User talk:RoddyYoung

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• 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 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)

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 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)

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)

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. romarin [talk ] 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 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, romarin [talk ] 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. 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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

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)

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)

Your Humour

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. Scanty
2. Irrelevant
3. 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)

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)