Revision 13:36 11 Feb 2011 (edit)JorisvS (talk | contribs) ‘subnotable’ & ‘far too many concerns’:
Please list all real concerns and note the big difference between your first and last complaints. Chambers’ observation of a link between the Baha’i and Esperanto movements will be more concisely resubmitted unless you provide good cause in opposition. In the eyes of the public Chambers’ fame eclipses that of any Baha’i or Esperanto organization. So please explain your case with the right of Wikipedia’s readers to know the truth uppermost in your objection. Granted, my knowledge of Wikipedia and computers is low. So what! My addition hurts no one. That Chambers notes a link is an undeniable truth or fact, not proselytizing on my part. Thanks for showing easy access to Wikipedia’s requests re ‘soapboxes & battlegrounds’ The next trick for an old guy like me is to learn to get around chat and social groups etc.
To Prosfilaes or JorisvS: Abbreviations such as ‘WTF?’ and ‘UTC’ are too obscure or obscene to merit much time. However, in an attempt to minimize obscurantism I’m OK with changing ‘Chambers notes an important link’ to ‘Chambers notes a link’. I mean, do you think Chambers is in the habit of noting unimportant links as though to destroy its fame? I’ll let it rest if you will. Likewise re ‘it’s accurate and substantial’ I’ll voluntarily remove ‘accurate’ if this might placate you. Seekers of truth will at least know the value of Chambers and Wikipedia, what?
For several weeks, as recently as last week, Chambers’ sub editors and I have been consulting on various updates to their Baha’i entries and in the matter of waiving copy right on 2 entries to ‘Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions’. I hope to post soon the exact wording. An added complication is that contradictions exist between 2 of their current major publications
(The Bahai Esperanto League has approx 500 registered members which ergo represents one of Esperanto’s largest private & independent groups.500 of 5,000,000 Bahais is another thing)