User talk:Unicorn144

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notability of Mantle of Prophecy

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Mantle of Prophecy) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dajjal

Please stop reinsterting your bizarre material and original research into the Dajjal. It does not have any place in that article or on Wikipedia in general. Sigil7 18:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello Unicorn144! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

==Bani Israel==

A tag has been placed on "Bani-Israel", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Daniel J. Leivick 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messenger of Jehovah of hosts

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Messenger of Jehovah of hosts. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Please do not post articles that consist of nothing but Bible quotes. NawlinWiki 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Revelation of St. John the Divine

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as The Revelation of St. John the Divine) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. andy 23:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "the House of God"

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as "the House of God") are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. andy 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The throne of the Kaa'ba

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as The throne of the Kaa'ba) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. andy 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Tribulation. It is considered vandalism, which under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. andy 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright Image:1364693751_m.jpg

Copyrighted This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that {{{1}}}
NOTE: The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives.
Details about the above note...

If the image requires attribution, use {{Attribution}} instead.

Thank you for uploading Image:1364693751_m.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Revelation of Jesus Christ and others

I noticed this article, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, when you created it. I figured this was a so-called 'stub', where someone starts an article and proceeds to expand it. I checked back and you haven't yet done so. Please consider doing so soon. As it is,

John the Divine returns to reveal his book "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" to be the "Ark of the Testament" which has within it "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" which John reveals is "The Book of Life of the Lamb". That no one else even saw this now obvious truth and the more intriguing possibility of what this might portend is now open to public debate: but at least we are dealing with the truth and not speculation.

is terribly incomplete. I don't know if you are talking about a book, an essay, or a concept of your own, or which is your own view and which a referenced view. (see WP:OR for cautions) And I note above that some of your other articles have been deleted as incomprehensible - please try to fix this one.


And please look at Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences#Interpretations_of_the_Book_of_Revelation. Wow. You introduce a "fifth view" and pound the reader with a lot of text. Compare with the other four - a single line introduction. Without reading the text (I admit) it makes me very uncomfortable to see this. Are you perhaps misplacing your explanations, where those explanations should be somewhere else within the same article, or in another article with links to there? This just looks so much like too much enthusiasm that I'm afraid it will be discarded or severely cut down and most lost.


An idea I've seen mentioned, is that when you are trying to edit text for a new section or article, is to create a 'subpage' of your user page, edit the text there, and only create the article/section when you feel the text is ready. In fact, you could do that, then ask on the talk page of an article or similar article for comments on your text. That might take awhile to get comments, but taking time is likely the best way to produce good results. Shenme 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] March 2007

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Unification Church. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Son of Ham

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Son of Ham) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Bookworm857158367 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages, such as 12 princes of Ishmael, to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. RJASE1 Talk 04:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Summary of Christian eschatological differences, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. RJASE1 Talk 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revelatory

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Revelatory) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. RJASE1 Talk 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Sufic view of Jesus, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RJASE1 Talk 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Fatimah

Please - you've been asked over and over to stop adding unsourced information to Wikipedia, such as that you recently added to Fatimah. Yet you keep creating pages with this information and adding it to numerous articles. Is this information your own point of view, are you getting out of some book, or what? RJASE1 Talk 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I put a tag on you Sufic section in the Fatimah article. Please take a look at this section and try to clarify it so that a person can understand it without a deep background in the area. As it stands now it is not really comprehensible and it also takes a clear POV on a controversial subject. Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User pages

When you wish to leave a message for someone, please edit the user talk page, not the user page - thanks. RJASE1 Talk 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that it is inappropriate to mark an edit as minor when it is not and vice versa. Minor edits are really only for changing grammar, spelling, or formatting without making any changes to the content. Please keep this in mind. Leebo86 05:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my comments

I hope this edit comes up

It showed up. ;-) While I am totally unqualified at reading/evaluating/judging writing, I had a thought. I know that it can seem nearly 'brutal' to get new/unlikely/unpopular articles started and accepted here, but that's partly because we have an unlimited supply of critics/skeptics. My thought was this, that working on your stuff here, slowly, might give you a real (if unhappy?) feeling for how difficult it is to publish in the other, 'real', world. In other words, this is good practice on how to present your material so that people can understand it. But with the realization you will have to make each section/article 'bite-size'. At the very least it will be useful for prefaces/abstracts! Anyway, just trying to imagine how to think about the experience positively. Shenme 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my comments including this one

I am doing my final edit for my book now; and I can already tell you it will make nobody happy. My discovery of the spatial "suspension" that occurs at the "half-a-time" allows my brother John to actually transmit the other part of the Revelation in this present day. Of course this is impossible: but then there's my book: I didn't write chapter III; that's all John talking. If it's not John the Divine explaining his own book then who is it exactly who is? I wrote down the explanation from someone: I sure didn't make it up: nobody could explain the revelation as concisely as John does because no one understands it the way he does; in "The Revelation of Salvation: the Regeneration of John" my purpose is to bring to mankind the idea that perhaps the Revelation of St. John the Divine can be understood because if it didn't it would have no purpose; and therefore no meaning or real value to mankind. The truth is; I have discovered that the truth is just the opposite: what John returns to tell us is that while he receives the Word on Patmos it is we who must similarly recieve it to enter the Kingdom of Heaven: it's the entrance exam; it's the test. But the astonishing thing is that the last "book" of the Bible is not "one book"; it is two. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which is within the revelation of St. John's book is actually the Book of life of the Lamb. The Revelation of St. John the Divine is thus not really a "book" at all; though it certainly looks like one: but it is actually something quite remarkable: it is the Ark in which the Book of life is carried. And with the appearence of the Ark of the Testament comes something else rather remarkable: the Lid of the Ark which sits over the Book of life has another name: the Mercyseat.

     Anyway; the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to bring to light the entire literary form of understanding which reflects the knowledge of man; a "second mind" if you like. Quite a fascinating idea really; but one must allow all valid points of view to come to the table: I am not going to waste anyone's time: what I write is verifiable because I have the means to prove that it is true using nothing but common sesnse and a mustard seed sized drop of Faith. As I write in my book: I am not a prophet; but I work for one. That I call myself the Scribe goes back to the first one who walked the Path seen in the 7 overcomings in the 7 churches: Enoch. Is it not obvious that the 7 churches conceal something not at all dependent upon 7 buildings in Asia Minor but rather in the 7 rungs on the Ladder of Jacob by which we who follow the Lamb must ascend the 7 heavens to the Throne? It's the classic ascension itself: John just comes back to hip us to the fact that one must overcome and enter or stand without and pound on the Door of the Ark while the Flood or Proof comes in: like in the days of Noah: only Faith can save one because when the Proof or Son of Man arrives it is too late; my book allows one to enter by faith beforehand: by doing the Work of overcoming in good faith. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia: but it does have a lot to do with Christianity, Islam and Judaism. 
       I hope to hear from RJASE1
   ````Unicorn144

[edit] The Sufic point of view

For those who wonder if I am "incomprehensible" it may seen so because i am adding adieas that appear scattered when not seen in their actual context: which is of something that is happening to mankind in general right now: the future of this world is the future of an illusion: like those two beasts of chapter 13 in the Revelation of St. John the Divine: the Axis and Marxism. If John hadn't revealed them no one would ever have really known what they represented: the first from the sea being the three-in-one known as the Axis; the second or Marxism gives us the identity of the False Prophet: Marx. The Global Balaam. The Providence that the Sufis have guarded for centuries has now come to it's fruition; but after all; the Fruit of the tree of life is Unity; just as the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is duality. Of course in my book we call this tree something else: the nature of the principle of light and darkness; the fruit of this tree is the duality of it's nature. I hope to hear from you as I make my way into your trust that at least my point of view is coherent: at least logic permits that the words and sentences do seem to express an idea: one which strike a resonant note here and there; I can only hope ````unicorn144

[edit] You're welcome

But you left your message on my user page instead of my talk page. We've been telling you not to do that. And signing your signature is with four tildes (~~~~), not four grave accents (````). Leebo86 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Stone

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 01:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

if the material is sourced to a reliable, academic source, then please feel free to reinsert it. please see WP:ATT and WP:NOR. ITAQALLAH 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufism Reoriented

I deleted a section that you added to Sufism Reoriented. It appeared to be original research which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. From the look of this talk page you are having considerable trouble editing Wikipedia. You might want to take a look at some of the policies and guidelines listed at the top of this page in your welcome message. Also if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page, just hit the discussion button on the top of my user page. Thanks --Daniel J. Leivick 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you definitely want to help improve Wikipedia, I can also see that you may have some misunderstandings about how this project operates. When people say "unsourced" they mean that the information cannot be verified from a reliable source. A reliable source is not an expert, it is a piece of writing written by an expert (your book may become a reliable source) see WP:RS. If you want to add material that is sourced you will probably have to source it yourself, WP:CITE provides instructions as to how this is done. I when I took a look at your additions and I think you might want to make an effort to make them easier to understand for someone who is not an expert in the field, also when writing about religious beliefs you need to make it clear that this is something that certain people believe not absolute fact. Finally if you want to write something without it being torn down, you can use your userpage, once you get it the way you want you can post it on the talk page for specific page to which it pertains and get input from other editors. If you have any other questions please ask, good luck editing. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sufic

Hi, I note that you have created Category:Sufic. There is already an extensive Category:Sufism with various sub-categories; would your objective not fit within that existing structure? Also, you seem to be using the category page to write an article. As I understand it, category pages should only have text that explains the purpose and significance of the category.

What you are writing also appears to be "original research"; that is not what Wikipedia is for, and is liable to be deleted. Can you add some references to external, reliable websites or printed works? See WP:SOURCE, for which there is a prominent reminder just above "Save page" every time you edit.

When you created the page you wrote, "I only want to give Wikipedia an avenue to discuss and post another valid point of view." The purpose of Wikipedia is to publish facts. That would include points of view which are already established schools of thought, and reliably documented as such. Other points of view do not belong on Wikipedia.

Your contributions will be very welcome if you can fit them into existing articles or categories, generally following the scope, scale and style already found there. Otherwise, perhaps you might start a blog instead to discuss these matters. - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufic view of Jesus

I'm not sure how serious you are about contributing responsibly to Wikipedia. The article Sufic view of Jesus, which you have started, is so incoherent that it is practically meaningless, and you have still not given any references. Instead of working on several articles and categories, why don't you start by making one page that meets Wikipedia's criteria and therefore deserves to be kept?

You said that you were learning how to add references. Just use <ref> </ref> around each source, whether it is online or printed, and put <references/> at the end of the page, as this will make the footnotes appear. - Fayenatic london (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: Creation on Sufic view of Jesus. TWINKLE

[edit] March 2007

Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Sufic view of Jesus, to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the article

The article was deleted for failure to conform to wikipedia policies, specifically those concerning attribution, reliable sources, and original research. Please review WP:POLICY pages before creating new pages on wikipedia. Furthermore, I'd like to direct you at WP:OWN. Editors do not "own" articles, and articles do not "belong" to editors. The article is not "your" article. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Faithful and wise servant

A tag has been placed on Faithful and wise servant, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatimah

In reference to this edit. You linked Maryam al-Kubra but it's a red link. Is she the same woman as Our Lady of Fatima? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

THanks. I turned Maryam al-Kubra into a redirect to Our Lady of Fatima. It's would be better to have all the information on one page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me! What do you mean?[1]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this what you wanted to add?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of The People of Salvation

A tag has been placed on The People of Salvation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious warning about your Original Research

Dear Unicorn144, other editors and administrators have warned you repeatedly not to add Original Research (as defined in Wikipedia's policy) to this encyclopedia, and some have tried to explain to you what this means. However, you have still been adding new articles, and new sections to existing articles, which are entirely OR. It must be frustrating to you to see them being deleted. It is also tiresome for all the other editors who remove such inappropriate material.

There are multiple messages above on this page, warning you that you will be blocked if you carry on with this practice. Do not think that just because you have been blocked yet, it will not happen.

If you come across verifiable facts from reliable sources that are not yet in Wikipedia, then by all means add them here, citing your sources every time. I will be happy to give advice on adding footnote references if you have not yet got the hang of it.

However, if all you want to add are speculations and opinions that do not belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia, please start a blog instead of putting them here, or find a forum that is suitable for such material.

If you have new articles to create, then either save them on your computer until finished, or use a user sub-page e.g. User:Unicorn144/Sandbox until they are ready to be copied into the main article space. This will save you the annoyance of having them deleted while you are still working on them. I hope this is helpful. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

my specualtions as you put it are actually the doctrine the New Unification Church; of which I am the founder; but not the originator; that going back to Enoch; the first scribe. Is the doctrine of the Catholic Church "speculation"?? I doubt you would say so: neither am I speculating: I am giving you the system of belief which comprises the Faith of my Church: so what is written is no more my opinion than Catholics believing Jesus walked on water: for them it is not "opinion": it is fact. We will obviously have much to discuss about religious freddom here in America and the right of free speech in a public forum; availible to all based on objective principles that are applicable to everyone: not just some sect of christian religions like Quakers and Protestants but also the New Unification Church from the Sufis as well. They do exist: several million of them. The last census estimated over 50,000,000 by Idries Shah, no less. Perhaps our doctrine and beliefs have a place in Wikipedia as wellUnicorn144 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a public forum; it is an encyclopedia with specific goals, and has policies to help us all work together for those goals. If I wanted to teach in your church, I'd have to fit in with the ways of your church. If either of us wants to contribute to Wikipedia, we have to follow its policies. See here where Peter Ballard rightly explained to me what sort of sources are required for what sort of statements. I understand him and will comply. You have been given masses of explanations above, but either you don't understand them, or you choose not to comply -- in which case you will be blocked eventually.
I haven't deleted any of your articles. I moved your work on Christian view of Muhammad to your user page, so that you could work on it there -- but you have not done so! Why don't you work on one thing at a time, finish it, and add sources that comply with Wikipedia's policies?
Religious texts are important source documents both to you and to me, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they need to be interpreted, and those interpretations need to be taken from secondary sources that are academically respected. You may be even more sure of your opinions than I am of mine, but unless we can show that they are established and notable, neither your opinions nor mine belong in this encyclopedia. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

.....:: I think I may have been approaching this thing all wrong; I have access to many sources; in fact I have a library of over 500 books; all the classics and then some: I believe I will take your advice and add the sufis and the others from which the information comes; it may be cumbersome and slow going: but I am am tired of being at odds with the Wiki people and want only this alternative avenue of interpretation to be adopted by Wikipedia itself: as a way to balance the divisive and unverifiable claims on all sides: basically arguments: not information. Controversy is a distraction; and bad relations with my hosts when they would obviously support me if me additions were more interpolated with the sources I am using along with the sufism that animates my interior spirit should give me a way to make the approach intelligible: and acceptable. If my book were already published I could just quote that; but could I use the final edit for a source? I doubt it. Therefore I will add the information that can be verified: if they happen to have the same books I do: if they do not; well; I suppose they will have to find them on their own. I guess I will also have to quote articles at other websites written by myself and others: because all this can be verified; for instance things written for other publishers online: then what I quote; whether by myself or other at least can be reviewed.

               Let's see what happens...and thanks for your input; I believe that you do care, and so do I;  Unicorn144 04:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No, authors are not to quote their own books on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:V#SELF. Please read the section of the OR policy about secondary sources. Once you are quoted in broadsheet papers/ academic journals/ etc, then those secondary quotations and assessments of your writing are considered notable and reliable under Wikipedia policy. Until then, publishing your own work is not an acceptable back door for adding your own opinions to Wikipedia.
You mentioned Malcolm Godwin. I have no idea who he is, but his writings and others in your library may likewise only be "primary sources", and so not sufficiently reliable sources for adding material to Wikipedia.
If you still intend to add "basically arguments, not information" to Wikipedia, then you have fundamentally misunderstood everything that everyone has told you on this page. "Arguments" = Original Research = will be deleted. Just add verifiable information. If you add your own arguments, you will be blocked. See again Peter Ballard's advice to me, linked above - my own arguments (however excellent) are not wanted either. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it disheartening that you did not read what I wrote: that I wanted to PUT AN END to the "arguments" because they were not information: please re-read what I wrote; it is precisely the "arguments" that I find in tedious profusion that I wanted to AVOID; by presenting something more objective; namely the balanced information which would put an end to the confusion.....thanks anyway...Unicorn144 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh - fine. Well, take this as an object lesson to write as clearly as you possibly can! This editor, whom you believed cared, still took your meaning the other way. Do try working on your text in a user subpage (e.g. the sandbox link above) or on your PC before adding it to articles - I am not the only reader who has misunderstood your writing. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
           thanks for your input Unicorn144 03:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fellowship of Friends

I noticed you edited the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your goose gobble on Fatima(h)

Re: your streams of consciousness post on the spelling of Fatima(h). I made a comment a comment here as to the spelling, instantly realized MY error, and deleted it. You did not even BOTHER to mention this in what can only be described as your usual ranting style. Here's a couple of points.

1.Whether or not Fatima(h) ends with a F or an A, she certainly begins with a capital F.

2.Your entire post (below) is a single blurt and is not broken up into sentences and should be written in English, not gobbledygook

3.You should try typing your material on a Word Processor, and take advantage of its spell checks, like I do. People will be ever so much more impressed when they can see you have gone to a little trouble to format and clean up your material.

For information: Your post to me printed below.

Tha Fatima of Portugal at 1917 refers to Fatimah; the daughter of Muhammed; for which the city and area was named; thus "Fatimah" is the name of the Daughter of Muhammed: if you have some doubt how that is spelled then take a look at the link. I don't really care that you called me a goose because YOU don't happen to know who I am talking about: the spelling of "Fatima" in Portugal is therefore not how I refer to the one I call Maryam al Kubra; the "greater Mary"; perhaps you can argue with Muhammed on the spelling of his own daughter's name when you have some spare time from correcting people who have made no mistake: make no mistake about that: I happen to know both WHO and WHAT I am talking about; perhaps being an old fuddy duddy has nothing to do with your rather strange way of exposing your complete ignorance to the world at large and myself in particular. Unicorn144 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Myles325a (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)