User talk:Jeff3000/Archive05

Thanks for the request for pictures in November, I have been working on it, compiling a large file of non-copyright pictures. Unfortunately, we seem to be sacrificing quality in attempting to make all the pictures free-use. I disagree with this, just because there is a free picture available doesn't make it necessarily any good. Many of the free pictures look horrible, and this has really made me disappointed to see the Baha'i pages recently. We need to worry about quality. High resolution, clear images, realistic colors, and nothing older than the year 2000 unless it is a historical picture. This is why I am struggling so much. None of the free pictures (and I have hundreds) are really anything I would like to see on here. Best of wishes. Nmentha 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am going to repost this remark on the main pages. Nmentha 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is established and accepted that the Canadian Horse is an official Canadian animal symbol since April 30,2002 [1][2]. My argument for the Canada page is that it is also a prominent symbol. It is frequently seen in countless images with the Mounties - the black versions of the breed are what the Mounties are usually mounted on! Request that this be accepted and put on the Canada page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Likemike1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the tip Kapnisma 06:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my friend I'll try to remember what you wrote. Thanks --KaragouniS 11:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great gegorian callenda break and thank you for your help in training me over the 2006 year in wikipedia. You earned a couple of banstorms. See you round.RoddyYoung 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a lot of banstorms. Cuñado - Talk 17:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want a banstorm. Where can I get one? —dragfyre 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I can't wait to get one  ;-) -- Jeff3000 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you please explain the reversion of my edit to this article? Is it because it was too redundant (as it could easily be inferred from the quotes?)? Is it because it was not relevant to the subject of the article, which is on the religion's concept of God? 70.101.147.224 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have any photos, but I'll look into it. Matarael 08:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff3000...Thank you for your response....I now understand what you were concerned about...Go Jays Go

Jeff3000,

Please revert my change 97207332 which you undid with your change 97217529. That edit had nothing to do with referencing another Wikipedia article. To avoid a reversion duel here, consider every change individually. I am keeping my edits as atomic as possible so as to avoid this very sort of indiscriminate wholesale backing out of a series on the grounds that one change violates some policy. Also, if you are going to revert a change I make on policy rather than taste grounds, kindly reference that policy in your comment string and/or on your, my or the article's Talk page. This is the first I've heard of the policy that Wikipedia articles should not cross-reference each other -- a policy which is ignored or violated all over the site. Thank you in advance for keeping this process civil and NPOV. --Ubarfay 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The Islam article comes up with a little lock icon in the top right-hand corner that links to WP:Semi-protection_policy, so I can't see the full external reference.)

Adherents.com may be less biased than they appear on the surface, but you're not addressing my main points that (1) the rollup they use is just Rev. Barrett's from the WCE, not even their own data; (2) that their own data (as you point out) is a compilation of many estimates, whose high end for Christianity can't reach the WCE's clearly POV 2.1 billion figure and whose low end is some 20% lower, within a rounding error of the high estimate for Islam; and (3) that using their "adherence" methodology is itself controversial (e.g. the WVS/EVS data gives a completely different picture than the one here). Don't you think this requires some rigor? --Ubarfay 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at any of the other sources? The US State Dept's? Pew? WVS/EVS? I'd say a picture where "Chinese folk religion" disappears completely and self-identified members of Christian denominations fall to below 22% of the populations surveyed paints a fairly different picture than the one currently in this section, wouldn't you? --Ubarfay 04:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following. Do you like multiple sources/perspectives, or not? For the numbers at issue in this discussion, we/Wikipedia are currently using a sole source (Rev. Barrett/WCE), not the multiple sources in adherents.com. The latter is merely a secondary (arguably tertiary) source. Please clarify. Regards, --Ubarfay 06:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed (again) the opening reference to Dizzy Gillespie's religious affiliation, which you had restored to the opening paragraph following my earlier credit. It's bad encyclopediac form to have mention of an individual's religious or ethnic in the lead sentences of his/her biography, unless religion or ethnicity is what makes that individual notable in the first place (ie. the Pope is "Catholic", Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil rights leader, was "African-American"). Gillespie's religious preference is mentioned later in the article, and that is more than sufficient. J.R. Hercules 06:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and apparently so do others to similar kinds of edits you've done elsewhere judging from your talk page. You not only removed the Bahá'í tag but also African-American. Both are important qualities.--Smkolins 13:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He commented on my talk page after making similar charges - I said:

I disagree and said so on the talk page of Jeff3000 where you already made a similar argument. You also seem to have a reputation about removing certain kinds of content from comments on your talk page. It is not "micro-characterization". I see what *you* did as against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph. Dizzy Gillespie is a singularly well known Baha'i, which also played important roles in his life and music as amplified in the main text, and being African-American is a key aspect of his life and music. Please revert your edits. And echoiing to other places of this discussion.--Smkolins 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Garcia is apparently a soccer player and a jazz musician/composer (Porgy and Bess) and did albums with Louise Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald - see [3] for more info (seems like he should have his own page in wikipedia!)--Smkolins 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it doesn't fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion for categories. If the user continues to add to the category I'll ask him to stop until the CfD debate has concluded. Best, Gwernol 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I'm aware of that, but I'm aware that it's practice to remove from a talk page anything that has nothing to do with the article - particularly when the article deals with an important and complex topic. Slac speak up! 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was just trying to update to a more recent statistic. I realise I'm probably not very popular around here, but there's no need to point that out. Zazaban 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your wording made it sound as though you were commenting on my editing in general. Zazaban 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff3000, I noticed that my watchlist is showing only a few of the recent changes on Dizzy's page - that seems strange. Is there something I should check/report look at? For example I see Tom harrison's recent fix but before that my watchlist only shows a January 5th entry. It doesn't even show my Jan 6th edit. --Smkolins 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff3000, why did you get rid of the logos on the page, by doing so you have made it difficult and very inconvient, also it brightened up the page and i feel that the deletion was stupid and unneccessary. --User:AranMaxwell1Cox--

Could you please add Germany, Turkey and Nauru to the map of featured countries please? Jaw101ie 13:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Featuredcountries.png

Hi, While you are correct about Britain/British, I have reverted the edit prior to yours something I have had to do several times before (others' edits). Snooker players are "categorised" by their country of origin, not nationality (which is complicated in Britain and Ireland!). For instance, see "Steve Davis", who is listed as English, not British. All the best, bigpad 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jeff300. Thanks for your note. Please see my reply on my talk page. Rfrisbie^talk 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you mind explaining the reversion of my update on this article? Thanks. //Heimvennar 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have read the page and I do have sources, I forgot to put them in. Though the link already there contains much of the information in the text. I understand that the quotes shouldn't be there. I'll update it with sources cited and the quotes removed. Heimvennar 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do use them, just not always. Sometimes I believe my edits speak for themselves. Zazaban 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link for criscreamer logo website, but does that really prove the logo was used all the way back to 1917? I am not interested in started a debate about it, but it seems a little hard to believe that they used the same logo from 1917 to 2005. I guess I would prefer something from the league itself showing it was used way back then Smith03 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On his forum page [4] they have had a discussion about the NFL changing its logo and referrence the NHL. People have pointed out at least two other logos for the NHL and put the start date for the black and orange logo at around 1950. Smith03 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply I am curious did you look through the discussion they have pics of other logos (a red and white one and red white and blue). Anyway I am just trying to point out that people who use that website criscreamer for which you site the source cast doubt on the fact the logo dates back to 1917. I am not sure why logo sites that are created by fans are considered reliable sources. I just think a better source whould be the NHL or hockey hall of fame. I don't think wikipedia should put forth something as a fact when the evidence for it is imo shakey regards Smith03 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence besides some on that website saying it was used from 1917-2005 is there? If I created a logo website and put it as from 1961 to 2005 would that make it so? Does he provide evidence that it dates back to 1917?Smith03 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again samething with the second site, again outside of taking they're word for it how do we know they are are right. What is your opinion on the 2 logos in the forum discussion think they were made up?Smith03 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5] is game ticket for SB2 look at the NFL there are no red lines yet the game was played in 1968. According to cc website [6] the nfl only used a logo in the 1960s with red lines. My point is the site has errors it a nice site but it has errors Smith03 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that picture of the ticket was bit small perhaps this is better it is the game program for sB 3 played in Jan 1969[7]. My point is that you can not assume just because the person who creates a website is always correct. People should always look for primary sources for information regards Smith03 20:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link perhaps I should have used the term "period sources" for logos Smith03 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:17 (UTC)

The yellow means ones that are planned. Sure I'll add the legend to the main page. Zazaban 04:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked all over for the root template being used on the Articles (and Categories, etc.) for Discussion talk pages. I can't seem to find where it's explained. They are the ones that start {{{3|'''Delete''' ... }}}. Can you point me to how and when this is used. I noted some people using this at the beginning of a list of consensus votes, but often other comments were following a bullet (•). I saw everyone following your lead in the deletion recommendation for Baha'i prophets. - Parsa 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, it makes sense it is part one of the steps of the deletion process. I'd only started reading that page recently. - Parsa 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Java7837 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go for an NPOV then. Meanwhile, if actually blocked, I will continue to register under different usernames from different IPs until I find someone who disputes what I have on the talk page, and with all due respect, not a garden variety editor who

a. didn't even bother to read the first and last paragraphs b. didn't bother to read the sources c. and is unfamiliar with the context.

Noticing the recent exchange about subcategories and multiple category listings, I wonder about categories like: | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles lacking sources from January 2007 | All articles lacking sources | appearing presumably as part of some massive cleanup scheme. Does one of each imply the other (since Jan 2007 vs all for both unsourced statements and lacking sources). Is this worth kicking upstairs?--Smkolins 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material I removed was subjective and unsubstantiated. Thanks67.165.42.21 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though 'mankind' and 'chairman' have been championed as non-sexist, as their etymological derivation may not be from the masculine 'man' and instead from the root of 'to guide', their perpetuation unchecked ~ when there are other appropriate semantic choices in the lexicon ~ is demonstrably untenable. [Sic] also conveys conceptual impropriety and inappropriate language use which is the intention with which this convention has been placed in this article. Your understanding of the convention is decidedly ill-informed.

The Bahá'í Community will honour the intention with which [sic] has been employed in this article as they champion Unity and the manifestations, methodologies and mechanisms of Unity, such as mindful language use.

Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attribution and projection of belief on to me is inherently fallacious and offensive. I don't believe, I know. Your assertion that this is my POV = (point of view) is flawed. The manner in which I have employed the seal of [sic] is reputable, rarified, legitimate and scholarly. If you revert once more I will report you.

In Beauty it is done.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to report this issue. If anything, it highlights the importance of the Wikipedia definition of [sic] to reflect all usages.

Blessings

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yours in patience and persistence

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually only changed it once, and I had changed it to Kanada (with a d, not a t). I also never changed it in the Talk Pages, just on the main article. I'm sorry, but I never saw that on the Talk page, since I searched for Kanada, not Kanata. Also, Cartier originally wrote "Canada", because that is how he thought it was spelt. He never knew that it started with a K, not a C. My source for this is the textbook "Canada Revisited", by Penny Clark and Roberta McKay. Thanks, Speedboxer 06:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought to mention "Mr roces" did an edit removing a picture stating "(I erased a wrong picture. Buddhism is not a religion in the Philippines.)" as the reason which just seems... at least weird. See Buddhism in the Philippines. But there is a comment on the talk page from an anonymous user Talk:Religion#demographics claiming (I think) the same picture is wrong about the Philippines somehow. I don't know enough about the situation to note if this is legitimate. I'd comment on it on the talk page but the demographics comment is fairly old. Perhaps you know someone to mention this to?--Smkolins 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jeff3000/Archive05 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note you made in the Edit Summary for this page (“Disambiguate British to United Kingdom using popups”):

• I think that’s a recommendation but I don’t understand - sorry. The link I made was to the relevant disambiguation of “British” (ie recent British political history). However if a user clicks on “British” and gets “United Kingdom” I can see they may be surprised or confused. You’ve done work on disambiguating “British” so you’ll be thoroughly familiar with the difficulties of that very ambiguous term. I’ve looked at popups and see how they work for me. Is there something I can do with them that would help other people?
• On the matter of citing sources, is there a specific concern? I should be able to find contemporary newspaper reports of the early days of the orchestra to cite. The claim of “one of the oldest” is more difficult.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia so my apologies if I have overlooked the obvious.

Brother Francis 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff: Regarding the Thornton Chase article, I was aware that I was releasing it into a common domain where anyone can edit it, and that I no longer "own" it. Actually, it is not the same as the article on my website; I edited it a fair amount, shortened some sentences, added detail to others, and added citations.

I'm gradually learning how to use Wikipedia and I guess this is the best way to reply to a message on my discussion page; put a reply on your page.

I've been gradually looking at various Baha'i articles and I see lots of little things that could be fixed. The Baha'i statistics article, in particular, has various things that I think I can clarify. So I guess I will plunge in, article by article.

RHStockman 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know anything at all about this... but User:ChrisO is very good at sorting this kind of thing out. Jkelly 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff, please see my response here. Thanks, --Rayis 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and for what it's worth, you've done a great job making the Newroz article NPOV :) --Rayis 19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a guideline. Moreover the blog isn't being sighted by as a source of information, but rather as a source of links and articles related to the topic. And why are we doing this on talk pages and not the article's talk page? jbolden1517^Talk 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to thanks you for your tireless efforts in improving the article. Is it possible to move the Shahnama version of the myth after the Kurdish version? My rationale is that the current article deals with the Kurdish side of the legend, hence it would be better to mention the Kurdish version (from Kurdish Institute of Paris) at the beginning and then compare it with the Shahnama/Persian version. As you may have noticed, in the Kurdish legend Dehak may have been Persian/Assyrian, while the Persian version considers him as an Arab. So it would be somehow misleading and confusing to mention the Persian story right at the beginning. I assume people who read this article would like to familiarize themselves with the Kurdish myth. Thanks.Heja Helweda 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the point. Thanks.Heja Helweda 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way, and the article has been deleted, this has reared its head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I am not (an admin), nor are a number of the participants (including the first two and the article originator). Please feel free to weigh in if you're comfortable. Thanks again! Corticopia 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no need to merge them any longer, but the Norouz article needs a lot of work such as in line referencing and citations, general clean up, etc and then also the Kurdish section may need a better summary, I will work on it when I have time --Rayis 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Happy No/Na/New/Naw Rooz :) have you seen this? I had the impression that the mediation wasn't about this, and we had already sorted things out --Rayis 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Respected Jeff3000 iam reposting my argument for support which i put up in the discussion of the Norouz page since iam most interested in your reply

• Support The very same was argued last year and the conclusion is with clear intention

being ignored by non relevant facts about how an ancient Iranian festival has come to attain political significance for a section of Kurds who has decided to exploit their Iranian identity in countries which oppose it

But to some again association with the same Iranian identity would not serve the greater political agenda of fabricatiing an exclusive parallel history

hence the desire to paint it all new

what exactly does it prove to bring line from an source stating that for kurds in Australia and Finland Norouz is important? what ofcourse they are an Iranian people

Norouz is also important for afghanis living in australia and Finland

Ok Barzani and PKK decided to launch some major move on Norouz! so bloody what even Khamenei the leader of the IR of Iran has to appear on TV every bloody Norouz to greet the nation because its Iran after all and Norouz is the pillar of Iranian Identity

So some western commentator grasped some shiity grain of understanding about some political struggle when he saw them during their new year gathering ......soooooooooooooooo what ????

Its like a dude from asia who has never heard of christmas or Easter travelling to Basque or Kosovo and commenting on how he understood of these people trough their celebration christmas

Its the same and all the more beautiful that some Kurds in turkey should choose at least once a year to engage in their Iranian identity which hurts some wiki editors who dont even know or care to know if in Tajikestan and Azarbaijan it too is a festival and that there too they incorporate fire

but distinct dogmatic editing is not even concerned???--129.241.91.138 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've created a new page for the Baha'i new year, Bahá'í Naw-Rúz. I was wondering if you think it is appropriate to change the link on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 21. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jeff3000. Good job with the article. The link is now on the SA template. Thank you for the suggestion. --PFHLai 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, and happy new year! It's both Kurdish legends and Shahanameh that describe those freed children as ancestors of Kurds. (this story even predates Ferdowsi). Thanks. Asoyrun 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I've done it long ago! the same reference provided in front of that senctence is by itself Shahnameh!Asoyrun 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link I had provided was not a weak source as it was a primary source, and was a short translation directly from Shahnameh, a non-Kurdish source. Anyways no problem I'll provide you one more source:

Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish notables and the Ottoman State, 2004, SUNY Press, 186 pp. 30. ISBN 0791459934 (see page 30) he mentions both Shahnameh and sharafnamehs mention of freed children as ancestors of Kurds. furthermore he mentions a Muslim scholar (Masudi) who has mentioned this story before Ferdowsi and has said it is a legend of Kurdish origin. (Maybe we need mention Masudi too?)

Moreover please note that the extremly weak link you refered to is written by an Iraqi nationalist politician, he is a representaive of Iraqi government in Tokyo! an Iraqi politician in no way can be regarded as neutral towards Kurds as they have had a long history of mutual animosity. Thanks. Asoyrun 15:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me my friend. I said read page 30. It explicitly talks about Ferdowsi's Zahak and Kurds.

Sharafnama is different than Shahnama. Shahnama is Iranian national epic. Sharafnama is a history book about Kurds. that's why it is used for studying Kurdish history, BUT the story of Kurds and Zahhak is mentioned in shahnama. If you dont believeme let's ask user Ali Doostzadeh. He has good information about this. Asoyrun 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. Asoyrun 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion. Lets keep the discussion on the talk page.. --alidoostzadeh 01:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there has been some forwarding of, and discussion which page should have priority - can you suggest how to re-arrange so that meteor is the main page and meteoroid is redirected? the other main contributor have agreed to try the other way but I'm not sure of the best method (copy out all meteoroid content, then set redirect, then set contents of meteor and amend to lead with main header, and save]??--Smkolins 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

look immediately above your comment on my talk page.--Smkolins 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, see User_talk:Smkolins#Meteor if I got this right--Smkolins 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually with you on this now, I do believe the coats of arms should be removed. However, for a decision to stick, we need to get a properly-advertised poll, so that it can be pointed to to support the removal, since the convention is fairly well-established in country articles. There's no need to rush the removal. Lexicon (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you quote from WikiProject Countries refers to article layout, not infobox layout. It is obvious that infoboxes are supposed to be as standardized as possible—that's the whole reason we have them in the first place (and they're getting more standard every day, with, for instance, country-specific city infoboxes being subsumed into a general worldwide city infobox). As for your comment about Canada being a featured article, I'm not sure I follow—an article could be considered the best on Wikipedia, but if it has something wrong with it, it has to be fixed, regardless of the view of the majority of editors who might be editing that article. Now, granted, this isn't a very serious issue, but compliance with general country guidelines should be taken into consideration nonetheless. That said, there obviously isn't a guideline floating around dealing with this issue, and there probably should be, or else someone else is going to come by and try to add Ottawa's coat of arms to Canada. Lexicon (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been clearing my talk page and I wanted to say that your comments about being to the point and not contributing in discussion have come back on me resulting in a note on the matter here. Do you still hold this point? Or do you feel that you would like to change those words. Let me see. You are to the point and would say no. Very pointed. I think subtle lateral thinking is also important. RoddyYoung 12:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you removed the new section, "Medicine," in the History of Canada article (the section had a link to the main article, a stub: "History of medicine in Canada"). Just wondering -- why did you remove the section and internal link? Looking forward to hearing from you. Smobri 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It's me again (the featured countries man). China's off the list and Japan is on. Could you please unshade China and shade Japan please?

Thank you

Image:Featuredcountries.png

Jaw101ie 11:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted my reverts. Love that sentence. Anyways, I thought he had vandalized the page. Those other edits were there for so long and no one changed them, I just assumed (not a good idea, I know) that they were right. Thanks for catching it. Orangemarlin 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff, on my computer both, IE and Firefox, display the script correctly as right-to-left. I guess I've seen Arabic letters being separated (not adjoined) on other computers, but never have I seen the script written left-to-right. I honestly don't know of any particular way to solve this. On my computer, I have installed the Arabic language (part of the East Asian languages) and set it as the default language for the non-Unicode languages, all in the regional and language settings in the control panel, and everything is fine. Regards, Anas ^talk? 12:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would you care to weigh in on this proposed move? There's been a lot of discussion, and I apologise in advance for prolixity. :) Merci! Corticopia 12:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#The Benevolence Fund. Anthony Appleyard 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've submitted the English-Speaking Quebecer article for peer review. Please link here through talk page. --Soulscanner 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An editor named Esmehwp (talk · contribs) removed references to the Bahá'í Faith, deeming it "insignificant". I have no intention of edit warring over this, so I guess you could say I'm passing the buck. I would like to clarify for myself and others whether it is significant in general or not.JuJube 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much mentioned in the article but for example of the relevance of the Bahá'í view on the issue see it's involvement in attempts to reform the UN Turning Point where Baha'is participate the practical issues of the day. This is to say that the Baha'is are not just a tiny religion with some views - we are well involved with the issues of society and actively engaging in programs of effort and assistance based on our religion's scriptures and values.--Smkolins 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my bad. Lexicon was not the one I was trying to revert. Looking at the timestamps, I think I see what happened. WilyD 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance on editing this article. I think that the main picture needs to be changed, since it is not as clear and high-quality as many free-use images available online.

I have found a few images online from the Baha'i Media Bank website and also have several recent images of my own. Let me know if I can submit a few of each of these for review, since I'm not sure what may or may not be considered encyclopaedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melodrama (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just a friendly comment that, if you're going to disambiguate British it should be to Great Britain not United Kingdom - they aren't the same thing. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you often edit Ijtihad. Is it standard practice to exclude al-harakat in a page's introduction where the word is in bold? I ask because on the Ijtihad page the kasra is missing. Perspicacite 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NYG invite

"But the source said" is no argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BroxiRangersFan (talk • contribs).

Sources is how Wikipedia works. Please read verifiability. You should also read neutral point of view. It is not Wikipedia's place to determine what is right or wrong, but to document things from verifiable reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that wikipedia works with sources, but if the sources are incorrect, then wikipedia becomes weaker as an encyclopedia.

Hi Jeff. Liked your edit from what I started with below

In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, written by Baha'u'llah, it states that sex before marriage is strictly prohibited and a fine is proscribed that is payable by both male and female who transgress this law. The fine rises geometrically with each subsequent offence by doubling and starts off at 1.06 troy ounces of gold. Fine payment is to be used, in expenditure, for public humiliation in the media of both parties to the offence. This law is on the books and has not yet been enacted by the Universal House of Justice(UHJ). Removal of voting rights is presently a consequence and includes - restriction in attendance at some regular Baha'i gatherings, restriction from giving money to the funds, restriction from going on pilgramage and restriction from having a Baha'i marriage - all these rights are suspended, with loss of voting rights, when it is confirmed by the National Spiritual Assembly that the letter and spirit of this law is broken. Marriage has been made harder with the need to get written parental consent from all four biological parents and the payment of a dowary from the male to the wife of 2.22 ounces of gold depending on the male's permanant residence being in the city and if residence is in the country the amount of dowry is 2.22 ounces of silver (approximately a 3200% difference in value at 2007 prices and exchange rates). Without gaining this consent no sex outside marraige will take place with out attracting a fine and or senture. The role of abstanance is in place for all young people and those not married. Marriage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is between a male and a female. Effectively this limits homosexual sex to attract a fine for each offence that is confirmed. The same tensions, resulting from abstanace from sex that hetrosexual individuals feel, is applied to all non married individuals. The consequences of this law are the same and peer support and senture, with fines, results in rapid adherance to the laws. The time and place for the enactment of these provisions 'zena' as it is termed are for the UHJ to decide. With in marriage sex is seen as the rightful place and has the purpose of bringing "forth one who will make mention of God", a child. Baha'i law states that only one partner under marriage is permissable and that divorce requires a year of waiting without sex with the wife and not living under the same roof. This process is monitored by the Local Spiritual Assembly. RoddyYoung 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion page. I also took your advice and am moving the provinces section as suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. I was not aware of this template. I still think a map and brief explanation of the importance of provinces in Canada lends needed context to both the history and politics section. I think it's worth considering an exception in the case of Canada. --Soulscanner 03:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 02:47, 13 June 2007 Jeff3000 (Talk | contribs) (47,935 bytes) (part rever, the scientific method does not gain knowledge of the "falsification of experiments")

Was this:"The scientific method gains knowledge by testing hypotheses to develop theories through elucidation of facts or falsification by experiments"

the text read falsification by experiments, but even a search using your quoted term will illustrate the vallidity of the usage. http://www.google.com/search?q=falsification+of+experiments&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Hardyplants 06:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. I am perplexed why you cling to a vagary of an introduction, and please do not evoke that it is a featured article or a consensus supports you, because things change. Otherwise, we can all pack it in. Corticopia 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will hereafter comment on the Canada talk page. Corticopia 03:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking you for 24 hours for edit warring at Canada. Three reverts in seventeen minutes like that is never acceptable: you should be giving rationales for content reverts, and discussing it on the talk page. Furthermore, counting reverts like this smells strongly of trying to win the battle of attrition by getting the other to step over the line into 3RR first. Well, if you read WP:3RR more closely, you'll see that it is edit warring itself that is prohibited, and 3RR is a tool to measure it, but "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Please use dispute resolution in the future. Dmcdevit·t 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Jeff3000, I remembered when I was 3RRed by you a long time back. The whole thing was very tramatic for me but I learned much from the experience where I talked about youtube and the Bahai faith. In fact I came here today to say that it is almost futile for me to edit the Baha'i content with you as overlord and so I just decided to come here and discuss matters with you direct and do so in future about what I think should happen on the page. Well now I find that you have been 3RRed and I remember the concensus arguments that I was given when a small group of people banded together behind you to 3RR me on that occasion long ago. Well I must say here that I have to rethink my stategy now and perhaps look again to see if you really are the Alpha Male of the Baha'i page and why should I not shy away like I have been doing and instead put my toes back in the water again. I like the work you do in wikipedia and I want to encourage you to continue. Roddy Young RoddyYoung 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeff3000 for your comments and reply. Unfortunate you say but sobering none the less as the might of wikipedia humbles all who edit in the pages. I give it to you that I do not know all the policies as well as others and i do endeaver to learn about them as I come across them, usually pointed out by others, in my postings. A note on original thought that I think is important when editing Baha'i and that only the UHJ has the ultimate say on interpretation. Much has still to be addressed in this regards. Bringing out the germain points in an article is about understanding the text. Opinions may differ but wikipedia provides a place of agreed fact and knowledge. It is a work in progress. I am 37 years old and if I live to 93 as my paternal grandmother did then I feel that I will be editing wikipedia without you at that stage and so I need to learn as much from you in the mean time and others besides so that I can keep up the high standards. Others may come along who are younger than us both and surpass us in memory, perception and intelegence and we have to be mindful of that.RoddyYoung 19:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]