User talk:MARussellPESE/Archive01

Metroparks

First of all, I'd like to welcome you to the project! Don't get discouraged in your dealings with others.

Going through the history, I think that Cleveland Metroparks Zoo certainly belongs in the main Cleveland, Ohio article. If it disappears again, let me know, and I'll help mediate.

I just created an article for Cleveland Metroparks a few minutes ago (by recycling content from Greater Cleveland, and adding a couple links). That's a trickier case, but having a specific page for the topic should help drive to consensus. (To give an example -- I couldn't really figure out what sort of a relationship there was, if any, between the Cleveland Metroparks and the Metroparks systems of Summit and Lorain county. They have similar names, but different websites, and I can't resolve the ambiguity. And there appears to be some sort of relationship to Cuyahoga Valley National Park as well.

So, rather than debating on the Cleveland page, in the short term I'd recommend that you work on expanding those articles (including citations to external sources), and when the articles stabilize, revisit it again in a few weeks. --Arcadian 17:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Pavement, et. al

Hi - thanks for the comment on my talk page. It's nice to get a bit of support! It constantly surprises me how much some people can froth at the mouth about the most apparently innocuous of subjects. It is a bit wearying to be honest. Anyway, it seems that Wbfl lost that one convincingly - by making a fuss he forced me to track down the reference and now it can't really be disputed. The encyclopedia is the better for it, so it was probably worth it. Thanks again! Graham 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Jensen

Thanks. Yes I realize vandalism is a little different. I'll try to behave. Cuñado - Talk 17:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi. I just noticed the Barnstar you decided to give me, and wanted to say thanks. PaulHammond

Criticisms of the Faith

Hi MARussellPESE, I would also like to get rid of the criticisms completely, but it seems like the Dawud guy while not rest until they are there, so I thought that at least I should respond to each one in case. I'm not sure what is the best way to do it, because now it seems like the section is longer, but in fact its mostly a response to really unfounded criticisms (especially on the part of Iran). Have you looked on how the Islam and Christianity pages dealth with this? -- Jeff3000 12:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You referred me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts??

just so you know, I wrote that on User_talk:Jeffmichaud's talk page because 3 or 4 accounts showed up at the same time with no previous edits and they all made the same edit. Cuñado - Talk 02:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll be interested in monitoring these pages, if you're not already...

Bostanai, Neal Chase, Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant

Cuñado - Talk 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Pepe Remey and Neal Chase

You tagged both Pepe Remey and Neal Chase for speedy deletion because they didn't meet the standards for biography. I spotted the articles on CAT:CSD, read them through, and found out that they asserted notability, so I took the CSD tags off and sent them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead. So far, both have only acquired "keep" votes, so obviously they are notable. Why did you tag them for speedy deletion? — JIP | Talk 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My response can be found here: User_talk:JIP#Neal_Chase_and_Pepe_Remey MARussellPESE 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í Userbox

I've created a Bahá'í userbox, which you can put on your user page by adding the following: -- Jeff3000 04:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 {{user religion|bahá'í}}

Mirzá Abu'l-Fadl

• No, go ahead. Danny Lilithborne 20:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mirzá Abu'l-Fadl is a copyright violation, unless Moojan Momen agrees to release it under the GNPL. Maybe we should go to the version that Danny has written. -- Jeff3000 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job

Good job with the Zeta Phi Rho article... I would like you to have a look at Sidney Mintz, it needs some serious revision...

--Francisco Valverde 18:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bahá'í bibliography and references

Moved to Bahá'í literature.

And a blank template:

*{{cite book |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |origyear= |year= |month= |title= |editor= |others= |edition= |publisher= |location= |id= |url= }}

References

Thanks. I'm in San Francisco over the next 10 days, so I will be editing less during that time. -- Jeff3000 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith Covenant

I was disappointed that you made a revert on the main page without leaving a comment or explanation on the talk page. Perhaps you could share your reasoning? AndrewRT 13:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expansion. Your edit summary did not address my point that I raised on the talk page about including a reference to covenant breaking. AndrewRT 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

From Jeffmichaud:Thank You

I've spent a fair amount of time being defensive, critical, and at times rude to you in recent discussions. I thought it appropriate to attempt at balancing those not-always-deserved actions by taking a moment to acknowledge you're dually exercised efforts at excercising commendable fair and generous considerations to the work I've contributed. It's not as if you're required. Moreover, your concerns have in fact contributed to spurring me to action, and affectively improving my work and the pages I've created. Your challenges have been like a teacher prompting the student to reach beyond complacency, and I'm a better editor and contributor for it. So thank you.

I've been at this game now for the better part of ten years. Wikipedia is just the newest front in my efforts to defend the Covenant. I came into this green to the policies and standards here, but met the usual resistance and attacks by the Haifan Baha'is. This is only the lastest of many fronts I've advanced upon in defending Dr. Jensen's and our beliefs. It began on A.O.L. in '96, and countless message board battles later I'm the product of what you see today. I only mention this as background for my shell-shock riddled responses to the Baha'is in discussions. It's not my nature to be crude, but these battles take their toll, I guess. It's because of my experience as a Berserker that I'm sent into situations like this. It's by design that I'm here in Wikipedia alone, for many have fallen before me trying to stand in the face of the dirt that erupts in these discussions.

But, I digress. You're clearly an accomplished researcher/scholar/debater, and I tip my hat to your contributions and challenges. You're clearly far more fair and balanced than I originally gave you credit for. You know what they say: better not to assume for you're likely to make an ass of yourself. Wikipedia is clearly the better for your efforts. Keep up the good fight. I'll try and keep from taking it personally, and please do the same. Regards, Jeffmichaud Feb. 8, 2006

Civility

This user has a tendency to remove items from their Talk page. This is what started this:

I don't appreciate abusive comments directed at me, or others, whether they're on user pages, talk pages or edit summaries; especially when you are not following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please be civil. MARussellPESE 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I can be civil. However I do not appreciate people trying to "lord" it over me, claiming authority or rights or knowledge they do not have. I don't appreciate people making what I consider pov changes to my editing without even the courtesey of a source or a discussion. If you, and others, insist on making the Babi pages propaganda for Baha'i then you and I are going to go a few rounds my friend. Wjhonson 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interested parties can view these exchanges with other editors and administrators on this issue.

Actually it does not appear to be vandalism to remove sections of your own talk page. I just read Vandalism and they point out that even arbitrators do it. Wjhonson 16:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Veterans

Thanks for the kind words. Too often, combat vets now-a-days get spit on and mistreated just like back in the Vietnam War, because people can't seperate their macropolitical opinions on the war, from the soldiers on the ground fighting them. Your words mean a lot. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mandate

I thought you might like this. Look at the Mandate page and read the last definition. It was funny enough that I didn't want to change it. Cuñado - Talk 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bahá'í literature

The page is awesome; it was really needed. It's pretty complete at the moment, the only thing I think that we could add, is a short description of each of the books and a link to an appropriate Wikipedia article if it exists. I may do that, if I can find a good way of doing it, without making the article too confusing. -- Jeff3000 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Abraham

Someone has just added some info regarding Baha'u'llah's descent from Abraham in the Abraham article. Since your the one with the most knowlege about this stuff, can you take a look and see if it's right? Thanks -- Jeff3000 22:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

About BUPC

Mike, thanks for getting involved in the Messianic prophecies stuff.

I have a question about "you know who". It's obvious from various things I have seen, including comments on his user page, that he is pretty much a "muckraker". From what I saw on Wikipedia, it sounds like BUPC would basically be considered a cult by Baha'i. Is that true? He tries to use "religious freedom" and "verifiability" to support his edits, but he ignores that according to WP policy extreme minority views are not considered WP material because they are not "encyclopedic" material. The WP article says that estimates range up to 1,000 members worldwide. In every religion there are a lot of people who don't know the theological details, teachings about prophecy, etc. So if the 1,000 figure is correct, that would make at most maybe 500 people in the entire world who hold similar views.

By the way, please put something about the Baha'i understanding of Messaih in the Messiah article. It used to be loaded with "Historically signficiant Jewish Messianic claimants" that took up about 2/3 of the article until I set that up as a new article. It now has short descriptions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and could use information from person knowledgeable about other religions.

RickReinckens 09:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) ([email protected])

Original Year of Publication

origdate, origyear and origmonth have been added to the "cite book" template, see Template talk:Cite book -- Jeff3000 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Summons of the Lord of Hosts

Can you take a look at the Summons page, and specifically the Súriy-i-Haykal section. I've gone through Taherzadeh's Revelation of Baha'u'llah and read the appropriate sections, and written up the article, but the Súriy-i-Haykal is very symbolic, and even after reading Taherzadeh's explanation, I'm not fully sure I've written down the idea correctly. Can you just double-check my work. Thanks -- Jeff3000 04:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nineteen Day Fast

The Nineteen Day Fast page has been started. Please feel forward to add any stuff. -- Jeff3000 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Making Userboxes

I notice that you somehow recently managed to add a Northwestern University userbox to the Education/United States page. I have been trying to do the same thing with my own Alma Mater, Santa Clara University. I wrote it out and posted it at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas. Is this the correct way to get my userbox officially into the system so that users can just type {{user SCU}} to get the SCU userbox on their webpage? Or did you do it a different way? If you have time to quickly give ann unexperienced Wikipedian some help, I would appreciate it immensely. Dave Runger 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got it under control myself, now. Thanks anyhow.Dave Runger 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources

OK so I'm OK with removing all your uncited statements from all the pages you've ever edited? Maybe you could show some actual wiki pages where every stated has a page number citation? I'm just not seeing them. I somehow don't think you'd be happy with this request if applied against you. But thanks for the suggestion. Wjhonson 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate way to do this would be to add a "citation?" tag to the page, not simply vandalize it by removing relevant content that you don't personally happen to "like". These pages are not about the *official* position of the Baha'i church. They are about it, not writen by it. I will continue to revert anything you remove. That's not incivility, it's history. Wjhonson 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And are you in turn going to agree to stop removing my additions out-of-hand simply because you disagree with them? That is inappropriate. There are thousands of uncited statements on the Baha'i pages. Do you see me removing them all for lack of citation? Deleting my well-researched citations shows your pov and lack of civility. Wjhonson 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your latest comments by the way on Talk:Mirza_Yahya_Nuri_Subh-i_Azal#Citing_Maulana_and_bayanic.com. Thank you. Wjhonson 21:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your rather *long* post to my talk page. I'll have to respond more fully when I have time to address each point. But on your first point, that I rely exclusively on Miller and Maulana, no I don't think that's true. I try to read *all* the material on the Baha'i faith. I have a copy of Esslemont right in front of me for example. I have read at least parts of almost every reference posted. My main beef is that it seems quite a few editors are surprised that certain things are stated at all, as if they had never read it. My belief is that if the Baha'i faith is strong, it doesn't need to worry about scholarly criticism and npov articles. Many of the articles appeared to me to be hagiographies, instead of biographies. There is still a lot of material on Subh-i-Azal I have yet to post. Frankly I'm surprised that before I came along nobody even had posted the name of Baha'u'llah's mother. I have no idea why not. It took me finding her name in an Azali source to finally get it up there. I know next to nothing about her, no idea if she died early or followed Baha or Subh or what. At any rate, that's a tangent. As you can see I read the bayani pages, the bahai.net pages, etc. I try to read all the sources. That is all I ask of others. Wjhonson 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Babi and Baha'i pages

OK this is my long response to each of the points you raised on my user:talk page.

Browne is not Maulana's sole source. If you read Maulana you will see that he cites several works in his footnotes.

Miller has to talk about the Babis when his very purpose, the history of the movement is to chart all of it, not just the purified version that Baha'is today want to believe.

I have never indicated, nor do I believe that Baha is a Babi usurper. And I do not side with the Azalis. I side with bringing the entire story to the forefront, not hiding half of it.

The Azali works *are* genuine Babi documents. Just as much as the Baha'i works are. Both groups developed from the Babis and so *both*, not one carry on that work equally. I think Browne very much understood that Baha was starting a new dispensation. I think perhaps it saddened him to see all the fighting between the two groups however.

MMA quotes from the Hasht Bahisht directly. He also quotes directly from Mirza Jani. These aren't Browne works. MMA could read Persian and Arabic as well don't forget. He doesn't need to read Browne's English versions.

The point isn't whether Miller's work presents only one side. The point is that Baha'is want to *bury* that side and never have it appear on the Baha'i pages. That's what I generally fight against. Facts shouldn't be viewed through spiritual rose-colored glasses. They should be made to stand on their own.

I agree that only one version of the Will can be right. But I don't agree that only one version should be presented for view. Present both, and notes explaining that you think one is a fraud if you wish. But don't suppress one, just because it disagrees with what Shoghi or the HOJ might wish.

As to the murders and whether the purpertrators were punished, Browne is *quoting* what someone *else* said. Miller is stating that he cannot find *independent* evidence of that. Browne did not find evidence either, he is just quoting his source. Miller therefore is implying that source was mistaken.

If you'd rather present both sides, that why the need to suppress the Bayani's ? I've seen at least a dozen reverts when the Bayani's try to express their position on something. And the reason is something like, we don't know you exist, we don't feel you are credible. Even though they are, for all appearances, the official organ of the Bayani faith. What sort of evidence do you need to prove that? You're setting an awfully high bar, I don't think it's fair.

The end of the story is that not only are Miller and MMA not unbiased, but Shoghi, Abdul, Baha, etc none of them are unbiased. Can you appreciate that position? They have a vested interest in keeping the faith on the track they want it on, not necessary in exposing whatever other side their might be. None of your sources are unbiased. And as for not using them, they sometimes quote primary material that Browne did not.

So if I find the name of Baha'U'llah's mother on the bayanic.com page, I should be able to use that as a reference and cite that page. I know of no reason they'd create a person who didn't exist, the page only mentions her name and moves on. It's not any sort of polemic. So to me that seems credible. Now if someone else finds a source that conflicts, then post it by all means. That doesn't mean that person should remove my post, but rather add to it, and say "Hey there's a conflict here." I hope this long discussion helps you see my point-of-view on the subject of these controversial issues. Wjhonson 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fallingwater pic

Hi, I know nothing about the house or architecture personally. I just copied the caption from the source. See [1]. If you think the caption is too POV, I would just chop it off after "ninety degree angles." Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Question on correct usage of term Bahá'í

Mike, I am doing some housekeeping on the Messianic prophecy article and several others. In the section labels for "Overview of various religions' views re Messiah" and References (Books), should the religion be referred to as Bahá'í or Bahá'í Faith?

RickReinckens 04:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why so few Wikipedians are engineers?

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

If you would rather not answer these questions on your Talk page, then you may respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Need ref

Hi, could you give me a ref for a Baha'i view on the Cole Baha'i conflict if you have one? I'd like to put one in the Cole article. Thanks if you can help. Elizmr 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, never mind. They've been supplied. Elizmr 14:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism

Sorry but the definition from the wiki page is "Plagiarism is the passing off of another person's work as one's own."

Improper citation, is not plagarism. It's simply improper citation. And you could have fixed the citation instead of voiding the entire quote. Wjhonson 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Yes there are sources and there are lack of sources. If you want to challenge a source, you have to use another source. If you were perhaps some sort of known expert on Sohrab or early-20th-century Baha'i history, widely published and cited, then perhaps things could be different. But you're not, and neither am I. So we have to duel with sources, not with uncited opinions. Wjhonson 23:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Persian names

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

Thank you so much for thinking of me! Honestly, though, I am no expert on the subject, though I will certainly do what I can to touch up the text that is already there. With regards to the specific diacritical marks for the names, I think that they should be added -- however, I'm not positive as to what the proper academic standards would be for them, so unfortunately, it looks like I won't be able to help too much in that department . . . sorry! Thanks again for thinking of me, and hopefully I can be of more help in the future! Take care, Twilightsojourn 05:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to add another note. I went and reverted the edits you had made to the Mírzá Muhammad `Alí, Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh articles, and I wanted to explain why. While I feel like I understand what you were trying to add to the articles by adding the links to the Persian names article, when looking at the edits in context, I felt that they didn't really fit. The titles taken/recieved by figures in Bahá'í history don't really fall under the general categorization of the assignment of names in Persian history or culture, and there wasn't really anything that I could see in the Persian names article that someone following the link from those three Bahá'í articles would find relevant to the articles they would have been linking from.

I'd definitely like to hear what you think about this! I wanted to give you a fuller explanation of why I had reverted those three (those are the only three I know about -- if you changed others, my comments would most likely remain relevant, and it might be best that the changes be reverted), though, so we could have a dialogue about it if you wanted to. Thanks again for your hard work! Take care, Twilightsojourn 05:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arabic/Persian transliteration marks used in academia have evolved since Shoghi Effendi selected the one Baha'is use. While I prefer it, and I think more accurately presents Persian pronunciation, the formal standards are different. (The academic ones seem more "Arabic" to me.) I'm looking to Cuńado for the formal diacriticals.

I added the link in the respective articles because these titles were "bestowed", not out of a sense of grandiosity, but for the same reason they were assumed, namely to mitigate the mind-numbing confusion that that naming practice resulted in. Persian names were particularly difficult because of the omnipresence of "Muhammad", "Ali" and "Hussein" in given names.

e.g. Siyyid Ali Muhammad-i-Shirazi could still not be specific enough, and with its eleven syllables a mouthful. Much easier to just call him the Bab. (Bingo! One syllable.) And a unique name in the country. (By the way the wikipedia article has him as merely Siyyid Ali Muhammad. There have to have been, literally, thousands of individuals through time with that given name. There were probably scores of contemporaries with it.)

Same with Mirza Hussein Ali-i-Nuri. Nine syllables down to four: Baha'u'llah. (And I wouldn't hazard a guess at the number of contemporary Mirza Hussein Ali's there were.)

As an aside, my Scandinavian ancestors were not much easier to follow until they picked up surnames: Knut Knutsen, Worf-son-of-Mogh, etc. Hence people like Eric the Red.

Could you put them back? MARussellPESE 12:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding -- I haven't logged in over the past few days.

Thanks for your response. I understand what you are saying, and I think that you raise an interesting point. I feel that the best way to approach this question is to examine the reason/purpose for the bestowal of the titles in question. You make a good point about the lack of specificity in the names without a geographical suffix, but I disagree with the idea that the titles Ghusn-i-Akbar, Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh were given primarily for the purpose of conveniently shortening the original names to make them more pronounceable. Between fulfilling prophecy and designating the inherent meaning of such titles, the significance appears (at least to me) to be a greater one than the one suggested by the Persian names article. That is why I feel the link should not be included, as it seems to overlook what appears to be the more important reason for the titles being given.

What do you think? And what would you say to starting a discussion about this on one of the pages in question (I'd say the Bahá'u'lláh article, as that would probably get the most traffic and be the most noticeable, and therefore have the greatest opportunity for consultation)? We could copy-and-paste what we've discussed already, and then ask for people to provide their input. I wouldn't mind my comments being posted on the Talk page, if you wouldn't. And in the meantime, I'll leave the links as you've reverted them. Thanks, and take care, Twilightsojourn 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New world order (Bahá'í)

Could you take a look at the New world order (Bahá'í) page. I've added some content to it, after it was started by another editor. -- Jeff3000 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bayani

I've reported him. There's no point reverting, until he's blocked. -- Jeff3000 04:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Missed your notice. Thanks for the heads up. MARussellPESE 12:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

99 Names of God

Could you check out that page. User had reverted again, and I'm on my limit. -- Jeff3000 02:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, I've already filled out a 3RR report. -- Jeff3000 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is my web site unreliable

Each and every reference on my web site is backed with a reference and a link to the actual page in the original source language. Then why is it considered unreliable?

Show me atleast one reference which is wrong in my web site.

And what is the reliability of the Bahai Prophecies Fulfilled page which has been linked on the Twelfth Imam page?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imranshaykh (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 December 2006.

Hi

Just to let you know I responded on my talk page -new "policy", cheers, <<-armon->> 12:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i divisions

The issue about content is really over, I suggest ending the debate. Cuñado - Talk 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Appreciate your concern, but I won't stand for having words put in my mouth. I pay attention to what's being said in an argument and expect the same courtesy returned. MARussellPESE 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing your sources

You are such an excellent spokesman for the Baha'i faith. I'm sure that all Bahais are thankful for your outreach. How caring, thoughtful and courteous you are. Per your question, on my Talk page about the resources list. Resources are not for citing specific statements, but only used for general purpose. Specific citations are cited using the <ref> tags and appear as Footnotes. I did use the two works which I reposted to the article, in my work on that article. At that time we were not engaged in this pleasant tete-a-tete about quoting and citing each statement. I however am certainly glad that the spirit of Baha U'llah permeates your every interaction with me. Wjhonson 22:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind recent words on my talk page here. And your apparent willingness to do all my work for me. Wjhonson 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The relation between Islam and science

You will see that I have been involved on the talk page; it's been awhile since anyone has done anything with it, and for my part tired of discussing an article which may be deleted at some point. I won't restore the tag, simply because I don't have the energy to get involved any further. Generally, articles with unencyclopedic premises and marginal content are being created far faster than anyone else can deal with them, and their handful of defenders will ensure that to make the necessary improvements (supposing they can be rehabilitated at all) is an arduous task. If deletion is to be considered an extreme step only taken in the very most egregious cases (leaving aside the question of whether this article isn't one of them), I can't see that there is any solution: Wikipedia will be (well, is) filled with junk.Proabivouac 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The topic appears to exist only in the contemporary Dawah arguments of a few cranks. There is no real tradition of proving Islam through science, and of course it's POV for the title to suggest that there is any relationship between Islam, which is based upon a work of literature and its exegesis, and science.Proabivouac 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiles

Ah, I actually prefer the way I do it. Please understand that I have to redraft and review my comment very frequently. I'm always happy to explain why I do so but I hadrdly think that my peculiar habit make it impossible to follow the flow of debate. Proper use of ":" is enough to demonstrate which comment I'm responding to. I've been editing this site for several years and only instance of the comment date being problem was when no one responded to my comment for a long time. Editing of Japanese wikipedia is notable for lack of deabe in talk page. Use of waiting period for consensus is common.If no one respond/object to the issue raised in the talk page, then it is sort of presumed that consensus is reached. In such instance, I'm always happy to find the date of my comment for that person. If ther is a comment which you can't see which comment I'm responding to, then sorry about that. I will be more carefull about use of ":". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vapour (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the "what's up"

Thanks Russel. It's nice to read you too. I'm not sure I can keep all the balls in the air, especially when I'm feeling obstinancy from other editors in teh comments, but we do what we can. --Christian Edward Gruber 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, dude, I hadn't seen your page. I love it. I'm a Red Green fan as well, and your inclusion of Colbertisms, Possom Lodge citations, and a reference to "Talking to Americans" just works for me. I spend a lot of time in the USA, and I do miss my CBC. lol. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam and science

The tag refers to factual accuracy and neutrality. You have not indicated what you find to be factually inaccurate or how the article is not neutral. Why are you reluctant to edit the article? Please respond on the talk page or on my talk page. Arrow740 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all very reasonable. The Muslim POV is being addressed as well as it possible with the few reliable sources available on the issue. We make an appropriately passing reference to Bucaille, and more of his nonsense can be read in his article (I might change that at some point). I tried to get this article deleted, then after a long struggle got it to the compromise version it is now. I think if we distance wikipedia from the statements of the "experts" then the article will be more acceptable, wouldn't you agree? Arrow740 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Place names

Current place names are great, why I reverted was because the "at the time" names were removed. Zazaban 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Care to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_prophets -- Jeff3000 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

David line

so true, I will try if I have time to write some of the article but i am not making no guarantees i only have time to look at my messages and categorize some articles which i've been needing to do for a long time I may have a little but more time though--Java7837 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

noticed you cleaning up some language choices

see [2] for a list of the ones like you were cleaning (some are perhaps accidental but may reflect needs to be changed too) :-) --Smkolins 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)