User talk:Cuñado

For older messages, see User talk:Cunado19

Referencing

That template looks really good in combination with <ref> tags, and the full {{cite book}} template in the references. It has to be done correctly, and well though. The divisions page could really use it. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The linking is quite interesting. Once they get the cite_book, cite_journal, template working we should switch over. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Snagged your userbars

Hope you don't mind. I was particularly pleased with the one regarding 'singular they,' as it has always annoyed me that it hasn't been adopted officially. Peter Deer (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

I have thought this for a long time. I want to get to the point where language facilitates rather than inhibits communication.

I personally love the english language and I consider myself to be particularly good at it (to the point of hubris, I do not doubt) but there are so many useless letters and rules and annoying homonyms that just make it harder to learn, even to native speakers. It's so convoluted that I am not even sure that the previous sentence was correct english.

Several things I think are important regarding a universal language.

• A practical alphabet that is conducive to fast writing and easy differentiation.
• A comprehensive guide to phonetic pronunciation (so that pronunciation of words is apparent in their spelling)
• Spelling that indicates the nature of the word immediately (noun, adjective, verb, etc.)
• Universal systems of plurality and singularity.

There are many more if I could think of them right now. I should actually be saving these somewhere... Peter Deer (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeffmichaud

I've removed your notice from WP:UAA. There is nothing promotional about using his own name as his username. Your concerns about his signature should be brought up in the proper place. - Revolving Bugbear 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If not on the board about user names, then do you suggest I post it to the main general board? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it seems to be part of a content dispute, it may belong in dispute resolution process as part of the larger process. If you have concerns about it outside the dispute itself, try WP:ANI. - Revolving Bugbear 12:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you looking over this conversation for two reasons. You seem to be familiar with the user name policy, and none of the other admins there seem to know what to do about a controversial user name, and also because I think there is a problem with the procedure if there is a debate over whether or not a signature is acceptable when the policy states that controversial user names can't be used, equally applying to signatures, but my initial attempt to post it at WP:Usernames for administrator attention was declined because I raised the issue over a sig and not the actual user name. Did that make sense? So the debate that would usually go on at WP:UAA is now going on at WP:ANI only because it's a signature, but the policy applies equally to both. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have commented, as requested. I will continue to monitor the conversation.

As regards the UAA request, UAA exists for a very particular reason: to report usernames which indicate that the user "needs to be immediately blocked". This is mainly for GFDL reasons -- as the licensing requires that attribution be complete and public, we don't want history logs filled with entries like "Revision 12345 by The Guy Who F---ed Your Mother". While I agree with your assessment that the signature is problematic -- although not necessarily for the same reasons -- it is not that sort of situation.

As I said, I will continue to the monitor the conversation. If you have any further questions or concerns, related to this incident or not, I'll be glad to help.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature discussion

I have sent an email to Jeffmichaud regarding his signature, as a result of this discussion. Regards, Rudget. 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Attar

Thank you for correcting the spelling. I have put some addition information to the article. Cheers. --Al-Fanā (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Deleting" category

Huh? First of all, you did not delete the category, you simply blanked it; the category remains, just without any content. Secondly, you did not apparently submit this for Categories for Discussion, so I have no idea why you are deleting it at all. Why did you ignore the procedure? Why do you want this deleted so badly that you can't discuss it with other editors? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah User:Jeff3000 has updated me on a discussion that I did not see for a similar category I made earlier. This one addresses some of the issues raised in the prior discussion, but not all. I apologize for my own ignorance, and I suggest that if you want it to be deleted, you post on CfD. As I told Jeff, I'll give my own take, but if it is deleted, I won't try to recreate it without some further support from the community at large. I hope this sounds like a fair approach. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Getting rid of" and deleting a category are not the same thing, as simply removing all of its members still leaves the category itself and it lends itself to being recreated. If it was nominated for CfD and actually deleted, there would be a deletion log and one would not repopulate it. This way, CfD works better for anyone who wants it deleted or anyone who wants it to not be deleted. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Category Removal

It would seem the big problem I have in this regard is it does not display on the page its inclusion in the category when linked secondarily to subcategories. The only indication would be if someone were to go to the category itself, which the pages included don't link to. One would have to specifically look up Manifestations of God, look into the Prophets of Islam subcategory, and then into the Muhammad category to even be aware of this distinction, or (even worse!) in the reverse order. Frankly it seems like this action taken is making it less informative in an encyclopedic sense, as by looking at the Muhammad categories area there is no overt indication of its inclusion in that category, which in accordance to your edits is now by proxy. You have been working very hard on this particular issue and I would like to know why this seems to be of such importance to you. Peter Deer (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems fair but the Baha'i faith, while being a minority viewpoint, is not an insignificant viewpoint. Frankly, the Baha'i views of Jesus are noteworthy enough to be included on the page, I certainly don't see why the Baha'i category would be not noteworthy enough. Peter Deer (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the way you are organizing the categories is completely backward. While I disagree with the category, it passed CFD, and thus it should be organized in a way that consistent with categorization in Wikipedia. Also, there is no secondary source that clearly states that all the prophets of Islam and the Hebrew prophets have the station of a Manifestation of God, so I'll be adjusting those as well. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guardianship Article

Allah-u-abha! I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me with a project I've been working on. I was hoping to separate Shoghi Effendi's biographical page from the page on the Guardianship itself, to make a page specifically about the authority, responsibilities, and prerequisites for Guardianship, and go more in-depth on the position as opposed to the sole historical occupant (though I do of course intend to include Shoghi Effendi, but in more of a summary fashion with a Main article: Shoghi Effendi deal).

I was originally going to work on this with LambaJan but I haven't heard from him in quite a while. Frankly my main headaches in this regard are just that I still stumble a bit with wikiformatting, so it means I have to go back and pick apart whatever code I've used quite a bit.

I've been constructing it around pieces taken from the Shoghi Effendi article, but I am hoping to expand on it. Here's my Sandbox page on it, if you have any suggestions. In fact, I give you full permission to edit it yourself, and hopefully we can copyedit it and make for a smooth transition into two articles.

Hope you're doing well. Sincerely, Peter Deer (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thamirih

FYI - MARussellPESE (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hindu gods cat

Why are you replacing specific Category:Hindu gods by the general Category:Hindu deities? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

gods denote male deities and goddesses female ones. Category:Asian deities hasCategory:Asian gods and Category:Asian goddesses. Further discussion can be on WP:HNB. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Category:Gods by culture and Category:Goddesses by culture.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhagwan Swaminarayan

Thank You for you edits to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan Page, but since you don't know the actual facts, I had to undo it. I understand what you were trying to do and will help with doing so.    Juthani1    22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits you made today were a lot better. You may continue to do this. Thanks    Juthani1    16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you know your facts before you edit. I put the name Sahajanand Swami (the name on all official documents) and you changed it to his childhood name!! Moreover, removing referenced information as well as references is not acceptable. Its fine if you want to remove POV, but that does not mean you remove important information. I suggest you know your work before editing. If you go on removing refrenced information/references, I will be forced to take the matter up with administrators. That is something I would like to avoid. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to tell you that all the sources on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page are reliable. Most of those references have references on top of them too. Also, its a direct source which is backed by third parties. They are probably the best sources.    Juthani1    20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Before editing again, I would like it if you brought up the discussion on the talk page rather than reverting me over and over again. By trying to take out POV you are also distorting FACTS which is never a good thing. I do agree that there is POV and am workin on getting rid of it. I again ask you to start a new discussion rather that starting a editing war. It will be easier for both sides. I would appreciate it if you talk first and then edit if the regular editors on the article including me agree. We know the facts and we are working on finding POV. I would also appreciate it if you would reconsider the sources. They are original sources written by expertson the topic. All the work on the page is from these sources.    Juthani1    21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Will do that. I hope these discussions and working together put an end to the POV all together. It has been a problem for some time. Thanks    Juthani1    19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Alos, please take a look at the talk page before reverting. I have made it as POV free as I possibly can or the intro paragraphs. if you object any of my statements, put ti on the TALK PAGE before reverting or editting at all. Again, you are distorting the facts, not just POV, but FACTS when you edit. this should never be done since it is vandalism. I know it isn't intentional and I understand your concerns, but don't edit because you are distortng all of the facts. Also, I would like to know why the references which are reliable because they are written by experts in the field into the notes section and then marked everything as unreferenced. Please do respond. I'm trying not to get personal, but I'm ust doing what is best for the article. Thank you.    Juthani1    19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS iTS Crucial for making a few decisions!!! You can ask any Hindu and they will tell you the literal meaning of "Bhagwan" is god. Also, Swaminarayan is a Hindu sect. His official name is Sahajannd Swami. Again he was a sadhu (monk) and but later recognized as a GOD. "Swami" in gujarati refers to a sadhu or monk. He was definetly a saint and his offcal name was Sahajanand Swami. Bhagwan Swaminarayan later became his name after his death to prevent confusion. The articles name sould be changed to this (Sahajanand Swami) which was his offical name if you really want to change it, not Swaminarayan. There is absolutely no POV. Ican't ake that anymore clear. Second he s the diety of the modern fom of Hinduism known as the Swaminarayan Sampraday or Swaminarayan Sect not just Swaminarayan Sect. Saying just "a modern form of Hinduism" is not clear enough to any reader. No POV in that. It is a fact that he is the main diety in the Swaminarayan Sampraday (this is official). Again I can't make myself more clear. I will add more refs, but I still want to know why you moved the refs to the notes section? You are continuously DISTORTING THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the time. Please be as specific in your response as possible to anyhing you object. This has been copied to the Swaminarayan Talk Page    Juthani1    23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For proof that Bhagwan means God click on this link. Bhagwan and read.    Juthani1    00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove all the citations. Now for every place that needs a citation, I am adding two citations from different websites to varify.    Juthani1    00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove any Citations PLease. Thye take forever to find and put in Its horrible to revert somethng when someone else has put in a lot of time putting them in. I'm adding a varity of Web Sources.

Swaminarayan isn't his name. A Swaminarayan is a follower od Sahajanand Swami. His name can be Sahajanand Swami, Lord Swaminarayan(though not prefered), or Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Officially his name is Sahajanand Swami, but Swaminarayan alone isn't his name. Thank you    Juthani1   ^tcs 02:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article. I would suggest first concluding the name of the article before warring with each other on use of the name in the article. Wikidās ॐ 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the thing above. I have also placed this on the talk page, but Williams refers to Lord Swaminarayan as Sahajanand Swami [1], so does the his signature on the Desh Vibag no Lekh which is officially recognized, and this name is more well known than Lord Swaminarayan or Swaminarayan which is a sect or a follower. I placed this here to add emphasis Thank you and please reply    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Oh click on the excerpt secton on the side.    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please explain more fully the reason you expressed a delete in this recent {{afd}}?

Are you a Bahai? Do you know any Bahai? Did you study Bahai? (Ah. I see you got a barnstar for Bahai contributions.)

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan article

This section was reverted diff but it seems to be poorly sourced. What is the importance of it to the biography? Wikidās ॐ 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its very important because it shows that various scriptures have said that Swaminarayan will take manifestation on earth, such as the bhagavad Gita, Skanda Purana, Vishnu Khanda, Srimad Bhagavatam, Shikshapatri etc. The sources of all quotes are mentioned, such as the Bhagavad Gita 4/7-8. Please note that this is not POV as it has no explanations, just quotes and english translations - which are self explanatory. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can translate any Sanskrit sloka in about 10 different ways, we should look at what secondary sources and translations of the religious leaders say about each particular selection. Some of the sources seems to be unreferenced and at least one or two secondary sources are needed in order to retain this section as relevant. I trust you, but WP:RS and WP:NOR is a strict procedure, and you can not just pull in a few slokas and prove something based on an unreliable sources or translations. I had made the same mistake before, and now I follow the scheme very rigidly, I know it takes time, but rules are the rules.Wikidās ॐ 12:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Temple Ahmedabad

Pl. state issues instead of reverting reverts. You removed important information such as date of construction, deities installed in the temple, name of person supervising construction etc. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)same with the Bhuj article. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you add unclear or citation needed tags wherever required inststead of removing things and I and other editors will try and solve the problem. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry I am aware of 3RR. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have the choice of adding unclear or citation needed tags and I request you to do that. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars on Swaminarayana articles

There appears to be edit war on some of the articles - I suggest to always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. Im not taking any sides - I just want to make sure you understand each other.Wikidās ॐ 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Title of Acharya

If you see the title of articles on the Pope (leader for Roman Catholics), it says Pope John Paul II, instead of his name, John Paul. Hence, the title of these articles too should contain the full title of the Acharya and just not his name only. BTW the full title of an Acharya is not just for eg. Tejendraprasadji, Acharya Tejendraprasadji, the full title is Sanatan Dharma Dhurandar Acharya Maharaj Shree Tejendraprasadji Maharaj. I hv given a ref. showing his full name on the article. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome to help out with Swaminarayan articles and your help is appreciated. I totally agree that the articles need to be simpler, more enclyclopedic and have translations of all Hindu centric words used in them for the articles to be rated well. Pl. remember that I am not the one to give him the title nor have I insisted on having the full title as the article title. Around The Globe^Contact 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I was unaware of that in particular. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Peter Deer (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of edits to Bahai Teachings

Please familiarise yourself with the manual of style's policies on capitalisation and religion. In particular, we do not capitalise pronouns or common noun god. These reverential practices are fine for user pages and talk pages, but they are inappropriate for the encyclopedia itself. Ilkali (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Setting the foundations for future Islamic articles

Join us here, you can certainly help with everything, but transliteration is something we really need: User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam --Enzuru 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Andrew Corporation

A tag has been placed on Andrew Corporation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ros0709 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Alláh-u-abhá, thanks for the formatting help on Bahá'í laws. I am new and the citation instructions are confusing as all get-out. Gerald T. Fernandez-Mayfield (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Krugerrand

If we deleted everything that doesn't have a source, there would be nothing in Wikipedia. I understand WP:V and I understand WP:RS, but nowhere does it say "delete something that doesn't have a source." All that's needed is a "citation needed" tag and a discussion on the article's Talk page. If, after discussion, there is no source made available, then we can delete the material. But to just delete without prior discussion is tantamount to vandalism. Only BLP violations that are not cited require immediate deletion. There is no deadline. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Krugerrand. Corvus cornix_talk 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He dejado un mensaje en la página del artículo. Está bien insistir en que la información tenga fuentes, pero tampoco hace falta entrar a borrar secciones enteras a menos de que estés convencido de que son totalmente incorrectas, y en ese caso deberias de dejas una explicación en el sumario de la edición o en la página de discusión, para que otros editores sepan qué era lo que estaba mal, porque puede ser que no lo vean a simple vista. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: merge

I agree that some of them do not pass notability, but the correct procedure to my eyes after a failing merge proposal would not be to merge them anyway but to place the notability tag on the articles instead. This gives other editors the chance to find sources, fix the articles, and give their feedback. Another option is to create an article like this: [2] Best, T0lk (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you find it acceptable to take unilateral action with no discussion following a failed merge proposal, threaten me with "pursue help from an administrator" while stating "It doesn't really matter how a few people voted". You obviously think you have some authority here you don't. I'll continue to revert these changes. T0lk (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wives of Baha'u'llah

Hi Cunado, Thank you for removing the ostentatious sub-heading "Facts" from this section. But the remaining bit above "Baha'i apologia" where it says that Baha'u'llah was following Islamic laws I still find troubling. Baha'u'llah was a leading Babi & it is irrational for him to have been following islamic laws. Quite frankly, it gives a strong impression of 'spin'.

The best thing is simply have one sub-heading: "Baha'is assert"... It says: There, take it or leave it, this is what Baha'is accept. I can live with that. And it gives you more freedom to write what you want. Regards, Thereisnohope (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant

I've blocked you for 8h for edit warring on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. Please make an effort to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question.

Sorry chaps, but wikipedia is not your personal battleground. You've both been warned, now you've both been blocked. While I'm here, let me note that asserting that X belongs in/out during an RFC doesn't really work William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New wiki

Hi Cunado, i've made a wiki that's specifically designed to cater to baha'i; particularly as a method of collecting and disseminating good practice/learning. since i've seen you keeping your eyes on the baha'i articles, i thought you may be interested in this one. please take a look if you've got the willpower to see more wiki's... http://bahai.intodit.com k1-UK-Global (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Baha'i Faith

No worries. Personally I would have left it - but I can see why you wiped it. My answer was less to the person concerned than to make it obvious how unjustified the remark was to anyone else reading the exchange. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what happened to the idea of collapsing the photo of Baha'u'llah on that page or at least placing a warning at the top ?

I scrolled down too far and was kicking myself when I got to the bottom of the page. Cheers. Nernst (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert.

I'd worked that one out but thanks for getting back to me. To be honest, this all goes well above my pay grade as a junior editor, so I think I'll step back, let alone get involved in the photo. I've managed to get firefox to block images and that stops me being in a bad mood for the rest of the day when I stumble on the image. Thanks again Nernst (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith

Hi, I'm wondering why you moved this article. Was there discussion of this in the Bahai wikiproject? (I see no discussion on the article's talk page.) The name from which you moved it had been discussed at WT:LGBT and consensus was found for it. Obviously, if another project disagrees, we need to discuss it together. LadyofShalott 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

TY

Hi thanks very much, I just think that the quality of some these articles should be improved so I endevour to use both non-Bahai and Bahai sources. However I do have a slight issue and are hoping that you can help me? I've just added some more refrences for Abdul Bahas marriage however it wont work? This is what i propose to be written:

As a young man speculation was rife amongst the Bahá’ís to whom `Abdu’l-Bahá would marry. Several young girls were seen as marriage prospects but `Abdu’l-Bahá seemed disinclined to marriage. On March 8 1873, at the urging of his father, the twenty-eight-year-old `Abdu’l-Bahá married Fátimih Nahrí of Isfahán (1847-1938) a twenty-five-year-old noblewoman. Her father was Siyyid Muhammad-`Alí Nahrí of Isfahan an eminent Bahá’í of the city and prominent aristocrat." Fátimih was bought from Persia to Acre, Israel after both Bahá’u’lláh and his wife Navváb expressed an interest in her to marry `Abdu’l-Bahá. After a wearisome journey from Isfahán to Akka she finally arrived accompanied by her brother in 1872. Four children survived adulthood all daughters; Ḍiyá'iyyih Khánum (mother of Shoghi Effendi) (d. 1951) Túbá Khánum (1880-1959) Rúḥá Khánum and Munavvar Khánum (d. 1971).

The marriage of `Abdu’l-Bahá to one woman and his choice to remain monogamous, from advice of his father and his own wish, legitimised the practice of monogamy to a people whom hitherto had regarded polygamy and a righteous way of life.

If you could add this to the article and see the problem that would be great. Thank you --Lizzie1988 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up categories

Please explain You claimed that you were "cleaning up categories" with this edit, which I do not understand. Is it your contention (e.g.) that Bahá'u'lláh was not Buried in Israel? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Your removal of articles from Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith goes against consensus. If you want to find consensus for deletion or removal, you will need to go through the CfD or RfC processes. We've had this discussion before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your response. You are correct that there is such a thing as overcategorization. I suppose the questions are 1.) Is (e.g.) burial in Israel a significant feature of Bahá'u'lláh's life and 2.) if not, is it a significant feature in anyone else's? If you really think these are contentious, this may be a good time to post on talk as a.) clearly, I think they belong, b.) they are technically accurate, and c.) they will probably be added again at some point. Regarding Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith, there was consensus on Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Jesus to leave them in these categories, as I recall. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agre with your cleanup edits, Cuñado. Adding far-fetched categories like Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith to articles that are not focussed on Bahá'í at all (such as Krishna) is essentially spam. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith has been nominated for deletion. Please share your thoughts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing my talk page

Okay, I read it the first time. Point?Ekwos (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sub-Article of Mahdi

You deleted the sub-article I added to Mahdi, and you gave reason that my addition was unreferenced. Obviously you deleted it without reading it. What I added was completely referenced. I added viewpoints of Maududi, Imadi, Kandhlwi and Allama Iqbal. I gave references of the books of these scholars.The books of these authors I refenced to are: Tajdeed-o-Ahyaa-e-Deen

Nazool-e-Mehdi-o-Maseeh

Mehdiviyyat nay Islam ko Kia Diya?

and Iqbal Nama (A colloection of Allama Iqbal's Letters)

I wonder why have you deleted my addition. If there is some descripency in my reference, please talk to me about it. Establish correct reason for deletion or revert your action. Suhayli (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Discussion on BBC Persian Article

My discussion was valid, nothing to do with soaps, and if so, it is your opinion. Please verify exactly which parts of my discussion violated which parts of wikipedia guidelines and try not to generalize. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

draft of Abdu'l-Baha'is journey's to the West?

How's that draft coming? I'm pausing on country write ups (though looking at wiki articles in other languages on articles for respective countries at least alittle - speaking of which, is that you on the spanish Wikipedia?) and have gathered some material for this article (so far looking at 1st trip - leaving Haifa through UK segments.) Very rough but progressing. Smkolins (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A preliminary draft of just the 1st segment of the trip is at User:Smkolins/Sandbox#First_Journey - material above and below isn't ready. And there are a couple points in that 1st segment needing info/refs or being dropped.Smkolins (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

Hey, just so you know... adding or removing any actual information from an article should not be marked as a minor edit. Minor edits are only those such as changes to grammar, spelling, wikilinking that do not affect the content of the article. :) LadyofShalott 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement of Faith

Please read the wp:COI guideline. Users are strongly encouraged to declare any conflict of interest on their user page and on any talk pages of articles they are editing as well as avoid controversial edits, including Afd nominations and Afd voting. I have reviewed some of your contribs and they are focused on the Haifa-based Baha'i Faith denomination. One of the article in which you are a top contributor is Homosexuality_and_the_Bahá'í_Faith in which user:Cuñado and user:Cuñado19 (both of these user pages go back to Cuñado) has made 833 edits (see here). The third top contributor has 103 edit which give you more than 8 times that amount.

You also have the number two position in editing Bahá'í_Faith behind the nominator Jeff3000. Your edits show that you feel strongly against homosexuality. Your personal views may be getting in the way your neutrality and Unitarian Bahaisms acceptance of homosexuality may have influcing your neutrality and voting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Bahaism. Your close collaboration with Jeff3000 may also be influcing you.

I have already taken Jeff3000 to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and demanded that he declare all conflicts of interest on his user page. This would be any and all outside interests in any field that you also have made revisions to.

I'll give you 24 hours to reply. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)