Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:01, 25 August 2006

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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. romarin 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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, romarin 13:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Youtube

Roddy, the point is not if it is true or verifiable. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles with a YouTube section? The answer to those questions is no, no and no. -- Jeff3000 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Roddy, as I've mentioned immediatly above Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. I would note also that the Baha'i Faith is written in Misplaced Pages:Summary style, and not everything about the Baha'i Faith is supposed to be on that page. -- Jeff3000 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Consensus, and note that everybody except you thinks that having a YouTube reference is not appropriate. -- Jeff3000 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)