User talk:Mavaddat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies! I moved too fast. I thought you were pasting a link to something obscene. I didn't stop to check it and should have. Best I can tell, you are correcting a link. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:ZackMorrisPhone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZackMorrisPhone.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greenbeard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Greenbeard.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:ZackMorrisPhone.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ZackMorrisPhone.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I am removing this phrase "subordinates the conclusions of science to its own doctrines". None of the sources you have provided state that and it is original research. Be careful in using a synthesis of different sources to make a point because that is also original research. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

All that quote says is that Baha'i belief says that science hasn't progressed as far. If everything science said originally was true then the rutherford model of the atom would still be true. Science changes, and that's all Shoghi Effendi is saying. If the current science doesn't totally agree with the Baha'i belief that doesn't make the baha'i belief in the harmony in science and religion wrong. So please don't synthesis your own opinions into the article. Regards -- Jeff3000 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is that your are skewing the wording and representing only one side of the debate Your wording of "... subordinates the conclusions of science to its own doctrines, which the religion takes as fundamentally true...." alludes to science is definitely correct. I'm going to be editing the page to make it more neutral. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Page 79
"While this seems to suggest that religion must accept current scientific knowledge as authoritative, this is not necessarily always the case. The present scientific point of view is not always correct, nor is the truth limited to only what science can explain."
Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The paper has been published in the JBS so it has been reviewed by the Baha'i administration as not distorting the teachings of the religion. Furthermore, the House of Justice in many cases, specifically in relating to homosexuality, has noted that current science may have not understood the whole issue completely, so it does match the beliefs of the Baha'i administration. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i Faith and science

Sorry, but it's not OR: it's the definition of the word. Shoghi Effendi's translations are considered authoritative and there are a variety of words he could have used if the Persian intent was "living thing". MARussellPESE (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring sub-heading on "Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith"

I'm just writing on your Talk page because I restored the section subheading ("Non-Bahá'í homosexuals") on "Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith." The reason I restored it is that, first, it is not clear from the paragraph that it is talking only about the Bahá'ís' treatment of non-Bahá'í homosexuals. And second, even if it was clear, it is (at least) no less clear than that the next paragraph is talking about Bahá'í homosexuals (even without its) subheading. So would you suggest removing the subheading for that section too? I mean, what is wrong with extra clarity? Surely, there is no benefit to an ambiguity as to who the first paragraph is about, am I right? Hope all is well, man!! Regards, Mavaddat (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mavaddat. I noticed you've been having most of your conversations about page content on user talk pages. You should really get in the habit of using the talk page of the subject that you're discussing. Some people will read over an associated talk page before making edits, to see if there have been any controversial edits or compromises made. I'll repost your comment on Talk:Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith, and respond there. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bahá'í Faith and science. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)