User talk:Jeff3000/Archive03

Courtesy, good faith, and other such things

I've commented on the issue. I'd say that I'm probably too involved to do anything more substantial than finger-wagging here, though; if you wish to escalate the issue, it would probably be best to find yet another admin.

(I'm not enough of a copyright expert to judge whether reproducing the Google logo in colored text is problematic. It's probably not a copyright violation per se, but there may be trademark issues involved. Perhaps one of the legal people around could be asked to comment on the issue.) Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I can't stand would-be page owners. Always a pleasure to help stop them. Kasreyn 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hey Nfitz,

Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg is about to be deleted, can you please add where you got the photo from? Thanks -- Jeff3000 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I'm not clear, nor can I find information, on how one is supposed to source an image. Given that that the photograph is clearly well over 100 years old, and obviously outside of copyright, I marked it as such originally, and thought that would suffice. Can you point me towards information on how source data should be presented? Nfitz 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the PD tag is almost enough; I think all they now need is where it originally came from; did you get it from a particular website? did you scan it from a book? Just write that information over the current nosource tag, and I think it should be enough. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm noting that Wikipedia:Image use policy is far clearer and more explicit than when I originally uploaded that image. I'll see if I can follow the current guideline. Odd though that the original person who tagged it, didn't bother to contact me. Thanks, Nfitz 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image 2

Hi Jeff, is there any reason why you want the picture of the Universal House of Justice on the top of the Bahai article? I think the teachings about God and His Manifestations which are reflected in the ring symbol are much more important to Bahais than the House of Justice. The article is about faith not administration. Greeting from Germany --Mipago 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Hello,

Could you please update this image, Image:Featuredcountries.png, I don't know how. Libya's been added to the featured countries list. I'm really excited but I'd love to see it on the map to believe it.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 02:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!

Award of a Barnstar

		Barnstar of Patience
		Awarded to Jeff3000 for his patience and thoughtfulness in his editing of articles concerning religion. Addhoc

Mac/Jose

No lack of response. Didn't get around to, that's all. Don't assume. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farrukh Ahmed

Hi Jeff, I noticed that you added the unreferenced tag to his article again. As I noted clearly in my edit summary, the article provides Banglapedia as a reference. Banglapedia is a print encyclopedia financed by the Government of Bangladesh and published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, a well known scholarly society. I assume you confused it with a wikipedia mirror, which it isn't definitely, and certainly a valid, reputable source. Let me know if you have any further enquiries. Thank you. --Ragib 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey Jeff, I am going to be taking the Tahirih Justice Center for a featured nomination in a few days after it finishes its peer review. Would you support this article for FA do you think? Is it good enough, and if not, what would you suggest be done to improve it? Thanks for your help!UberCryxic 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot man. I realize this is sort of spur of the moment, but I saw you make some edits and at this point I need feedback from pretty much anyone I can get it from.UberCryxic 04:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff, thanks for your help. I am going to start on those issues right away. I do think it is problematic that some/many of the sources come from the organization itself, but the problem is that it was often the only place where I could find certain information I needed (particularly for the Growth section). I will attempt to add more information about the work Tahirih does with those issues, but I'm not really sure how much more I can put in without getting bogged down from too much organizational material. That section was intended more to explain to people some of the things Tahirih deals with anyway. But I'll see what I can do.UberCryxic 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo also forgot to mention one key point: most of the references are not from TJC. Only 17 out of the 43 references are from TJC. That's still a lot, and I'll try to mitigate it, but I just wanted to clarify.UberCryxic 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All-right, I'll try to find some third-party references for those goals (I believe all numbers have been cited). Citations can and often do go at the end of paragraphs (lots of history books are written this way, for example, to make it easier on the reader). Some other FAs I've written or worked on do this as well.UberCryxic 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, the Military history of France, which I wrote, nominated, and passed in March of this year, uses that style in a number of places, and I believe cite.php had already been introduced. I think almost no one brought it up as an issue in the review.UberCryxic 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man nice reorganization of the sources. This article wouldn't be going anywhere without you haha! Good job.UberCryxic 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff, everything has now been referenced. Do you mind giving it a final copyedit before I nominate it for FA?UberCryxic 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff, can you do that whole speedy delete thing? I'm not sure how to do it.UberCryxic 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and sorry to ask you to do this, but I've never uploaded anything on Wikipedia before (always on Commons), and I'm not sure how to license what and what code to put in and stuff. So could you do that also? Basically, do everything Jeff! Haha just kidding, but I don't want to screw up whatever it is that we have to do. One other thing: right now I can't log on in Commons so I can't yet delete that pic, but I'm trying. In the meantime, I'll work on improving the article.UberCryxic 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K I replaced the images but I still can't log into Commons.UberCryxic 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's on FAC now. *Crosses fingers* By the way, thank you so much for all the work that you've done. I know I've said thank you a million times, but you deserve it. You pressed me hard to make a lot of changes to the article (maybe changes I otherwise would not have made), and the article is better for it.UberCryxic 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna

Many thanks for documenting the Bahá'í view for the "Krishna" article. Much appreciated. --O Govinda 04:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basque linking

I've noticed your work on disambiguating the Basque Country. 99% of the links originally pointed to the 'historical territory' larger entity which was at this link but subsequently moved, but I think most of your changes are appropriate. Unfortunately there is no Hegoalde page, which I think would have been better for some, however. For instance, of the many Basques who emigrated to Argentina, a large proportion came from Navarre (including my great grandparents who identified as Basque). So 'autonomous community' is less accurate in this case than 'historical territory', and the most accurate of all would be Hegoalde or 'Basque Country a.c. and Navarre'. This applies to a few others too.

This is a difficult piece of work and I admire your bravery! Martín (saying/doing) 09:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alláh-u-abhá and peace

See you around! I'll be away ... and really cool that you're also interested in the Basque country; do you have relations there or anything? Or is it a random interest? I'll read the response when I get back from Summer School. Alláh-u-abhá. Iainsona 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassette

Hi there,

In response to the change/change-back/change-again of "cassette", I should have made myself clear the first time. The term "cassette" does not necessarily have to refer to one that contains electronics or electronic media; for example, a "film cassette" or "paper cassette". The term "cassette" itself just means "little box" in French.

Actually, having thought about it now, I'm not really convinced that there is a clear distinction between "cassette" and "cartridge"; I've seen enough usage of both (and not enough counter-evidence) to believe that the terms are almost synonymous in modern English.

Fourohfour 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube contributions

"Baha'i content has made its way on to www.youtube.com website. With over 100 million video downloads each day and 20 million users per month on Youtube this website is a growing forum for Baha'i Holy Day commemorations and other Baha'i content in audio visual material. The earliest video upload was added September 25, 2005, "Baha'i wedding". The next oldest video upload was added October 20, 2005, "Aniversário do Bab / Bab's Birthday". As of 21 August 2006 there is 113 video uploads that have the tags "Baha'i" that is picked up in a Youtube search. Aniversário do Bab / Bab's Birthday has 158 views in 10 months and Baha'i wedding has 1,185 views."

Jeff this is good content and in the correct location. If my facts are correct, and this is true then you need to be know the subject before you cut. What is your you tube experience? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoddyYoung (talk • contribs) .

Jeff, what happened in the first 165 year of Islam, 1400 year ago, is with us to day in the Holy book of Islamic tradition. Technology saw an oral tradition written into history. Christianity was the same resistance then to writting down what was happening is now forgotten. Youtube is a technical leap that defines today. Internet lets "every eye shall see". You tube first upload of a video was 23 April 2005. Baha'i content came 5 months latter. But in the next 877 years till then next manifestation of God we will use Youtube and the like as the 'Nible's narrative' of this age. Would you say that the Dawn Breakers has a place. It is not holy text but it has the insight into the Heroic age. Consider our clash of differing opinions as a present day conference of Badash. You are 'cutting the youtube throat' as I 'rent asunder the veil' that as obscured Mass conversion. If youtube want come to wikipedia then wikipedia will go to youtube. With love, Roddy Young from New Zealand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoddyYoung (talk • contribs) .

Thanks!

Hey Jeff, thanks a lot man! You were absolutely phenomenal in helping me with that article. Hopefully our paths will cross again for another fruitful project.UberCryxic 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From one Jeff to another...

...your popups happened to improperly disambig 3-dimensional over at The Wright 3. No big deal, I reverted, but just figured i'd let you know in case of a glitch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe dimensions? Not too sure, it's probably not something easy to find a consistent one for given the options. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind remark

Thank you for the kind remark that you just put onto my user talk discussion page. I am comforted that you do not seem irritated with me from our previous encounters (I think we have run into each other on a couple of Bahai and other religion-related pages and the Norouz page before — you appear to be extremely active). I just added some possibly-bold further new edits to major world religions. I hope they do not lower your opinion of my efforts. —Wookipedian 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the further remark. Yes, I suppose that I am a little bit lazy about digging up references sometimes. My editing technique seems to consist most of just reading something carefully, which inevitably seems to result in an urge to correct what I perceive to be its shortcomings. I feel like the new edits that I just did were for such obvious reasons that they didn't need to be cited, but I recognize that I'm somewhat of an amateur and that reading other works and citing them would really be a better way to proceed. (Or perhaps I should just be doing something entirely different with my time... my wiki edit sessions are really mostly hurried compulsive moments stolen from what I actually should be doing.) —Wookipedian 05:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes

Jeff,

On the contrary, I am correcting the user boxes to more accurately depict the team colors. For example, the Ottawa Senators previous box used brown. I see you like your NY Giants box better than mine, but mine is more accurate as it uses the current royal blue of the jerseys whereas yours uses the old navy blue from a couple years ago. The Giants no longer use navy blue.

KnoxSGT 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on the team's pages, you'll see the colors I chose are the ones in the heading that correspond to the team's primary logos. Usually I just copy the color from the team's main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KnoxSGT (talk • contribs) .

It is shameful that just because you're an admin that your opinion should have weight on what is created on this site. User boxes are based on fact such as articles. If you and I were discussing the factual content of an article that I added info to, I could see the point. However, this is just nonsense. In your OPINION they are ugly. In my opinion, the vast majority of these boxes were subpar. A lot of these boxes had colors that were not even close to the team colors. Some used colors that were no longer in use. The NY Rangers never even use their navy blue alts anymore, therefore the box should be the royal blue of their home jersey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KnoxSGT (talk • contribs) .

I have added a comment to the main box discussion page as you requested. I understand that you wish the NY Giants and some of the others to have your ideal design, so I will leave those alone. MON is the correct abbreviation for Montreal, not MTL. This is what ESPN uses. I am glad we both agreed that the Ottawa Senators was messed up and now has black trim. Explain how you think the creations I have designed are ugly, as they are the teams' colors. I use the primary color as the main background, the secondary for the smaller box on the left, and the tetriary color as the border or to highlight the team's name or the city abbreviation. I am not trying to be a jerk, but explain yourself. --KnoxSGT 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a message and I have no idea what you are referring to

Maybe you could let me know. NLOleson 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canucks box

How can you talk about jersey proportion colors if the Canucks box contains colors not even used by the team. They're not even close to the historical colors either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KnoxSGT (talk • contribs) .

Clown Roddy

Hi Jeff, I think it's time to report the 3RR violation. --Mipago 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadiens box

I get the point. I just wanted to see proof. Thanks. KnoxSGT 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work disambiguating links Dina 18:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice touch ...

... on "Canada." Sfahey 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Before You Die images

You're mentioned here. What do we know about these images? Jkelly 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they're clear that about commercial and derivative use. It isn't obvious from the email that they don't mean "Wikipedia only" use. If they are really freely licensed, however, that's great. A shame that they all need editing. Jkelly 22:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to be completely clear about this. You can see Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission for some example letters. We'd be better off not having them than having this website get upset with us when the images turn up on a CD or all over the web with no watermark. They will, of course, get whatever attribution that they would like on the image description page on our website. Jkelly 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basque

Sorry for the louse-up in the link. Thank you for fixing it. Jeffmatt 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defender

Thanks mate, I'm kind of rookie on Wikipedia but I'm doing my best..

Just don't put some Bahai spell on me.. :) Just joking, it's the first time I heard about that religion.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cro ed (talk • contribs) .

Re:Persian

Regarding [1], wich edit are you talking about? Thanks. --Ragib 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZANDWEB - link to Persian

Thank you for attention!

zandweb 22:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Persian

Which edit are you talking about? Your slightly brash comment left me wondering. --Bobak 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, a person can be both --many are in my profession. It's all about diction when there's no vocal tone to wrap words. Good luck with your disambiguation mission, I can imagine how many edits you need to go through. --Bobak 16:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... I just realized your edit to Arash's article was incorrect. You disambiguated Persian to "Iran"? C'mon now... born outside of Iran = Persian people, thank you. --Bobak 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Persian person, I find your comment insulting. Please do not tell us we are somehow automatically Iranian, we are not. Persians make up less than 60% of Iran. Like myself, Markazi was not born in Iran. Thank you. --Bobak 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're as experience with Wikipedia as most, so I need not refer to the rampant bias and agenda that hinders many ethnically related articles (Armenian, Azeri, Persian, etc...) in addition to everything that gets all these articles locked. Thus its hard to seriouisly cite Wikipedia as an authority for telling a person what to view themselves. Anyway, good luck with your disambig work --we need more hard workers. --Bobak 00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adopt a 'shroom

Jeff,

Tks for the good words. If you are a veteran dab page link repair(er), then Wikipedia:Adopting disambiguation pages could use some TLC. I am not certain what to do with it. Tks again, --Ling.Nut 22:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian link

didnt know how to make that link, hence, i didnt do it. sorry. Sohrab Irani 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choice wine

Your work on the discussion page, 29 July 2006, on the choice wine matter, is very very good. It reads so well and it makes the point of the position over and over a gain, like a bell ringing. We here in New Zealand are at the tail end of a drinking age being lowered from 20 to 18 and the teen drunks have just increased. Even 9,10 and 11 year olds are ending up in hospital. Thank you for packaging God's word in an elequent way. RoddyYoung 10:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We would like your input please

Hey, on the Major Religious Groups article, we've had a bit of a problem resolving the list of Christian denominations. Wookipedian has made a few comments, I have too, and we would like your experience and outsiders view on the article. We'd appreciate it. Pahoran513 01:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian

Thanks for reminding me that. I forgot to check the link. Cheers. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to Rolls Royce

Sorry about that Jeff - schoolboy error on my part. --Oscarthecat 08:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to Persian

Hi Jeff, Thanks for the advice on not linking to the above disambiguation page and the correct way to do it. I can't remember linking to this, but I have been adding quite a bit lately, so I am sure I may have done this – Sorry!! Many thanks again, point taken – I hope I will remember to check all my links in future. Keep up the good work! Kind regards, brother. --Hari Singh 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I had not actually bothered to check what was in Persian. — Ravikiran 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I had a message from you not to link to the Persia page, because it is a disambig page (which works like a table of contents), but I politely disagreed. Why can no one can link to 'Persia' or "Persian'? Just because it is a disambig pages does not mean it is useless as a reference, the opposite, it is very useful. I think on the articles I am working with (the orphans) they use the word Persia in a way that people just want to be referred to a general list of Persian topics to pick from, and not have me hand-pick the articles for them. Goldenrowley 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jeff now I see the disamb. policy is to avoid the linkage... thanks for the help. Going forward, I think I will send most of the orphan articles to "Persian Empire" instead of "Persian" , etc. ... Thanks!

I didn't notice it, too. Thanks for the advice, Jeff.--Sokrat3000 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

i didn't know I couldn't do that.... Zazaban 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page link

Hey thanks for the link help, but unfortunatly I already knew that. I am just extremely lazy and never bothered to check that link. I'm not really sure what article you are talking about, but I'd guess it's one of the game engines. Thanks for the head's up, and I'll work on it for the future.--Clyde Miller 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O yeah, that one. Good times. Yeah I pretty much suck with linking stuff. This one Bláthnaid guy fixed a few on my main project (Empires: Dawn of the Modern World). Feel free to bash me if I ever do it again. --Clyde Miller 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Rolls-Royce

Thanks for your information - have noted for future MilborneOne 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You came to my talk page to tell me to not link to a disambiguation page, but since the link was about a Rolls-Royce car, and not about the company, there was no more appropriate link. —Fitch 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding George Habash picture

Regarding the picture of George Habash the site is not Persian it is in Arabic, I was told by a person who could speak the language that the copyright holder realeses the photo only for educational non profit purposes (i.e Wikipedia).

Big thanks

Hey thank you for your help at Tahirih Justice Center! That individual is a major POV-pusher and I'm glad you are there to explain the details of Wikipedia to him better than I have so far. Again, big thanks!UberCryxic 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Athletics (track and field)

Hi Jeff,

...you commented on Talk:Athletics regarding the movement of that page, and so I was hoping you could help with the large amount of disambiguation that is now needed because of the move...

Yes, I'd be happy to; I hadn't realised the move would cause a lot of disruption. Right now I'm about to take a pause from computer work; when I return, I have a few other messages to attend to and some articles to move into the encyclopedia proper, but thereafter I'll be on the case. Hope that's okay, David Kernow 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chiseling away at it; I've done a few hundred so far. --Usgnus 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to Rolls Royce

I think you got the wrong dude. Can't remember ever linking ro Rolls Royce.--Sloane 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah there, well thanks for correcting me. --Sloane 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I must confess I am bad at checking what links I introduce actually go to the intended article. I will try not to be so lazy in future ;-) Blood red sandman 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning

I would like to discuss with the administator the facts around the delete of the Chile House of Worship material and ask for a reverse ban on a well meaning person who did it but a person who missed the point and crossed the centre line of the road and had a head on crash with a fully loaded 18 wheel truck. The small car is calling to the administrator to have all trucks banned from the road. The administrator may find that the car crossed over to the wrong side of the road in a delete move that was illegal. Sorry but if I have to take a banishment for my stand than I am in good company as we see from the central figures in the main Baha'i page having to endure to get social, political and religious change. I am just a humble servant of the Manifestations of God and following and I am happy to face the sanctions of this world so that I do not get retarded in the next. Place me under house arrest as soon as you like but this will not stop the emancipation of the regular communication means of the internet "Look at me, follow me, be as I am, Abdul-baha" RoddyYoung 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator here. I am afraid that I cannot make sense of your request, however. From what I do understand, I am concerned that you might not understand what Wikipedia is. If your purpose here is anything but creating a freely reusable encyclopedia, you are going to continuously find yourself frustrated. If you would like to advocate for Chile House of Worship, or whatever your particular cause is, you would be much better served investing that time in a different venue. I want to be very clear that my suggestion is not about whether or not you have broken any of our rules or not, but entirely that trying to bend Wikipedia articles to a different purpose has been repeatedly shown to be a large waste of time. If you have contributions to make to our Chile House of Worship material, please seek advice from other editors on how to best do that within the parameters of what Wikipedia is and is not. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been resolved? Jkelly 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation

HI Jeff3000,

I saw your note on disambiguating a dab page with a hefty 'shroom count (think it was Athletics). How did you know that many people worked on that? Perhaps I'm missing some obvious statistics somewhere.....? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 12:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS-AR

Hi, you previously commented at WP:MOS-AR. Would you be interested in participating in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#Solar letters again? Cheers, —Ruud 10:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian article

I agree, but which link that I made linked to Iranian? --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, i'll try and be careful. --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Regarding your advice on linking a page to Persian. I didn't check and it never occurred to me that it would be a disambiguation page. --Marwatt 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

and who exactly put you in charge to decide what's right or wrong? --Axam 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody put me in charge, but it is Wikipedia policy not to link to disambiguation pages. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. From that page "Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages (with rare exceptions where the ambiguity of a term is being discussed); instead links should go directly to the appropriate article.". Another important Wikipedia policy is assuming good faith. From that page, "Assume that others are trying to help Wikipedia rather than harm it, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary." Regards. -- Jeff3000 00:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'u'lláh

Just so you know, I dropped a comment on the talk page for that list. I think Bahá'u'lláh is best kept in the other section myself; since he considered himself the fulfillment of all the world's religions, sticking him under Christianity may give the wrong impression. SnowFire 02:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifism

Hi Jeff3000. I saw your earlier revert and, in the interests of cooperation, I added quite a few links from some very established sources that back up what I'm saying. That is, that although Jesus has been percieved as a pacifist, Specific passages in the Bible (and his actions as the God of the Old Testament) run contrary to this. Here's the problem: Rbj seems intent on ensuring the passage is deleted, regardless of how many sources are behind it and how it's referenced. He's currently sitting on the article, gloating about how "if I revert it I'll be blocked", and that I should "consider myself warned". Given that I've spent a great deal of time backing up my paragraph insertion and finding sources for it, I sincerely believe that it deserves more than just to be ripped out of the article for the sake of being ripped out. Given that it was your revert that previously put the article "on the wall" in regards to the 3RR in my case, would it not be fair at this juncture to assume that I'm not just some vandal? Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report

You have left me no other choice than to report you. You have to understand that you are not Wikipedia's webmaster or editor-in-chief. Iranian people is not the same as Iran. Hope you can understand Jeff or should I call you Ex-Nintendo Employee. I believe sockpuppetry is also forbidden by Wikipedia. Consider this as another warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axam (talk • contribs) .

Go ahead; I guess you don't know much about Wikipedia policy. Not only have I tried to uphold Wikipedia policy, been civil, you have gone wast 3RR, performed personal attacks, and accused people of sockpuppetry when there is no evidence. We'll see who get's blocked. -- Jeff3000 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you want to change it back to link to Iran, go ahead if that's so important to you. This is really childish. --Axam 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not noticed that I haven't edited the page at all in the last little while. I'm not going to go above 3RR, and I'm not getting into a slinging match. If you look at all my edits on your talk page, you'll see they have all been civil, and explained wikipedia policy to you. No mud-slinging, etc. Only when you have constantly blurted incivilities toward me, which is unacceptable, and when past 3RR did I report you, as any responsible Wikipedian will do. These are unacceptable behaviours on Wikipedia. Iranian peoples is definitely not the correct link as it is an article about a larger ethnic group, and not only the citizens of the country of Iran, that is spread in a wide geographical area. -- Jeff3000 00:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V or WP:OR

I think I was referring to the lack of verification as opposed to verifiability, which IMO is better presented to a new user through the WP:OR policy. However, either way it comes down to the statement lacking sources as you get at. Putting the blame on the local authorities may be an "honour" issue, however, unless someone else said it, we shouldn't be putting it down in Wikipedia ourselves. Ansell 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I just thought I would make the subtle distinction to you, instead of making it appear that we were not in agreement, where we were as I agree fully with all the policies which we were referencing. Ansell 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

link to British

Thanks for the advice - well pointed out. Will try and be more careful if future. I'm kind of new, so still learning! Cheers Aofrancis 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh - I see I'm not the only... sorry about that - I was on a bit of a roll, and neglected to check all of my article links... will keep in mind in the future Horus Kol 07:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes I know this I forgot. Soz. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: 3RR

You have been violating the 3RR rules on Mellat Park. You will be reported. --Axam 14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:3RR. It's in a 24 hour period. Please read Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 14:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's Canada? is it a good country? I should visit sometimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axam (talk • contribs) .

There shouldn't be too many Baha'i'communities in Canada, in a few cities perhaps, like Toronto, Ontario, or in Nova Scotia. Must not be hard to find people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axam (talk • contribs) .

I sense fear in your tone. Your action is more uncivilized than any of my tone. Provocative and coward. Hidding behind friends to make a stupid illogical point. I will be visiting Canada Jeff. Trust me it's easy to find people. Look up hojjatieh (disclaimer: for educational purpose only, obvioulsy.)

User:Axam

I will be blocking him for that. We have absolutely 0 tolerance for threats like that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn Tom harrison! He beat me to it! :-D Well I'm glad it's taken care of. Threats are really the only things that are almost always blocked for without a warning. If you need any more help, let me know ok? --Woohookitty^(meow) 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been awarded

You may place it wherever you wish. Cheers! Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing British to United Kingdom

Jeff, I see you have been changing links to British to United Kingdom. I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. Could you explain to me the rationale for this change? The British article gives a reasonable account of what the term means, whereas United Kingdom is about the country during a specific time period. Being British is not synonymous with the country of the United Kingdom. Thanks, Gwernol 00:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to British

Thanks for the pointer I will bear this in mind in the future. --Alex 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will try to remember. Igor Skoglund

Links

Hi. Thanks for the note about pantomime. Whenever an admin, or anyone else, moves a page, they are expected to correct all links to that page. This is what I have been doing. What's more, I have been finding that many of the existing links were wrong, and should in fact have linked to mime, not pantomime. So I won't be stopping. Deb 11:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'u'lláh

Please do not revert my changes again. The MoS specifies that the end matter (See also, References and External links) must come at the end of the article. Also, articles belong in their narrowest category. Thank you. Ekajati 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Consensus cannot override the Manual of Style. Ekajati 17:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for not reverting the category change again. I'll leave the end matter to you, but IMO people expect to scroll to the end of the article to find links, references, etc. Putting something after the end matter is a Bad Idea^TM. If there is no consensus to put it where it belongs, in the article, it should simply not be included. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :-) Ekajati 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I tend to fix ordering problems whenever I see them. Didn't notice the notice. I'll leave to the editors of the article as I have no vested interest, just figured I'd fix it as long as I was there refining the category. Guess I was wrong. :-( Ekajati 17:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]