User talk:Peter Deer

Baha'i Articles

Thank you for contributing. Your comment about how the government verified `Abdu'l-Baha's LW&T was insightful and helpful. I feel though that I should pass along a bit of information that was told to me several times when I was new here and it's that you shouldn't respond to closed conversations. Some of these that you responded to were inactive for years before your message. There is no need to get the last word and there is no need to spell out every fact. It's good to think of the general reader as being intelligent and capable of telling for themselves which arguments are sound and which are faulty. And it's inappropriate to assume that the people who made a comment a few years ago are even still interested or are on wikipedia at all.

As to making a Guardianship article, it sounds like a good idea to me and I tried to do this at one time but my life got in the way so I lost momentum. The difficulty is that you should have it up and running in its own right before you move any information from the Shoghi Effendi article. There is a lot of information that overlaps because his life was defined by his station and if too much gets removed from his page it turns into a short boring article. I don't think I have a problem with that but that is a concern that I heard before when I tried to do this. Best of

luck. -LambaJan (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I pay little mind to the time of the response (unless it's a time-critical thing such as something pertaining to extremely recent events) and I find that the discussion is an important part of the understanding of the page, so I respond to all things equally. I do not necessarily respond for the sake of the person who made the point, but for the sake of persons who might read the discussion.

As for assuming that uninformed individuals will be able to tell the difference between faulty arguments and good ones when they are not aware of the details regarding them I find that to be perhaps overly optimistic. Even smart individuals can only work with what information is available.

As for the Shoghi Effendi article, I agree that it is to be expected that so much about his biography (much like that of any office-holder) would be defined by his ministry. I was thinking of modeling the guardianship page after various wikipages on different offices of leadership and administration. Do you have any of the work you did before still available to you? Peter Deer (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have my sandbox links here:Guardianship,Shoghi Effendi. Looks like I didn't get very far. If you want to use them then I'll see your changes on my watchlist and that'll give me the opportunity of contributing. You know, many hands. It shouldn't make a difference either way because whatever makes it out to being a real article will undoubtedly be run through to no end by all interested parties. -LambaJan (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahah yes, well said. Only thing that saddens me, however, is that there are no real emblems or signs to be associated with the guardianship. Imagery really adds to articles I feel. If you have any ideas on an image to illustrate it that would be appreciated. I think I'll probably just use one of the many baha'i eagle statues, as I think that works nicely. I'm not sure whether the grave marker of Shoghi Effendi would be appropriate (or neutral) but I'm sure I'll figure something out. Peter Deer (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

they

No problem. After learning other languages I realized that English has a problem by not having a gender neutral singular pronoun for people. Here's an interesting quote about the auxiliary language,

“ The love and effort put into Esperanto will not be lost, but no one person can construct a Universal Language. It must be made by a Council representing all countries, and must contain words from different languages. It will be governed by the simplest rules, and there will be no exceptions; neither will there be gender, nor extra and silent letters. Everything indicated will have but one name. In Arabic there are hundreds of names for the camel! In the schools of each nation the mother tongue will be taught, as well as the revised Universal Language. ” — Abdu'l-Baha[1]

I can't wait. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Munirih Khanum

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Munirih Khanum, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Munirih Khanum seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Munirih Khanum, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome

Your welcome, and thanks for the barnstar. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter

My first barnstar! Very much appreciated. Cheers! Doonhamer (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I wondered whether the that might have prompted you (I'm not usually so flippant in my edit summaries, but there's just something about apostrophes randomly strewn about an article...). Cheers for looking at recent changes, I've not done that in a while. Thanks again and have a good evening/morning/what have you. :o) Doonhamer (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I forgot to put an edit summary, but reduceing the size of a plot section isn't vandalism. the article is in bad shape. I understand the confusion, though. DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What did you revert?

You reverted something I did. I need to unrevert it. I'm in the middle of fixing a lot of paleontology articles in a specific order, not to sound rude, but please don't meddle or I could screw something up majorly. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, no prob. <3 Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Deer, Peter Dear... bahahah get it? The information posted on the kiss website is relevant and true. Our demo was sent personally to Gene Simmons of Kiss and replied to with a record deal.

Disclaimer

I know it's been going on for months. But people don't seem to be too bothered, because no one responded to my talk page message (until I made the change). Read what I said on the talk page, and on the photo talk page, and get back to me. It's against Wikipedia policy. If people have a problem with the policy, they should discuss it there, not on an article. This is the wrong forum. нмŵוτнτ 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: You're very patient

Thank you Peter. I should admit however that only by leaning heavily on tools like {{uw-spam1}} (the template used on User talk:Mslatif) can I exercise this gentle patience with spammers. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

28 February 2008

Yes, I noticed you'd accidentally reverted initially when you obviously did not mean to. Easily done. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on American settlement in the Philippines

"rewrite please" is a very non-specific suggestion. Can you add specific suggestions or at least identify specific problems on Talk:American settlement in the Philippines? It is a bit much to ask without explanation on Discussion page. The {{Cleanup-rewrite}} template also accepts a "Reason for rewrite" parameter. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember now why I requested it be rewritten. It appeared to be mostly an amalgamated collection of unsourced factoids posted by various users. It looked to me like the majority of the article was completely unverifiable and that it needed to be rewritten from the ground up. That was just my summary assessment of the article, I'm kind of a wikignome and I usually just make minor changes and suggestions. If you do not feel that the article is in need of such a drastic rewriting feel free to remove the notice. But thank you for contacting me about it as well. Peter Deer (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added your specific suggestions to the template. I think this makes it much more helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sufism

I thank you for your concern and for coming directly to me regarding this, though I feel you're being a bit extreme in calling it nonsense.
This is what I was trying to explain. It doesn't matter when Sufism emerged - which was roughly during the end of the third and beginning of the fourth generation of Islam around the area currently known as Basra - as like most religious movements it is constantly evolving and changing as it is influence by new events, people, and ideas. It is generally acknowledged by any historian of Northern India that upon interaction with Indian religious ideas, Sufism (at least in the subcontinent) was influenced by these ideas just as these ideas were influenced by Sufism.
The exact historical origins of Sufism, Sikhism, or what have you makes no difference as at any point in time, even as you and I speak right now, religious movements can still change and influence one another. While I was not the person who inserted that reference, it's a concept I went over many times during college. It actually makes a bit of sense when you sit down and think of it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering I didn't even realize the apparent contradiction in the wording, you'd probably be in a better position than I do modify the statement. I'll defer to your judgment on this, you seem like a reasonable guy. Let me know if you ever need help with any articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: barnstar

Thanks, huggle is really fast. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

Well, I was nominated just two weeks ago and I failed on the grounds that I had too little experience with non-vandalfighting tasks. I really haven't changed what I have been doing since then, but since then I have made more than 5000 edits, and I now have more than 310 AIV reports. Let me ask a couple other users what they think about my chances. I may not get back to you today, because I have to work later. I will seriously consider your offer, and I will get back to you no later than tomorrow. (Right now, it is 12 noon where I live.) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the results of (most) my queries are in and regretfully I must decline your nomination. I really appreciate the fact that you would be willing to trust me with administrator tools, but all of the people I asked (and one I didn't ask) said that they thought that a lot of people would vote Oppose just because it was so soon after a previous RfA. Most of the people suggested that I wait at least 2 months before trying again. If you still want to nominate me then, I would be happy to accept. Again, I really appreciate your offer, but I do not think there is any way I could pass another RfA so soon after failing one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)