User talk:Alecmconroy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:57, 16 May 2007

Archive 1

Okay

I will self revert. However, I also ask that you rejoin discussion. I gave you time to respond, and allowed for the possibility that you were on an extended break. But you have shown that you are not. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Since you made the Arbcom a personal issue not a content one, please do not fish for supporters by posting it in article tak space. Thank you. Bias notices are also against the rules of giving notice for ArbCom. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually-- I honestly and truly figured there would be more of YOUR supporters likely to see my post. Rangeley's solicited lots of opinions to the page in the last day or two. --Alecmconroy

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cilice-CNN.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cilice-CNN.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

This is not the first time Zer0Faults/NuclearUmpf has made these kinds of allegations/comments. Please note this thread where he makes similar comments, but includes a number of other editors in his 'cabal'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Barton

Thank you for helping with the page. Your contributions are appreciated. Wjhonson 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to come back each day. I've just reverted again back to your version but I'm sure the ghost will be back tomorrow :) Wjhonson 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTY 2006

Your vote was not considered because you did not provide a valid "diff" link. Please check the rules and try again. Alvesgaspar 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad

thank you for your sensible thoughts on this horrendously vicious debate. Proabivouac is requesting to move your comment to the mediation page. Would this be acceptable? --Hojimachong^talk_con 08:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preces (Opus Dei)

Hi Alecmconroy,
from where did you get the english translation of the Preces (Opus Dei) resp. could you add that information into the article?-- Túrelio 10:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As you may've seen, I've corrected a lot of typos, mostly accents, probably resulting from OCR. When finally at least the latin version will be in its "final" version, I would only ask you (as you put this text into wikipedia) to think about some effective measures against future falsification of the text by simple or less simple vandals/forgers. Even as eventually a Non-religious/catholic you will understand that the public presentation of an adulterated prayer - and additionally attached to a real group of people - would be quite more serious that just presenting wrong facts as happens now and then in article Opus Dei. Have a nice sunday. -- Túrelio 11:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation of that line[1] was based on the erroneous old latin line; it should have been: "Oremus pro Patre." as it is in the latin section since my proof-reading. Patre here means the current prelate of Opus Dei, who is called with the more familiar Father by members and friends. -- Túrelio 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alecmconroy,
I did some more OCR-cleaning today. You'll find two blank lines in each language section. I didn't delete anything there, I added them because one verse or invocation was/is still missing. -- Túrelio 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your user page

I had placed one liner joke at your user page. I dont know if you noticed or in what way you felt about that. My apology for that if you are offended. VirtualEye 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba-c_closeup.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba-c_closeup.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [2] futurebird 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usefulness of different images

As a lurker on Talk:Muhammad/Mediation (I've been interested ever since in tracing the origins of medieval manuscript images I identified the source of the infamous Maôme.jpg) let me congratulate you for your extremely cogent post Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#The usefulness of different images. It really gets at the functions that images play in an encyclopedia. --SteveMcCluskey 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beautifully worded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hojimachong (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On the Jesus Seminar and its fans

On Lazarus and Dives, we're seeing one extremely insistent editor and four others. Let's let the dust settle a bit before concluding on including, please. I say this because I have some suspicions that the editor is on a campaign to promote JS everywhere in a ... well ... zealous manner. Geogre 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You type very long and it is difficult to read such a long views. Please be short. :) --- ALM 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea that how to tell other people that I am not censoring because of my religion. If that would have been true then I will not like to accept any picture at all in the article. Hence if there is a point where wikipedia rules and Islamic rule collide then I follow wikipedia rules it is because this is not an ideal/Islamic place and I understand it. Having said that it is against WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to have those picture on prominent places given that they represent a minority tradition. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. I am preparing an arbitration case see User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad and will provide all the references. Please tell me what I supposed to do to tell that I am not censoring because of my religion only? --- ALM 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it has nothing to do with religion because otherwise I will say who cares to spend so much time on one picture. But When my religion and wikipeida rules come in clash then I have to sacarify my religion. Because I have to follow the rule of this place and it is not Islamic. That is why I have no objection in having that picture near bottom even though it is against my religion. Why I should sacrify my religion when it is align with wikipedia policy. Undue weight apply hear very well because in case of Jesus, pictures are very common and in case of Muhammad, tradition of drawing NOT pictures are common (in Muslims as well as in non-Muslim). Giving picture on the top tell end users that it is common to have Muhammad pictures (which is wrong for encyclopedia). However, people here are not even willing to hear my argument and they cannot think anything other than my religion affilations. They stereotype me and it is pity.. --- ALM 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just worried that people won't know Islamic cultures don't like images of Muhammad, then you don't have to worry. Trust me-- everybody knows. I know the west can be pretty clueless about other cultures in general, but we all know that much. And we mention it multiple times in the article, just in case. --Alecmconroy 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) I have no idea what that mean? --- ALM 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. My son is now 1.5 year old. He and his generation will be surfing web in next two, three years. I am not sure that each ones parent will tell them that wikipedia has wrong information about tradition. I think it is better idea to represent the tradition the way it is. Hence satisfy WP:NPOV#Undue_weight properly by change it position to non-prominent, changing its caption and as well as writing in the article. Here it is for your reading (which is btw a policy): An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.. WHY CANNOT WE APPLY IT PLEASE... --- ALM 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well even non-Muslim do not depict him usually. We have to find reference but we know it using a survey. We have shown that from an amazon.com (a Western website) search 5/49 time he was depicted on book covers. These book are the very first 49 books appear in that search (result without any censorship). That is obviously unlike Jesus and other personalities where majority of books will have there picture (we can do a similar survey). Agreed? Once again I will search for reference too. Hence not having picture on the top even is align with western tradition about Muhammad. --- ALM 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey give these results

Potrait of Muhammad: 5
Calligrpahy of Muhammad, Sahadat, BismillAllah: 17
Mosques or old city of Mecca etc : 9
Text or Muslims or some design etc: 18

We can have them in right proportion. That is what WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says to have things in right proportion (should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject). That is if we have calligraphy and potrait ratio should be 17/5 etc. However, I agree that we need to find a reference because it is just survey. In that I know you will also help me? Right? --- ALM 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that we will find the reference that saying it represent minority tradition. The survey from a BOOK WEBSITE is only for us to see that what we are saying is right and unlike Jesus, Muhammad do have less picture on book covers. However, I do not like your previous post and I never like when someone thinking my intension bad. Bye. --- ALM 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your change. I think now the position and number of images are not perfact but I can live with this solution. Please help in achieve this solution. Thanks once again. --- ALM 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your final warning

Even if you disagree with me and I with you we can still be nice with each other. At least I try to be nice with everyone I disagree with. Because it is not personal and please do not make it personal. Who know on personal level we go fine with each other. Right? For example: my boss is atheist but we are still good friends and I have lots of Christian friends too. Unlike them that they know very few Muslims. Now getting back to your warning. I am not able to contribute in wikipedia since last few months due to this dispute. Hence in case the dispute does not end with some compromise then I might leave myself anyway. However, if you will file an arbitration case then it will be great help. It is because (1) it will help me in leaving this filthy place and (2) it will help me in taking few people with me. That means I will lose nothing and will take few with me as bonus. For example User:Proabivouac will be easy to drag and his edit warring is also easy to find. Hence please remember your promise and help me in achieving my goal. Regards and take it easy man, --- ALM 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not aniconistic, but it can be?

Does this edit even make sense given the title of that page? (→Netscott) 20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have put it better

"Strictly speaking, I suppose we're "misrepresenting" Islamic tradition by even writing from a NPOV. Most people who talk about Muhammad regard him as a prophet-- but we don't obey that tradition in writing the text of the article."

Yup.Proabivouac 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

It was either this or the lightbulb...

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		Your inspirational and convincing defense of Wikipedia policy against religiously-motivated censorship on Muhammad has earned you this barnstar.Proabivouac 08:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivist movement

On the talk page of the Objectivist movement you mentioned how much help the article needs. I've re-written the article and am currently working on getting it up to standards. You can see what I have so far here. If you have the time any suggestions or criticism would be appreciated. Endlessmike 888 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are still interested, just go to the Objectivist movement page. Endlessmike 888 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Lostcaesar keeps removing the POV tag even though he hasn't instituted the changes you asked for and keeps deleting material that I try to add. If you could be so kind as to make your thoughts known, I'd appreciate it. You can check recent history on the page to see an example of information that LC won't permit on the page. Jonathan Tweet 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, LC has once again removed the POV tag from the article. It still looks POV to me. For example, the history section doesn't mention the Bible's connection to purgatory, a topic that doesn't do purgatory any favors. Historical analysis has not been added to the text as you had suggested. Could you please take a look? Jonathan Tweet 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I added, based on Alec's comments, a section called "interpretations", where I included, from the book which he asked for information to be drawn, opinions (as well as from other sources). I guess the fact that I bothered to go to the source he requested, do research, and then read two reviews on the book, just doesn't even show up on JT's radar screen, who cannot be bothered to do any research outside of an internet search (all his edits, if referenced, have only been to internet articles). Lostcaesar 06:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, LC and I aren't going to be able to work this out on talk:Purgatory just the two of us. Could you please swing by and comment? Jonathan Tweet 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites nominated for FA

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 08:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSA membership controversies

Hello. I'm trying to expand/clarify this section some.[3] Basically, about local councils adopting nondiscrimination policies and signing nondiscrimination statements to keep receiving funding, and whether they actually comply with these policies/statements. Not sure if you have any knowledge of it or not. --Jagz 16:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory

Alec, there are a couple things I would like to point out about your edits upfront. First, Eastern Catholic Churches are "Roman Catholic", and should not be listed as another "denomination". They are in full communion with Rome just like the Latin Rite. "Roman Catholic" is not equivalent with "Latin Rite" — its a larger term that encompasses many rites, etc., and may be used in reference to the Eastern Catholic Churches. The adj. "Roman" is foreign to these groups, for the most part, and is in the least ackward, but if it is used then it cannot exclude Eastern Catholics. Second, the word "denomination" should not be used since it is an ecclesiology rejected by the Eastern Catholics, the Latin Rite Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox groups, alike. Best to use another word. Cheers. Lostcaesar 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aniconistic WP:ANIC

You may be interested in this edit:[4] --ProtectWomen 05:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 == Purgatory ==
 Alec, there are a couple things I would like to point out about your edits upfront.  First, Eastern Catholic Churches are "Roman Catholic", and should not be listed as another "denomination".  They are in full communion with Rome just like the Latin Rite.  "Roman Catholic" is not equivalent with "Latin Rite" &mdash; its a larger term that encompasses many rites, etc., and may be used in reference to the Eastern Catholic Churches.  The adj. "Roman" is foreign to these groups, for the most part, and is in the least ackward, but if it is used then it cannot exclude Eastern Catholics.  Second, the word "denomination" should not be used since it is an ecclesiology rejected by the Eastern Catholics, the Latin Rite Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox groups, alike.  Best to use another word.  Cheers. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
+== Aniconistic [[WP:ANIC]] ==
+You may be interested in this edit:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=131230563&oldid=131219198] --[[User:ProtectWomen|ProtectWomen]] 05:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)