User talk:Alkhowarizmi

Welcome to Visitors...

If you want to discuss anything I've done and for whatever reason the relevant Talk page is unsuitable, feel free to write a note . If you do, I'll reply here (if I reply). Unless you're adding to a topic already started here, please write at the end of this page, start with a topic heading, and sign your post.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Opinions

The following relates to Talk:Jesus where I have been chided for voicing offensive opinions. I will probably remove it when that discussion is no longer current.

I think my offensive opinions are highly relevant. We have someone challenging the article on the basis that it is fiction masquerading as fact. In my opinion - I'll be more specific on this - that Paul and his successors introduced elements of the Jesus story that where absent during his life (and death), i.e. to me, fiction. To believers, divine revelation. This opinion of mine, if offensive, nonetheless demonstrates that my bias is similar to Retoru's. The whole point is the article does not assert as fact any of the religious beliefs asserted around Jesus. All that is left is whether he existed. I think that's been covered well by Erik the Red, except to point that while Erik and I find it incontestable, the article leaves it open.

Readers have a choice whether to be offended by what they read, and if so, whether to take offence against the author. I don't accept responsibility for how readers respond to what I write, only for what I write. My view on that is that I should not write with the specific purpose of causing offence, but that if I know that something is likely to cause offence (i.e. there probably will be readers who will ""choose"" to take offence) then I should (more for practical than ethical reasons) consider whether this can be reduced or avoided, and take into account the context and purpose of the writing to decide whether to keep my silence.

Here's how I apply that thinking in this case:

If my opinions offend believers, I'm sorry, but I don't think that obliges me to keep them secret. I find offensive the beliefs of ""some"" Christians in virgin birth, trinity, weeping and bleeding idols, etc, but I don't ask believers to keep silence. It is inevitable in a world of contradictory beliefs that some offend others. I accept responsibility to exercise judgment in the matter of where and when I express views that may offend. I think I'm doing so here, and if I'm mistaken then I apologise. Indeed if I am persuaded that it's wrong, I'll edit out my offensive content.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small abacus

Hello Alkhowarizmi, you are welcome to visit our pageRoberto Lyra (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC). Thank you.[reply]

Melvill

Thanks for pointing out the Thomas Melvill redirect situation. It's now fixed. M2545 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian,

I never imagined I would so quickly and easily gain such an unambiguous statement that Wikipedia is now a propaganda arm of the empire nor such a direct linking of that role with protection of biographies of its servants.Alkhowarizmi (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the above having seen your grovelling reversion of my edit of the lickspittle article on Alexander Cockburn. Now I am pleased to find that the thought police now prevent intrusion of reality on talk pages as well as articles, with your prompt deletion of my entry on "Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories" that read:

(Quote)== Well done ==

Very funny article. I especially love the bit where any account that connects with reality is a conspiracy theory, but the official version that it was all done by Al Qaida steering two planes into three towers (a third plane got lost but the third tower obeyed the theory) is not a conspiracy theory. Just how many editors does the Empire employ to keep wikipedia as a media whore?(/quote)Alkhowarizmi (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]