User talk:General Disarray/Archive1

new account[edit]

Making a lot of accounts does not fool anyone. If you don't have at least 100 edits then you're not considered a legitimate account. Cuñado - Talk 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BUPC[edit]

Please try to keep your edits factual. Regardless of whether or not you like it, the fact is that Jensen and his followers are considered as covenant breakers by the majority of Baha'is. You might feel better by mentioning that Jensen considers all the others as covenant breakers.

Try to state what his beliefs are, and not state his beliefs as facts. There's a subtle but important difference.

It might also help if you provide references to the facts you're adding, like the BUPC website. I'm not continuously reverting your edits out of spite or censorship or something like that, but if your edits continue to look like propaganda for the BUPC I will continue to revert them. Cuñado - Talk 08:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff,

Re your comments on Cunado's home page, there is a caveat at the top of the page that explains the website deals with the mainstream Baha'i Faith - what you would call the Haifa Baha'is. As they consider Lelland a CB surely that is enough to leave as is.

Alternatively do you think that the BF page should reflect non-Haifa Baha'is too?

AndrewRT 13:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HI Jeff,

I don't suppose you've noiced the vandalism that was suffered on the Bf pages today? It seems from the earlier posts to have been done by a follower of Mason Remey. I realised that you are a follower too, and wondered if you could say something as I'm sure this kind of thing damages both wikipedia and Remeyites themselves. I appreciate Haifan Baha'is can be difficult at times but I'm sure there are better ways of dealing with them than this. AndrewRT 18:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I didn't mean any offense with the above comments, and I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of being the vandal. I apologise for refering to Remeyite - I didn't realise you would consider it offensive. I only used the term because it was clear the vandal was a follower of Mason Remey but not clear he was BUPC - he could have been Orthodox Baha'i. AndrewRT 13:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image tags[edit]

Do not remove a {{nosource}} tag from an image unless you have provided a source. Even if you think an image is out of copyright, we still need to know the source so that we can judge whether it is out of copyright. -- RHaworth (fav state) 09:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see some sources[edit]

Nice to see you adding some sources to your edits. Their absence, and over-reliance on online sources, has compromised your contributions to-date.

You don't seem to have had the "Welcome to Wikipedia" spiel yet, so let me post for you several of the wikipedia links that may be helpful to you.

Editing[edit]

Wikepedia policies and guidelines[edit]

I don't have a problem with properly documented, NPOV, articles on the BUPC. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or propoganda rag for any of us, so that's why I have stood, and will continue to stand, on proper sourcing and NPOV on any article.

Actually, the more objective information on the BUPC, the better. It'll shine a bright light and throw into high relief the differences between them and the Bahá'ís. MARussellPESE 22:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i divisions: Role of the Hands[edit]

One does not simply remove material, that meets wikipedia guidelines on content and sourcing, from an article without discussion on the talk page at the very least. Removing the material, while suggesting that it be moved, but not moving it yourself is not showing good faith indeed. You might take an hour and read the Five Pillars — One, Two and Four seem particularly appropriate.MARussellPESE 03:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davidic Line[edit]

Oh. You're using this passage citing Lua Getsinger as proof? I thought that was just a tag-line. And exactly which argument have you "subverted"? Sorry. You must have a different idea of proof than I do. I usually think of sound logic based on examining as much data as possible from verifiable sources.

Addressing the Getsinger quote as you assert that that's some kind of proof, and neglecting the oddity that a one line quote appears across seven pages as cited, Lua Getsinger is not considered an authority on Bahá'í doctrine by anybody. She was a believer for less than two years when she met 'Abdul-Bahá, so her reaction probably amounts to not much more than the hyperbolic reaction of a new convert meeting the head of her faith for the first time. Her emotional intensity deserves respect, but that hardly makes it authoritative doctrine. Anyone with passing familiarity with 'Abdul-Bahá would surmise that he'd have been embarrased, to say the least, to be referred to as "the King of the whole world".

You asked for a point—by—point answer and you recieved one. You didn't seem obliged to return the consideration. Where exactly did you show that the geneology was published or authentic? It was pretty easy to declare the discussion closed since you hadn't demonstrated the document's authenticity — which is the foundation of the entire thesis.

Here are the arguments, again, that this thesis is false. As you did ask to be addressed point-by-point, would you please return the courtesy and answer point-by-point.

The document cited is not published — so its authenticity has not been vouched for.
The document cited is by an unknown author, of unknown training, using unverifiable data — so its authenticy can not be determined.
The document cited, if granted as genuine and as accurate as possible, lacks any documentation that the lines from Riunian to Bostanai and from Bostanai to Aqa Fakr – both of which skip generations – are exclusively male — so it can't be asserted as established fact that the line from David to Bahá'u'lláh is either.
The subject of this debate, Bahá'u'lláh, never made any claim of this ancestry.
The subject's eldest son, 'Abdul-Bahá, likewise never made any claim of this ancestry.
Bahá'u'lláh's sole reference to the "Throne of David" occurs in a passage that begins "At one time We address the people of the Torah" so he, himself, is refering to Christ's fulfilment of this prophecy metaphorically.
'Abdul-Bahá, likewise Shoghi Effendi, exclusively refers to the "Throne of David" as purely metaphorical in the context of Christ's fulfilment of these prophesies in that sense — so your dismissal of these is erroneous as they specifically address the Bahá'í point of view on the subject.

MARussellPESE 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleting talk page[edit]

You're not supposed to delete your own talk page. I got in trouble for that once. You can archive it if you don't want to see it or if it's bothering you. If you don't know how I'll do it for you. Cuñado - Talk 19:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]