User talk:Jigglyfidders

Welcome!

Hello, Jigglyfidders, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your email

Perhaps you should clarify which template you are talking about. Salafi and Quran only movements are mentioned on the Islamic denominations page. In any case do have a look at WP:BOLD. Regards-Shahab (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

in the purple "islam topics" box, only sunni, shia, sufi, ibadi are mentioned

not salafi or quranist (quran-only)

could you add these 2 denominations in the purple islam topics box please?

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Zakir Naik. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include strong reliable sources, not just a personal blog and a wiki page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

This isn't really my area - I'd suggest leaving a message on Talk:Islam, if the article is semi-protected and you think there's a problem that needs to be addressed. --McGeddon (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with McGeddon above. I haven't edited in this area. Consider contacting the relevant Wikiproject (Wikiproject Islam?). From a quick look, the linked word Sects seems to cover them in the template. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Islam. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of converts to Buddhism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. McGeddon (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to List of Bahá'ís. Zhang He (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Adopted!

Drop me a line on my talk page and we'll begin! Airplaneman ^talk 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a look and will decide by tomorrow. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 03:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Qur'an alone. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jigglyfidders, over the past several days I've noticed that you have been making edits such as these [1] and [2] in a few articles. Posting these kinds of "personal observations" or "personal observations" is regarded as a violation of our policies forbidding "original research". Please see WP:OR. It's a good idea to be especially careful when making any edits like these in potentially highly controversial articles such as those concerning subjects like religion and politics. I note that you've recently been "adopted" by another editor; I'd like to suggest that you seek advice from them regarding proper editing practices before continuing to add material to the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take the advice given to heart. Another good thing to look at is WP:RS for reliable source guidelines. Questions are always welcome on my talk page! Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 14:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious what your name means, Airplaneman ^talk 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Islamic schools and branches. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Editprotected template

This edit ({{Editprotected}} hi, could you add the Salafi denomination to the Islam template please?) was removed from User talk:MSGJ - you need to place the {{editprotected}} template and the changes to be made to the appropriate Article's talk page. The presence of the template will flag up a free admin to examine the request.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User:Shii has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. RA0808 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Islamic schools and branches. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello good sir, please read WP:RS before making any future edits Shii (tock) 05:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Internal links

Please use square brackets to produce internal links. For example [[Islam]] produces Islam. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

allright, i will from now on okay

But you didn't when you posted on Talk:Islam today. Please try to remember. And please can you sign your posts by typing ~~~~? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kitab-i-Aqdas

The Kitab-i-Aqdas says it's "a central book", not "the central book". The Kitab-i-Aqdas, for example, doesn't go over a lot of the main teachings of the religion, such as progressive revelation, etc. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

mo

hey, its me again.. when are you coming?Jigglyfidders (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits

Jigglyfidders, I appreciate you are trying to make the article better, but you aren't. You are not using good sources, and you are not putting information in the right place. The level of detail you are adding in the lead is too much. Baha'u'llah's given name is already in the appropriate section (Baha'u'llah), and the various smaller groups have their mention in the Covenant section, they don't deserve any more mention based on the undue weight policy, since other reliable sources (which adherents the come is not) do not give them any more coverage. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is that undue weight also limits the size of location that Baha'i sections get in other pages. For example your addition of the Baha'i section in Holy land does not go by undue weight. The size of any Baha'i content has to be small in relation to the bigger religions, even if it exists. I'll be correcting that, but in the future be aware of undue weight. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

One further note. I saw that you just copied the lead section of Shrine of Baha'u'llah to the Holy land article, and that sort of copying is not really the right way to go because what is germane is one article may not be germane in another article. Also details should only be in the main article. Finally, copying text may cause that the text does not really fit the subject of the text you are copying to, and doesn't give the necessary background that a reader would require. When doing such edits, take some more time and write real content instead of just copying (but within Wikipedia policy). Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article need to be shorter if its a smaller religion? Baha'i is cosidered one of the classical religions by now and its one of the fastest growing religions too. in about 30 yea from now Baha'i might just overtake Judaism in numbers. Jigglyfidders (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of the undue weight section of the neutral point of view Wikipedia policy, which states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources" In current reliable sources, space on the Baha'i Faith is not near that of Judaism or Christianity or Islam, and so Wikipedia strives to give the same weight. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

alright then, i see your point. thank you for the heads up manJigglyfidders (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for something to sink you effort into, consider what has been done - and what hasn't yet - at Category:Bahá'í Faith by country. If check several articles you will see some of the sources that can help in other articles (plus of course internet searches for each country.) If you are interested that is. Smkolins (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

In the Demographics section, you made the claim that the Bahá'í Faith might overtake both Judaism and Sikhism by the year 2050 as the 5th largest religion in the world. But the reference you cited shows that the projection for Sikhism will be more than twice that of the Bahá'í Faith. I made the necessary changes to reflect the info in your cited source. Please, please be more careful in the future!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, try to stick to reliable sources. Adherents.com is not a reliable source, and neither is the fastest growing religion website. Also consider that Wikipedia is not meant to be a crystal ball. From that page: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.".

Finally, I've noted to you that that inclusions have to be notable and germane to the discussion at hand, especially in the lead. Random facts of what you think is important is not the way to go, you have to show that reliable sources think it is important by writing about them (verifiabiliy) and giving them the importance to put them in the lead. Also, remember common names are used in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please do not delete sourced material from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of converts to Islam, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the information, welcomeJigglyfidders (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Criticism of Islam. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the information, thanks you, welcomeJigglyfidders (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jigglyfidders for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.   Cs32en Talk to me  14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... if you have an alternate account, see WP:SOCK#LEGIT for instructions on tagging it. As long as you don't use multiple accounts maliciously, it's totally fine. I also feel as if I'm not helping my adoptees enough... I might try to make a sort of "classroom" in the near future. For now, don't hesitate to pelt me with questions. Sometimes, it's a learning experience for us both. It's great to see you actively editing! Airplaneman ✈ 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback Airplaneman ✈ 23:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

b

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for persistent disruptive editing over population statistics. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You may recall that you were given a final warning six days ago. Since that time, I see that four additional editors have warned you about your disruptive editing of population statistics. Continued disruption will not be tolerated. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As your adopter, I'd like you to explain your actions, please (if you wish), below. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jigglyfidders (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, i would like to be excused from disruptive editing please because i was in the middle of dialogue with my adopter. We were going through the do's and don'ts and i will hopefully be a more constructive user since i had been reading community guidelines. Either way, I will be unblocked in 12 hours. Thanks for reading

Decline reason:

Before any considering for early unblock, I would like to see the discussion with your adopter first - as they recommended. This discussion can take place here, on this talkpage, as you maintain the ability to edit here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

hi airplaneman - i need some help here with a few angry administrators. COuld you tell them we were discussing our editing please? thank youJigglyfidders (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hi bwilkins, if you want to read my dialogue with my adopter you should check out his talk page - his name is 'airplaneman'Jigglyfidders (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Jigglyfidders, here's my take. The above admins are not angry; they are just doing their job. I have happened to see the two around and they know what they are doing. Looks like you have kept on adding disruptive population stats; I have looked at a couple in your contributions, and although I do not know much about population stats, I know that you have to discuss the content on the talk page and reach consensus. Persistently adding population stats, even if they are sourced (reliably?) will not help, and in this case has landed a block. As linked above, please look over WP:DE. I think reading Wikipedia:Blocking policy will also be helpful to see what can get you blocked. Back to what I was saying: Why? Airplaneman ✈ 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk. Please tell my why you were doing the stuff you were doing to get blocked. If you're not comfortable doing it here, email me (tell me when you have, as I don't check my wikimail regularly). Explaining it usually helps bring to light what needs to be fixed, both for you and me. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Azerbaijan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The reference you supplied does not contain support for the claim you added to the article. Please do not continue to "test the limits", by making it appear that you have supplied a reliable reference when in fact you have not done so. This is tantamount to deliberately adding false information to the encyclopedia and will not be tolerated. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Jigglyfidders, you have never told me why you were doing these sort of things (besides "testing the limits"). You clearly haven't learned. The links in the messages given to you by me and others are meant to be read, not ignored. Disruptive editing not helpful and a waste of others' (and your) time when they could be improving the encyclopedia rather than making sure it doesn't sink. Please explain. Airplaneman ✈ 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

see you pageJigglyfidders (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Jigglyfidders, I will patrol as many of your edits as possible and give some tips.

• This edit is good as a non-controversial rewording, as the previous one was slightly unclear and not as concise as your wording (I think it made it better!) Airplaneman ✈ 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• This edit: absolutely not. With no reliable sources to back this up, you are standing on a soapbox. Opinions are to be left at the door before entering Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. This revision to the title is no better. I highly suggest you remove it. You may also rephrase it and provide reliable sources for backup. Airplaneman ✈ 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• These edits to Ramadan - you might want to specify how often, and maybe provide another reference or two. Also, Muslim and Ramadan need to be capitalized. Airplaneman ✈ 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• These edits to Bahá'í Faith - what constitutes "significant"? Also, please consider using the {{Cite}} template (you can turn the option on under the "Gadgets" section in your preferences.) Airplaneman ✈ 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• what the hell is this {{Cite}} ?????? Jigglyfidders (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC) and why do i turn it on??Jigglyfidders (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you click the (blue) link? Try here as well. Turning it on will add the button to your editing toolbar (far right). I'd also appreciate it if you used less pointed language. Text, unfortunately, can be interpreted in many ways. The excessive use of punctuation constitutes shouting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Airplaneman ✈ 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• browser, interface, library - theres lots of headings and im confused with all this computer language.Jigglyfidders (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a handy tool you can turn on in your preferences in the Gadgets section called refTools. That'll add a blue button to the very right of your editing toolbar that lets you fill out a form to generate a cite template (no computer language skills required).
  • On a side note, I am disheartened with your repeated disruptive editing. You do not seem to be taking my and others' guidance to heart; you've still not offered an explanation, besides "testing your limits", which I think will help solve the problem. If you continue to test your limits, I'm afraid you will be blocked. Airplaneman ✈ 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at focusing on responsible contributions

I suggest you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith and see something of the breadth of articles that exist. Study a highly credited article like Bahá'í Faith for approach on content and tone and then look at the syntax mechanisms. Think about how to write like that. Take one of the ideas from the project page and work in your User:Jigglyfidders/Sandbox (click, add something, save and it's all yours!) and ask advice for development there. Use the citation structures at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Smkolins (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just so you can see that people can be blocked... User talk:J.R. Hercules.Smkolins (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

your note on COIN

I'm confused by it. You said it will overtake Judiasm by 1930. Did you mean 2030? Where did you post this message about Abrahamic religions? - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i meant 2030. This is one of the most researched reviewed articles on the internet. http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

• i posted this message on deconstructhis talk pageJigglyfidders (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see this [3] for context on this matter. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Abrahamic religions. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

alittle thing that will help at least on talk pages....

Make sure your entries are divided form the above by ==a header for your comment== like this. Smkolins (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is it

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Religious denomination, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this through AIV if it's required, but in my opinion, I think it's probably more appropriate for an administrator who's already familiar with the situation to handle it. Despite ample guidance and warnings, this editor continues to add unreferenced and badly referenced controversial claims to articles, and now to compound the issue, appears to be engaged in "taunting" other editors to block them for their disruptive activities.[4][5][6] It's too bad really, I think there might be some core editing talent here, but personally I believe the potential chance of damage to the project outweighs that factor. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jigglyfidders. You have new messages at PrincessofLlyr's talk page.
Message added 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jigglyfidders. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ✈ 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism and Disruptive Editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're an uneducated and unworthy opponent, aren't you. I guess there wasn't even a point in replying to you. --124.168.140.62 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sufi shrine

Hello, Jigglyfidders. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sufi shrine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)