User talk:Alanyst
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~
snoyes 18:00, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You may want to check out List of articles about Mormonism and help fill in the missing holes, since you seem to have some expertise in the area. Please add to the articles already there. Keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 22:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Whether one can, and if so how to, link to a specific section within an article
You can do this by using a hash (#) followed by the section title after the page title. So, for instance, Calvin and Hobbes#Supporting characters. --Taak 04:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Slide rule peer review
Hi, you nominated Slide rule for peer review. Can you help taking care of the comments and requests there? Thanks - Taxman 20:22, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, my input without someone that is able to do some of the work is not too helpful. I'll try to contact some of the people who authored some of the material. Thanks for your comment. - Taxman 22:30, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for your contributions to the debate at Talk:Jesus. They are among the most sensible. Chameleon 21:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My proposal
I appreciate your comments. Look, we disagree. But if you think I misquoted or misrepresented you in the text of my proposal, please let me know how so I can correct it, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] my proposal
Hi,
I just announced I am stepping away from the proposal discussion for several days. I know I have polarized the discussion, which I didn't want to do. If you are willing, I hope you will visit the page periodically and do whatever you can or think is appropriate to facilitate discussion between both sides.
Thanks
Steve
[edit] BC/AD
Actually I've talked out of both sides of my mouth on Thursday, and my position has evolved on the whole issue. Most simply, I'm not sure that Thursday is anything more than a day dedicated to Thor. The "existence" of Thor is not disputed (although whether he was/is real is another matter altogether). So on one level, a day or a month could be seen as "named after" someone or something. There is also, of course, the argument that Thor is no longer a major deity, but that argument is rather weak. There is also the little matter of lacking a viable alternative.
On the whole BC/AD issue it seems to me that the argument that makes most sense in terms of keeping BC/AD is one of dilution. The idea that BC and AD have been used so widely that the meaning of the word is lost. I don't agree with it, but i see it as a viable argument. I remember when I first discovered what AD meant. I was about 10 years old. My first thought, my first words were "so non-Christians can't use that term?" I'd think that on a matter like this, a child's thinking, the simple uncluttered analysis of the words, is the ideal starting point. If you take the words at face value, then BC and AD are POV. To move beyond that, I would need evidence.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss the meanings of the NPOV policy, I wouild love that. Since few people have challenged me on that I have not had to take it apart the same way as I have the BC/AD issue. It would be equally interesting to see where that would go. Guettarda 14:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You said: "Since many non-Christians comfortably use the term in an identical manner to how Christians use the term, one cannot tell whether a particular usage of BC/AD is, by itself, expressing a Christian POV or not"
- As I see it, POV or NPOV is not a function of the intention of the writer, but in the possible interpretations of the readers. As with any written communication, nuance and expression are absent. Written communication (in an encyclopaedia!) only means what is written. What the writer meant to say is irrelevant. What the writer said is all that matters. That is why my starting point is that of a naive child. We need to write literally. Metaphors aren't terribly useful - metaphors depend to much on cultural context. Majoritarian POV (like BC/AD) would only work if we circumscribe our audience. That is decidedly not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there for the impoverished school in Africa, in Jimbo's vision. For that reason, couples with the centrality of NPOV, I don't think see BC/AD as a dating system that meets the needs of Wikipedia. Guettarda 06:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Calvin and Hobbes at WP:FARC
Hi, can you help fix some of the issues that are brought up there. I'd much rather see this kept that removed from featured status. The biggest issue I have is the lack of references. If you used any references in your work on the article let us know, or ask the other major contributors if they did. Thanks - Taxman Talk 12:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Re:Calvin and Hobbes references
Taxman, I just wanted to let you know I've added some references to the Calvin and Hobbes article. More can be added still, but I think the article's much better sourced now than it was before. Have a look if you like. Alanyst 2 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
[edit] Calvin and Hobbes images: fair use?
Hi Alanyst, thanks for the heads up. It was my understanding that images cropped from cartoons and with their resolution reduced (as these are) were suitable for fair use, but reading the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines you point to I can find no mention of this (they seem to be mostly concerned with photographs). Given this, perhaps they should be tagged to be deleted. --Ngb 29 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus
The very Name Jesus is to a degree POV, as it means "Saviour." While the title Christ is arguably more biased in Our Lord's favour, I believe that it may be used neutrally and interchangeably with the Holy Name; consider if a Buddhist were to refer to Siddhartha Guatama as the Buddha. Now, neither of us would agree that this man was truly the enlightened one, but the title can be used; it indeed is on this website. Mohammed has occasionally been referred to as a prophet. And with respect to the question of capatilising pronouns, etc., I must mention that this is ordanarily permitted when referring to God the Father; examples of this phenomenon abundantly exist. Pax Christi.--Thomas Aquinas 22:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Jesus
Sorry, seems like I made a mistake there. I thought I was making a comment on a newly reactivated topic - obviously not. Thanks for correcting me, jguk 19:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] re Eric. D. Snider
You make good points, and you may be right. This was the toughest AfD close I've done yet. It really was on the bubble. By all means, I have no objection at all to your taking it to WP:DRV. Herostratus 05:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Added source
It isn't nonsense, I've added my source.
[edit] Eric D. Snider Album Art
I don't have any objection to you removing it but I do see it as somewhat useful. I've always looked at Wikipedia as an all knowing source and so thought i should have all information on everyone. At the time that the article was nominated for deletion, it did not have any album information and it was a personal biography. I added the album information after the deletion nomination and that prompted many people to change there votes. When it was restored it had a lot of notable information and I thought that the other information just added to it. --Jasonlesliewright 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright issue with Temrec.png
Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unhelpful comments?
- I admittedly have a difficult time with comments that are without logic, backwards, and just plain false. It is impossible for something to be the opposite of itself. I am not sure how best to handle these type of edits. I suspect the best way is just quit feeding the trolls. There is much wisdom in such a statement, but lately I have noticed a surprising coincidence where no comment becomes interpreted as acceptance of the statement as fact. Of course this mindset can easily turn into a need to respond to everything perceived as negative, which I don't think is necessary. My objective is to determine the stage most important in which to take a stand; Village pump seems like a stage that would have the most impact on the community at large. Do you think it would be better to just ignore those types of comments, those that are obviously lacking in thought, and move on? Your comments are appreciated and I can use some direction in this regard. Storm Rider (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page. alanyst /talk/ 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moving a conversation
If you expect me to continue a dialogue with you, then I expect you to move the conversation that we were having back to where it originated. It seems that if it was the correct place for you to question me that it is also the fitting place for you to answer my questions. This appears to be another case of one editor dictating the circumstances of where, when and how a problem will be addressed; I consider this a case of you editing my comments on a talk page, which is, at best, poor form. It isn't your job to determine what is appropriate for that page (at least not after I answered your questions there). Duke53 | Talk 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I moved it because, after seeing Visorstuff's comments on the original page, I decided he was right and it wasn't the correct place for me to question you. I should have started the whole tangent on your own talk page, but as I didn't realize that until I saw what Visorstuff wrote, I did what I thought was the next best thing and corrected the problem as soon as I became aware of it. I have not changed any of your comments, and I have endeavored to leave a trail behind so it's clear where the discussion originated and where it went to, so that if anyone besides you and I are following this discussion they can stay with it without too much effort. Cleaning up talk pages by moving discussions to a better venue is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia and in no way is it poor form. I mean to be dictating nothing; if you think the discussion belongs back on the Village Pump or somewhere else, by all means move it yourself. I decline to do so since I am now of the opinion that it is where it belongs, but if you feel strongly enough to move it back then I will not obstruct your efforts to do so. alanyst /talk/ 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warnings
If you take a look you can see that he removed your warning. When I went there the talk page was empty; there were no warnings. I am awfully sick of your crap. You edit as you see fit and I will edit as I see fit; I need no advice from you. Duke53 | Talk 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- For the record of future editors investigating this issue, User:Duke53 did in fact remove the warning given to User:Davicavalheiro that Alanyst asked Duke53 about here with this edit. As always, editors should remember to spread Wikilove and seek to be civil. -Visorstuff 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- When I went to that page, it was blank; I do not lie, unlike some other editors here at Wikipedia. If there is / was a software glitch, okay; but the page was completely blank when I posted the warning. You can have anybody you choose 'investigate' but I know how the page was when I visited it. Duke53 | Talk 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking anyone to "investigate," Duke53, merely keeping for historical purposes - a common practice at wikipedia - by simply pointing out the facts for those who want to see what happened to warrant your particularly over-dramatic and harsh response.
Software glitch or not, you could have double checked why Alanyst was complaining about the blanking and offered the software glitch explanation as an alternative. This is much more productive than using phrases such as "I am awfully sick of your crap. You edit as you see fit and I will edit as I see fit; I need no advice from you," which is similar to many other statements you've made to others in your editing history.
Check when someone complains to you personally why they are complaining instead of over-reacting (I do). Most of the time they see edits like this and really can't assume anything else - which is why he contacted you directly. This is what it means to assume good faith. With Wiki software it is easy to check yourself and why people assume things about your edits.
Putting aside our editing philosophies and religious differences, I'd be happy to help you learn wikipedia culture, how to use the software, build consensus, and make the most of your wikipedia experience. We could work together on non-LDS-related pages if you are interested in taking me up on my offer. I am pretty easy to work with, and have a good reputation for working with others. Let me know. -Visorstuff 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- PS: Incidentally, we should report the software glitch so this unfortunate exchange doesn't happen to other editors. Duke53, would you like to post the problem to the Village Pump? -Visorstuff 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
You're right; I wanted this here.
I am so very happy that you're keeping such good track of me. When editors are joining Wikipedia to edit one (and only one) article and aren't seen again anywhere else it gives me a pretty good indication that their edits are simply vandalism or censorship. You worry about your style of editing and I will worry about mine, okay? Some of the things you do here don't exactly thrill me either. Duke53 | Talk 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alanyst, thanks for providing context. Hope all is well. -Visorstuff 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mountain Meadows
Heya, I agree SR was a bit over the top but ever less than Duke IMHO. If you're gonna delete SR's comments I think you should delete Duke's because the latter's comments implicitly hint that editors who don't tag along with his references to "evil" are "evil" themselves, WP:No personal attacks and so on. Thanks for giving a luzz though! Gwen Gale 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
