User talk:RoddyYoung

This user may have left Wikipedia. RoddyYoung has not edited Wikipedia since 9 June 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, RoddyYoung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Jeff3000 14:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to move the welcome I mistakenly put on the front page to this page, but realize that Jeff3000 had already done so. May, I need to pay better attention. :) --Christian Edward Gruber 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Youth

Hi Roddy,

I have removed the section again on Junior Youth. That info is already in the "Current international plan" section, and the Baha'i article is already too long. Regards. -- Jeff3000 15:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I have just got back from National convention electing the NSA and wanted to make a greater note on Junior youth.

links and more

Hi Roddy,

I really understand your enthusiasm when adding to the Baha'i pages here. There is however certain style guidelines and Wikipedia policies that we have to go with. For example, the main Baha'i article is not supposed to be include everything about the Faith (it already goes past the recommended Wikipedia size). Specifically it is a summary page, (much like the country pages like Australia and others) which means short statements of fact/belief with a link to other pages where the interested reader can go to. Also this doesn't that it has all the links, as that goes against Wikipedia style as well. The way it is done is in a hierarchical fashion; for example the most important laws and teachings are written, and then there is a link to Baha'i teachings and Baha'i laws where more laws/teachings are given, and in those articles things are summarized with a link to the main article like Baha'i marriage and Huqúqu'lláh.

Links to external websites, unless in the external links section (of which we should prune, and not add), or for a citation, are not allowed. In general things should be summarized, and then cited. Also the main Baha'i page has, in the past, been stated to be too Baha'i in it's Point of View, and not academic enough, so we should be careful when adding content, and instead get references from Third-party sources, and not from Baha'i sites so that the page can be made stronger against complaints (which is never a good thing). Hope this make sense. -- Jeff3000 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeff3000 for the notes but Huqúqu'lláh should be in that main page because it links to the Gold and Silver standard of economy. It is about making better relationships and linking.

Hey Roddy, I removed your section on Esselmont's book. Most of the section you added was about its Maori transilation and current availability. This is not really "encyclopedic" information, and a non-Baha'i reader would have insufficient context to understand the paragraph. Many of the editors are actually trying to slightly reduce the size of the page, to improve readability, and such detail is better added to other articles more focused on the specific details. I added a partial note to the article on J. E. Esselmont about Shoghi Effendi's desire that the book be trnslated and widely circulated, but even there the Maori note is too specific. If you were to write an article on the history and importance of Baha'u'llah and the New Era, it might be appropriate in such an article, but you can't just list facts out of the blue.

As for Huquq, your comment that it links to a gold and silver standard for the economy is actually a point of view, and if you wish to present it, you would have to cite sources that confirm that opinion. It doesn't link any currencies to the "gold standard" nor to sterling, but merely provides a minimum basis for calculation based on gold. Additionally, it could be added under laws but MUST be written in a way that would not confuse someone without any exposure to the Baha'is. Cheers. Please don't be discouraged by our edits. We are trying to keep an extremely high standard for this article, and your ideas are interesting. Before adding whole sections, please consult on the Talk page about whether the idea is appropriate to put on the main article, or whether it could go in a sub-article. -- User:ChristianEdwardGruber

Local Government (New Zealand) Act of 2002

The Local Government (New Zealand) Act of 2002 has been on the Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages page for a few iterations now, as non of the people working on that list seems to have a clue how to clean up the article. The main problem seems to be that the article seems to be lacking the most of the essential information: What is the Local Government (New Zealand) Act of 2002? I personally have no clue, so maybe you can add some inof on that. -- Koffieyahoo 08:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gaia

Hi there, thanks for your note. Sorry I deleted something that you felt should have stayed, but I thought that it was out-of-place, unsourced, and presenting a point of view. If the reference comes from the book mentioned just before, it needs to reflect that. Having the statement stand there on its own gives readers no indication of where it comes from. Also, the way that it was written makes it sound like someone tried to insert their own POV. Again, if it is from the preceding text, it needs to say something like, "According to Lovelock, blah blah..." Does that make sense? Please don't accuse me of having an agenda here; I don't. I was only trying to clean up the article of a statement that didn't belong, for the reasons stated. If you can alter it to conform to the guidelines, then by all means, do so. It is not up to me to reinstert your statement, and you should always feel free to contribute as you see fit, as long as it doesn't violate any of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. And don't take it personally if someone deletes your work; just try to figure out what you need to do to make it acceptable. Thanks, and good luck. roma rin [talk ] 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletes hurt, feel like burning books, so improve others work towards the 5 pilars, you may learn something in the process of what others are trying to say.RoddyYoung 09:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, deletes are not final; it's all in the history. And they are really not meant to hurt at all. To answer the note you left on my talk page, the reason I did not add in "According to Lovelock..." myself was because I had no indication that your addition had anything to do with Lovelock. You did not make that clear. Again, I am sorry that you disagree, but please feel free to change it! I don't know what part of my original response you didn't understand, but I can't stress enough that you can put it back, as long as it conforms to Wikipedia standards. I am not going to put it back for you, because I don't have the particular reference that it is from. It is also not my responsibility to correct your work for you.

I have no intention of burning books, and I really don't know why you would imagine such a thing. All of us have had lines deleted, and we all have to learn how to contribute in ways that will keep future additions from being deleted. But even then, some things get deleted for other reasons, such as being POV or unsourced. So we figure out how to make what we want to say better, and we re-write. There's no point in feeling hurt every time someone deletes a line of yours, because it is going to happen. I am honestly trying to help you here. I have nothing against the actual concept you wrote about; it was the way in which it was written and presented. If you think that it is important enough to be included in the article, then please, please just re-write and re-add. I really don't know what else to say to you. I hope I have been clear enough this time. Good luck, roma rin [talk ] 13:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Earth edit

I got your message about my change to the core section of the Structure of the Earth article. I didn't remove all references to the claim that the Earth's core is a nuclear reactor - I trimmed the paragraph down because there is already a much longer seperate article about it (Georeactor), but I added the link to that article and left part of what was there. To be honest, I don't think this really should even be in this article - almost no geophysicists actually believe it, and the only reason why it's come into the public's eye is because its an impressive-soudning idea. But, that doesn't mean its wrong, which is why I left it in there. But the paragraph that was there before was confusing (i.e. the sentences were not well-formed), so I removed most of it and added the link.

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.

Roddy - This was cut by Jeff? 100 million down loads a day can't be ignored!

Roddy, YouTube doesn't have 100 million downloads a day on the Baha'i Faith, so it actually can be ignored for that article. MARussellPESE 12:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

Roddy, the point is not if it is true or verifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the content is definitely not suitable for a secription of the Baha'i Faith. Do you really consider the fact that there are YouTube entries on the Baha'i Faith important enough to the understanding of the Baha'i Faith to be on the main Baha'i Faith page? Do you see any other of the religion pages (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc, etc) have any content on YouTube on their pages, even though they will most probably have much more YouTube content? Do you see anyother general Wikipedia articles with a YouTube section? The answer to those questions is no, no and no. -- Jeff3000 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, as I've mentioned immediatly above Wikipedia does not include everything that exists. Secondly, as I have, and others including ChristianEdwardGruber, the content you seem to be adding to the Baha'i Faith page is inappropriate for the main Baha'i Faith article. The Baha'i Faith article has reached featured status, and it is a step above other articles, and I will work towards maintaining that status. Adding such non-notable content reduces the quality of the article, as an encyclopedic page. YouTube becoming a major source of communication deserves to be in the YouTube article, not on the Baha'i Faith article, and shall I remind you that Wikipedia is not supposed to comment on what may or may not happen in the future. Finally, has any other secondary source commented on the specific rise of Baha'i content on YouTube and that it is an important facet of the Baha'i Faith? If not, then the content is original research and is not allowed to be on Wikipedia. I would note also that the Baha'i Faith is written in Wikipedia:Summary style, and not everything about the Baha'i Faith is supposed to be on that page. -- Jeff3000 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, I agree with Jeff and Cuñado. Please take a look at WP:Not. YouTube is really tangential, at best, to the Baha'i article. MARussellPESE 12:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube part2

Roddy, please stop posting YouTube content in the Baha'i article. Already there has been overwelming consensus that it should not be included. And regarding the "External links" section note, that in Talk:Bahá'í_Faith/archive10#External_links, and administrator has already removed many externals links that are much more germane to the discussion of the Baha'i Faith including http://reference.bahai.org/ and http://bahai-library.com. Furthermore note the specific discussion on the talk page regarding it as an external link

"Maybe as an external link in an appropriate subpage" -- Jeff3000

"they might be reasonably added into external-links sections in some limited circumstances" -- ChristianEdwardGruber.

You should also read Wikipedia:Consensus, and note that everybody except you thinks that having a YouTube reference is not appropriate. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to encourage you to seek a compromise on the talk page instead of continually re-adding the link. Danny Lilithborne 10:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roddy, please accept that this is an encyclopedia! --Mipago 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Hi Roddy, let me warn you that you are near the WP:3RR limit. One more revert today, and I will report you to administrators, and you will be blocked. Also, I think you should become detached from your need to have YouTube content linked on the Baha'i Faith page. So far every other editor (Cunado19, MARussellPESE, ChristianEdwardGruber, Jeff3000, Mipago, and DannyLilitborne) are against any inclusion of YouTube content. Very clear consensus; so please stop your constant addition of the YouTube content. -- Jeff3000 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, you've done three reverts in a 24 hour period, one more and you'll pass by the 3RR rule, and I'll report you. This is a warning. -- Jeff3000 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:RoddyYoung__reported_by_User:Jeff3000_.28Result:.29, regards. -- Jeff3000 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well Jeff3000 can that your 6 people quoted if each gave 2 rvt then that would be 12 rvt, it beats my 3 so you win. But youtube has the page of the Baha'i Faith now and I have made my point. So I am bannished, imprison so to speak. You may have the 700 guns to rvt me. you may even have 700 more if you miss the first time. But youtube has the page as it was and no amount of rvt will change that. So thank you for the clash of differing opinions. I wait to see the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoddyYoung (talk • contribs) .

You still don't understand the point of Wikipedia. The link is far from encyclopedic and is considered linkspam. -- Jeff3000 15:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube has grown heaps since 25 August 2006. May be now you understand what I was doing linking to youtube.

Consultation, not detached

Roddy, you have brought up the issue of consultation, but have you not broken the spirit of consultation yourself. You are completely attached to your suggestion while the overwhelming majority disagree with you. If you really followed consultation, you would be detached from your suggestion, and just lay back, but it doesn't seem to be that way. -- Jeff3000 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Humour

Anyway I love your humour: [1] --Mipago 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the Baha'i article alone.

What your doing is vandalism. you have to accept that people don't have to agree with you. Zazaban 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost a year now that you wrote this. I have added little in that time. What I have found is that many places on the internet have room to add jermain information. Will you be inviting me back soon.

Youtube's value and progress is not the issue

Hi Roddy. I can see you getting quite frustrated, and you feel that people are "not with it" and "retarding progress" or "stifling creativity". I think there's a large mis-communication happening here. The various editors who are disagreeing with you on this matter are not arguing that Youtube should not be included because Youtube sucks. They are arguing that links to youtube do not match Wikipedia's goals. Youtube is great, and I regularly view interesting stuff on it. The approach to content that Youtube uses, however, does not really lend itself to being a strong secondary source from a Wikipedia policy perspective. That's all.

I know you feel strongly about including it, but in recent months people have been trying to keep the number of external links down, because we ran into a problem with anyone with any site on the Baha'i faith would put their link, or their pet link up and we had so much there, that the external links section was very hard to use. Too much info, with too little context. Also, it grew the article content, and the article is supposed to be a summary and natural branching point to sub-articles. So to prevent the Wiki article from becoming a "link farm", editors have been removing all but the most broadly informative, or official/representative external pages (excepting, of course, specific references).

I urge you to consider re-thinking your approch to Youtube content on Wikipedia, and think in terms of how Youtube content can further Wikipedia's goals and policies. Then you will be less likely to be reverted and opposed on your edits. The idea is not to squelch creativity, but any old content isn't necessarily of a calibre to include in Wikipedia, if the Wikipedia articles are to avoid devolution into random factoids, links, and personal opinion. That's what blogs and myspace pages are for. :) A video on youtube, included between <ref> tags might be a good way to start - say an illustrating reference on a page about Baha'i weddings, pointing to one or a few videos of such events, with a not suggesting that such videos are a non-representative sample, since Baha'is do not have much ceremony. That sort of link, I suspect, will be better received. However, in the mean-time, I've called for a vote, and hope we can come to some clarity quickly, and cease the rather unproductive discussion currently underway. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hello. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hrs due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks in advance. El_C 02:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wider community

I just went to the Baha'i page and found my 3rr would not let me edit. i will tell you what I was going to do. First of all I would take the Universal House of Justice' instruction to open the 4 portholes to the public. The UHJ wants children classes, devotional meetings, junior youth and study circles opened up more so that any person showing an interest can attend. So a line to sum that up in the main body of the text would be in order, persently it is not. Then a relationship of this and the youtube content ie opening up to the public, then a referrence note and then an external link note. That is my next move. Others would have developed this from the external link first to a reference and then on to material in the main body. The youtube reference is not a link fest but a discription of opening up to the wider public in an internet way.

3rr lets me write up in 24 hours here

Humor was one comment that people have noted in this youtube discussion about a place in the baha'i page for wikipedia. I must admit that I am feeling a little remorseful about being harsh to Jeff3000 this morning. When we look at his contribution to wikipedia and then consider the fly in the ointment of rvt the youtube thing we see that Jeff3000 is an over all winner, contributer and general nice guy to have around. I have found that I have grown from this experience. Finding a way to make my youtube point has broadened my understanding. The concensus of 7 is till wrong in my opinion and they have me on a 3rr so I have to reflect. Wrong because each day 100,000,000 hits wash over youtube and 7 people in wikipedia Bahai page are chaining them selves to the tree of what is in the rules. we have had the debate 2000 years ago over the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I have been nailed to the 3rr cross over this. I have learned my lesson. I need to have main body content, then reference content and then external link content. I have 12 hours to go to think about this. Also the funny thing is I decided to run for the board of wikipedia because and my ban is stopping me get to my 400 project hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoddyYoung (talk • contribs) .

Roddy, I don't take any of words against as personal, and sorry if I've been harsh in the past as well. Thank you for the kind words as well. I think the best thing to remember is something that Christian wrote:

"It may be a means by which people can find out about Baha'i topics, but it cannot be used by Baha'is to "promote" the Baha'i faith, as it is not a Baha'i owned/controlled web-site. We Baha'is have to be sensitive about that. The goals of wikipedia are not to promote certain points of view, but to present as many points of view in a neutral and encyclopedic way. This is not an on-line fireside and trying to treat it as one will certainly piss off those who are not Baha'is in very short order."

I totally agree with Christian on this statment. If the Baha'i Faith article was written as a promotional article, it would not only lose its featured article status, but less people would take it seriously. As Baha'i editors the best way to approach the article is to show that we can build a great article, but still abide within the Wikipedia rules, structure and norms. We are writing an encyclopedia, and thus we should strive to remain academic in the style of other Encyclopedia. Yes of course Wikipedia is different, and we should strive to use those differences, but if we go too far from an encyclopedic tone, then we get into the problems of the article leaning away from people taking it seriously.

While interesting in its own right, hits on YouTube for Baha'i content is just as relevant to the Baha'i Faith, its teachings, beliefs and practices, as is searches for the World Cup on Google in the FIFA World Cup article. YouTube can be a good source of Baha'i content, but so is Google, Bahai-library.com, and so forth, and the sources of Baha'i content does not fit in an encyclopdia article about the Baha'i Faith that is supposed to be neutral, and not promotional.

YouTube can be used as an external link when it is specific though. For example, if there is video about the Houses of Worship, then that could go in the Baha'i Houses of Worship page, etc. We have to really strive to use the Wikipedia:Summary style.

Let me now say something regards your suggestion to add something up in the last note. Your suggestion is very touchy, not only that it borders on promotionalism, but some parts of it are also original research. Let me break it up:

"The UHJ wants children classes, devotional meetings, junior youth and study circles opened up more so that any person showing an interest can attend." – if this wasn't already on the page, it could be added, but let me add that this is already in the "Current international plans" sections. While it being very important to the Baha'i Faith right now, adding it anywhere else on the page would be non-neutral, but also be undue weight to the very current plans.
"Then a relationship of this and the youtube content ie opening up to the public" – This on the other hand is considered original research. Why? well because no one has said this in a source that has been published. Wikipedia uses some criteria on what sources can be used, and they are called "reliable sources" and information can be found about them at WP:RS. For example, a personal website cannot be used as a source, because it can be made almost the same as original research, when someone wants to state something, and they do so by making a website that states it. Indeed personal websites, in many respects are not even acceptable as external links. So if you found a reliable source that said YouTube is expanding the Baha'i Faith's reach, only then could that statement be included in Wikipedia. And even then, the concept of notability comes in. The question is, is it important enough to be placed in the main Baha'i Faith page? For example, a lot of the views of Covenant-breakers are not acceptable in the main Baha'i Faith page because they are views of a very small minority, but they are acceptable in the Bahá'í divisions page, because that article is specifically about them. I hope you understand this point on notability, which is actually crucial to the most important policy in Wikipedia, neutral point of view.

I hope that in the future, you bring about your suggestions for additions or changes to the talk page before changing them right away. Regards. -- Jeff3000 04:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hay I said that I felt remorseful which I do and you have been gracious, but the person who baited me into the rvt because is was fun and then I list 24 hours was a little harsh as well. The Universal House of Justice Ridvan Message is notable, published, referenced, and sets out where the body of the faith is heading. More needs to reflect the station of the Universal House of Justice and what a Ridvan message means. Youtube is a stage waiting to interact with wikipedia. My video is proof. I am interested in how the ridvan message will also do this but on a globle level. Encyclopedic pages can be predictive. It is just how to represent this in a way that fits with the rules. I took some of the last page out so that I do not run fowl of the election laws of the faith. no nominations and no electioneering was what you could have said. I was stating for the record standing so that I offer a wider perspective than 9 people concensus in the Baha'i page. Old encyclopedia's were dated when editing stopped. Now we have the ability to address the future needs of the world and wikipedia is an exciting window in to that area. I may have lost the battle but I do intend to make a good showing in the overall plan. Again and your team are great having around and if one day I get some movement in my edit area then that will be of the highest standards. Till then keep me on task. RoddyYoung 05:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things,

24 hours is the standard block for 3RR, and subsequent blocks for 3RR are usually multiples of 24 hours
Wikipedia cannot be predictive, see WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball
"More needs to reflect the station of the Universal House of Justice and what a Ridvan message means.", not for an encyclopedia to do, since it would be original research. I would really ask you to read in depth, WP:NOR.
"I am interested in how the ridvan message will also do this but on a globle level.", this is again original research, and cannot be put into Wikipedia articles. Only reliable sources can be used as references. For example, get it published in the Journal of Baha'i Studies, and then it can be referenced.
"Now we have the ability to address the future needs of the world and wikipedia is an exciting window in to that area." Wikipedia is not supposed to be a promotional tool for Baha'is. See Christian's message which I quoted above. -- Jeff3000 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:NOR, which puts the idea of original research in a concise statement:

"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position." -- Jeff3000 05:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff3000, Welcome to the only place that I can express myself for 24 hours. I feel that I am under house arrest and that the reason for it is that others used the delete rules to frustate a person contribution to Youtube. I want to note that I understand these pages are open to full public gaze and with the board candidates out I understand that due diligence will be done on each candidate. Please refrain from using my talk space as an entrapment forum. I suggested that a group of people on the Baha'i site took turns to rvt so they stayed below the 3rr and delighted by pushing me over. I have the scars from this for 24 hours. This is mob rule in its rawest sense. Wikipedia has these outbreaks all over the place. Even the no origional work page was locked down. I wanted to go back to the posting on the Bahai page that caused all this disease. Here it is 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.

The number of views can be considered secondary source data. It can also be achnoledged as published. It is verifiable too. So use of it with dates in wikipedia in its self is ok and will be into the future. It fits with all the wikipedia rules, those three most important ones. Noting the first pages to go up on youtube with Bahai tag was fine also. Good secondary data. Pointing out that youtube had many hits was a way to justify that it was notable and Bahai being a tag on it was note worthy. So the reason for rvt are not justified. We are left with the matter of how to guard against mob rule in wikipedia where their is not police force as such. I invite you to comment on the view numbers and the dates on youtube as credable information to use in wikipedia. Also interested in any of your comments. Please be sincere with your motivations. I am interested to resolve the youtube Bahai page on wikipedia matter. RoddyYoung 13:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy I can't believe you are still going on with this, and let me say there are a whole bunch of Baha'i editors who will constantly revert your YouTube edits, and your behaviour to go against consensus will make me go to administrators in the Incidents page, which can imply a block of well over a month, and probabtion of editing any Baha'i articles. YouTube downloads are not revelant to the understanding of the Baha'i Faith. If you don't understand this, you don't understand Wikipedia. I welcome you to add the link or any other YouTube information, so that it can quickly be reverted, so that I can send this off to further adminstrators to stop this nonsense as quick as posstible. Regards. -- Jeff3000 15:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editor. Some youtube truth on wikipediaYes I asking your advice on the matter of primary or secondary consideration for published view numbers on Youtube and their place in wikipedia. In your answer you completely ignored that requests and instead stated and eroneous statment "Youtube downloads are not revelant to the understanding of the Baha'i Faith." Then you went on to base an argument on this statment and try and make a logical statement from it "If you don't understand this, you dont't understand Wikipedia" Then you go on the treaten me with a bully boy tactic based on error and incorrect conclusions " I welecome you to add the link or any other Youtube information, so that it can quickly be reverted, so that I can send this off to further adminstrators to stop this nonsense as quick as posstible. regards". Wow, I amazed at how this has turned out. Some where youtube, Bahai and wikipedia have mixed a lethal concoxion of hemlock and I am suposed to drink it. Well I am not going to get into that Greek tragedy and I will need to find a deeper sence of justice before I go anywhere near the Baha'i page again. I am happy to give myself a self imposed month to think about this matter. So Jeff3000 I will see you around in a month. As the matter stands the Baha'i page is better off not having my contributions because two persons fighting and not consulting render them both wrong. I have informed you of the earthquake, told you of the impending psunami, and I just have to watch as the preparation or not take place. The reality is the understanding of the genusis of the Baha'i faith is just to watch the evens happen and for other to be invovled in the events happening. A clasic story attributed to being told by Abdul Baha. A man was asked to help after a dam broke and washed mud and water over people in a village. The man was sitting on a hill making design drawings and when asked what he was doing he said designing a dam that will not break next time. I am looking to this end. I want to find a way so that rvt and deletes do not remove more than they add. RoddyYoung 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Jimmy Wales has to say as founder of wikipedia

Youtube content that gets to the heart of this matter by Jimmy Wales.

Jeff3000 this video show how I feel when you hit me over the head with a plate (plate = deletes and rvt), This video contrasts what Jimmy Wales says. I was wondering if it is a video of you Jeff3000? Humor is a good thing when discussing serious matters. Of is it a sterotype of all wikipedia editors? or not.]

Podcasting would be a better term to use to encompass youtube. This youtube clip looks at how wikipedia and youtube are from the same parent generation and the article defines ways of understanding how they work together. RoddyYoung 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just give it up. Zazaban 18:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i talk has said I what

Non verbal clues are not going to change the influence of pod casting on the web. Giving out this point and suggesting that the history of Baha'i includes pod casting information now and into the future must not derail the talk page. Thank Zazaban I am happy that you love Japanees. Please dont give that up. I am not a manifestation of God and it has made me laugh to think someone wrote that on the Baha'i talk page, it is like pod casting has pulled the veil back on pod casting and the discussion has split the community. Lets see how the community is returned back to unity as this is what the core of religion is about, unity. RoddyYoung 05:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of the Blessed Beauty

Hi,

Thank you for your message about the photograph of Baha'u'llah. I understand what you mean when you wrote that the photograph is not the same thing as the Body of Baha'u'llah. What I meant is that the photograph is the image of the Body of Baha'u'llah and that is why, I think, Shoghi Effendi wrote that we should only view it in a respectful atmosphere and it should not be shown publicly. Obviously, if Shoghi Effendi said that we should only view it in a respectful atmosphere, then it must be in itself worthy of respect. I recognize that the photograph can never adequately portray what it was really like to look at Baha'u'llah.

Best wishes,

NicholasJB 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube in the Baha'i Faith page

Thanks for writing in my user talk page. As a non-Baha'i contributor to some Baha'i pages, I am mostly concerned about the neutrality of the articles. I do not care if YouTube external links are included or not as such, but rather if they are relevant or not from an informative POV. I have been browsing some of the videos you were pointing at with your links and they seem quite irrelevant IMO: some tourist information about the gardens in Haifa, some wedding in Chicago with smiling faces... These videos are useless material for the Wikipedia.

I am also concerned that some Baha'is seem to believe that the Wikipedia can be used as a soapbox for their beliefs and that the Baha'i pages are some kind of particular property to proclaim the wonders of that religion. My contributions are partially aimed at limiting the Baha'i temptation to use those pages for propaganda and apologetics. When I see any YouTube material that is truly informative and non-sectarian, I will support its inclusion in the page. Meanwhile, the whole discussion is just a nuisance. --Jdemarcos 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Returning your note

Hi Roddy, You left a note on my talkpage, but I'm afraid I don't recall your name. Could you remind me where we met? Looks like I haven't checked out Wikipedia since June! I guess that's because the new series of Dr Who finished around then... PaulHammond 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to YouTube

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Mike Beckham 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you add page the paragraph to the YouTube article, which you have been warned not to do, you will be blocked. —Mets501 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Please take these comments as constructive criticism. Your edits on the Baha'i talk pages is not helping your case; if anything your constant discussion about YouTube when everyone else has let it go, is not helping your case. -- Jeff3000 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today a person deleted from the discussion page. I noted this and agree to abide by consensus on this matter. I have been called may things over my constructive approach to this matter. My talk page carries the scars and bruses. Your suggestions for daughter pages still need further investigation, thank you for you constuction, and learning of how to use and work with wikipedia on my part. The page looks great. Robust. RoddyYoung 11:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop

Roddy, your incessant harping on YouTube on the Baha'i talk page is thoughtless and disruptive. You've received exactly no support there, or here, and several people have stated flat-out that it's irrelevant. JDeMarcos' observations and comments here are as thorough and clear as they get. This is trolling around on your part and entirely unwelcome. MARussellPESE 04:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in wikipedia being the best it can be. Deleters have taken our material that they consider is not wiki. These same people have continued to 3rr. Now this movement has invaded the discussion and use achieves to silence the work of fellow wikipedia editors. I welcome the comments to my home page because it is making people think. Youtube has a place in wikipedia in that it has its own page on wikipedia Youtube. So we know something notable is going on. Other pages like Microsoft XNA are comfortable with youtube links. It adds to the overall page. I am interested in the Baha'i page, I am interested in discussion and I am learning from the process. Youtube has a place in the Baha'i page and I am interested to see who does not think so and why.

RoddyYoung 05:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, archives just that: archives. Your monologues are preserved there for all to see. They've just been moved so that we all don't have to scroll through pages and pages of the same arguments.

One really gets the impression that you are not really following what others are saying, but rather far more interested in your own take on the subject. This is not consultation, Roddy.

Please review Jdemarco's post here on your talk page. It mirrors my own, and others' various comments that the material on YouTube regarding the Baha'i Faith is:

Scanty
Irrelevant
Does not provide any source information on the religion

That YouTube has an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant to its inclusion in the Baha'i articles. Wikipedia has articles on Star Trek, Jedi, etc. that individual believers also consider to be highly informative about the Baha'i Faith. (Those arguments are as bewildering as this one frankly.) These are not linked for basically the same reasons that YouTube isn't — it's content is irrelevant. MARussellPESE 14:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy's reply

Thanks for your comments. Who am I to you what is and what is not important. Infact I am intimidated by the Baha'i team who edits now, but I will try to overcome this fear and illustrate my point. I have two key wikipedia edits that I am proud off. DNA 1st reference, the dating of DNA. Time proven it is ok. Another one is on the Israel site. This one links to the youtube video, again time proven. Now the Baha'i site is an alive site if one understands the content on the page. Progressive revelation means to me that the teaching that will unit the world are contained in Baha'i text. No other manifestation of God for atlease 860 years. So I am expecting to see a supernova of activity on the Baha'i wikipedia site over the next 14 years. Infact divine philosophy will be cronicalled in wikipedia as it develops. You will notice three themes in my discussion (1) demography (2) now communication mediums (3) the unfolding of the 5 year plan. Together the combinations and permutation will be spectacular and in very short time. Unlike the 1970 years of christianity or the 1400 years of Islam to this point the passage of progress will be comparitively instantaneous. As this representation in wikipedia demands not binoculars that can see over 1970 year or 1400 year nor xrays to see with in the body, but an understanding of how humanity is one on the planet. This understanding is not physical in sight of xrays but conceptual in nature. The same understanding needed to know what is happening now and write that into wikipedia is needed to understand the rapid changing use and consequence of mass communication.

RoddyYoung 09:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Roddy, Wikipedia is not a forum, as has been indiciated to you many many many times. If you don't stop, I will bring some administrators in, which may cause another block of probably more than 24 hours. Consider this the warning that is required before I bring in an administrator. -- Jeff3000 13:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. MARussellPESE 15:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Warning

Stop spamming my talk page, if you please. [2] & [3], and [4] & [5] MARussellPESE 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you really bahai?

no ofense, but your actions dont seem to be ones that a Bahai would have... - --Cyprus2k1 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you for complimenting my actions. It's really encouraging when someone shows their appreciation for something when you put yourself out into a difficult situation where you'll possibly be attacked. Fortunately, none of us are blameless, so you're one of us.

Wikipedia is a very brash and unrefined community of people who are very intelligent and congenial in other places. Anything you can do to bring an atmosphere that cheers peoples hearts is of the utmost importance. This often takes rereading what you've written before posting it so that you can check the tone. You do not have nonverbal cues working for you and if someone is speaking to you in an argumentative fashion they will read your response in an argumentative tone unless you nearly go overboard reinforcing your loving tone.

Another thing about the common rapport here- There is very little room for hyperboles or colloquialisms. Many people don't pick up on them. It is far better to describe your thoughts in as accurate a fashion as possible. As for deletes... when you post something it is no longer your edit so much as it's part of the body of wikipedia. Those who edit are not trying to be malicious to other users, but constructive to the encyclopedia. We've all been deleted. It's best to detach yourself from the situation and think about the best way to proceed. If you have any questions about wikipedia protocol you can look it up or ask me.

I'm glad that you added the Baha'i Faith to the Israel article. The Israel article is now enriched with a not-insignificant part of Israel's history. -LambaJan 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

I moved your layout comment from the main Baha'i talk page to the layout discussion so as to avoid confusion. I'm glad you're not scared off from participating. ;-) -LambaJan 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please not again

Roddy we've been through this multiple times. The consensus is that video links should not be included as external links in the Baha'i Faith page. Please work within the consensus. -- Jeff3000 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Please.... If you want to talk about YouTube and it's relation to Faith I suggest you join a forum. Zazaban 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. I respect your right to delete in wikipedia. Concensus will change when you change your deleting criteria. RoddyYoung 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Wikipedia policies

Roddy, for the final time please read no original research, and verifiability. Then read neutral point of view. Wikipedia only includes things that have been published in reliable sources; these include other encyclopedias, other books and so forth. Using primary sources, such as the Baha'i holy writings to prove a point is not recommended and is considered original research. If you find a book that comments on Baha'i videos on the internet, then a discussion can be made to included; otherwise no videos will be linked due to Wikipedia policy. And even with a citation, the wikipedia policy of undue weight comes in, and it is not important enough. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is neutrality. If we put links to Baha'i videos, then links to Islamic polemical websites should also be included; is that what you want? So for the final time, do not act like Wikipedia is a publisher of original thought or it's a Baha'i publishing; it's not. It's an academic encyclopedia. -- Jeff3000 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, I do appreciate your bringing these items to the talk page first. But please familiarize yourself with what wikipedia is trying to accomplish, as above, and what wikipedia is not. These tangential points you're raising are very, very disruptive. MARussellPESE 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic polemics are answered by progressive revelation. Video on line and for that matter wikipedis 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 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your points:

"Islamic polemics are answered by progressive revelation."

Most Islamic polemics would not agree with you, and will strive very hard to discount it. It's not as easy as you think, and it many respects impossible (there is a very strong hate). Thus to remain neutral (read WP:NPOV) promotional and polemical viewpoints should not be included.

"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."

What you constantly fail to understand is that Wikipedia policy is unchanging in respect to verifiability. In fact, to counter the effects of people using Wikipedia to advance claims and be promotional, there are new policies being written (see WP:ATT) that make Wikipedia more academic and more accountable. So please stop saying that Wikipedia is the source of change; it is by definition not; it only documents things that have been published in reliable sources.

"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."

Information in Wikipedia is not the one who is causing change in the forefront of humanity; it only documents those that are published by verifiable and reliable sources. If something is at the forefront of humanity, it will be documented by other sources, and then will be included in Wikipedia, not vice-versa.

"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"

Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia's policy of no original research does not allow the fruits of your intellectual endevours to be included. Read the policy. I will constantly abide by Wikipedia policy and remove any original work that you place in Wikipedia. I would recommend that you spend your time adding content to another web project, such as a personal blog, where original thought can be published. -- Jeff3000 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, you're insinuating that you are the only enlightened one among the Baha'i editors. You even compared yourself to Tahirih at Badasht removing the veil and trying to guide all the backwards people to the right conduct. Even if you were right, you are wrong to make the comparison, and you are wrong to seek to exalt yourself over others. Take a closer look at Badasht and you will see that Tahirih and Quddus were good friends, and that they orchestrated the theological debates to suit a Babi community that was divided between conservative and liberal issues. By having two prominent leaders representing opposed viewpoints, and by having Baha'u'llah as a mediator and point of reconciliation, they were able to avert a major division among the Babis, and move forward united. If you can take a lesson from Badasht, it is UNITY, and not the unbridled forcing of one's opinion on others.

There is another story where two believers were arguing on whether the Manifestation is actually God, or whether God was other then He. They inquired with Baha'u'llah, and he replied that they were both wrong, but if they had agreed on either conclusion, they both would have been right. So I'll say again, you are wrong to be insulting and self exalting. The truth doesn't matter, what's important is that we be united. Please acknowledge that many many other editors with more experience in Wikipedia than you disagree with certain points you're making, and try to acknowledge that you may be wrong in your conclusions. Cuñado - Talk 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debating

Sorry, I'm actually finishing varsity in about two weeks time! --Lholden 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RoddyYoung 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't answer

Roddy, the Baha'i editors have gotten used to your unfortunate ramblings (which we hope would stop), but please don't answer others on the talk page. They only continue the discussion and do not help. -- Jeff3000 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, Jeff gave a clear, short, and direct response that ended the issue. You gave a long rambling that had almost nothing to do with the question asked. Please restrain yourself. Cuñado

- Talk 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, please do not feed discussions that will not go anywhere. Your answers are never to the point. -- Jeff3000 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is an important part of truth seeking and like here the clash of differing opinions brings the spark of truth out. My answers are designed not to be as pointed as your comments.RoddyYoung 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page "X1 Electric Car"

A page you created, or image you uploaded, X1 Electric Car, has been deleted in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets the one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:

No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It always interests me how deleting is easy and creating is hard. RoddyYoung 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji coup

Please don't add unsourced speculation to articles, as you did to Frank Bainimarama and 2006 Fijian coup d'état.-gadfium 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, do not add unsourced speculation. Your response to my asking you before was to repeat the material on several talk pages, and to add it to another article. You may be blocked from editing under the WP:OR policy if you continue with such behaviour. I will remove the material from talk pages other than Talk:2006 Fijian coup d'état, which is the page where your assertions are likely to receive the most attention. Please add links to sources on that talk page only.-gadfium 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, I caution you. In this case, you added a section to Fiji entitled "Laws", but the only law you include is the one on genocide. This is undue weight. You seem determine to imply that there is the potential for a genocide in Fiji, but you have not provided any evidence despite being requested to do so.-gadfium 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to genocide is in the Fiji Constitution and this was added at your request. RoddyYoung 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton

Wikipedia:Redirect has instructions on how to do redirects like that one you attempted on William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton. I fixed it for you. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that reads better now, thank you. RoddyYoung 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since you are in the Australian/New Zealand area perhaps this might interest you

Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau and especially A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services. I know it looks pretty dry bureaucratic stuff but read please. I think their work is almost singular (there is a New Zealand effort but it's less comprehensive). And since you're in the region perhaps you can have an angle that can make use of and expand the articles. I had thought at first that the actual content of the Guide was so good it deserved to be here whole-sale, but then discovered it was completely incompatible copyright <sigh>--Smkolins 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at both pages and found I did not contribute to either. RoddyYoung 11:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA

The information on ancient DNA and the evolutionary history of DNA has now been added to the article. The content of the presentation looked fine, but you might try to look at your audience more as you are speaking, that can aid their engagement with your words considerably. All the best. TimVickers 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TimVickers you also have add important contributions to the page. DNA is a good site.RoddyYoung 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiti Te Ra Kaihau

A tag has been placed on Whiti Te Ra Kaihau, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. gadfium 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person who set up two indigenous radio stations in New Zealand, Radio Tinui and Radio Raukawa, is very important. I like how deletes who know little about a subject know so much about deleting when they could not add anything of substance to an article. RoddyYoung 11:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Creation on Vann Walls.

March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Vann Walls, doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles so it will shortly be removed, if it hasn't been already. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. - Microtony 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information on Vann Walls was not in wikipedia when I looked and so I started the page. Much more information is out in cyber space on this person. a delete does nothing to grow the page but just start the process from scratch if at all when next some one looks and could add some more substance. RoddyYoung 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Neokast

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Neokast, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070315_001831.html. As a copyright violation, Neokast appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Neokast has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Neokast and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Neokast with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Neokast.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. — coel acan — 07:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the information was from that source and was referenced to it there. Edit of the material would improve the page and delete distroys the page and content period. The wikipedia board could look into deleting when editing would be a better contribution.RoddyYoung 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Society

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Giga Society, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Iamtall47 14:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for wikipedia has increased and this is good. But the number of people contributing to the pages is going down with the deletes that take place. A delete leaves no room for improvement. sigh. RoddyYoung 11:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Society

Just to let you know, I have tagged Giga Society for speedy deletion in light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giga Society. Pan Dan 15:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The giga society does exist and so delete why? RoddyYoung 11:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi just called in to see you 166.83.21.221 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waikato university Alumni

A tag has been placed on Waikato university Alumni, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Waikato university Alumni. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. janejellyroll 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion templates from articles that you have created. Doing so is considered vandalism. janejellyroll 00:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have defined what it is not, so it has gone, but it does exist. Who is going to make it wiki-readable? Never a deleter.RoddyYoung 11:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comments that you placed on my talk page. Waikato university Alumni was merged with the article about the parent university because the alumni don't, on their own, have notability. I don't believe that any university alumni group has their own article, so this is in keeping with precedent. Based on the comments you left on my talk page (and my user page, where you gave me an "anti banstorm"), you seem to feel this is a personal matter, but let me assure you that it is not. I'm just doing my part to keep Wikipedia organized and consistent. janejellyroll 02:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain about Alumni not having notability. This comments qualifies for another anti-banstorm. Are you suggesting that I find the most notable Alumni and then write a page on that then then move to the next etc. I was on the Board of the Waikato University Alumni for one year 2005/06 and I know it better than any other Alumni. Over time Alumni will see that they are notable and a culture of Alumni noting what they do will grow up. Are you aware that universities are the conscience and critic of society and for that reason the Alumni is a place that holds the lights of higher learning. Personal, no I understand your point about doing a job from a management stance, but what I was saying was from a governance point of view and highlighting policy planning. I see from your confusion over this that you think it was personal and I will have to approach governance in another quater.RoddyYoung 11:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am certain that an average alumni association, as an alumni association, has no notability. No, I am not suggesting that you find "the most notable Alumni" and create pages. But neither am I suggesting that you should not do that. There was nothing in the article to suggest that the Waikato University Alumni association was notable--no third-party coverage, no explanation of what makes them different from the thousands of other alumni associations in the world, etc. Wikipedia is not the place to built "a culture of Alumni noting what they do." Whether or not universities serve as "the conscience and critic (sic) of society" is not relevant to the discussion. I was the one who pointed out to you (based on the messages that you left on my talk page and highlighted by the hostile edit summary on the last message you left there) that this is not personal. You are, of course, free to "approach governance in another quater (sic)." janejellyroll 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I note the sic references that you make, two reasons for this is that an improvement is not offered in barkets after it because that would show signes of willful improvement in wikipedia pages and I have found that serial deleters do not have that inate quality in general. The second reason is that sic represents a spelling mistake that would suggest that a person has a better vocab. This use of quoting style is correct in that it wants to tell the audience that a mistake was not made in the copy by the poster. However for historical documents or if a pun is used the sic can be informational but when it is associated with one ups personship then that is another matter.RoddyYoung 12:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Yes I still hold to my comments. The talk pages have the role of helping find out what is appropriate on the article page. You comments were completely off-topic, and did not address any of the other editors comments. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a novel. -- Jeff3000 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if the talk page was used more by deleters and that the process took months so that pages getting started can have time to develop. Also those pages that a 'fully developed' by the 'we're' could be considered as zelots who push wheel barrows of books to the book burnings. I dislike the deleters and reverters in wikipedia that have be come so smug that they grind their pencil in the sharpener so much that the stub left is unable to be used to write anything new. Yes I talk in a right and left brain way but those analitical people who dislike this way of expression are in the minority.RoddyYoung 11:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karyn S. Huntting

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Karyn S. Huntting, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Avi 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reflection on this I have come to the conclusion that a second and third level in wikipedia needs to be made so that items that normally get deleted now can be relegated to a lower level as they are developed. The key to wikipedia is a little by a lot of people. I understand that you have many pages created and not all of them are germain to wikipedia. However many pages of interest are lost to extinction because people spend to much time in delete mode and become lost to the process and forget to add anything new and positive to the pages of interest started from scratch.RoddyYoung 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA FAR

DNA has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

Roddy, I have reverted your additions to the religious views article. Your addition is not only not germane for a concise explanation in line with the explanations of the other religions, but also carries with it interpretation which is not allowed. -- Jeff3000 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy, you unfortunately don't understand Wikipedia. In fact, I was blocked for getting into an edit war with an unruly editor on the [[Canada] page, who was blocked for 30 days, and for which all the other editors backed me. It was unfortunate that I got blocked, but everyone did support my edits. Youtube didn't belong in the Baha'i Faith then, and it doesn't now. And you, against all other published reliable sources, for some reason attach to the smallest of details and make your own interpretations of things, which are against multiple core Wikipedia policies. Your edits have not only been reverted in the Baha'i pages, but among countless other domains in Wikipedia. This is an academic encyclopedia, not a place for original thought. -- Jeff3000 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeff3000 for your comments and reply. Unfortunate you say but sobering none the less as the might of wikipedia humbles all who edit in the pages. I give it to you that I do not know all the policies as well as others and i do endeaver to learn about them as I come across them, usually pointed out by others, in my postings. A note on original thought that I think is important when editing Baha'i and that only the UHJ has the ultimate say on interpretation. Much has still to be addressed in this regards. Bringing out the germain points in an article is about understanding the text. Opinions may differ but wikipedia provides a place of agreed fact and knowledge. It is a work in progress. I am 37 years old and if I live to 93 as my paternal grandmother did then I feel that I will be editing wikipedia without you at that stage and so I need to learn as much from you in the mean time and others besides so that I can keep up the high standards. Others may come along who are younger than us both and surpass us in memory, perception and intelegence and we have to be mindful of that.RoddyYoung 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation of the UHJ has nothing to with the interpretations I stated above. Interprations have to be published in reliable sources to be allowed in Wikipedia. And note, I'm younger than you are.

On another point the link to the blog that you provided in the 99 Names in the Quran is not a reliable source, and doesn't pass by Wikipedia's [[WP:EL|external link guidelines either, and so I will be removing it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vaka village

http://www.vakavillagenz.com/index2.htm http://youtube.com/profile?user=vakavillage

the next meeting is 18th July '07 5.30pm conference room at St Lukes PIC Maraetai Rd Tokoroa NZ

J. Marvin Herndon

A tag has been placed on J. Marvin Herndon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RedRollerskate 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickel silicide

I found some articles about the substance, better the group of substances.

E. D'Anna, G. Leggieri and A. Luches (1988). "Laser synthesis of metal silicides". Journal Applied Physics A: Materials Science & Processing. 45 (4): 325–335. doi:10.1007/BF00617939. {{cite journal}}: horizontal tab character in |journal= at position 8 (help)
B. A. Julies, D. Knoesen, R. Pretorius and D. Adams (1999). "A study of the NiSi to NiSi2 transition in the Ni–Si binary system". Thin Solid Films. 347 (1–2): 201–207. doi:10.1016/S0040-6090(99)00004-8.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
K. Toman (1952). "The structure of Ni2Si". Acta Crystallographica. 5 (3): 329–331. doi:10.1107/S0365110X52001003.
L. Gregoratti, S. Günther, J. Kovac, L. Casalis, M. Marsi, and M. Kiskinova (1998). "Reinvestigation of the Ni/Si interface: Spectromicroscopic evidence for multiple silicide phases". Phys. Rev. B. 57 (12): R6799–R6802. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.57.R6799.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
L. Gregoratti, S. Günther, J. Kovac, M. Marsi and M. Kiskinova (1999). "Spectromicroscopy of silicide phases formed at Ni/Si interfaces". Applied Surface Science. 144–145: 255–259. doi:10.1016/S0169-4332(98)00807-1.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
W. Guertler, G. Tammann (1906). "Metallographische Mitteilungen aus dem Institut für anorganische Chemie der Universität Göttingen. XXVI. Die Silicide des Nickels". Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie. 49 (1): 93–112. doi:10.1002/zaac.19060490109.

I now only little about silicide chemistry, but the articles state thst there are several silicides of nickle NiSi Ni2Si NiSi2 Ni2Si3 and so on so it would be good to exactly stte which one you are asking for. --Stone (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undo button use

Would you please explain your reason for your recent undo of my edit on J. Marvin Herndon. The use of an edit summary would have been nice and is highly reccommended in the future. Vsmith (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Champagne Coupe Theory of Everything

A tag has been placed on Champagne Coupe Theory of Everything, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. peterl (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question about the deletion of this article on my talk page. DGG (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick’s Earth and Universe

The book article you started has been speedily deleted. It lacked content and had no indication of notability. The references provided were simply promotional blurbs by the author and from a non-reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rectilinear sampling

A tag has been placed on Rectilinear sampling, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

`Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West

Several of us have for some time wished to lengthen the journey's article. Still lots to do but it's been suggested to go ahead and post it so more hands can easily access to improve. Smkolins (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tom Conroy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tom Conroy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2011 (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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Youth

links and more

Local Government (New Zealand) Act of 2002

Re: Gaia

Structure of the Earth edit

Youtube contributions

Youtube

YouTube part2

3RR Warning

Consultation, not detached

Your Humour

Please leave the Baha'i article alone.

Youtube's value and progress is not the issue

3RR

wider community

3rr lets me write up in 24 hours here

What Jimmy Wales has to say as founder of wikipedia

Baha'i talk has said I what

Photograph of the Blessed Beauty

YouTube in the Baha'i Faith page

Returning your note

Your changes to YouTube

Your edits

Would you please stop

Roddy's reply

Warning

Another Warning

are you really bahai?

Response

Layout

Archive

Please not again

Read the Wikipedia policies

Debating

Don't answer

Deleted page "X1 Electric Car"

Fiji coup

William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton

since you are in the Australian/New Zealand area perhaps this might interest you

DNA

Whiti Te Ra Kaihau

General note: Creation on Vann Walls.

March 2007

Copyright issue with Neokast

Giga Society

Giga Society

Waikato university Alumni

Comments

Karyn S. Huntting

DNA FAR

reverts

vaka village

J. Marvin Herndon

Nickel silicide

Undo button use

Speedy deletion of Champagne Coupe Theory of Everything

Maverick’s Earth and Universe

Rectilinear sampling

`Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West

Speedy deletion nomination of Tom Conroy

ArbCom elections are now open!