Loading AI tools
I agree with your comments on Early Christianity and again the Early Christian Fathers article is excellent. Thank you for your kind words and intervention.
LoveMonkey (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah haha but you forgot Father Diodore of Tarsus . The Chaldocean will appreciate this am sure. God Bless, Alistair.
LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Alastair, I have a question for you. What is the meaning (to you) of the word heresy?
LoveMonkey (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In EO it is to choose your own opinion over that of the community (the phenomena of Phronema).LoveMonkey (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
During the time of Westernization in Russia, the pro Westernizers pushed that heresy is to mean, one who opposes "Orthodoxy". This by extention meant that people did not have a "right" to their own interruption and or opinion. But to the Orthodox clergy this is not what Orthodoxy means and this is not what heresy means. The idea of heresy as this became so pervasive that the conservative elements in Russia (called now in hindsight Slavophiles) created a philosophy (yes Russian Philosophy) to address philosophical dialect with philosophical dialect- their response was called sobornost or organic, spontanious ordering. If you would like I can post the apology here on your talk page, it is to RC and Protestanism. The problem is this too, is wrong. But lets start there with sobornost. Respond if you would like to read the apology it is not long.
LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me say, that Orthodox is organic and opposes the "mechanization" of things. Philosophy is (by definition) a set of analytical tools (called dialects) to deconstruct reality. God is not a machine, man is not a machine, reality is not a machine. Orthodoxy is to maintain all of the community's traditions.[1]
LoveMonkey (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahh why I wanted to post the comments. So be it. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
As it is written so let it be done. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Link
The message of Sobornost[2]
Sobornost as an apology for Caesaropapism.[3]
Sobornost against spiritual elitism or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.[4]
Sobornost as an apology against Western Christianity.[5]
Sobornost as an apology specific to sola scriptura.[6]
Sobornost to Western Christianity as a call for unity[7]
Sobornost in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Khomiakov describes the difference between the three Christian denominations as follows:
Three voices are heard more distinctly than others in Europe: "Obey and believe my decrees," says Rome.
"Be free and try to create some sort of faith for yourself," says Protestantism.
And the Church calls to the faithful:
"Let us love one another that we may with one accord confess the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."
Sobornost as love and freedom.[8]
Sobornost and the mir
[9] Sobornost from other slavophils.[10]
Sobornost as democratic[11]
Aleksey Khomyakov pg87
from the History of Russian Philosophy by N.O. Lossky.
It seems that the Constantinian shift is yet another historically incorrect made up and made to play on people ignorants, conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories have no place being paraded on wiki as fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"He prays with his body alone, and not yet with spiritual knowledge. But when the man once blind received his sight and saw the Lord, he acknowledged Him no longer as the Son of David but as the Son of God, and worshipped Him' (cf. John 9 38)." St Symeon the New Theologian Philokalia Vol.4
LoveMonkey (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
LoveMonkey (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Alastair,
Thanks for the kind words, but you misread me.
I can hardly walk into a room without Tim jumping me and bludgeoning me. He goes around telling everyone how everything up to and including racism, pollution and the high price of gasoline is ultimately my fault. And yes, I'm exaggerating a little there, but not a lot. If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's my fault. That's on this very page.
My point was that as far as Tim is concerned, everything is my fault. Even the criticisms against you -- many of which are well founded, well documented, but still unacknowledged by you -- are my fault, as far as Tim is concerned. The words "That's on this very page" referred to the fact that Tim's claim that accusations against you are my fault was on that very page.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misread what I was saying. So that's what I'm going to do. I'll be able to do so as long as you don't suggest to anyone that I was actually taking the blame for accusations against you.
In all honesty, I have no opinion on the conflict between you and Ilkali. I haven't read the evidence, and it revolved around issues that don't interest me. The fact remains, however, that on the day of that edit war, you reverted my edit without any discussion. Everyone who looks at the diffs can see that this is the case. What boggles my mind, really, is that you refuse to even acknowledge a solid fact like that. Possibly even to yourself. And it's that sort of denial that's going to mess you up big-time in this arbitration. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Danvers Statement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danvers Statement. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wronkiew (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi:
You reverted a change I made in the virginity article. I corrected the quote where is said that "homosexual intercourse and prostitution are all explicitly forbidden by name." in 1st corninthians, and it is given as the citation. I changed that to say that sodomy, not homosexual intercourse was explicitly forbidden by name, as that is correct. I realize that the term sodomy is a very general term. Indeed, some Christians interpret sodomy to mean homosexual intercourse, but that is widely disputed. The term Sodomy is also widely held to have originated as forbidding idolatry and bestiality.
The original Greek reads: "η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι θεου βασιλειαν ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται"
The King James version reads "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind";
Here is the Worlwide English version of that: "Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse."
Whycliffe (one of the older translations) "Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men"
Young literal translation (closest to the original greek) "have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,"
It takes Broad interpretation to get from the original greek (effeminate) to fundamentalist versions that say "homosexual intercourse". Consider that although sodomy has been legally interpreted in the past 100 years or so to mean oral sex, bestiality and anal sex, at the time of the writing of 1st Corinthians, sodomy primarily meant a form of idol worship and bestiality, and had nothing to do with homosexuality.
Regardless of my opinion or other opinions of Wikipedia editors, if one wishes to quote first corinthians, the correct interpetation would be "sodomy" not "homsexual intercourse". The reader can then, depending on their personal religious convictions, interpret the original words (sodomy) as they please. It is not our job to mis-interpret that for them. Atom (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Alastair...another incident of Ilkari's intantaneous disregard for Civility and propriety is his appearance at Unencyclopedia and his immediate scolding of my improper (in his view) request for an arbitrator. When I explained my logic, there was no apology or response of any kind. Very rude and unthoughtful behavior toward a newbie, which I still am--Buster7 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I get it up to the "link in your browser"...do you mean upper left side.... File-------Edit--------View--------Favorites-------Tools--------Help,------and then copy and paste under Edit? How do I create the link?...Duh...Where is an eight year old when you need one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BTW...nice upper-cut!--Buster7 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a helpful hint ... if you use the "show preview" tab at the bottom of an edit before pressing "save page", it avoids swamping the edit history with 20 or more edits in a short time as you have done on masculinity. Abtract (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Alastair -- I'm done. I might add some diffs on the arbcom, but I'm done. I can't keep fighting Ilkali, and while I understand HGs good faith attempt to keep the talk page from being cluttered, it wasn't the right subject to do it in. I might see you around some time, but SkyWriter is outta here.Tim (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion that might be of interest is here ... but I know you are very busy with your case, up to you if you want to ship in. I am handling it OK so far, the outcome of the discussion may be a huge learning experience for a lot of editors, not only us.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to write more about classification of uncials, i.e. history of classification (Wettstein, Gregory). How to title this section? "History of classification"? "Classification of uncials"?
Perhaps we also need to write more about role of uncials for Textual Criticism. Maybe it will better to create another article — "Uncial codex" (or "Uncial codex of New Testament"). In this article we can write about differences between early uncials and late uncials, evolution of uncial text of the New Testament (Codex Boernerianus sometimes used minuscule letters — α, κ, ρ with the same size like uncials). I think we need this article, because in List of New Testament uncials we can not write everything. I afraid it will not comprehensive article for a long of time.
After few days I will depart to Zakopane (1-14 September). Thanks for everything. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, I am partly Belarussian, partly Ukrainian, although I was born in Poland. I love russian literature (f.e. Fyodor Dostoevsky). Polish literature is not interesting for me (in spite some exceptions). I have problem with identity. My ancestors were Russian Orthodox, one of my ancestors was murdered by Poles in 1920 (he did not spoke Polish - in that time it was enough), my grandfathers were persecuted by Poles, and by communists after World War II, but in Soviet Union persecuted was evebody, every people. In 1944-1950 about 500 russians orthodoxes were killed in Poland, and several tousand exiled to Soviet Union, to Joseph Stalin. Yes, it was communism in that time, I tell about unofficial, undergroud Polish army existed in that time. For us it was worse than German occupation, and of course in Soviet Union was several times worse. After all I participated in Polish ecumenical translation of Bible. (New Testament - pl:Biblia Ekumeniczna). In fact we are not Poles, Russians, Belarussians, or Ukrainians, we are with God or with Satan, and not other possibility. Wy we are fighting? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to nominate Anekantavada on the main page here. Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Help_to_nominate_Anekantavada. Need your help.--Anish (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Anekantavada is scheduled to appear on 19th on Main page!--Anish (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
I have nominated Why Men Rule, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Men Rule. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Suntag (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alastair Haines!!!. I saw your name listed at WP:PRV as a general copyeditor. I was wondering if you can copyedit Mangalorean Catholics, which is about a small Christian group, since I have noticed you are interested in Christianity. You can take your own time and copyedit the article whenever you are free. Also, if you have any suggestions, please do put it up. Thanks in anticipation, Kensplanet (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I also have quite an interest in TESOL & Australia, I thought you might share my interest in the peer review, Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories/archive1. If you're like a lizard drinking, then no wucking furries; to drunken violence against furries, Australia says no. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
See; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330...whenever you get a few hours, LOL, an over-zealous (and dangerous) admin only gets a spanking, an interesting "underworld" is revealed.--Buster7 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Civility Award | ||
I think it was Oscar Wilde that said, "Damn the Critics"...no, wait...it was Oscar the Grouch. O well...its the thought that counts. Your steed awaits, good Sir! |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your diligence in promoting and defending Wikipedia principles both in public and in private. You have continually promoted faith in Wikipedia to get things right. You have publically defended Wikipedia in Newsweek. You have promoted faith in Wikipedia even when things turn upside down. Even when an attack on yourself had so discouraged me that I wanted to quit the task of editing, you continued to defend the very process that had been twisted against you. Thank you. Tim (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
You have blurb mail...Tim (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I have started articles about lectionaries of New Testament. Infobox is not ready.
| form = [Papyrus | Uncial | Miniscule]
en:Template:New Testament manuscript infobox
Several days ago I was on Rysy, the highest point of Poland (2499,6 m above level of sea). It is one of three peaks of Rysy. The highest has 2503 and belongs to Slovakia. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, you've reverted Singular they three times recently (), violating the 1RR (one revert per article per week) ArbCom placed on you. I don't think a first offense would lead to anything, but you should be careful in future. Ilkali (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, if you feel someone is damaging an article, bring it up to the talk page or enlist the help of other editors; if someone is trying to force unhelpful changes others will agree and will help. — Coren (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I think about small corrections in our list.
# | Name | Date | Content | Institution | City | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0111 | 650 | 2 Thess 1-2 | Berlin State Museums, P. 5013 | Berlin | Germany | |
0112 | See Uncial 083 | |||||
0113 | See 029 | |||||
0114 | 750 | John 20 | Bibliothèque nationale de France, Copt. 129.10, f. 198 | Paris | France | |
Or in this way:
# | Name | Date | Content | Institution | City | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0111 | 650 | 2 Thess 1-2 | Berlin State Museums, P. 5013 | Berlin | Germany | |
0112 See 083 |
||||||
0113 See 029 |
||||||
0114 | 750 | John 20 | Bibliothèque nationale de France, Copt. 129.10, f. 198 | Paris | France | |
It will be easier to find any uncial codex. Do you agree?
In last time Categories of New Testament manuscripts were translated into Arabian. It was made by ar:مستخدم:Lavivier. Lavivier translated a lot of biblical articles. Some of these articles are not translated into French, German, and other languages. He makes a good work.
It is nice. That is why I prefer editing on en-wiki, although sometimes I translate too. With kind regards.
Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alastair. I saw your name at WP:PRV and I thought you might be able help me out with a copyedit. I've got Melbourne Airport up at WP:FAC now and a good solid copyedit would do wonders. Thanks in advance. Mvjs (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
πού είστε; I'm getting worried over here. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
G'day all - I'm dropping this note in to let you know that there's to be a Wiki Meetup the week after next, on Tuesday, 21st at 18:00 at The Paragon in Circular Quay. If you've ever thought about popping along to one of these, but haven't had the chance - now's the time! If you love the idea, but the time and / or place don't quite work for you, please do feel free to wiki edit away at the meetup page and I'm sure we can sort something out :-) Meetups are a great way to share wiki-thoughts, meet wiki-friends, and generally learn how to prefix all areas of your life with wiki- :-)
It's a very friendly bunch, and we're hoping to be able to formally collect membership fees and details for the Australian Chapter (did you know that we're the only current english speaking chapter? Join now for kudos and future bragging rights!) - as well as just generally have a good 'ol time. I look forward to seeing you there :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been reverted several times by two editors that team-up against me, since it is written in one of their talk pages to team up together to go against my opinion. One of the editors is removing the whole "see also" section of an article, and I am simply against it. The proof is there, in their talk page and in all the edits when I am constantly asking to talk about it. What would you suggest to do? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a move request for Pope Clement I to Clement of Rome. See talk:Pope Clement I. Leadwind (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You may remember me. I was that little "waif" that entered your open talk page door a few monthes ago...;>)... You were very kind and said you would "teach me the ropes"...and then........you disappeared. I am glad to say that I survived in the Wilderness that is WikiWorld. But, the forest was lonely and the dragons were agitated. I am elated that you have returned, good sir. Truly, it makes a difference to know that you are near...:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Vithoba is a failed Featured article candidate, primary concerns were lack of coherence and topic sentences and Reliable sources. I am working on RS issue. Please look at the article in view of copyediting and point out any lack of coherence and topic sentences. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are 2 William Crooke articles, but both have the same photo uploaded by you. If both articles are about 1 individual, they should be merged. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I am happy, that you edit again. Today I have created article Papyrus 110, but I know it is not good stylisticly. If you have a time, I hope you can sacrifice a few minutes for this article. Perhaps it will better if table will not so broad. I have decided to create all articles for papyri and uncial manuscripts of NT. What about minuscules and lectionaries? Actually I do not know. But I know it will be problem with the tables. In one article more than 2000 manuscripts, it is too much. I do not know, but I like this work. Perhaps we need an article "Textual variants of New Testament" (only notable variants), but for now I do not have any idea how to do this. I will stop editing in 25-29 November, because of my visit in Edinburgh. I hope I will find a something interesting in a library (libraries?). I have never visited Scotland before. It is good that several users think about List of textual variants, because we need it. I can cooperate. But I think we need not only list, but also article which will explain in a systematic and methodical way defferences between manuscripts. Of course it will not easy. On user-page of Andrew c I saw that he is planned to create an article Text-type (biblical criticism). Yes we need it. By the way I like news from you. Your dissertation is about Oxyrhynchus Papyri. I whish success for you. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Today I created only one article Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (you created a lot of articles like this, f.e. Revue Biblique), but I concentrated my editing on the article Uncial 0212. It is very important witness of the Diatessaron. Our knowledge about the Diatessaron was changed after discovering of this manuscript (perhaps 6 000 bytes is not ehough for this article, but not now).
Papyrus 110 was nominated to DYK. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 17. Of course it is a result of your copy-edit work. I am your doubter. I should give you The Copyeditor's Barnstar (before Christmas). Of course you have it, but what shall I do?
I am shure, we do not need more stub articles about manuscripts, we need longer articles (at least 5 000 bytes). Unfortunatelly not always it is possible. From month to month collection of my books slowly grows. I am still do not have: Caspar René Gregory, Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig 1908), but it is only a metter of time. I have not complete book Soden's, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, (Berlin 1902–1910), but I have half.
Perhaps I will not have opportunity to visit library of the Oxford University (two hours are not satisfy me), but maybe I will do some xero from biblical journals before 1988. In Polish libraries is very difficult to find journals published in the West before 1988. Of course communism collapsed in 1989, but in 1988 we had almost everything except of free election. With the best regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I currently have Richard Mohun listed at WP:GAN and Anne Teedham has looked over the article and advised that I get a copyedit from someone listed at WP:PRV. I noticed your name there and wondered if you could take a look at the article for me. I have read through it a few times and cannot seem to improve it past its current state. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
What you are doing at Gender of God is edit warring- stop now. Per the arbitration ruling I could block both of you right now, but I'm a nice person, I'm giving you a chance to stop. Consider yourself warned. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The adminstrator above appears wilfully set on abusing administrator priveleges to further her personal crusade against this user. I have reported this previously and nothing was done. I have absolutely no inclination to waste time playing silly political games with such people. This administrator is enforcing removal of information from the Oxford English Dictionary from Wikipedia. Administrators are not authorised to unilaterally set themselves up as sources superior to published academics like the OED. They have the tools to do so, but not the right. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to look into this by L'Aquatique. It is quite clear that you violated your ArbCom restrictions, and as such, this 48 hour block is warranted. What is not warranted is your constant removals of L'Aquatique's comments here. If you persist in this behavior, this talk page will be protected from editing until such time that the block expires.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Ncm, I would like you and John to discuss this elsewhere please. You guys have plenty of places to chat. At this point, all I have is this page, and I need it to deflect people from making more errors. I think you're making errors now, that's fine, but just do it elsewhere. Talk here, and I'm responsible to respond (related words used deliberately). Talk elsewhere and I don't need to worry, do I? Please go away, I'm asking nicely. I'm happy to chat more casual like, some other place, some other time. And feel free to e-mail. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I was in the middle of some work when rudely interupted above. Here are the clipboard contents so people can use the information.
Here's a good example of needing some kind of consistency, so readers don't get distracted by wondering why things are changing.
Currently we have:
This is a problem because the first two words look like a book title, which is what italics + capitals indicates—e.g. The Lord of the Rings. Foreign words are written in italics + lower case letters—honi soit qui mal y pense—unless they are names, in which case they are in capital letters without italics—Mao Zedong, Łódź Voivodeship. Theoretically, double quotation marks indicate quotations, of course—"To be or not to be"; but where the quotes indicate a translation, this is often done using single quotes—logos means 'word' in Greek. The last rule is not consistently applied. There are other uses of italics (for example, for emphasis) and of quotation marks (for example, to signal a "so called" something). In fact, when indicating that a word is being named rather than used, either of the last two methods can be found—e.g. the word we are discussing is worship, or the word we are discussing is "worship".
These things are all discussed in reliable sources, the rules have changed over time (and will continue to do so), they change from country to country and from one writer or publisher to another. A fair bit of variation is almost always allowed, but not within a single piece of writing. Each piece of writing should stick to its own rules wherever it got them, with the exception that when quoting another piece of writing, it should generally copy what that piece of writing did.
The above is the right way to present the quote, although we do not spell philosopher with a capital P in English any longer, just as we don't spell Brahmin as Brackman. The italics in the last sentence indicated discussion of "words as words" not foreign language terms, and the quotes and italics just used indicated "so called" usage and emphasis, respectively. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
As I stated last night, I was going to prevent you from editing this talk page if you continued to remove comments left by administrators. I have restored all of the comments I believe I could. I am going to reset your block to an additional 48 hours from this point and it will be impossible for you to edit this page in that time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
See RFAR clarification. --John Vandenberg (chat) 01:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... I was just passing by and happened to become intrigued at this case. I have spent some time now looking through the history on this talk page, as well as reading through Wikipedia etiquette here, here and everywhere else. If you want my opinion, I do not see anything wrong with how this user (Alastair) handled his own talk page. This even seem to me that there has been "User space harassment" by some outside editors who restored comments on this talk page that this User had deleted. Just some two cents thrown in by someone who knows nobody here :) T Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 02:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hope all is well Alistair. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
As long as Alastair is banned from his own talk page, we are ALL committing vandalism by posting to it. Besides that, it's really creepy. Can we all take a break until he's no longer a gagged punching bag? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello friends and Wikipedians! :)
I have just had a nice holiday and got a number of important things done in real life. I will be posting here regarding the incident above and related matters in a little while. But, just now, my first priority at Wikipedia will be to complete what was unfinished at Vithoba. After that, I will continue to speak and act freely to improve and maintain Wikipedia, though experience has shown that there are people who wish to silence fair criticism when it is offered by me, and obstruct my editing by enforcements. I will comment about that further, here, later.
To people, especially my friends, who may be a little anxious about all this. The most important thing to remember is Wikipedia is a wonderful place based on a concept of giving volunteers an opportunity to do useful things like writing, reviewing, administrating or mediating based on their willingness, ability and good faith, not based on their training and qualification. That, in my opinion, is a system that works. It is beautifully egalitarian. It wins consensus by its generosity and wisdom, and needs little to no enforcement to maintain.
As I shall point out later, the exchange above, and the history behind it, are just minor ongoing issues arising as a trivial conflict has lead to exposing slightly more serious problems with people and parts of the system. The issues would be easily handled informally, which would avoid the public embarassment that various volunteer officials are bringing to themselves.
As mentioned, I have a little more to say, and will do so here within the next day or two. In the meantime, and whatever the outcome of future events, my friends will serve me best by serving Wikipedia and common human decency best. Wikipedia is an extraordinarily good thing, and its processess and the people who staff them full of wisdom. They are, of course, not perfect—if they were, none of us would be here or have any work to do! Imperfections at Wikipedia, in people or processes, are not threats to be defensive about, but challenges calling for generous and humble co-operation between volunteers. Conflict is part of growth, when managed civilly. Don't panic! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice no one has commented, that's a good thing. I know I promised I'd comment further, but I have changed my mind. Reference is made by various people above to an ArbCom case that I think was handled badly, but that I wasn't willing to push to review process. I am now even more confident of my previous decision, despite the fact that ongoing problems have resulted because of flaws in that case. I am now overwhelmed with sympathy for ArbCom members. Please friends, avoid even thinking of taking disputes to those unfairly busy volunteers. Whatever your problems, they are not as bad as other people's (I know that can't always be true, but you know what I mean). For me, the future is "be kind to ArbCom", don't hassle them, they do their best and they know they're not perfect, proving it proves nothing new.
The heat is off ArbCom in my opinion, but that means it comes back on us to be bold in assisting one another in conflicts. Many of you have done just that at my talk page above. Thank you. I don't anticipate much difficulty with conflicts in future. In more than two years at Wiki, I've only had serious trouble from a handful of editors at one article that normally gets little attention. The conflict has actually led to some good editors dropping by. Most articles I visit are full of hard-working polite people, sometimes with sincere differences of opinion, but nothing that can't be managed without too much drama.
I should make a final comment for any people who may discover me doing things ArbCom didn't want me doing. I doubt there will be much or any of that, but it is certainly possible. Every edit I make at Wiki, except one joke, has been and I expect always will be aimed at improving or maintaining it. Sometimes my judgment may be wrong, if anyone thinks so, say so, but stick to Wiki rules, assume good faith and remember that the bottom line is assessing edits for improvement or maintenance of Wiki. Criticism of edits is a kind of edit and is subject to the same rules as original edits. Neither he who edits first, nor he who edits second can be assumed to be correct, only good faith should be assumed.
Sadly, because of conflict like that documented on my page above, if my edits are opposed on presumptions of bad faith, or appeals to ArbCom, you will not find a receptive audience. Such approaches are clear signals of bad faith in the critic. I'll do my best to work with them, but a friendly question will always be more constructive and probably lead to a happy outcome.
In case it's not clear why it is pointless assuming bad faith or appealing to ArbCom, if my edit is correct, and in good faith, it will stand in the end anyway, and my opposing your invalid approach to criticism will be part of that process. Not only that, I have invested all the time I choose to in dealing with certain forms of invalid criticism. Approach me in an adversarial fashion and I'm afraid I won't have time to be kind to you, I'll just call in the cavalry. Thanks to past attacks, many friends have now assured me I shouldn't be shy to ask for their help. I hate to ask people to waste their time on conflict to help me, but I need friends to do this for me and they are willing. I will aim to assist others in their conflicts, but my own are going to be fought by my friends. I didn't ask people to do this for me, they have offered freely. Please people, don't fight me, you'll only steal time from my hard-working friends.
I thank everyone who responded to the "situation" above from the bottom of my heart. I hope your generosity will not be called upon again, but I know life is not that simple, so I thank my God for my friends. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.