Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 11

message: Ok, the consensus seems to be going against Roddy, who persistently continues to push his notions.  While I personally agree with the general view that Youtube pages are not appropriate source materials, but I do feel that occasional Youtube (or other) videos might be useful as illustration of a point.  There are subtleties here.
That said, the tone and tenor is getting increasingly frustrated and harsh, and while people have the "right" to be as  "harsh as they want", it's hardly necessary or productive.  So I call a vote.  Please put your id under the appropriate heading and a single summary sentence or two of your feelings on the matter, if the heading doesn't fully express your view. Any other thoughts can go into the "other comments" section.  Once we've tallied this up, if there's no clear winner, we can run-off, but after this, I'd like us all to take a short break from this.  Obviously this is only a suggestion, but I feel a lot of noise has been generated, with little real value for the article.  Let's wrap this up, at least for a timeout.
===Include Youtube index links as "external links"===
* (1) Roddy Young. How about this link were the Bahai talk page in on youtube to clasical music.;-)Roddy Young 219.89.174.103 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reference maybe, but usually a better secondary source can be found, and the best reference should be used. -- Jeff3000 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear God, it was my contribution that was deleted and rvt and minimised to an point that removed any trace of it. It was not I who was doing the baiting, berating or belittling of any other persons contribution on the main page of wikipedia. Here is what Jimmy Wales says This content can be considered proceedings from a conferrence, published, notable etc and from Jimmy Wales of wikipedia fame himself. Audio visual clips are different from a personal text based web page in that it is not primarily from a persons mind. Photo and audio material are representations of an independant reality that others can view and come to independant conclusions on. Why I like pod casting (better term to use generally as youtube is just a brand name of pod casting) is that it challenges wikipedia to mature. The reason the Baha'i faith page has attracted this attention around pod casting is that Baha'i spans a time frame in progressive revelations terms that maps recorded human written history. It is hard for this page to have a time scale of 100's of years and then have a web2.0 application come along and want equal space and relevance on the page when podcasting is only 18 months old. Kick out new information until it is time tested is the conservative approach. Podcasting is web2.0. Here are some charges against wikipedia culture that editors must answer Some youtube material on truth about wikipedia ps MARusse I have not read any of your wikipedia work as yet, all I have done is respond to your charges against me and my arguments. I hope you have broadband and flash to watch youtube so you can give an informed and thoughtful reply. RoddyYoung 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Any of such comment cannot be included in Wikipedia as it would be original research. -- Jeff3000 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I haven't seen anything on YouTube vis. Baha'i that raises it to the level of consideration on Wikipedia. With about 100 Baha'i entries out of 200,000 plus total, the Baha'is are about as irrelevant to that site as it is to this subject. Please, can't this discussion be taken off-line if it can't die a natural death? MARussellPESE 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeff how is referring to someone else's content on Youtube, any different than referring to someone else's content in a book?  I see no difference.  It certainly is not OR. Wjhonson 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a difference.  A book is a published source and is acceptable in Wikipedia.  YouTube is like a personal website, self-published.  From WP:RS, "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." -- Jeff3000 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: … making YouTube inappropriate as a blog, not WP:OR. MARussellPESE 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that clarification.  Yes I can agree that YouTube should be treated the same as a personal website.  "Generally" not acceptable.  A month or so ago, we had quite a long discussion about when self-published sources could be used, and how.  I believe there were a few spin-off pages related to that somewhere in the reliable sources archives.  I can't quite recall. Wjhonson 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is equivalent to a personal website, not OR, besides the relevancy issues. Cuñado  - Talk 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should take that discussion to the Wikipedia policy pages, and not here.  Until there are any changes, we abide by Wikipedia policy.  Let's end this discussion now.  It's not for us to decide to change Wikipedia policy.  If you feel strongly, take it to those pages. -- Jeff3000 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've found resonance in those policies. Some are sited often here. Other's aren't. I like this quote: "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people." Clearly this hasn't been followed. On the otherhand, there is this official policy too: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.(emphasis repeated.)--Smkolins 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned below, only after RoddyYoung failed to agree with consensus, did the tone of the edits get worse.  So the first quote above which requires seeking consensus first fails.  Secondly, note that almost all disagree that YouTube edits on this page maintain Wikipedia's quality.  Actually, almost agree they reduce the quality of the page. Thus those quotes should be viewed within WP:Consensus.  Again, if you disagree with these statements, open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Also note the very specific things that are the origin of this dispute/discussion which has somehow got lost after Roddy went on his repeated statements that YouTube is revolutionizing the world  (1) A section about Baha'i YouTube downloads on this page (completely non-notable, (2) a link to a generic search of Baha'i content on YouTube, linkspam. The observation that YouTube is revolutionizing the world is completely orthogonal to anything about the Baha'i Faith, and his additions which were reverted. -- Jeff3000 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube: I call a halt to the hostilities and a vote

message: * (1) Roddy Young. How about this link were the Bahai talk page in on youtube to clasical music.;-)Roddy Young 219.89.174.103 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include Youtube index links as "external links"

message: * I think video is helpful to illustrate, but only specific video should be used to illustrate specific points, and Youtube in general isn't an appropriate source.  Same applies to Google video or any other multimedia source.  Preference should be given to uploading video to the Commons. Christian Edward Gruber 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reference maybe, but usually a better secondary source can be found, and the best reference should be used. -- Jeff3000 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include specific Youtube videos as references only

message: * Wikipedia on youtube with Baha'i talk
* Chile Baha'i Temple design to music
* Mona the angel of Shiraz
Roddy Young 219.89.174.103 11:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limit Youtube to a "Baha'i video on Youtube" (or similar) page

message: *No YouTube content on Wikipedia.  They are equivalent to personal websites which don't pass muster. -- Jeff3000 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Youtube content on Baha'i articles on Wikipedia

message: Please limit comments here to specific additional thoughts that haven't been already hashed to death above. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear God, it was my contribution that was deleted and rvt and minimised to an point that removed any trace of it. It was not I who was doing the baiting, berating or belittling of any other persons contribution on the main page of wikipedia. Here is what Jimmy Wales says This content can be considered proceedings from a conferrence, published, notable etc and from Jimmy Wales of wikipedia fame himself. Audio visual clips are different from a personal text based web page in that it is not primarily from a persons mind. Photo and audio material are representations of an independant reality that others can view and come to independant conclusions on. Why I like pod casting (better term to use generally as youtube is just a brand name of pod casting) is that it challenges wikipedia to mature. The reason the Baha'i faith page has attracted this attention around pod casting is that Baha'i spans a time frame in progressive revelations terms that maps recorded human written history. It is hard for this page to have a time scale of 100's of years and then have a web2.0 application come along and want equal space and relevance on the page when podcasting is only 18 months old. Kick out new information until it is time tested is the conservative approach. Podcasting is web2.0. Here are some charges against wikipedia culture that editors must answer Some youtube material on truth about wikipedia ps MARusse I have not read any of your wikipedia work as yet, all I have done is respond to your charges against me and my arguments. I hope you have broadband and flash to watch youtube so you can give an informed and thoughtful reply. RoddyYoung 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Any of such comment cannot be included in Wikipedia as it would be original research. -- Jeff3000 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I haven't seen anything on YouTube vis. Baha'i that raises it to the level of consideration on Wikipedia. With about 100 Baha'i entries out of 200,000 plus total, the Baha'is are about as irrelevant to that site as it is to this subject. Please, can't this discussion be taken off-line if it can't die a natural death? MARussellPESE 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeff how is referring to someone else's content on Youtube, any different than referring to someone else's content in a book?  I see no difference.  It certainly is not OR. Wjhonson 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a difference.  A book is a published source and is acceptable in Wikipedia.  YouTube is like a personal website, self-published.  From WP:RS, "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." -- Jeff3000 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: … making YouTube inappropriate as a blog, not WP:OR. MARussellPESE 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that clarification.  Yes I can agree that YouTube should be treated the same as a personal website.  "Generally" not acceptable.  A month or so ago, we had quite a long discussion about when self-published sources could be used, and how.  I believe there were a few spin-off pages related to that somewhere in the reliable sources archives.  I can't quite recall. Wjhonson 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is equivalent to a personal website, not OR, besides the relevancy issues. Cuñado  - Talk 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should take that discussion to the Wikipedia policy pages, and not here.  Until there are any changes, we abide by Wikipedia policy.  Let's end this discussion now.  It's not for us to decide to change Wikipedia policy.  If you feel strongly, take it to those pages. -- Jeff3000 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've found resonance in those policies. Some are sited often here. Other's aren't. I like this quote: "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people." Clearly this hasn't been followed. On the otherhand, there is this official policy too: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.(emphasis repeated.)--Smkolins 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned below, only after RoddyYoung failed to agree with consensus, did the tone of the edits get worse.  So the first quote above which requires seeking consensus first fails.  Secondly, note that almost all disagree that YouTube edits on this page maintain Wikipedia's quality.  Actually, almost agree they reduce the quality of the page. Thus those quotes should be viewed within WP:Consensus.  Again, if you disagree with these statements, open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Also note the very specific things that are the origin of this dispute/discussion which has somehow got lost after Roddy went on his repeated statements that YouTube is revolutionizing the world  (1) A section about Baha'i YouTube downloads on this page (completely non-notable, (2) a link to a generic search of Baha'i content on YouTube, linkspam. The observation that YouTube is revolutionizing the world is completely orthogonal to anything about the Baha'i Faith, and his additions which were reverted. -- Jeff3000 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: For God's sake, everyone, stop it!  Roddy, Jeff, everyone.  The point of the poll was to view consensus, then take a break.  PLEASE TAKE A BREAK!   I'm getting sick to death of the whole argument.  For the time being, based on consensus and policy, Youtube will not be used as a source on the Baha'i pages.  Now let's take a break.  Roddy, regardless of what's been going on here, please look at this from the perspective of Baha'i Consultation, and consider the will of the majority your own, at least for a time.  Take a pause, think about it for a few weeks, and try, honestly try to understand where people are coming from.  Even if you feel the unfairly unheard.  If, after such a break and contemplation, you can offer new insights that might sway people, then do so in a courteous manner.  
Everyone else please stop reacting to long e-mails that have already been re-hashed.  And everyone, please stop making smart-assed quick-witted sarcastic commentary.  It's unbecoming.  Please.  I can't force people to stop, but I can beg everyone, for the love of all that's holy, to move on.  This is the last I'll be contributing to this thread, and I'll warn the entire group that the whole thing is starting to break down on a "Wikipedia is not a chat room" policy level. --Christian Edward Gruber 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop

message: Ok invite me to make a contribution on the main page that addresses the growth of Youtube Audio Visual material and the Baha'i content that is appearing on Youtube. Help me referrence it correctly and then help me add a correct external link. All these requests I have learned to ask from following this discussion. I respect that it is polight to wait for a green light from talk before going ahead. I will request that I be given two weeks to have the youtube content on the site and if after two weeks you still feel strongly that it is not to your liking I will agree to have it off and I want first option to take it off myself. Why? That is the mature way to conduct ourselfs. Let us see if youtube can be successfully included and meet all the wikipedia rules. Are we ready to try a little experiment with this? Roddy Young 219.89.174.103 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Consensus says no. -- Jeff3000 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Jeff3000 lets count the numbers, you have 7 people I think who have 3 rvt each. That gives you 18 rvt to your case before all 7 could be reported on 3rr charges. I want to know how many supports of youtube reference on the Main Baha'i page there are and want to do a poll here to see. I offer 3 rvts. Who else will support freedom of encyclopedic expression. Just list your call sign here and say "I support Youtube content". Then there is theb  question of a special achive for this youtube talk. Get lost. That is sensorship. I want the whole world to have access to read discussion on all matters of this page so that fair conclusions can be made. I understand you offer of a special achive is just a way of deleting the talk discussion on youtube. I tell you this who matter on reference to youtube has signs of deep institutional disease around what Shoghi Effendi noted. Unconscious superiority complex. Well I have a conscious loyalty to whanau (Maori word for family} I have loyalty to the whole of the human race. I see that good works are challenged by any hint of attertudes of 'unconscious superiority conplex' come from any member with the delete and rvt right. When this is grouped into a power structure then that mix gives rise to prejudice that has the ability to manifest into action. Power combined with prejudice is a mixture for a false god, where people gather together in a unity that is distructive. Three false gods have been identified in the Baha'i era, they are (1) racism (2) communism (3) nationalism. I hope that we can discuss our bias that we unconsciously bring to this talk discussion so that our conclusions are free of prejudice. I say no to a special achive for the youtube talk matters. Roddy Young 219.89.174.103 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Go

message: Like the picture disscussion ect. Zazaban 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this particular discussion fits there. People will continually come here searching for the explanation of the compromise about Baha'u'llah's picture. When some people in the future get into edit disputes over youtube content they can be referred to the particular regular archive that this will be a part of. If there is a substantial amount of these by several people over a prolonged amount of time, like with the picture, it can be moved to what you're suggesting. There have been other discussions of similar length and ... umm... 'personality involvement' (ex: demographics) that were archived quite successfully in the regular numbered archives. As soon as another topic opens up I (or anyone else) will go ahead and archive everything up through this section. -LambaJan 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with LambaJan. This topic will not be a recurrent theme. YouTube will not serve as a priciple source on Baha'i encyclopaedia entries here, or in print. Most certainly not the main article. Roddy is the only one who appears to think so. Somebody can just do a straight-up archive of this in a couple of days. MARussellPESE 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, with LambaJan, too. But for Zazaban's sake I have put an achive together on youtube, it is a special achive on youtube with content from the wikipedia Baha'i talk page Wikipedia talk page on Youtube. Have a look at the audio visual material. I suspect that "FA" is the reason that we have had Jeff3000 and RoddyYoung getting into head to head clashes over wikipedia policy. It is because the Bahai page has "Featured Article" status. RoddyYoung (speaking in the third person) would like to see the Baha'i faith page remain in the start status (mind set of developers eager to improve). By creating daughter links to the key figures, as well as most headings, room is created to report on new trends and developments. The only way that youtube content with Baha'i materal could get on to a FA page is if the Universal House of Justice made provision for individual initiative in a Ridvan Message that then precipitated into noteworthy youtube content and thus presented on the section relating to present Baha'i plans. I feel that as it stands now Jeff3000 may see the Baha'i page as "finished" (reminds me of the USA patent office that wanted to shut around 1840 and stating that all patents and inventions had already been discovered! We now know that was not true but the reference is). I am suggesting that more developments in the Baha'i page are to come and that the Baha'i pages is an "FA" page in the truest sense but that history over then next 500,000 years (of human history) will see additions, combinations and permutations. My comments are not personally to Jeff3000, hi Jeff, but to his editing style. Jeff has shown good service todate. He has done a good job here, I am wanting to state a position that I see, in Jeff3000's case and any person who will rvt or delete youtube reference on principle (wikipedia policy) is challenging and a generator of talk. I see that the Wikipedia Baha'i page as the Dawning Place of God's Praise (could be seen as a place similar to a Mashriqu'l-Adhkár (Arabic: مشرق اﻻذكار, "Dawning-place of the Remembrance of God") Bahá'í House of Worship). That is my position. It therefore needs to approach perfection. LambaJan you have my vote to proceed with your suggestion directly above. How many votes is it to make it a recommendation to go forward to consideration of what body, the Local Wikipedia house of Justice? One vote, or nine votes or a majority of three in a quorum of 5? Maybe we need to elect an edit board for this page. Or would the LSA of where the wikipedia computer server is be the most appropriate governance body for all of us visitors. Some will say that that LSA does not have influence over all users here, true but if 6 million people or 1 to 1000 of the world's population were prepared to do one delete and one rvt each then the page would look like the corporate bodies intent. That is why Shoghi Effendi was so happy when LSA's Incorporated under the 1908 Incorporated Societies Act. A legal enterty light came on. 15 people made a body Incorporated. That was a mile stone. Shoghi Effendi went on to say that no more than 15 Baha'is were needed in the cities (where would they go? Pioneer as an alternative. Where? Wikipedia and Youtube internet locations after moving to remote physical locations).  A body to interperate the wikipedia rule ...Reverting Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible. (from Wikipedia:Editing policy) Roddy Young.219.89.174.103 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break all this youtube stuff into a special archive. 

message: He seems to deem it appropriate to bring this discussion to my userpage to try to convince me to see his POV. and BTW, we already have a link to the Chile HOW in the HOW article! we do not need it on the summary page! Zazaban 22:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RoddyYoung. 

message: RoddyYoung 09:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: :Breaking news. Justification for posting is that a focus on "Arts" is a common theme,and beauty is a focus for the houses of worship. Here is breaking news on a subject on you tube that refers to "art". This may be the nexus that youtube, wikipedia and the Baha'i page have that will be condusive to unity. Here is the report from CBS NewsRoddyYoung 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since May, Lonelygirl15's brief posts on YouTube have become an online phenomenon, launching a Web mystery that nearly 2 million viewers have been following: Who is she? The girl, who calls herself Bree, appears to be an innocent, home-schooled 16-year-old, pouring her heart out in her bedroom for her video camera in the privacy of her bedroom. Her two-minute videos often tell the drama involved in a typical teen life, especially focusing on her friend Daniel's crush on her. Each video features a title, like "Boy Problems," similar to a diary entry. But Bree is rather telegenic for a mere 16-year-old, causing some to question whether she's just the latest product in a new viral marketing campaign. Lonelygirl's creators came forward with a statement that claims lonelygirl15 is part of their "show." They thank their fans effusively for tuning into "the birth of a new art form." They are not, they insisted, "a big corporation," writing: "Our intention from the outset has been to tell a story — A story that could only be told using the medium of video blogs and the distribution power of the Internet. A story that is interactive and constantly evolving with the audience." But the statement also added to the intrigue surrounding Bree's identity. "Right now, the biggest mystery of Lonelygirl15 is 'Who is she?' We think this is an oversimplification. Lonelygirl15 is a reflection of everyone." The statement's authors wrote that they are "in the process of building a website centered around video and interactivity." And, as it turns out, the New York Times has cleared up some of the mystery surrounding the vague statement today. Just who is Bree? She's Jessica Rose, a "20-ish resident of New Zealand and Los Angeles and a graduate of the New York Film Academy" and the masterminds behind her videos are several screenwriters. The videos appear to be the early serialized version of what eventually will become a movie, the newspaper says. So what do bloggers think about this admission that Bree is not genuine? They certainly were talking about it. Lonlygirl15 was the most searched term on Technorati over the weekend. Many were happy to have some closure, even if they still aren't sure what it all means. cont.RoddyYoung 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More YouTube 

message: It is with dispair but compassion that I note how deleting from a discussion page means that I have to accept the concensus. RoddyYoung 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roddy, the discussion was not deleted, which would be talk page vandalism. It was archived — a very big difference. One needs to accept consensus when, after two solid weeks of making one's argument, no support is received. MARussellPESE 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I did delete it, and it wasn't vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk page vandalism, Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam. Roddy's comment which I deleted  was most definitely spam. Cuñado  - Talk 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. It was very hard to follow what Roddy was saying. That was a most righteous deletion. MARussellPESE 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletes from personal talk or discussion pages is up to the person who the page is about. We understand that. Deletions of other people's comments from the Baha'i discussion page can be seen as tantamount to a physical assult supressing freedom of speech. Deletions from the main Baha'i page or any main page is a healthy part of the robust nature of wikipedia. A "righteous" deletion by MARussellPESE from your(his) personal talk page/discussion was fine, the comments were co-printed on my(Roddy's) page as a response to your (MARussellPESE's) comments. Deletions from Baha'i discussion page by Cunado19 of another person's comments was to sail close to the wind. But I accepted consensus as a result because I did not want to cause a fight. And deletes by Jeff3000 off the main page are just part of wikipedia life and are fine with me. If I can not use words to change a persons ideas then I just have patience as a virtue to fall back on. However youtube is making world wide news in mainstream media papers with out any help from me(ref lonelygirl15, Jessica Rose aka Bree). I am just reporting  notable published news page information for discussion on youtube's progress in becoming ligitimate for wikipedia references. As news builds up on youtube and accedemic papers start to come out on youtube it may get more acceptance in wikipedia and with the editors of the Baha'i main page. ie an undergraduate degree takes 3 years, a masters degree takes 2 years and a PhD takes 3 years a total of 8 years. Youtube has just been out for only 18 months, so very few PhD (none) of notable status are in print because it is just too early. However youtube does exsist. All we have are notable is stats (one hundered million downloads per day, 65,000 new video up loads per day) on how many people use it and what the news papers and journalists say about it. So no content makes the grad for the Baha'i page. It is only time. So I say deletes are fine on the main page, deletes are marginal of others comments on the discussion page and no deletes on home talk pages from others, as that is like home invasions and assult, Is how I feel. That is how I see deletes. The questions of rvt are another moot all together and for another time. To keep it short I will stop here.RoddyYoung 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Think about it Zanaban, what you are saying is that a link to the Baha'i main page in wikipedia would add to Youtube encyclopedic content. Apart from youtube links being deleted and a discussion and an archive what great encyclopedic addition would that be. I say nothing. What I do see however is that the use of Arts by Baha'is and the encouragement from the Universal House of Justice to use Arts, will see more and more use by Bahai of the youtube format to achieve the 5 year plans and beyond. Work in this area of the arts by Baha'is on Youtube may be of note on the Baha'i main page in good time and a line to that work on Youtube may not get deleted (even Jeff3000 may mellow). .RoddyYoung 10:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ye Gods! Please make it stop! All it takes is one person to address Roddy and he's off again. If we can all show some restraint, or take it to his talk page that'd be ideal. This has been the most pointless interchange I've ever had to endure on Wikipedia — and I've been through some real winners. MARussellPESE 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember all this started because the link to the Chile House of Worship was deleted off the main pages that was located on youtube, a Chile House of Worship on youtube that animated the proposed design was deleted rather than referenced correctly. A simple art work presentation of the next Baha'i House of worship (Notable) on youtube. No discussion before delete just a chop of content in the fashion of a dictator. Just a delete? where is the culture of consultation there? So if anyone wanted the delete off then discuss it in discussion first and let the author remove it after being consulted first. Other wise we have a community that generates commentary like this, not before a delete but after. It begins in words and ends in words. What has come out of this is the option to load ogg audio visual links into wikipedia, but I have looked at this and it is very hard opperation compared to a simple link to youtube. Also many people cannot get the copy right for ogg material and will leave it out inspite of it being on the web one simple link away.
RoddyYoung 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting within Discussion page