User talk:Lizzie1988

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lizzie1988, 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:

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! Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on Bahiyyih Khánum

I was combing things together for just such an article. I'd welcome collaborating on merging the article development. See my work at User:Smkolins/Sandbox3 Smkolins (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - at the moment I'm trying to merge your content in with mine as I've got a broader article. We do seem to differ on some details though so we should fact check eachother (like birth name.) I like some of your language choice though. I've also alerted a few other regular contributers to the work at hand and I think they'll chime in once we merge. Now I gotta go to work. Smkolins (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to devote most of tonight to merging the articles. BTW if you want to see what I've been doing for the last few years see Category:Bahá'í Faith by country - in my most recent break from that is when I saw the Bahiyyih article needing more to it and I had just bought Prophet's Daughter. But there is a huge amount of work to be done in the development of country articles. The idea was to lend substance and breadth to the reality behind such quotes as "second most widespread religion" which itself is just a statistic that gets repeated allot. Smkolins (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to post everything relevant, definitely beyond stats, but also relatively notable.Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok - I've got a few more citations to redo but text of the merger looks ready. Feel free to edit my User:Smkolins/Sandbox3

and then we'll work on reporting it into the article. I have an idea of the specific steps for that too. Smkolins (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Fatimih Sultan

If you follow the foot note it says:

Next in 1846 came a daughter, Fatimih Sultan Khanum, who in later years was known by the titles Bahiyyih Khanum and the Greatest Holy Leaf, and then in 1850 a son, Mirza Mahdi, who was given the title the Purest Branch.

ALso - if you can substantiate the comment of making up the name Bahiyyih I think it would be appropriate to include. I've never heard that story. But then never had I heard the above either

About Matrimony timing

We have a few links -

this quote

|-
|
Not until, however, she had been confined in the company of Bahá’u’lláh within the walls of the prison-city of ‘Akká did she display, in the plentitude of her power and in the full abundance of her love for Him, those gifts that single her out, next to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, among the members of the Holy Family, as the brightest embodiment of that love which is born of God and of that human sympathy which few mortals are capable of evincing.

|-
|
Banishing from her mind and heart every earthly attachment, renouncing the very idea of matrimony, she, standing resolutely by the side of a Brother whom she was to aid and serve so well, arose to dedicate her life to the service of her Father’s glorious Cause.

it seems to hint the timing was much latter than the ref we're using now - which only communcates timing by placement in a looser, timing, I think. Smkolins (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whenever you are ready

We can fine tune the article in place - I think we're far enough along to replace the existing article. I'm concerned that the article is beginning to get attention and we could have essentially a competition on major re-writes. What I suggest is you edit my draft page and copy the section down through "Acre" and paste in the main article replacing all the content (even the new flag about not being categorized.) Then I'll add the remaining. That way you get to keep priority heritage as the initial creator of the page and since the majority of that content was yours, it's you replacing it. If I do it could look like some kind of edit war. Just make sure to use the comment space below the edit window to comment about an agreed upon re-write. And I should show you about the citation remplates I'm using - see Wikipedia:Citation templates Smkolins (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

welcome

It's great to see someone editing Baha'i articles. Even better that you write well and add references. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you?

In the page Ásíyih Khánum you appear to have made a Revision as of 18:55, 1 September 2009. You added text and reference tags. One reference tag, <ref name="blom"/> appears to be causing a cite error. Could you please go back and fill out the full source to fix the cite error. Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thought you might like this

[1] Smkolins (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what do you think of working on a page for Juliet Thompson? I've run across her name so often in various circles that I think she deserves an article. What do you think?Smkolins (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it began - sorry I've not chimed in. I've been neck deep in a new source that got published so I was trying to mine it for info. I found a ton of stuff on Costa Rica. I'm into Egypt right now but I'lll see about Juliet after that. But thanks for kicking it off! Smkolins (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your hard work...

	The Working Woman's Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts improving and expanding the Munirih Khanum article, I hereby award this barnstar. Thank you for your contributions! Peter Deer (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Smkolins (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asiyih Khanum

I would just ignore that user and revert his additions. I believe he is just trying to include statements of Turkish involvement in various different articles, and the point is that a translation of a term is not really relevant to the articles that he was adding them to. It may be germane in an article about the word 'Khanum' which may have roots in some common language that led to both Persian and Turkish (just making something up there), and if it is and he has sources, that's where it should go. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khanum is a Turkic (and Turkish) word. It is not Persian, however Persians used it due to Turkic influence. Saying "Khanum is Persian , not Turkish" would be same with saying "weekend is not an English word, but a French word." Khan means King in Turkic languages, Khanum (Khan-um) is Lady. Such as Beg is a Turkic male title, Begum (Beg-um) is a female title (used in Hindi languages due to Turkomongol influence). If you want confirmation, just look at dictionaries instead of changing my correction.

If saying "it is a Turkish word" is unnecessary, then why would you write "persian"? Apparently origin of the word is important. I don't know what your education is, nor I know if you are educated at all (even if you are, apparently it didn't do any good anyway); however if you want to write some pseudoscientific article on a site, I would recommend you to read a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.242.14 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What your saying is contradictory, the English word "lady" itself is actually Indo-European, but has been adopted into the English language and is now considered an English word. This applies for "Khánum". One would not write in an English article -- concerning the latter -- that it is an Indo-European word but rather an English word. If you investigate you will find that many words in all languages have their root in another language. Nevertheless, it is still regarded as their own. The contemporaries who used the term did not care for its etymology and referred to woman as thus.--Lizzie1988 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you get the point. Lady is not a Turkish word, you are right. Yet Khanum is a Turkish word with meaning Lady. I am involved in linguistics, therefore I know there are loanwords in every language. yet Khanum is a loanword in Persian. So Instead of writing "meaning lady in Persian" one should write "meaning lady in Turkish". Turkish is a Turkic language. So you can write either "meaning lady in Turkic" or "Turkish"; both would be correct; however saying that it is Persian is either ignorance or lying.

I don't know what your education is Lizzie, but I can assure you Khanum is not Persian. The reason I gave the examples of Khan/Khanum and Beg/Begum was to show you the linguistical structure of the word. You can do your best and try to prove that it is a Persian word, but you would have nothing but hearsays (most probably from uneducated people) to support that idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.242.14 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what I wrote previously you would understand that I never claimed that "lady" is a Turkish word, but it is unecessary to write that it is an Indo-Europian word. When you teach somebody Turkish you do not say "lutfen" is an Arabic word -- one would rather say it is a Turkish word. Same applies for this. To be honest I am not really botherd but there is no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill and begin disrespecting peoples "education" or call me "ignorant" [ignorance] or "lying".--Lizzie1988 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I get your point about not writing Turkic (due to not writing IndoEuropean). For the example LUTFEN, you either do not write a description, or you write a full description. You can say "Lutfen is an Arabic word meaning please in Turkish", but you can not say it is a Turkish word. In this case, about Khanum, to be correct, you can either write "meaning lady in Turkish" or put a foot note and say "Khanum is a Turkish word used in Persian meaning lady)" or you have the option of writing "meaning lady" (and never mention language. What frustrated me is that you are so determined to incorrect my correction, but do not take "ignornace" and "lie" personally. I said "saying that it is Persian is either ignorace or lying". I didn't say "you are ignorant or a liar.". I targeted a personality, not a person.

There are so many people out there using wikipedia as if it is a legitimate reference; therefore we need to be careful about the information we are uploading to provide the correct information. I really appreciate you working on that page. You could have just expected someone else to take charge, yet we need to make sure we provide correct information on it. I know my words are harsh but please do not get offended over my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.242.14 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie, keep reverting this guy. The origin of the word is not relevent in the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the origin is not germane then do not give it, yet do not give wrong or incomplete information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.225.106 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the word is not germane, but what is germane is why she was named that, and it is because it was Persian practice to do so. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ransom-Kehler

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Keith Ransom-Kehler, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://bahaikipedia.org/Keith_Ransom-Kehler. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Keith Ransom-Kehler

A tag has been placed on Keith Ransom-Kehler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Abdu'l-Baha's journeys to the west....

Hi, if you could spare some time I could use some thoughts on the development at User:Smkolins/Sandbox.Smkolins (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's live - please help improve! `Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West. Smkolins (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Hello Lizzie1988, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 347° 3' 30" NET 23:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent contribution to Tahirih article

An anonymous editor placed [[2]] this in but at least it needs more substantiation I think. But as you are the running expert on this I'd give you the lead on dealing with it. I would have reverted if there weren't' any refs but there's a handful. At least it needs more and probably a shift in tone ("She had grown too influential, and fearing her…"). Smkolins (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another source you might be able to plumb in for various articles

Hi. Ran across this and thought it might be up your alley.... Keller, Rosemary Skinner (2006). Encyclopedia of women and religion in North America, Volume 2. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253346872. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Smkolins (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lovely work on Munirih Khánum

Very good! Smkolins (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

detail of a lost reference

Hi - on `Abdu'l-Bahá back a long time ago I think you added text "`Abdu'l-Bahá was at this point noted for having black hair which flowed to his shoulders, large blue eyes, alabaster coloured skin and a slight Roman nose." with the citation of the form "Harvnb|Gail|1987|p=281" - the problem is that we need the original reference - which Gail book in 1987 was it? Smkolins (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]