Jump to content

User talk:Jeff3000: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
new section
Line 56: Line 56:
I'm asking you since you seem quite involved in some of the issues.
I'm asking you since you seem quite involved in some of the issues.


Peace, --[[User:BoogaLouie|BoogaLouie]] ([[User talk:BoogaLouie|talk]]) 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Peace, --[[User:BoogaLouie|BoogaLouie]] ([[User talk:BoogaLouie|talk]]) 00:10, 6 February 2009

New Religion
Congratulations. You have made an edit to the list of religions page and so become the second member of my new religion and a temple will be erected to you in Plymouth and 39,000 sheep will be sacrificed in your honour. The other member, apart from me is User Alansohn who is also a demigod so he is above you. ([[User:Heaven12345|Heaven12345]] ([[User talk:Heaven12345|talk]]) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Revision as of 15:49, 21 February 2009

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 2005-02-03 – 2006-03-08 Archive 2 2006-03-14 – 2006-07-12
Archive 3 2006-07-12 – 2006-09-22 Archive 4 2006-09-23 – 2006-12-04
Archive 5 2006-12-05 – 2007-06-19 Archive 6 2007-06-19 – 2007-12-03
Archive 7 2007-12-04 – 2009-01-06

edits

y do u keep changing my edits?? i have not lied in any of them and i have used sources from well researched historians and scholars. i have also kept the neutral tone throughout my work. so will you stop editing every bit of work i write —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no. your bieng very picky and unreasonable. there are lots of articles which have the dates of people written in them. also many of the other articles include sources from their own religion. try the islamic pages...plus, what gives YOU the right to go around telling me what is right and wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talkcontribs) 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i no u didnt make them up, but ur bien unreasonable cos your picking on me in paticuliar. every peice of writing i right you find something wrong with it. do you spend all day on wikipedia or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjames 9999 (talkcontribs) 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Dear Jeff3000,


I wanted to apologize to you and the non-Bahai Wikipedia staff for how much I have been a trouble for you all. I understand that my actions were not so reasonable, and that I should have been more serious about Wikipedia. I promise never to vandalize anymore, knowing that if I don't vandalize it will be for my own good. Yet it really stings me to see how the Bahais are controlling wikipedia, and the proof is present in this URL: http://bahaikipedia.org/Main_Page

Google is trying to compete with you guys for a reason. They probably want less bias info, or they have an ego problem. Either way, it seems that Wikipedia needs 'some clean-up'.

Coming back to me, I promise that from this day forth, I shall be a true wikinerd (inside joke)/wikipedian, and I will make my edits constructive (if I even edit). In fact, I might even make a new Blog called "The Confessions of a Wikipedia Vandalizer". I am sure you'll enjoy it. When it's made, I'll send you a link. Once again, sorry for being such a burden on you and your fellow co-workers (the non-Bahai workers). Tell Jimmy Whales I said "Thanks For Making Such A Great Site", and give him my warning, "Watch out for the scheming Bahais!" LOL. Just a little joke here and there. Good luck in all your future articles. I will join as a user soon. Thank you so much for your cooperation.

"Yahya Al-Shiddazi"

Jeffy, sir, do you have any comments about this?

Based on your comments and your actions I doubt you can edit neutrally. Even when you claim you'll be a productive editor you keep attacking Baha'is and making fun of them, which is against Wikipedia policy. See assume good faith and no personal attacks. You've been also making baseless claims against Baha'is with no proof on a number of other's pages. There has been no proof that Baha'is are controlling Wikipedia. In fact most of the Baha'i pages are referenced by very reliable academic sources. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. These reliable sources include academic publishers, and do not include self-published sources or polemic sources. Bahaikipedia is not related to Wikipedia in any manner. Also, please don't call me "Jeffy", it is condescending. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

Hi Jeff, can you clarify why my edits on the Islamic prophet Muhammed were removed? There wasn't a single fact that I added that is not true, indeed, the facts have been sourced from Islamic texts. His marriage to Aisha at 6 years old and consumation of this marriage at 9 is a historical fact and this is definitely not an accusation that can be levied againsts Abraham, Moses, Israel, or Jesus thus I believe it worthy of note. The charge of Jews and Christians being inconsistent that has been left in the article deserves to be answered by highlighting that inconsistencies are numerous within the Quar'an itself.

I can appreciate why some facts might be considered inconvenient for some religions however suppression of the facts in the interest of 'fairness' is surely biased?

Kind regards

JCCauseofthejust (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious minorities in Iran merger

Do you have any objection to merging Religious minorities in Iran into Religion in Iran? Discussion I'm asking you since you seem quite involved in some of the issues.

Peace, --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2009

New Religion Congratulations. You have made an edit to the list of religions page and so become the second member of my new religion and a temple will be erected to you in Plymouth and 39,000 sheep will be sacrificed in your honour. The other member, apart from me is User Alansohn who is also a demigod so he is above you. (Heaven12345 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]