User talk:Zazaban/archive1

Move

Please seek consensus before moving Egypt. The usual rule is Wikipedia:Use common names. You can nominate a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Curps 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry! I'm still kinda new at this.... Pure inuyasha 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Nfitz 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Please don't add false information to Wikipedia articles. Exploding Boy 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• what did I add? It has been annouced on NATIONAL TV that stpehen harper will be the next prime minister... Pure inuyasha 03:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only speculation at this point. The polls are still open! And there's already information in the article about CBC's prediction. Exploding Boy 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• uhh..... ? the polls closed at 7:00 here in B.C. we're the last place. Pure inuyasha 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, if i was wrong, i was told by a family member who was watching the news.

No they didn't. They're open until 9:00. Exploding Boy 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

NO they're closed here Pure inuyasha 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't. My polling station is open until 9; it can't be the only one (and if it is the only one, the polls still aren't closed). Exploding Boy 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT? Thats odd. Pure inuyasha 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter how many seats Stephen Harper did or didn't win in the election last night, Paul Martin is still the Prime Minister today, and tomorrow, and probably for at least another week. We can note Harper's status as PM-designate in the Wikipedia article, but we cannot and will not say that he is PM until such time as he's officially sworn in as PM by the Governor General of Canada. Bearcat 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist Wiki

Hi there! I was just looking at the Buddhist portal (I just joined it), when i saw your message about a buddhist wiki. I just wanted to ask what sort of site would it be, how would it differ from the poral, stuff like that. I'd love to do stuff for the site, but i don't have a huge amount of free time as i'm at college. Any little jobs that i could do though, i would be glad. The Halo

User:Andy5190

In regards to this comment, I'd like to ask you to consider just letting things lie at this point. The user seems to have decided to try to work things out and get along well with others, so I'd rather encourage that than belabour the point that yesterday's behaviour was really wacky. Jkelly 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice that i've been trying to calm down too? check my last post :)

BTW "O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me." Kalimát-i-Maknúnih 7

Pure inuyasha 23:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created. Doing so is consiered vandalism. If you disagree with the article's deletion, please explain your reasons on the article's talk page, so that the closing administrator can take them into account. Thanks. --Hetar 04:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Pure inuyasha, there is no use responding on the Baha'i talk page to attacks -- Jeff3000 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have a problem of getting sucked into debates and arguements :( Pure inuyasha 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, we all do, P.I., we all do. :) Love the name, by the way. When I'm on the road, there's nothing like a little anime to keep me going. --Christian Edward Gruber 11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

wikibuddhist

Do you still have a plan for it? I was also wondering if you know about Dharma Web. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not enough people. I should really delete that.. Pure inuyasha 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

links

Hello Pure inuyasha, it's one thing to try to improve the Baha'i pages, but placing Baha'i links in other pages which don't really add to that article is not really useful, and makes the links look like advertisements. I would suggest against doing such things. -- Jeff3000 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The link was removed before, and I think it adds to the article. people should know that islam also has a religion coming from it, and it's not the last in any line. Pure inuyasha 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not important enough to Islam, to be in the lead, it's already at the appropraite section. I will be removing it again. -- Jeff3000 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, deal. Pure inuyasha 20:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an

I'm glad that we agree. :) If you don't mind me asking, how suitable have you found the Bahai Religion for yourself? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Still looking it over myself, but right now it's top of the list for me :) Pure inuyasha 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever tried this quiz? It told me my beliefs conformed 100% with Orthodox Judaism and 98% Islam. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what i got: 1. Reform Judaism (100%) 2. Bahá'í Faith (95%) 3. Orthodox Judaism (92%) 4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%) 5. Islam (83%) 6. Liberal Quakers (82%) 7. Sikhism (82%) 8. Orthodox Quaker (80%) 9. Unitarian Universalism (70%) 10. Neo-Pagan (68%) 11. Jainism (67%) 12. Mahayana Buddhism (65%) 13. New Age (58%) 14. Hinduism (57%) 15. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (52%) 16. Secular Humanism (50%) 17. Theravada Buddhism (49%) 18. Seventh Day Adventist (48%) 19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (45%) 20. Scientology (45%) 21. New Thought (44%) 22. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (43%) 23. Taoism (43%) 24. Eastern Orthodox (40%) 25. Roman Catholic (40%) 26. Nontheist (37%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (34%)

Interesting, thanks for letting me know. :) BhaiSaab ^talk 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I got:

1. Bahá'í Faith (100%) 2. Mahayana Buddhism (99%) 3. Sikhism (93%) 4. Unitarian Universalism (89%) 5. Jainism (88%) 6. Neo-Pagan (88%) 7. Liberal Quakers (87%) 8. Reform Judaism (86%) 9. Hinduism (85%) 10. New Age (82%) 11. Orthodox Judaism (82%) 12. Theravada Buddhism (75%) 13. Islam (72%) 14. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (71%) 15. Orthodox Quaker (70%) 16. New Thought (57%) 17. Taoism (51%) 18. Secular Humanism (46%) 19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (44%) 20. Scientology (44%) 21. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (43%) 22. Seventh Day Adventist (42%) 23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (40%) 24. Eastern Orthodox (37%) 25. Roman Catholic (37%) 26. Nontheist (34%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (27%)

But I think I can reconsile the differences a bit - whenever I felt there was more than one good answer, or whenever I felt there wasn't a good fit to my understanding, I de-emphasized the answer.... However it is important to keep in mind this is someone else's understanding of how much our beleifs are like their understanding of these beleif systems.--Smkolins 13:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

transliteration

Hi Pure Inuyasha,

I reverted a change you made to the spelling of Surah/Surih/Sura. All the Baha'i pages use a particular form of transliteration from Arabic, and the details of how and why are at Bahá'í orthography. The correct form would be Surah, but Baha'is use a dialect that transliterates the 'ta marbuta' as "ih" instead of "ah". There are many dialects of Arabic, and this form was chosen to avoid confusion, and standardize the writing of Arabic, something which hasn't been put into practice on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any comments/questions. Cuñado - Talk 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Safari leopard.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Safari leopard.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 15:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop it already!

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Mac OS X v10.5. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Frankie 10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Username change

As you requested, your username has now been changed from Pure inuyasha to Zazaban. If you haven't done it already, please remember to move your user page and your talk page using the "move" tab on the upper right-hand side of your screen. Redux 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Last warning

Don't screw around with articles like that. You get one more shot, then you're blocked for a week. Got it? DS 20:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't screwn around with anything for a long time. That was a harmless joke. the mac thing was a misunderstanding. Zazaban 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The last vandalism was in February. anything since was a dispute and should not be grouped together with vandalism. Zazaban 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to stop and being the first time for 6 and a half months is pretty good. Zazaban 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of the Islam article

The criticism by Wafa Sultan is valid and well-sourced. Your deletion of the criticism is nothing more than simple vandalism. Please control yourself in the future.RonCram 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

you'll notice that i'm not the only person to have removed it. check the talk page there's a disscussion on it. please don't tell me what my intentions are. i'm the one who's actually looking at the talk page. Zazaban 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of Talk:South Africa

Sorry about that. I have a really slow internet connection...and so felt it was far longer than maybe it really is!

Next time, I'll wait before archiving. Feel free to revert me if need be.

-- Chris Lester ^talk 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Name change.

Changed it because I don't want to be labeled with an ad. Zazaban 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What is NPOV?

Since you often use the argument that something isn't NPOV if you find posted information offensive (or perhaps even wrong in your view), I am wondering if you perhaps have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV philosophy.

NPOV does not necessarily mean just one opinion or no opinion at all. That approach might work in non-conflicting subjects. But if you are dealing with issues where there will be contrary opinions, and where it is impossible to find a position that both parties will agree on, the rule is to let both sides have their say: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

Unless a way is found to represent both sides of an issue in a Wikipedia article there will only be endless edit wars about what should or should not be included in it. This serves nobody, and therefore the policy is to let both sides speak, and have their position represented in the article.

I know, this is sometimes hard to accept with viewpoints that might be the opposite of your own, but it's one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia's policy, and the only way to make it work...

And, even though it's a bit long, here are two very valuable paragraphs from the NPOV guidelines that do a very good job at explaining the underlying philosophy:

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing. --Frescard 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then if you want to have criticisms in the summary article on Islam then i suggest you add it on the article on every religion. Islam isn't the only one that has been criticized. any thing about harsh criticisms or accusations of being violent about Christianity is swiftly reverted. Do I sense bias? Zazaban 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Christian, so I don't hang around at the Christianity pages too much. I also don't have the time to keep track of every religon page there is. But if critique is suppressed elsewhere then that should definitely be addressed on those pages. A lot of people misunderstand the philosophy behind NPOV and its implementation (and I imagine this to happen in lots of controversial topics), so the way to go about this issue is not to suppress critique everywhere but to implement it instead, wherever it's lacking. --Frescard 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

well It's not going to LOOK NPOV If the Islam article has criticism and the Christianity article doesn't. Zazaban 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First - POVs are not balanced between different articles, but in the same article. Yes, ideally pages about similar subject should have similar structures. But since this a volunteer effort it might take a while before this ideal is reached. Until then we have to try to improve the Wikipedia one page at a time...

Second - Quite a few other religion pages have critique sections on their summary pages actually (Roman_Catholic#Controversial_Catholic_teachings & Christianity#Controversies_and_criticisms, for example).

And third - Islam will always attract more critisicm than other religions since it is politically more involved. As soon as a religion becomes a political power it will also become a political target. (If you're just some obscure little religious movement that anybody can adhere to or ignore at their own pleasure, that will not cause much controversy. But as soon as a religion becomes a serious political influence, that means you're getting a HUGE can of worms along with it...) --Frescard 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

The criticism of Islam that I believe is relevant is the criticism that the founder of Islam told his followers to fight against those who do not believe as Muslims. The Wahhabists have focused on this teaching but they did not start it. The Shiites have focused on this but they did not start it either. It was first taught by the founder and is available for all to read in the Quran. The founder also practiced what he preached. There is no misunderstanding of the meaning of his words. Like Wafa Sultan I believe Islam should divorce itself from these teachings. They should proclaim those teachings as being for another time and another culture. There are many peaceful sayins in Islam, but Islam is not proving itself to be a religion of peace. RonCram 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad didn't practice that. not even muslims sources say that he slaughtered people. all his wars were defence wars. Zazaban 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Roncram, Zazaban is completely correct. Please do not a start this sort of discussion on a userpage, instead use the talk page of Islam or Criticism of Islam. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

lol I was thinking about that very matter when you did what I would have done. grazon 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Note that the "Admirers of Jesus" category is under consideration for deletion here. Wookipedian 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Youtube

I was thinking that it was not my arguments that you do not support but that you did not like me or my comments. Youtube and the Baha'i wikipedia page has a place. But I would not put this link onto the page. It is best in your discussion page. A contrast to the Chile House of Worship. RoddyYoung 03:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ps pps ppps

No, I like you fine. What I don't like is that you refuse to accept any opinion but your own and it's getting annoying. Zazaban 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

You can change the template from {{sprotect}} to {{protect}}, but it doesn't really change the protection status of the page (which only an admin can do), so there's no point in changing the template. The template is only a visual indicator of the protection status. Regards. -- Jeff3000 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Being nice

Sorry if I was a little hard hitting there. You invited us to stop being nice and I accepted. I know that backfired on you and I have sympathy for your tough break. I only wish this wasn't on the main talk page because it would've saved us all a lot of embarassment. I stand by what I said earlier, but I have more of a feeling that we all could've done better. I think you're generally a great contributer. -LambaJan 14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's O.K. i think we all got a little agitated a bit in the last month. Zazaban 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted your edits on Baha'i Faith, as they were leading the reader. The best way is to present the facts as have been done, and the reader can determine for themselves. It's pretty clear. -- Jeff3000 00:33, 21 September 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)

Persian names

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

eva

Hi Zazaban, I removed that name from the list of Baha'is because on her biography page it does not mention that, and a very brief google search didn't come up with anything. I think that's great if she is, because she's rather famous. Could you make sure that her page is updated with the correct reference and category? Cuñado - Talk 05:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does. Scroll down and check the spot titled "religion" Zazaban 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I also couldn't find it with a simple google search but the page does seem comprehensive - a good find Zazaban! I added a breif line to her trivia section in wikipedia with the citation. --Smkolins 03:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

'Course now I see a link plain as day on her "official website"....--Smkolins 04:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now it's on her WP bio page. That's all I was looking for. The non-wikipedia pages about her are very discreet and certainly don't advertise her religion. Cuñado - Talk 06:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Caliphate and Democracy

Hello Zazaban. Take a look at Abbasid#Abbasid_Caliphs_of_Baghdad and tell me if you still think the Caliphate was a democracy. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The caliphate was democratic before the Ummayads. Zazaban 20:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying the caliphate should be called democratic because it was so for at least about 60 years of it's more than 1000-year existence? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed ti to say Early Caliphate. Zazaban 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What bearing does that have on Shi'a beliefs though? It's probably inaccurate too - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in a democracy within a country that's 90% Shi'a. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit makes it seem as if the Shi'a object to the caliphate because it is somewhat (at times) democratic. They object to the caliphate, and any other system, because it is not Imamat. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I don't feel that these sort of comments are helpful. If they do have something against the Baha'i Faith, it just makes them more angry. The best way to approach it is either to ignore the vandals (in this case it looks like it was purely random) or to approach it with a loving atmosphere. Just a suggestion. -- Jeff3000 02:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone

See my question there --Canuckguy 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

website

On your website, instead of writing this

<br />http://amos-music.com/ <br />

Try writing this

<br /><a>http://amos-music.com/</a><br />

For all the examples. That will make the links clickable. Cuñado - Talk 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism

Just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism and add your name. As for the userbox thing, simply cut the code, from, eg, User:ScottDavis with the boxtop, boxbottom thing. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I meant, Some people have nice, large boxes that take up the whole page and contain everything. Zazaban 05:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions you posted on the main page

The main page talk is for discussion of the main page only. Please put questions about how to use Wikipedia at the help desk. -Elmer Clark 06:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist cosmology

Would you mind characterizing your objection to the sentence you keep altering beyond saying "POV"? For one thing, your alterations make nonsense of the sentence; for another, it's not "point of view" to say that gandharvas, yakshas, and so on appear in fairy tales, it's a statement of fact. They are close if not exact analogues to the elves, fairies, and ogres of European mythology. To make that statement is not praising these creatures. It is not denigrating them. It is not making a statement about whether they exist or not. It is merely asserting something about their position in popular consciousness. RandomCritic 06:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir

I have been editing the Buddism-Hinduism relations of Siddhartha Gautama page. I intended to substitute the earlier unsourced material provided by User:216.254.121.169 by sourced text. You refered to my edits as vandalism.Sir, this was not my intention. My intention was to write properly about the actual relations. Please support the work by allowing sourced text to stay. If you have any problems at all with the current version, or would like me to add or write things differently please message me and convey your views. Thank you and Best Regards. Freedom skies 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

None at all, sir. Thanks for your message. Freedom skies 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cutting down Links

Sorry, but you could be a bit more careful with cutting very good links; what you call POV is exactly reflected in your arbitrary cutting of some very good and reliable sources like Access to Insight and Berzin Archives. rudy 01:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I might have accidentally cut off a few good ones. Zazaban 01:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)