. -- soulscanner (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to co-certify? You seem to have been following this little saga. --soulscanner (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuous Revelation (added Baha'i Progressive Revelation)
Thanks for the shortening. Your version is more appropriate for this place and reads well. I've been stuck at home under the weather and did it on the fly. I was going to review and make it more concise today but you beat me to it :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonLocalYokel (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Major Religious Groups
Jeff, your source is from 2001. And it still says there's between 1.1 to 1.8 billion muslims [The christainity population wasn't much of a difference so I'll leave that]. But Why did you take out the original source? TelusFielder (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Major Religious Groups
Jeff, your ongoing diligence on Major Religious Groups is really remarkable.

—Wookipedian (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Locke
Guess What, I went over and looked, and did find a good photo of Kevin Locke on Flickr and it said that it was creative commons. I left a note for the photographer asking if he would like to upload it to the Wikipedia page. All you have to do is go to Flickr and search Kevin Locke, there are some really nice photos.--I&#39;m Nonpartisan (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NHL
Ya sure? I coulda sworn it was... :). Just curious.  Jmlk  1  7  00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the information. Learn something new each day! :)  Jmlk  1  7  01:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it or leave it?
Hi Jeff, I appreciate your contributions with Wikipedia and as I can see that you are the main contribution of Major religious groups. In last some days, Saimdusan has added his new created map and the dispute between me and him begin. I disagree with his creation in many points because as I can see that he is an anti-Buddhism and Chinese religions and always keep biased opinions for Roman Catholicsm and strongly pro-Atheism. See its Talk Page:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_religious_groups#New_Image
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_religious_groups#Upload_new_version

I have reverted to the last version by you because I think it was partly right and enough. I want to hear your opinions about this case, keep your version withoutbhis biased map or not?

Thank you! Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Category delete
Ah Well, that makes sense. Some of the objections were to the name, which has since been changed, and references were added to some of the articles, which addresses another complaint. If you list it again at CfD, I will throw in my two cents but otherwise not object or attempt to recreate the category without some further support. Does that seem reasonable? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

CFD
Hi, you previously commented on this CFD, and a similar one is up for deletion here. Please comment when you get a chance. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  06:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to hear your opinions!
Dear Jeff3000!

First, I want to thank you about your contributions, especially Major religious groups. So now, in Religion in China has had controversies between me and Saimdusan (strong anti-Buddhism and Chinese religions). Please give us your opinions and let people know more about the truth of Asian culture. It's really needed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_China#The_heavy_influence_of_Buddhism_-_Chinese_religions_among_various_East_Asian_civilizations

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply!
Thanks for your reply in my talk page. OK, today is Friday. Please send me an e-mail (not here) because I have some important informations to share with you!

Best wishes to you! Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bahai edit
Ahh, I was unaware that they consider themselves to be spiritually distinct; I had always thought that since they believed in progressive revelation that that meant they considered themselves linked to all faiths of the past. Thanks, -Rosywounds (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check it!
Dear Jeff!

I've reworded some parts of Religion in China without delete any sources (as Saim Dusan's requests). Please check it again (spelling mistake, grammar, etc) and is it suitable for NPOV or not?

Thank you so much! I will always appreciate your helps and your contributions! Best wishes to you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Glaysher
Jeff this edit of yours. I'm sure you're aware that we *do* allow authors to cite their own, even self-published material. The list of their works does not need to meet any non-self-published bar. You are, I think confusing that with what we *source* to, but we can even source to an author's own self-published statements. So I'm going to revert back in this information you deleted. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lidia Zamenhof
Hi Jeff, I notice that you removed the Polish Jews category and the Jewish Painters category from the Lidia Zamenhof article, saying that they were "unsupported." What do you mean by "unsupported"? Her parents were Jewish and she was raised as a Jew. As far as painting is concerned, I can find no evidence of that in her biography so I think you were spot-on there. Macduff (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

category
It didn't exactly pass CFD, it was undetermined. I tried to keep the category as useful while not awkwardly putting it on the articles. I still don't see any reason to keep the category, so if you want to fix it up go ahead. I doubt that the category will stay on articles long term. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fasting
Thanks for tagging. The information jives with what I've read and fits my general understanding of Ketosis, and agrees with Famine response. But certainly the references are needed. I've asked WP:MED to help out. Tb (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nooruz
Thanks for your contribution on Nowruz article. The Bahai section looks better now. However, it is good not to exceed 2-3 paragraphs. As a suggestion, keep the size of the section to 2-3 paragraphs and refer the readers to the main article on Bahai new year. I also suggest you to have some more edits in Local variations section. This section need a major clean up.--Larno Man (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hud and Saleh
Thanks for your constructive criticism re: Hud and Saleh. I totally understand where you're coming from. However, I don't agree, for two reasons. First, the line in both articles that I added the citation to says, "A passage in the Kitáb-i-Íqán implies that Hud/Saleh is a Manifestation of God, a position of utmost religious importance to Bahá'ís." The citation was a link to said passage, and I figured it would be better to have a link to the passage that "implied," rather than [citation needed]. Second, when you only read the lines from the Íqán for each of those Prophets, it certainly can seem ambiguous, and thus original research. But taken in context, when you read from the beginning, it is VERY clear, and not ambiguous at all, that they are Manifestations. The preceding paragraphs talk about how the Manifestations were always rejected, and then He goes into detail about each. I would hardly call THAT original research. Your thoughts? --Managerpants (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. I don't think that it takes any kind of "research" to draw that conclusion. It just takes reading the paragraphs in order. However, I'm not going to make a big deal about it... I'll leave it alone. I'll just stick to editing the music pages. --Managerpants (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, I disagree that it's against WP policy. I don't think reading the paragraphs of the source in order constitutes original research. After all, there is a difference between original research and research. But again, I'm not going to argue or split hairs about it. Although, if you feel the sources were no good, don't you feel it's just as irresponsible to leave the passages in the Hud and Saleh articles? --Managerpants (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New created image by Moshino31
Please leave your opinions here because it's really needed. Keep it or not?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_religious_groups#New_world_religion_image

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kevjumba Loves Enya
A tag has been placed on Kevjumba Loves Enya requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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. Kateshort forbob  21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Disappointment
I have again removed references to the Bahai Faith from this article--not because it is unreferenced, but rather because it is irrelevent to the topic. If you can show me a quote from a Bahai source that utilizes the phrase "Great Disappointment" then I'll change my opinion. JCrocombe (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:MarthaRoot2.jpg
I have tagged Image:MarthaRoot2.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

DITTO
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got only two reverts in the past 24 hours, while you've got three. And if we go back a week, I've still got two, and you've got a whopping 12.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. My reverts are restoring long standing WP:V content that's you and Cunado are attempting to excise w/out any regard or consideration for my comments in the discussion. I'm essentially restoring vandalism, while you're engaging in it.  Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to give this talk page more than a "cursory glance", for you'll find that there are as many different opinions about how to interpret WP:UNDUE as there are editors discussing it. User:Infophile didn't even bother to look at the page before responding to me, and admits as such. What is clear from that talk page is that the interpretation of UNDUE is far wider and varied than the cut and dry application being employed on Baha'i divisions, which by every definition is a page about the divisions, and as such warrants the inclusion of the views of the groups its summarizing. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A little help!
Please give me your 5 minutes (or less):
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion#Please_stop_changing_the_existing_summary_table.

Thank you so much. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disregard this, this user is trolling. He has put this on the userpage of at least 8 users and reverted my replies. Herunar (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Okay, you dislike my edits. No problem, let's discuss. The problem I had with the user was that he reverted my edits and gave a confusing reason. I reverted him. He told me that I messed up the table, which I did, and which I fixed. Then he told me that my edits still had problems, and instead of waiting a response, went off and asked the opinions of 9 users. And gave me 3 vandalism warnings. Finally, after 3 hours, he told me what he disliked and I removed it. I think he's satisfied now.

I removed all the locations for Christianity and Islam because everybody seemed to have a different opinion on it. These two are very prominent religions - there's at least 5% of followers for each, in every country, and it is immensely difficult to categorize them (Christianity for Europe, Islam for North Africa, and on). We know that 10% of the British are muslims, and that countries like Saudi Arabia have a significant amount of Christian population. Moreover, it was sourceless and OR. So I removed it. Herunar (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you help?
Dear Jeff!

Please compare my new edit and Herunar's edit here and its talk page, which one is better? Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Image copyright problem with Image:05 NHL Shield.png
Thanks for uploading Image:05 NHL Shield.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions.
 * Fixed, the image is removed from pages that didn't have fair use rationale. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting me
Thanks I appreciate your post. You are, of course, correct and I'll see if I can find a more appropriate source. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My side project
You've contributed to my side project in the past. Well, it's finally cleared and I could use some more. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith in Denmark
As Hellerup is a Copenhagen suburb, it is likely that who wrote it has a more detailed source than your reference. But I do not know that source, so I will not revert.

--Klausok (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FPC Image
Your image, Image:Willmette how.jpg, has been nominated for Featured Picture statues here. Although everyone agrees your image is of high quality, the size is not up to standard. Do you have a higher-resolution version of this image? If you did, and it was equally good in quality, I'm sure it would receive considerable support. Nautica Shad es  20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

POV speculation
Dude, I had at least two Bahá'ís in my art class when I attended Tehran University back in late 90's. They didn't advertise their religion, but they were Baha'i nonetheless, and most of us who were close to them knew. Wikipedia is a not crystal ball, you can't categorically say that ALL Bahá'ís can't or won't lie about their religion to get into University, because many do. Muslims can't drink either, but half of Tehran drink alcohol.--07fan (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claim, even if it was backed by 200 sources, still constitutes original research as well. Wikipedia is no place for speculation, you or a source can't comment on people's intent, see WP:NOTCRYSTAL--07fan (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)]].


 * Be mindful of WP:3RR, you reverted me for the 5th time on that page. I can report you for 3RR and get you blocked, but I am not going to. But I am going to ask you to kindly revert your last edit. The section is about official legal and constitutional status, criticisms and accusations belong on the persecution section. P.S: Beside the unverifiable nature of that accusation, Khamenei was not even the president in 1990's,  which undermines the credibility of your source.--07fan (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, Khamanei was never the president ANYTIME during the 1990's. Period. You do your cause more damage than good by such POV-pushing and usage of unreliable partisan sources. Now kindly revert yourself. You can put all these "koko" conspiracy theories in the persecution section, but let the status section remain about what the official verifiable policies are. --07fan (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All these sources are citing an unverifiable claim. Why would the government release such a document? Where is this document? Who released or leaked it? Exceptional claims need dozen of reliable sources, and in this case, need to be verified by reliable non-partisan sources.--07fan (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, how did the UN Human rights commissioner get his hand on confidential Iranian government documents? He "found" it in the street? This is nothing but an unverifiable claim and possibly a forgery. It's also a violation of WP:BLP as Khamanei is a living person, and you can't attribute something to him unless he's officially acknowledged it. --07fan (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

structural error
Bahá'í Faith of Moldova - I used "of" instead of "in" as the rest of the series. Is it possible/appropriate to move it and the redirects and the links to it? Or just leave it?--Smkolins (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Smkolins (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

NHL Edit undo
I had deleted this section "The NHL fan base is also the most affluent and well educated of the four.[49] NHL season ticket prices have traditionally been higher (given the number of games per season) than the other sports.[49]" I dont see why or how that was wrong. If you look at season ticket prices they arent the most expensive of the four ajor sports, and saying they are more affluent and educated of the four fan bases is a partial statement. I stand by my edit! Ps your baseless threat of vandalism "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." That is so off base it isnt even funny.

There is no evidence supporting either of the claims is my point, the refferenced material does not support it. (Rongotti (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Rongotti (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongotti (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC) There is no evidence supporting either of the claims is my point, the refferenced material does not support it.

Article People of the Book
This article People of the Book section regarding Dhimmis seems to be targeting specific groups by adding violating content. User Jeff3000 you seem to have problems with any user adding more content into the article and rvting information. Information and Definitions of Dhimmi should be properly said where i fixed the content that was not appropriate. Islam would never define Dhimmis in such a matter. Plus it already says on the top ( Clean up for Wiki Standard) and( Expand Link ) you perhaps didnt notice. If you keep rvting you will be reported for users contributing and fixing articles --Asalim din Lal (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

delete the picture of Bahá'u'lláh it is offensive and rude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PittsburghPenguins.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:PittsburghPenguins.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not the fastest growing religion in South Korea
Hi!

I need some problems with Opticals about Islam is not the fastest religion in South Korea. He always persist in his Arab Islamic source, here is the detail. Please tell your opinions about this case. Thank you so much. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
I never said that Bahais believe in him as a Manifestation. They only respect him but do NOT believe in him. Ill get u a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp 2k7 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So then whats the page for people they respect? I would advise you to read the "Joseph Smith" portion. It's only natural, that after reading that, I would add Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp 2k7 (talk • contribs)

I'm not aware of any reference from a Baha'i or secondary source which mentions the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with respect to the Baha'i view. As the article is about the Baha'i understanding of a Manifestation then he does not belong because there is no "Baha'i view". It would not be appropriate to list and say that there is little to say as there would be little constructive to say. The parts about Jospeh Smith and others have references that speak to the view of the Baha'is from authorities. So they belong. However, please do go ahead and write the House of Justice. If they say something that would make it appropriate to the article if their response appears in a citable form.--Smkolins (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NewJerseyDevils.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:NewJerseyDevils.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Mason Remey
If you like to aid and abet the edit war you and your friends are engaging in on Mason Remey perhaps you could be bothered to join in on the discussion? We are encouraged to resolve our differences on the talk page, yet for some reason you have only chosen to participate by hitting the "undo" button. I guess with three against one you needn't trouble yourself with lengthy debates, right? Regards. DisarrayGeneral 04:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NHL Table
And why "not coaches"?

Thanks
For finding that template vandalism on CIA World Factbook link.  Acroterion  (talk)  03:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact information
Hello Jeff, I was curious as to whether I could contact you through another medium such as e-mail, preferably an instant messaging service like MSN. I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I would appreciate it if you could get back to me ASAP regardless. Thanks. AdibMasumian (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Bahá'í cosmology
Thanks for your excellent edits to Bahá'í cosmology.--Editor2020 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bahaikipedia
Hi Jeff. I'm writing here as an aside to our discussion on my talk page. Can you please provide me with something that I could copy and paste to Bahaikipedia that would meet your requirements? Can you please put it somewhere like: User:T0lk/Bahaikipedia. I would appreciate it. Regards, T0lk (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U for G2bambino
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment (or to simply endorse other comments). --soulscanner (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback
Hi. If fulfilled your request. Please remember that rollback should only be used for removing obvious and simple vandalism, or for reverting your own comments when there is no benefit in an enhanced edit summary. In other situations it is best to use another methos of removing edits. If rollback is misused it can be easily removed by any admin. If you need any help please ask me or see WP:RBK for more. I noted your historical block and edit warring warnings so please do not use this tool in content disputes. Pedro : Chat  07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of RC Strasbourg players
What do you mean by "other Wikipedia pages cannot be used as sources, and the only souce is not accessible"? I am only referring to the section in the main article to get complete sources, I am not citing it as a source! There is no page listing all the records, I cannot make it up! I am progressively adding individual footnotes for records/national caps but this takes quite a lot of time and, anyway, the main websites I use are listed at the end of the page... If you could just take a few seconds to look at it instead of adding stupid banners it would help a lot! Zitelli67 (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered on Talk:List of RC Strasbourg players


 * I answered to your answer on the same talk page. I really have trouble getting your point. I cannot be blamed for the fact that you seem to be the only one having trouble gaining access to a website Zitelli67 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your alleged inability to access the website is either a bug specific to you or bad faith. Go to it now You do not need a password/account. Zitelli67 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BostonBruins.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:BostonBruins.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

re
please explain what is meant by not bieng "neutral"? i have not lied in any of the articles, i have gained all my knowledge from reading books in paticulair "Khadíjih Bagum" by H.B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.88.158 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi grudge vandal
Hello. Thanks for reverting the recent template vandalism by. Unfortunately the poor soul behind this vandalism has decided to use Wikipedia for his own grudge match. Since this vandal always operates via open proxies and has been reported numerous times to WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to report him on sight (and un-warned) to WP:AIV. In order to help us limit the damage he can cause, if you run into this vandal again, just immediately report it to AIV with a diff so that we may block him as quickly as possible (the normal process of escalating warnings is not really necessary for this IP-hopping vandal). Please let me know if you have any questions or issues, and thanks for helping keep Wikipedia clear of vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

need to move a page -
Bahá'í Faith in the Laos to Bahá'í Faith in Laos... if you couldSmkolins (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

about the pov editing at Abrahamic religions
is it notable that in eight minutes there was coordinated editing of the article from 6 ip addresses and only one of those was also the comment on the talk page?Smkolins (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * and also were involved in the edits to the Bahá'u'lláh though not under such dense timing but still including more than one IP address....Smkolins (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniegreyton (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ok mate relax relax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaniegreyton (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)