User talk:Wookipedian

Welcome!

Hello, Wookipedian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Ok, I know you don't really need a welcome, as you have plenty of edits already under your belt, but no one seems to have done so, so here you go. --Christian Edward Gruber 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a source

See the last line in bold at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Why sources should be cited. -- Jeff3000 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

Good job on the Major religious groups page. So many anonymous editors just come in and change the statistics without a citation, that it's difficult to keep up. -- Jeff3000 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started out on the Baha'i pages on Wikipedia, and have expanded to the general religion articles, as well as Canadian related pages, and hockey related pages. The stuff I know of. I am a little too hooked though, and I wish how to limit my activity just a bit. Anyways, the stuff you added is good, but it always strengthens it, if you can find a reference that says the same thing (especially when it can be controversial). Regards. -- Jeff3000 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

Regarding your comment:

"This whole discussion (although I haven't bothered to read all of it) just seems plain darn silly. Probably the existing policies are enough to deal with it, but at this point I think it is best to just shut down the nonsense and make it go away. There doesn't seem to be anything special about Youtube that makes it an especially important thing for us to pay attention to here. Please just stop it"

I think everyone involved feels exactly the same, except for one editor who has insisted and written essays on the talk page explaining why we should think YouTube is the greatest thing since the internet. All the discussion is to formally quiet him. Cuñado - Talk 00:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet

I am not here to argue cause I gave up on it long ago, but you may want to consider a newer source as Lancet is pretty outdated in terms of statistics. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein

Check Albert Einstein's quote page to see what he said about Jesus. grazon 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider also warning vandals

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [1]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denomination list

no problem - are you on wookipedia? - I'm not but I just ran across it the other day for the first time --Trödel 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: group counts, try www.adherents.org. Have a nice day. 70.176.232.214 05:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Waterboarding & other pages

Your email is disabled.

Please email me here: Special:Emailuser/Travb an email where I can reach you at.

I think it will be well worth your time.

Signed: Travb (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongzhi page

Hi, you have improved the language on the Li Hongzhi page, unfortunately the version you have worked on is written by FAlun Gong practitioners intended to conceal the true status of their master. Compare their version and the version I just reverted to you will see that the new version includes more info, for example, pictures of Li Hongzhi. As the result of my revert your edits have been lost, I am sorry about that. But I am sure you can improve the language of the new version. Thanks, --Yueyuen 22:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since there is nothing to hide I am leaving this message here instead of your mail box. People come to their position on the Falun Gong for different reasons. Samuel Luo, Cj cawley and Phanatical have family members hurt by the Falun Gong. Tomananda is a gay man deeply offended by Falun Gong’s extreme homophobia; Firestar is a Taoist qigong master and Miborovsky is a Christian, the Falun gong insulted them by denouncing all other qigong schools and religions. Mr He is Chinese and he believes the Falun gong organ harvesting allegation, which has been approved to be a lie, is a insult to all Chinese. As for Yenchin and myself we just want to stop the Flaun Gong cult, attested by many American cult experts, from using this article to deceive the public.

I hope this info helps. And may I ask why you care to edit FAlun gong articles? --Yueyuen 05:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, taking in account the fact that Falun Gong is not a cult, but a practice, whose followers just try to be better people, just like in any orthodox practice (major religions included!) the issue becomes much more complicated than the black-and-white picture Yueyuen has drawn. Even if you're not interested in the practice itself, you should note that the practitioners just don't want to be killed for their beliefs in Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. (I really, really don't see anything bad in that.) Falun Gong has never, ever denounced any school or religion (on the contrary, the practitioners don't engage in ideological wars - this religion is good, this is bad - if it really helps the people's morals and character it's good! People have both killed and saved lives in the name of Christianity - can one call the ones who killed in the name of the religion (, no not God.) genuine Christians? All of the orthodox practices have helped people to become better - how would a Falun Dafa practitioner call them bad, when he's trying to be a better person too? Emanuil Tolev 12:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vemo

I don't know whether you forgot the other steps in the AFD or are just working on it, but I took the transclusion out of the log as it was showing as broken. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 01:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you start with the {{subst:afd}} tag on the article page then follow the links it gives you it should be straightforward(ish). I'm sure somebody will fix it up for you if it is broken (I would but I'm off out now). Yomangani ^talk 01:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Major religious groups

No problem Wookipedian. That anonymous user in particular has been extremely annoying, and I've been on my 3RR limit multiple times when dealing with him. He, as evidenced by his other edits, was a POV pusher and needed to be reverted. -- Jeff3000 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help revert some anonymous editor from changing the stats. I'm near my 3RR limit. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well written comments on the talk page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

h.264 and blu-ray correction

Thanks for the correction. My apologizes. hd-dvd is about 85% VC-1 but blu-ray is about 85% h.264, 10% mpeg2. (embarrased). I mis-read a work email that was sent out. Daniel.Cardenas 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the kind words :) -- Jeff3000 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Hi Wookipedian, I replied to one of your posts here [2] and wanted your opinion. Thanks Buzybeez (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should rate it (Falun Gong)

There are peer review mechanisms for appraising articles, you seem to have read through the Falun Gong article--you can rate it as good if that is appropriate, or suggest ways it may be improved?--Asdfg12345 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have no experience rating articles, but I'll try to learn about that. To me it appears that the Falun Gong article has gotten much better over time. When I first started reading it, I really couldn't understand much of what it was trying to say. Now I think it is reasonably understandable. It could still use some improvement, but the progress that has occurred (despite the sensitivity of the subject) is encouraging. -Wookipedian (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help to move a page -

Bahá'í Faith in the Laos to Bahá'í Faith in Laos... if you could.. it's just a mistake. Smkolins (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that was done already (by Jeff3000). -Wookipedian (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major religious groups

Hi,

You removed an edit from this article, which looks incorrect.

The main text of the article itself contains the sourcing for this: "Modern classifications typically list major religious groups by number of adherents, not by historical or theological notability... An example of a modern listing of "world religions" is [CITATION]: [LIST]..."

Additionally it is usually not appropriate to revert an entire post if one point in it might be contentious. Obviously some sources consider Baha'i a world religion, perhaps others do not. At the moment, the existing citation on the page considers it such.

Can we discuss this on the talk page. Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll stay out of this for awhile and see how it develops. Note that I provided an edit description to explain my motivations at the time. I see that you have somewhat refined the wording since the version that I disliked. —Wookipedian (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]