User talk:Cormallen/Userboxes

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Cormallen/Userboxes, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Pluralism[edit]

I quite like the general structure of the latest proposal that you made on Religious Pluralism; nevertheless, I think I would somehow modify some details. I don't know when I'll get around to writing a more detailed reply (got my English and French classes for school to prepare etc.), but I will. One thing I've noticed is that both of us lack a lot of expert knowledge (and perhaps also accuracy of terminolgy) to tackle this subject - which I consider important, and rather encyclopedic in extent - on our own. Do you know where we could get help from, or ask for contributions? --Robin.rueth 09:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Outline for Rewrite[edit]

I've worked out a proposal for a new outline with User:20040302; what do you think about it? --Robin.rueth 13:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Religious Pluralism[edit]

Hi Cormallen,

I'm happy to see you've undertaken a new task on Religious_Pluralism, and I think there is now a little bunch of people actively interested in the page, at least you and me and March4. Would it be sensible to create a little wikiproject on the topic so we coordinate our efforts better and everyone knows what everyone else is talking and thinking about? --Robin.rueth 09:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complicating your beautifully simple proposal[edit]

Hi Cormallen,

I've done some edits to your proposal (which I've not treated very gently, and I haven't looked at all of it yet); unfortunately (and this is what the discussion with March4 has taught me), things are much more complicated than we take them to be at first glance, and we should be very cautious about general definitions that impose a closure upon things (e.g. we can give some features of what religion can be but we'll never be able to define what religion is).

I suppose the best thing would be to give a very short introduction with general definitions (which we'd have to build up in accordance to related pages such as Pluralism, Tolerance, Diversity, State_Religion), and then go on to tons of concrete examples, e.g. within the framework that I proposed. This is pretty much a bottom-up approach to fill up a very vague top-down structure, which may yet get modified in the process. I suppose it is going to take us like two or five years until we get this to featured article status, but Interfaith Dialouge is a very tedious thing as well, so why shouldn't this page?

My proposal to introduce a wikiproject arises out of this complication that I've just sketched, I think we do need some coordination.

More bad news: I've got an exam in two weeks' time and another one within a month, so I won't be able to contribute an awful lot during that time.--Robin.rueth 09:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..[edit]

I will look at this - unfortunately, domestic issues are governing my life right now, so I beg tolerance and patience on these issues. Basically though, your contribution will be welcome - as long as your stance is both plural and encompassing! Regarding 'original research' - if every reading is a rewriting, then one can say that all things are original research! Let's just try to stick to stuff that isn't hypothesis, theory, or narrow-mindedness! Best to you, (20040302 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Tubists or tuba players?[edit]

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC) In fact, the discussion covers whether the main category and all of its sub-categories should be Category:Tubaists, Category:Tubists or Category:Tuba players, and so on. Please take any views you have to the discussion page there.[reply]
I think that people that know what they are talking about should comment, because there are things being written like, "'tubists' seems clearly incorrect ... to judge by the ... comments."
In the absence of knowledgeable discussion, an outcome based on ignorance can result.
I'm not getting the impression that most of the participants are serious tubists. -- Rico 04:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)