User talk:MARussellPESE

Archive 1: 2005-10-07 — 2007-04-04

Greetings

I'll be checking this page about daily and will reply promptly. Thank you for taking the time to post. — MAR

Useful links

Editing

Wikepedia policies and guidelines

Other

[1]

Misc

Wikepedia Administrators' Noticeboards

Treatment of Bahá'í subjects in related articles

For anyone who's interested in collaborating, I'd like to try to address the treatment of Bahá'í subjects across various articles in Wikipedia. In reviewing some of these there appear to be, in my opinion, some questionable presentations. These seem to fall into these areas:

Undue weight
Weak or absent references
Poor references
Original research
Flat-out wrong
Tangential to the subject
POV or hyperbole
Needing a closer look

You'll find a complete list on the project page linked to above. Please feel free to log you own articles and/or grab a few and fix them.

Userboxes

User:MARussellPESE/RobZombie

User:MARussellPESE/SE

Thank you

Thank you for wished me to come back. best wishes. --- ALM 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael

I was editing the page as you were editing. Take a look at what I've added and see if it's correct. -- Jeff3000 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Baha'i Stuff in Alchemy

not a problem. i've noticed a certain upsurge in Baha'i-related posts on the internet in general (most recently, a short article praising Baha'i for wanting an international language over at langmaker). i'm supposing that they are stepping up their online efforts. Whateley23 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

Thanks for the words of encouragement, they are truly appreciated. By the way, have you ever had a chance to see the Baha'i temple in Chicago? Its truly an amazing building, the only synthesis of Sullivanesque ornament and Middle Eastern aesthetic. Only in America do we have these beautiful fusions resulting in these diverse architectural hybrids as different groups 'import' the language of their sacred architecture into new surroundings. Incredible.--Orestek 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP from China

Look at me I'm in China editing Wikipedia! I'm leaving tomorrow but I thought I'd check anyway. Let's hear it for freedom of information! Wait... never mind, the Chinese WP is blocked still. Cuñado - Talk 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A36 steel

Out of curiosity, what's your source for A36 no longer being the most common structural alloy?

I don't find it unbelievable, but I would like to know where the data is coming from. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citing Sources

Thank-you for your Message. I appreciate it and will keep the idea in mind. Matarael 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing bibliographical reference in Baha'i divisions

Thanks for your note. I understand your concern and I have changed the reference on the nature of splits in religious traditions and particularly in the Baha'i Faith.--jofframes 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related, shouldn't Baha'i divisions, be renamed to Baha'i sects? I realize that Baha'i forbids sectarianism, but this is what the article is about, no? <<-armon->> 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Baha'ism"

I edit this article with great diffidence, as it is so outstandingly good (not to mention the most important article in the whole of Wiki to me, as a Baha'i) - BUT...

I really think that this term (which is very highly POV) does not deserve a mention at all - the brief note I suggested explains that the terms concerned are unacceptable, without repeating the two patent untruths that the terms were "formally in use" (NOT so, at least in English) and that they are "fading from use" - also NOT true - their use is if anything increasing (as pejorative "deliberate error"), with increasing opposition.

I am certainly not going to go into revert war mode over this - but I would appreciate your comment, please! Soundofmusicals 09:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Esslemont

Hey MARussellPESE - hope things are going well with you. I've backed into doing some work towards the Esslemont article. I was doing some non-wikipedia work when I ran across the Esslemont family website which had/has a poor page about him. However they were very welcoming of the information from Wikipedia and Momen's article about him and have proposed a revision to their webpage. All well and good and nothing about Wikipedia really. I then began to beet the obscure parts of the web for information about Mr. Esslemont and compiled some tidbits in the talk section of Esslemont's page. One tidbit explicitly references him as someone knowledgeable enough about Esperanto as instructing Abdu'-Baha in Esperanto. I then saw a reference in the history of the article where you removed the category of Esslemont as an Esperantist. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I think it's worth asking the question and since you thought it clear enough to remove the entry you might know more to bring to the case. So - comment?--Smkolins (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural engineering

Hi Mike. I noticed you have contributed to the AE article and wonder if you can help clarify some issues I have. As a non-American engineer, the article does not tell me what this engineer is or does. The article takes a "matter-of-fact" approach to the description, but it gives no answers. I've also tried to stir some discussion on the talk page, but it is ignored (I wonder how much traffic it gets?). As a last resort, I've changed some of the article to remove unsubstantiated statements with hope someone with actual knowledge would fill in the gaps (simply undone twice as "I disagree- period"). I don't wish to start an edit war. As an American engineer, would you be able to shed some light on this confusing situation? I'm not looking for someone to "back me up"... I really don't have a stance but I'm interested in finding answers. Mariokempes (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing original research on "Bahá'í Faith and science: Life on other planets"

I am removing your interpretation of "creature" as "anything created" or "anything not self-existent". You are relying on an ambiguity of the English word "creature" that we have no reason to believe exists in the Persian or Arabic word that was used by Bahá'u'lláh. It is original research. Be careful in using a synthesis of different sources to make a point because that is also original research. Regards, -- Mavaddat (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad

I think it's in your interest to know that due to a petition, we're getting a huge wave of anons rushing the talk page in support of removing all pictures of Muhammad. You may want to come before a huge edit war ensues. Zazaban2 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Greetings. I scored a 37% (well, a little more than that, but I don't recall the rest of the decimals) on the geek test, by the way. Boo-yah.

All kidding aside, it's nice to know that there's another NU engineer out there who's not your typical apathetic engineer. And yes, I spent a great deal of time south of North Campus, though, since my advisor was Tai Te Wu (you may have heard stories about him), I usually went to Dean Holtgreive for advice instead. Hey, when you live in Plex (you might have called it Foster-Walker; I've found that there's no particular consenus, but "plex" is easier for me), you can't help but go south. And how could I leave out Chipotlé, my most favorite restaurant (franchise or not) ever?

Thanks for the congrats, and thanks for even considering my time in the Marines, even if it was short and in the Reserves. I'm not sure what you mean by "Rumsfeld's watch," but I assume that you're asking me if I was in the military while he was in the Cabinet, and the answer to that is yes, I was. I was not ROTC, but enlisted at the end of my senior year in high school (which was in 2001, shortly before 9/11). Being in the military (from boot camp and beyond) was an eye-opening experience, but I might have gotten more out of it had I actually been more careful about everything else I was doing as well (as you might guess, military service and a Northwestern education are difficult to juggle, and I had trouble doing that). Even so, I loved the Marines, and had things worked out better, I could have probably gone to OCS and made a great officer too.

Re:User:Thamarih

The page in question has not been protected. If you have evidence of sockpupeteering, and wish to post such a warning on his user page, I will not stop you... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maitreya

It's obvious that User:Thamarih is not going to stop deleting your material from the Maitreya page. So, I have placed a vandalism warning on his page. I will place a new level of vandalism warning each time he vandalizes the page until he reaches the limit. I will then report him to the admins in charge of blocking vandals. It appears he has been blocked 3 times already. I have a feeling that he will be blocked indefinitely this time. Just thought you might like to know. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Wholeheartedly Agree.....

...with your sentiment about Wiki. I have been a member for about 6 months or so, and from what I have seen, if I were a teacher, I would not accept any type of research or essay that relies on WP for information. Some of the edits I have made have been either reverted or flat out removed because (and this is just a perception on may part) the editors removing/reverting are pushing an agenda.Hx823 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Hi, you previously commented on this CFD, and a similar one is up for deletion here. Please comment when you get a chance. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side Project

Allah-u-Abha! Thank you for inviting me to be included in your project. I will gladly participate, but I would like to mention that I have come to be of the opinion (largely because of this) that perhaps there should be a Bahá'í Faith Wikiproject that would encompass this capacity as well as others.

I would also like to thank you personally for the dedication and effort you have put into wikipedia articles in particular expanding the coverage of articles pertaining to the faith. I am quite firmly of the opinion that in the long run that Wikipedia shall become a truly dominant source of information to which people will turn, and that through these efforts that perhaps those truly hoping to learn about the faith shall be assisted. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR

Howdy. I could be misunderstanding these matters (wouldn't be the first time ;), but I understand the policy is that evaluations and analysis should be avoided and the information from primary sources should stick to reflecting the information presented and avoid conclusions. Am I misinformed about that? I wouldn't suggest Ministry isn't a valid source, but it's being heavily relied upon as a sole source for a lot of details, and it often ventures into "evaluations and analysis". Isn't it possible to present the information without that? Cheers.

p.s. I do regret my behavior during our last exchange, and would like to extend a sincere apology. I will take the utmost care at avoiding such hostilities and carrying on in the future. Surly these matters can be worked out while avoiding such uncivilized exchanges. Take care. _{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff 04:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth White

Quick note. I see you undid the add's to RW. I think the editor is referring to yet a third Ruth White who is apparently a current author. I'm working on the RW disamg page to see if I can document this third Ruth. Have a good day. Wjhonson (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mavaddat

I would not bother trying to reason with him or explain to him the nature of the relationship between Baha'is and homosexuals. He is a former Baha'i who has left the faith and now pursues an active internet campaign against the Baha'is to promote the notion that they are oppressive towards homosexuals. You can see his YouTube page here, and my conversations with him on this video. Rather than attempting to reason with his opinion, I suggest you allow him his bias but remind him of and constrain him to the wikipedia guidelines. If he wants to spread the notion that Baha'is are intolerant, he is welcome to, provided he can provide neutral, verifiable, and notable sources of information which support his claim. I think he shall find that a nigh-impossible task, and his prejudice will not stand up to any real scrutiny. Best of luck. Peter Deer (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayahuasca

Just wanted to let you know I've sent you an e-mail in conjunction with the protection of this page. Since I know you may not see it right away, the short version is "everything's under control". --jonny-m t 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flabbergasted

Am I reading this right, or have you been dealing with this abuse for several years with little or no action from the community? Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made the pilgrimage to Haifa? If not, I highly recommend it. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I was there the same year. What month? Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I spent the summer in the country, and I think I was in Haifa in late June or July. I was curious if we had actually walked by each other on the street; The world is really a small place. And yes, I do live in Hawaii, on the island of Maui. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching what's going on with the sock drawer. I suggest ignoring them (WP:DENY) but keeping the CU updated. It's pretty obvious that it's one person using separate accounts. Once we get the confirmation we can work on refactoring the talk page and removing the trolling. But for now, try not to engage them if you can help it. We'll work through this. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move and WikiProject

Okay You wrote:

"Uh, yeah. You might have invited the editors who've been here for some years to join, or at least flagged it on the main page's talk."

First off - and I can't speak for anyone other than myself here - I think that when someone writes a sarcastic "uh" on the Internet, I'm already disinclined to listen to anything he has to say. If you want someone (i.e. me) to take you seriously, please don't write ironic crutch words. While you are correct that I did not invite anyone to join, that is because I was advised to stop tagging talk pages until there was more interest shown. I was going to lay low for a couple of weeks and see who - if anyone - posted about it. Since then two other persons have joined and I wrote the same thing on their talk pages. If you're talking about flagging (tagging?) the main page's talk, I did just that. So, I seriously have no idea what you're suggesting here.

In regards to moving Bahá'í literature/Bahá'í texts, I moved it in order to conform to the name of the main category (Category:Bahá'í texts), not the name of a template. Since the words "literature" and "texts" are not generally considered distinct, I figured that it would be of little consequence which name the article had, and since renaming a category is a lengthy process, I went with moving the article instead.

I have made over 12,000 page moves and if I sought consensus for every one of them, most of them would never have happened because I wouldn't have bothered checking 12,000 talk pages. You are correct that if a move is controversial, consensus should be sought. Since I thought this was not controversial (and I still don't see that it is), I did not seek consensus. What makes you think that the terms "literature" and "texts" are not basically synonymous in this instance? If you think that there would be a consensus to move it back, I would be happy to post to WP:RM and start a discussion. In point of fact, this is precisely the sort of thing that a WikiProject could help coordinate. Please respond on my talk if that is not too much trouble. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Thanks for your note. Again, I do not have the same associations you do with the words "literature" and "texts;" if you still feel strongly about it, I have no problem listing it for WP:RM. To the best of my knowledge there is not a "WP policy or guide practice to have articles named after the categories they discuss in part," but I can say that I have made the argument "X category should be renamed to Y because the main article is at Y" on several occasions and it has been persuasive (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_15#Category:PDAs, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_13#Category:Beyonc.C3.A9_Knowles_categories, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_12#Category:Firefox_addons, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_11#Category:IRC.) I'm essentially indifferent to which one should be which; I simply want them to match.

I am quite literally walking out the door for some real-life stuff, so please post here or e-mail me if you need me and I will get back with you in three days. Thanks for your patience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back I suppose I missed another point you made on my talk about potentially interested editors. I would be happy to have anyone's help, and I have personally interacted with a number of them before in a positive manner. If you want to encourage their involvement, please do. It appears that there is talk happening there and I'll check in myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ayahuasca

just wanted to say thanks for going through the links, i've been out of town for the last week or so. so, thanks. --heah 22:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Great Name

Hi and sorry for the confusion. By interesting I mean at first look it looked like an interesting subject (real or not) and in trying to find out if this was a hoax / non-notable I found that a bunch of the main editors of the article have been banned for sock puppetry and then right in the middle of the AfD is a huge chunk of text (probably should get a hide/show box) which is normally the sign of an editors who doesn't know Wikipedia policy. So, it's the behavior of the main creators of the article that are making me wary on a subject that (once again, if real) I'd like to include since we have a huge bias in amount of articles against religions which don't write prolifically in English. And you'd think from all of the sources thrown at us in the article that it's legitimate but, with the users who created it I'm very wary. So, hopefully the AfD will lead to clarification on the subject matter. Sorry for the confusion. gren グレン 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've seen that my user name has been tagged as being a sockpuppet for another editor by yourself. Can you please explain this, and show me some evidence for this? I have merely stated my support for the perspectives of this article as an academic researcher with a serious interest in the area, and as someone who believes these sources to be genuine, regardless of whether the article requires some cleanup, additions, further research etc. I am nobody's sockpuppet. Truegardenvariety (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see I have been nominated as well. Nur110 (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]