User talk:Peter Deer/Archive 1

Please note I did not copy my responses to my own talk page at the time. If you desire to see individual conversations you shall have to visit the talk pages of the persons on this page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your welcome

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

Thanks Peter

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. нмŵוτн τ 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: barnstar

Thanks, huggle is really fast. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi Peter. Thanks very much for the barnstar. It was somewhat unexpected, but a nice surprise nonetheless. :). MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR:Allah

Hi, I think this article is GA. In fact this is the good first article among about ten article which I've reviewed. But the former reviewer didn't pass it. [2] Can you please write your idea here. Especially I need your view about the first item. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

As I had said there is no proof that he did exist there is no proof he was made up. Nut events in the Bible point to the Romans. Talk pages do not matter if they are edited as the average Joe wouldn't think to look at them. Metalocalypse (talk)

I would like to be more active on Wikipedia but I have no idea where to start. Also the Romans turned Christian soon after it became widely available. Than they rid the Empire of Pagans, with help from some allies, and such after a while until all of Europe had to be Christian. The facts are just not there for the other side really. I mean the Bible is "factual" but there is no solid proof as documents were scarce that is my point. He never existed in history even if he did exist. There are no documents and by todays standards he would be nonexistent. But can you help me become active in Wikipedia? Thank you. Metalocalypse (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal

Hi Peter,

Hope you are doing well. Could you please take a look at my proposal here [3]. Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophets in Wikipedia

Why don't you start with these.

You cannot pick a word a say it is automatically POV to use it.--Carlaude (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

"As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

"...and there will be little you will be able to do to convince them otherwise..."

--Carlaude (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were no personal attacks there whatsoever. I was speaking from personal experience. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Islam

What's wrong with this revision? FiveRupees (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was undoing my edit. My version is more informative, more aesthetic and mentions the Shi'as contributions to the Islamic Golden Age and this is what I think bothered him. Now I'm going to revert it back to my version because there is a very good chance he will report me for reverting 3 times. FiveRupees (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New change in WP:MOSISLAM

Salam Alaykum

Two weeks ago I put a comment in the talk page of MOSISLAM and proposed using "The Prophet" in especial cases and about one weeks ago I changed WP:MOSISLAM [4]. Nobody protest or change my proposal. Thus I want to insert it in the related articles.

Thanks, for your answer. I copied it in [5].--Seyyed(t-c) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam-related categories

Sure Peter, thank you for your kind tone; I'm happy to explain. I removed some of them from their categories because they were already included in subcategories. E.g. Muhammad is in Category:Muhammad which is itself in Category:Islam. Consequently, there is no need for the article to be in the parent category. I am confused about your allegation of replacing the Islam category; perhaps you are referring to this? As you can see upon further inspection, I did not replace anything, but deleted Category:Islam (since it was redundant) and alphabetized the existing categories; Qur'an was already in the Category:Islamic mythology. Please respond on my talk if you need more information from me. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too true I sometimes wonder about this myself and what should be done - for me, it's not an easy answer, and Wikipedia agrees sometimes kind of. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My side project

I've had a side project underway for some time. Well, it's finally cleared and I could use some more. Could you take a look at the project, and if you see something worth contributing please do so. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespect

Why are you doing this?FiveRupees (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my version of the introduction is good. It is much better. I don't see any reason why any of you would change it. Revert your edit and leave it be.

Thanks for your comment.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This individual is really giving me gray hairs. I wish I was nicer with him as you two are. Well, not really. --Enzuru 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pip pip tally ho

Are you British or something? Sorry, I'm a linguistics student so I have to ask. Coo coo cajoob sounds quite a bit like goo goo gajoob in the Beatles' 'I am the walrus' but I couldn't guess where that other one came from or what group or subculture interjects such phrases like that. -LambaJan (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note...

LOL! I noticed on your talk page that we already had this discussion. I must admit though that your version is much better than mine. Your version actually doesn't have very far to go. The difficulty though is that what we're essentially doing is splitting into two articles what is currently in one. This means that we need to also flesh out the Shoghi Effendi article. One of us should probably get our hands on The Priceless Pearl and anything else like that and work on a sandbox page, we can use the one I gave you the link to, and get it ready to go so that we can switch over to my Shoghi Effendi article and your Guardian of the Cause of God article at the same time and everyone will be only minimally bothered by the transition. When we think ours are good we should call over some of the fellas to run through them before we post them for real. By the looks of how yours is coming along it looks like most of it will probably stay pretty similar to how it is. -LambaJan (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Unrelated to wikipedia

I think you would find pieces by Hafez or Rumi pretty good :). Since you say you are fan though, you probably have read their work already.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll send you some via email (if that's ok with you), one of these days :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in particular

I'm stalking you ;) Keep up the good work. Your efforts don't go unnoticed around here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I'm sorry for the vandalizm on the 9th of February, I believe it was my friend who used my computer to do this for I have no memory of vandalizing the Pokemon Pickachu page. Besides, I have an account on Wikipedia, I would have used that. If you do not beleive me then I will be happy to take the blame, but I would be pleased if you forgave my friend and me, for I swear that I speak only the truth. Thank you for your time. Again, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.0.45 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, imagery

Peter,

Thanks for the comment. I am of course well aware of the reasons behind the disdain for the existence of his image, in fact technically the same issue is concerned with images of Adam, Moses, Jesus, etc. Seeing a statue or image of Jesus though affects me in a different manner, partly because the image, idealogy, really is now a piece of popular culture... Buddy Christ, SouthPark's Jesus etc.. Ultimately, having to see the image of Jesus regularly, and having not the same cultural lens to view it through which Christians do, has made it bothersome, but not difficult, to rationalize. Seeing images of Jesus all the time is just sad to me really, more than anything else. It was with the image of the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, that I was just thrown aback at how my mind tried to process this image. Having to conceptualize a historic figure without the lens of graphic representation is rare in our time, I think. Even having to conceptualize a mythical, religious, or fantastic figure without images is rare. I have processed more images of the depiction of "God", either classical (Michelangelo) or Modern (Kevin Smith), than I ever have of the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. Which was just a fascinating realization to come by. Bozatlim (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]