User talk:Jeff3000/Archive04

Thanks!

For making my entry into the wiki world much easier! My mom is in the Toronto Baha'i Community perhaps close to you. LexMusta

Disambiguation

I was hoping you were just steamed (understandably) and would come back after you cooled down a bit.... Well, we all need a break from time to time, and you've certainly earned one, but all of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation will keep your seat reserved and be ready to welcome you back as soon as you are ready! --Russ Blau (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion see also

I see that you are in the process of including links to categories instead of the template. Could I suggest you bring about the change on the discussion pages first. I believe the template is a much better tool that the categories for a see also section. For example, all the featured article country pages, which have a lot of links that could be included in a see also section use the template formatting. Regards -- Jeff3000 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which "featured article country pages" do you mean? With the religion article, the template and category systems have gotten out of sync with each other, and both have some misclassifications. The category system is much larger, so it's easier to fix by merging the template tree into the category tree. I'm fine with leaving it at that, but if someone else wants to look at the unified result and pick the "major" articles and put that in a template, I guess that would be OK. Personally, I prefer the category system because it is comprehensive and usually better organized, though I kinda like the templates that people use for series sometimes, and as I clean things up I have discovered at least one template that seems useful to put in the "see also" section. Certainly if templates are in use, care will need to be taken to keep them updated and in sync with the category system. -- Beland 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Canada, India, Australia. All featured articles, and all articles which could (and do) have a boat-load of See also links. They all create a nicely, and categorized template for the see also. Categories are meant to link articles together, and are seperate than the See also section. So I would suggest fixing the categories as you are doing, but they don't replace the template. If it's ok with you, I'm going to remove the links to the categories in the See also section, and put the links back in the template. I'll clean up the template later. Is that ok? -- Jeff3000 00:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current template is only used by the "religion" article and not any of the other articles it links to. I was just going to merge it into the page itself. If you'd like to use this template on multiple pages, I can realign it to conform to the category tree as I go along, rather than deleting it progressively. -- Beland 00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of if the code for the template is in the template page, and then transcluded in the religion page, or it is in the religion page, I think it should stay as is, and the categories should be categories, and not used for a see also page. Most, if not all, featured articles (what we should be striving for) do not use categories for the see also section. They serve different purposes, and both can should be used. -- Jeff3000 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

Hey what's up? You probably already know but I thought I should remind you: Tahirih Justice Center goes on the main page in about 4 and a half hours. If it's not too much trouble, can you help me in combating vandalism and possible POV edits? I'm worried that I could violate 3RR, in which case I'd need other people to make sure the integrity of the article is protected.UberCryxic 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out!UberCryxic 00:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian names

Could you review the newly-minted "Persian names"? Appreciate any contributions you see need to be made. I think, if we're going to add diacritical marks, we should keep them to the current academic standards. Mille grazie, MARussellPESE 03:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC

Gerorge B. Walker

I was very glad about your article of George B. Walker. Do you know him? I was his pubil and a friend of him and his wife while he was lifing in Berlin in the 50th. Do you know how I can contact him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.180.175 (talk • contribs) .

Hello, I don't particularly know which article you are referring to. I doubt I could give you any information. Regards. -- Jeff3000 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New world order

I don't like the page. I would prefer deleting it. I don't like having random pages on Baha'i beliefs that don't flow logically from the main page. Cuñado - Talk 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

FYI, I've reverted Anonymous57 (whom I suspect is possibly an alias of user ClairSamoht). I have also reported that user's behavior on the administrator' noticeboard.--Ramdrake 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again. Please feel free to comment at [1]. See you around!--Ramdrake 21:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tip. But we do need an admin to stop this madness. --physicq210 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arabic template

Leaving a message on the bots talk page automatically stopped it. As I assume you saw, I was doing it on request, but I think it was correct as the result looks the same anyway. Martin 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for not awaiting reaction before submitting the bot request, but I thought that the issue is painfully obvious. But alright, what good reasons do we have for templaces like Template:ArB? I can see none whatsoever, it's as pointless as transcluding a {{bf}} with a content of '''{{{1}}}'''. They are harmful, otoh, because they fragment our efforts for a straightforward language markup via {{lang}}. You should work anything your "ar" templates are supposed to do into "lang". dab (ᛏ) 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Watership Down88.jpg

Hi... just a note since you uploaded a new version of this image, originally uploaded by Dmwime. I can't anywhere see proof that it does indeed have the "all rights released" status the tag claims, and since simple assertion is not good enough, unless such evidence is forthcoming then the picture will reluctantly have to be listed for deletion. (This comment is not really aimed at you but at Dmwime, but rather is here as a courtesy since you edited it.) Loganberry (Talk) 00:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Ah; that's excellent, since I wouldn't have liked to have lost a nice photo. Could you add that info to the image page, please? That'll stop people like me pestering you about it again! Loganberry (Talk) 02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you create a template, maybe, like the {{Geograph}} one? Sorry to sound petty, but I really don't think "it'll be a headache" is a good enough reason for not including the proper explanation with an image. I speak as someone who once had to help change something like a thousand stub notices when the stub messages were split, so I do know it's not the work of a moment, but I still think it's necessary. ~~I'll add the comment to this particular image myself if you don't feel like doing it.~~ Thanks for adding the comment anyway. Loganberry (Talk) 02:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and science

You're right, of course, and this is a problem I struggle with, but I can't help the way I feel. I still get angry when I read about the persecution of Bahá'ís in "The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh" and "God Passes By", and it still happens today; and a lot of what passes for religious truth in Islam today is hokum ("brb 72 virgins!"). I'm totally for Muhammad and the Qur'an as truth, but I can't say I believe in anything beyond that. Danny Lilithborne 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seebeforeyoudie.net images

Hi, it was my understanding, that the approval from the website to use its images on wikipedia, also included a request to include the watermark on them (as an indication of their source).

isn't it possible to keep the watermark on them as is?

if not, is there another way the site could be given credit for the pics?

thx. dmwime

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me stuffed up

Hi, I think I've leapt into the middle of something you were dealing with. I watch Victoria Falls, so noticed the restoration of the See-Before-You-Die pic and its "Move to Commons" req. So I did. But of course the templates don't work there, so I left a note at Commons Help Desk about it. But now I see that not only are you working on a whole help of pics from this site (and presumably planning to do a mass-move and template at Commons), but there is still a Q regarding watermarks.

So I'm really sorry to have leapt in with both feet and mucked up what you were doing. Can I grovel and beg you to head to Commons, to explain the state of play to those nice folks at the Help Desk before they bust a gut trying to answer my Qs? It would be very much appreciated... JackyR | Talk 10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. And some nice person at Commons has fixed the templates there. I'll do some of the uploads to Commons - I'll mark those already done with the "NowCommonsThis" template. Dunno how you're gonna know which ones I've done without looking at each image page, tho... Hmm, thoughts welcome... JackyR | Talk 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! If you put a link to the new template on the (talk?) page of the current "SeeBeforeYouDie" template, or of the SBYD category, then others should also find and use it (how optimistic am I?!). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Now just need a good supply of tuits... JackyR | Talk 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Country disambiguation

You have "disambiguated" two links to Basque Country, which is an article on its own, to Basque Country (autonomous community), when it should go to Basque Country (historical territory). It must has been recenly moved because before it was Basque Country with no parenthesis. I'm correcting. --Sugaar 12:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both of your choices, but I don't care that much, so do as you will. Regards. -- Jeff3000 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Kotromanić

Actually, what you did was not disambiguation. Many would consider that bad faith edirs. --PaxEquilibrium 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is to assume good faith and you have not done so. Secondly, there should be no links to disambiguation pages as per WP:D. Serbia, Bosnia and Bosnian are all disambiguation pages and should not be linked to. In my edits, I changed

Bosnia to Bosnia (region) [2] which is the right choice given the date of the subject in question.
Bosnian to Bosniak [3] since the Bosnians article talks about the current citizens of Bosnia and Hertzogovina, which includes both ethnic Bosnians (Bosniaks), Serbians and Croations. Since the sentence also includes a link to Serbian, to distinguish, the link should be Bosniak as done. I will be reverting your change, so there are no links to disambiguation pages as per policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I perfectly understand - however, please read WP:POV. Bosniaks are an ethnic group officially constituated in 1993 from Bosnian Muslims (regardless of their much longer history). The Bosniak Wikipedia considers them dully and highly erraticly Bosniaks, while the Serbian and Croatian wikipedias officially call them "Bosnian", but regardless actually indirectly say "they're really Serbs" or "they're really Croats". There have been long controversies over the Medieval Bosnian ethnicity - and it was finally concluded that no such thing can be found out. Any further discussions & dilusions on the Medieval Bosnians' "Bosniachood", "Croatianess" or "Serbdom", not counting exceptions of those who had common things with the Serbs & Croats, is to be consider highly errorous.

I know that you have been doing in good faith - but understand that you're also making a large colateral damage I think you're not aware - a rather heavy WP:POV.

How're you going to solve the issue? --PaxEquilibrium 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find a better way to word the sentence to mark the subtleties, but don't link to disambiguation pages. -- Jeff3000 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that you could solve the problem, since you're the one who introduced the change.

The best alternative is that it links to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

P. S. Every human's genetic origin dates that far. However, I already explained the controversy on this issue. See it like this: it would make even much more sence if you simply linked to "Serbs", but that would simply be Serbian nationalistic propaganda. Imagine what is this now. --PaxEquilibrium 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also changed the disambig on numerious other articles like Prijezda I. I can't track them all down. Any help? --PaxEquilibrium 12:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you mean in good will - but I would rather explain to you the situation, so you can yourself understand it. Imagine that there was an ancient Medieval Swiss civilization. And imagine that the word "Swiss" is linked to, say, "French". Now why would such a thing be?

However the thing that I most fail to understand is what made you choose to link to "Bosniaks" in the first place? What made you choose that article for a link? --PaxEquilibrium 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why choose "Bosniaks". That's like if you would choose "Germans" when refering to the Swiss. Bosniaks are only one Bosnian nation.

P. S. Sorry if I seemy a little over-the-edge, but I just can't stand seeing how Wikipedia's rules are applied on the damage of making it incorrect (original research) and essentially POV. --PaxEquilibrium 23:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK! Take an expresso and no need to be angry! ;) I am mostly deeply sorry to have bothered you. I was only refering to my plea so that you remember all those pages that you change, so I can alter them myself. I can't track them all down. Could you point them to me, please?

The issue that you failed to see is that you picked only one nation of Bosnia, and even the younger one - "Bosniaks" - ignoring totally the other two "Serbs" and "Croats". Seemingly, Bosniaks were constituated in the year of 1993 from Bosnia-Herzegovina's Muslims - and up to the 1970s Serbs were the majority of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What you did is link a ruler from the 13th century to a modern nation, implying that he ruled over a country which was populated by Bosniaks or that he himself was a Bosniak - which is in both cases, either original researc and utterly incorrect or simply WP:POV-pushing. --PaxEquilibrium 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99 names...

You know any admins you can contact to get this semi-protected? he's passed 3 reverts but just an anon user. -- Tomhab 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta yeah. I presume you remember me. I've been out of the wikipedia game for a year or so and don't want to get hooked again :) Happy to give a helping hand every now and then though. If you want a giggle check out what the Dayyán page looked like before my last revert there. -- Tomhab 00:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm flattered you remember me so, but one of the main reasons I got out was I was starting to become anything but calm and dignified. Lets just say one too many religious zealot got to me (Bayanis, disgruntled Muslims and even the occasional Baha'i in there too). I also lost faith in really how bad the non-Baha'i sources are. I put a reasonable amount of faith in Maulana (you'll see in some of the stuff I quoted him a lot as he does provide a fantastic new perspective), but then just realised he was a pretty awful accademic. Mind you - if you've done Ruhi book 4, its not that much better. Had to just bite my lip on occasion :). -- Tomhab 01:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Bye - sorry to have bothered you, mate! If only I understood why you considered that OK. --PaxEquilibrium 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha covered. Could you open up a 3RR complaint if he goes back. I'm up to my ears with editing in notes. What an ugly mess. MARussellPESE 02:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should've known! Will keep my reverts to two this time <grin> MARussellPESE 02:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to popups

Thank you very much for fixing my recent unintentional broken links (eg in the 450 BC article). More importantly, thanks for the link on getting access to the "popups" capability. This will help me avoid making similar mistakes in the future!

By the way, does Wikipedia have a spell check capability?? --Chaleyer61 00:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a few questions

Hi Jeff, thanks for correcting my article. Since English is not my mother tongue my phrasing is not always perfect. I just want to ask what the symbol means, why you inserted those brackets {{}} and why you used PerB instead of Persian language for redirecting.

Regards, --VulpesE 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifism

Hi Jeff. Rbj is back again trying to remove my edit from the Pacifism article- as a matter of fact, he's actually resorted to personal attacks (he called me a "bald faced liar" and "delusional", along with saying that I "have no integrity". I feel that I've been really trying to work with things here, responding to the specific article-related issues, like the whip thing, but I can't gain any headway- he'll stop at nothing until the entire paragraph is gone.

Basically, my contention merely says that there are people who believe Jesus' portrayal as a pacifist is challenged under scrutinty, and temple incident is just one point in the contention. From a historical context, the majority of catholic-based denominations consider Jesus and God to be the same person (Jehovah), which would thus apply to him a measure of responsibility for the actions of Jehovah at that time. The links support this viewpoint, as well as New Testament text itself where Jesus says "I and my father are one". What is your opinion on what I should do about this? Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! I give up! Rbj inserted both POV ("Jesus practiced what he preached"(!)) as well as tossing out threats of the 3RR rule towards me while blathering about it on talk. The fact is this- Jesus, while he preached about turning the other cheek, directly in the New Testament record claimed that he was both the same individual as God ("I and my father are one" are his own words), and wholly believed himself as such. Even if one follows strict historical athiest doctrine, the association itself and any quick perusal of the Bible establishes that the God present in the Old Testament is not pacifistic. To hold a pacifistic viewpoint in one hand, while at the same time claiming to be the same individual who comitted massively nonpacifistic actions is contradictory. But you know, hell, I really, really don't like fighting all that much. Rbj just can sit on his little pedestal of opinion and destroy the article's integrity. I'd rather jam a stick in my eye than spend one more iota of time trying to establish any sort of a dialogue with a rabid, foaming individual such as that.

I appreciate your efforts at dialogue and wish you the best of luck in the future. Cheers. Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's old now. but i just want to tell you that your participation was and is appreciated. r b-j 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

No problem! Cheers -- Imo eng 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Philosophy

Islamic polemics are answered by progressive revelation. Video on line and for that matter wikipedia is an online academic encyclopedia and is very new technology that did not exist 15 years ago. Nor did Youtube and bahaivideo 20 months ago. Fire was new to humans at one time, domesticated animals, even language was new. What was staus quo then seemed to be very, very disrupted by new technology. The same process of human progress is challenging to editors of wikipedia. Yes I honor and respect the discussion talk page first before main page changes, and yes I would be encouraged to go and do some original research and get it peer reviewed but times are a changing so fast that being at the forefront of change in humanity is exciting. I feel I have done my time educating, and in one hundred years my fruits of my intelectual endeavors will be noted in words I have written. Wikipedia words may be included. I think that divine philosophy is a good place to centre upon for a time. I am interested to see what grows from the subpage titled Divine philosophy.RoddyYoung 18:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop editing

I'm in the middle of editing the main Baha'i page. I'll incorporate what you changed. Cuñado - Talk 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.154.252.34

If his editing is disruptive enough, you can take it to WP:AN/I and ask for a community ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff3000, thank you very much for your defense of the major religious groups page from the various folks (including 81.154.252.34 in particular) who keep making unreferenced changes to it that cause the page to conflict with its cited source (and often seem designed to push a personal POV). Wookipedian 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I started an article for Mansour but I had to put it under Mansour (singer) and when "Mansour" is typed, his article doesn't come up. Please correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeutralWriter (talk • contribs) .

Wow, a Barnstar?

.. Thanks man, this made my day! :D --Anas Salloum 16:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, and the other half won't be there for long. :D Thanks again Jeff! :) --Anas Salloum 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Anonymous User

it is not a problem of one anonymous user i think that Islam in China page should be protected7day 06:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

You're ranked 524th on wikipedia by number of edits. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I'm only number 1396. Cuñado - Talk 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Can you please tell me why I am a red link and how do I become blue? Thanks...NeutralWriter

Summons of the Lord of Hosts

Oh OK, my bad man. I'm on it as I type this message.. there.. done! I corrected some spelling mistakes there too. Thanks for noting that. :) --Anas Salloum 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Let me know if you need anything Jeff. :) --Anas Salloum 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embryonic Basque Portal and (maybe) Wikiproject. Interested?

Hi. I have noticed that you have been recently noticeably active in the discussion/edition on some pages of Basque theme. If you are interested in adding up to this project, please visit my talk page (and check this draft for the portal contents). --Sugaar 21:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of Bahá'u'lláh

Hi, I've seen that you edit some of the Selected Anniversary pages. I've created a new page for Birth of Bahá'u'lláh which is probably a better link for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 12. I was wondering if you could change the link. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, Jeff3000. I've changed the link as suggested. I wonder if this should be mentioned one day earlier, as per Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries#Sunset-to-Sunset Holidays. --PFHLai 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The observance is indeed sunset to sunset (sunset on November 11th to sunset on November 12th). After reading the discussion on the talk page, I'm not sure what the consensus was. My personal feeling is that since most of the holy day observance happens on the second day of the event, the holiday should be noted on the second day, but if the consensus is otherwise, then the holiday should be mentioned on the 11th for consistency. Thanks again. -- Jeff3000 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I don't think there is consensus. I can move links around as needed, but let's leave things as is for now. Thanks. --PFHLai 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that I could help, Jeff3000. :-) Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i holy days

I noticed you made Birth of Bahá'u'lláh. What do you think of making a template for Baha'i holy days and a page for each day? I don't know of any decent sources to add non-OR work. Cuñado - Talk 00:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Religions

I suppose you are talking about the links that were in section names. Per WP guidelines, nothing in section names are supposed to be linked. These links were automatically removed by WP:AutoBrowser. I have no control over the automatic work of WP:AutoBrowser. Hmains 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, I supposed WP:AutoBrowser only automatically did the correct thing in every case. And I had not noticed any distinction in MoS between links in a article just of links and any other type of article. Hmains 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry about that. I just manually made the one change to the article that I intended to make so it will not again be found by my WP-AutoBrower work. But with the section links as they are, anyone else using WP-AutoBrowser will do the same thing to this article. You might want to consider separating the links from the section names, just to protect the content here in the future. Hmains 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Transliteration

Is there a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia that I can read up on concerning primary transliteration? What all does it cover (underlines, underdots, accent marks, etc.)? Just for future reference. Thanks, Keldan 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, muchas gracias. Keldan 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Britons

Thanks for you advice and observations regarding "British."

Can you help me DISAMBIGUATE "The Britons"?

In 1919 such an organization was formed in Great Britain.

It later evolved, or formed a successor organization, called the "Britons Publishing Society."

It was a right-wing publisher.

But I get to Brytons when I click on the former.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind -- it has been done!!! Ludvikus 01:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments

Thanks for your comments and help. Hmains 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism vs. Antisemitism

Again, thanks for your help, advice, and assistance regarding Wpedian "British."

Accordingly, I thought you might be able to advise which of the two forms above are WPedian preferred? Ludvikus 05:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British

I don't quite understand the comment you left at my TalkPage. I always do link to British, and if I didn't once this would have been a one-off error, not worthy of a TalkPage comment. --Berks105 10:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. However, I did not actually write the page you mention, I merely copied it from the TalkPage were it had wrongly been created and as I did this to many articles I did not copyedit each one. --Berks105 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the disambiguation pointer.The Boy that time forgot 16:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Many thanks for your advice on how to create proper links when referring to something British in an article. I had not realised that I was linking to a disambiguation page, but will pay closer attention to what I am doing in any future edits. Cheers Paul from Brum (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for a good point about British disambiguation page and how to use it properly. --Ivelimir 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I offended you by linking to British. As you'll see from my contributions, I work in Special:Dead End Pages, and so my primary goal is to pull pages out of the pit into the open where people who have in an interest in a particular subject can see them. Most of the pages I work on I have no knowledge of the subject matter, and I try to spend 5 minutes or less on each page, so to bring them to the attention of the right people (such as yourself), I use broad categorizations and links. This is a deliberate action, and I hope you'll understand my rationale for this. MNewnham 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MountLogan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MountLogan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Jkelly 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BWC photos

I have taken some, but they're not to the standard I would like. I've been planning on dedicating the next few weekends to taking some more professional quality stuff - making sure I have the full day to find the right lighting and what-not. Are there any areas in particular that you know of off the top of your head that we need (better) photos of? It would certainly make a good place to start. Keldan 14:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~See my talk page, where Jeff3000 has answered this question :)~~ Looks like he was too fast for me :P --dragfyre 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed some (and a couple sound files) to the commons area - but then I wondered if I should change jpg to png??--Smkolins 15:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey—I've uploaded a few photos; check my talk page. --dragfyre 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British

Sounds good to me. Which occurence (of the many I have no doubt made!) did you spot? Cheers. 4u1e 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the problem is partly that the disambiguation page is too well done - it looks like a proper article if you're not being careful (as I obviously wasn't!) 4u1e 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff3000, Master of Patience, Diligence, and All Things British

Thank you for your particuler patience, diligence, and politeness, which you've applied in my case. I will definitely observe, and do my best, to be cautious in my use of "British" - after all, who but the Brits gave us Americans our great legal and political national inheritance. :If you're a Canadia, may I say, "Long live the Queen"? -Ludvikus 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic people

With your diligence, I thought you might want and be able to fix WP problem.

Only Category:Anti-Semtic people is a recognized WP form.

I suggest both be acceptable--otherwise there may be too much work for you, no?

Right now the former does nor register!

Thanks, Ludvikus 15:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

You might be interested in this AN/I thread apropos of your disambiguations of Britain and the user talk messages attendant thereto. :) Joe 04:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

disambig help. cheers, lugnuts Lugnuts 12:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peerreviewer.js

The reason is probably because I adjusted the width of the output box. While trying to get everything to fit together, I converted everything to px, which I believe different browsers may show differently (when I tried changing everything to em, it looked really bad). The width of the box is controlled by the variable width_PR (default: 1200); perhaps assigning it a different value will stop the problem (ex: to set it to 600 px, add width_PR = 600;. Thanks, AZ _t 17:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL map

okay, Im trying to crop it but it doesnt seem to be displaying properly so ive reverted it. tell me is the image lining up with the labels on User:Astrokey44/test nhl map2? my computer doesnt want to refresh the new image i loaded. --Astrokey44 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, for some reason it still didnt refresh but I got it to work using a smaller thumbnail size. Ive reduced the image from 500x417 to 450x287. I think if it were any smaller the labels would run into each other, especially in the north-east. I hope thats better now, ill try it again on the page. Cheers, --Astrokey44 10:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link reverts

I only ask, Why? Why are my links being reverted? It is an honest Alternative Perspective. Imranshaykh

I am a new user to Wikipedia and was referred to it by a friend. I took to it immediately. My areas of interest are Islam and the Bahai Faith. Given that there is a page on the 12th Imam which the Bahais have written their perspective, it is only fair that a Shiite perspective on the Bahai take on the 12th Imam be allowed.

I was honest enough to put my correct name and then add a link. My web site is a non commercial effort. I am not selling or marketing anything, just offering an alternative perspective.

You have mentioned that links will be removed if a user is percieved to be acting as an agent for the linked web site. Your page mentions that you are a Bahai. Can this link removal on your behalf be percieved as the act of an agent acting on behalf of the Faith?

Will the link be allowed if any of the users on my web site registers and adds it?

The link to the Bahai Prophecies fulfilled is some "official" page of some institution. If that link can be allowed, then why not mine?

Regards

Imranshaykh

Thanks for your immediate response.

True, I am the author of the web site, atleast a part of it.

But do take time and read my pages. More than 3 quarters of the articles I have written are from Bahai books and references which are painstakingly collected. Atleast someone should verify what I have written before dismissing it. Each reference (read the section on the Bab) carries links to the actual books and the page numbers with an option to actually download the book and verify if what I have quoted from the book is right or wrong. And I urge you to take time out from your busy schedule to do that.

Dont dismiss the web site just because I am the author. As I mentioned more than 3 quarters of the web site is to links to Bahai books. Let me know if the links on my web site or the references are incorrect.

Regards,

Imranshaykh 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you mentioned that MARussellPESE contributes very good external links.

Can he please spare time from his busy schedule to go through my web site and let me know if he finds it reliable in terms of the links. He is interested in the Bahai Faith - so he may not necessarily agree with what is written on the web site - but atleast it should be verified in terms of the references being used on the web site

thank you for your time once again.

Regards

Imranshaykh 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have taken your point. I guess the only reason my web site is dismissed because it is "self promoted."

Let me put the question in another way. What will it take to classify my web site as a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy. Is there some review process? If there is, I would like to know more about it so that my web site can stand to the test of reliability.

How does a web site be nominated for inclusion as a reliable source? Is there some editorial board for the same?

I apologise for taking your time and asking you so many questions. I am not critical of Wikipedia. I see it as a fantastic place to "communicate". Please can you help?

Regards Imranshaykh 17:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. How does one get the site to be reviewed by multiple sources?

For example, who decides which web sites are reliable and which are not?

I seem to be fighting a losing battle. Trying to explain to a Bahai that my web site is reliable is like trying to run with both legs tied.

I am keen that my web site comes up as an alternative perspective on the Bahai Faith. How can I?

Regards, Imranshaykh

Jeff:

May I ask you about your own position in Wikipedia. Are you an Editor like all other editors or are you some sort of Administrator? Why are you the one who is removing the link all the time and not some other editor?

Why dont you review the web site and tell me what is wrong with it? You are a Bahai - so go ahead tell what is wrong with the references on my web site. Tell me what makes my web site unreliable in your eyes. Dont you believe in the Bahai principle of Independent Investigation of Truth?

Is there some other editor, preferably non Bahai I can contact who can review my web site and tell me whether it is reliable or not. Or am I stuck with you?

Can you tell me what if someone else were to post the web site again?

Regards Imran