User talk:Lafem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, Lafem! I hope you like the place and decide to keep contributing. Since I see you've already been active here, let me just give you a few links that are always useful as a handy reference guide:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question at the village pump or feel free to ask me on my Talk page.
Oh, and just in case you don't already know: to sign your name on a Talk page like I did below, the easiest way is just to type four tildes (~~~~). To customize your signature, look here.
And remember:Be Bold!

— Asbestos | Talk 09:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello. (A) welcome. (B) Stop! You are cutting and pasting copyrighted content from elsewhere on the web. This will mean the articles will be quickly deleted. It is a pain for us to handle. You are welcome to contribute to the wiki, but please STOP copy and pasting from sources like http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&a=34 . Sdedeo 02:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Lafem. I am concerned about your edits to the Opus Dei article. There are first of all some technical problems: you are copying and pasting from the text, not the source. Thus all references, HTML, etc., are lost. You have lots of hanging references that look like "[43]" or whatever and that don't link anywhere. What worries me more, however, is that you think it is appropriate to cut and paste promotional information from the Opus Dei website.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic, I suggest you try to build a consensus on the talk page first about how to handle the break-outs so that everyone concerned will be happy. Sdedeo 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lafem -- all copyvio problems seem to have been resolved with the article you brought to my attention. I think the next step is to just remove the copyvio notice, replace the text, and put a mention on the relevant copyvio page that you've fixed things. All the best, Sdedeo 04:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Lafem, just looked at Opus Dei: Admission and incorporation. You should bring this article to the attention of other editors on the main Opus Dei talk page. I'm not sure about the copyright issues, but as far as I can tell, the material on the UK OD site [1] is still listed as "Copyright Information Office." If it is really under the GFDL, it should be listed as such. I'm just passing by, however -- you should really raise these issues on the OD talk page. Yours, Sdedeo 14:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lafem,

The shortest route to having the Opus Dei site license its text under the GFDL is, I believe, to have them change "© 2005, Information Office of Opus Dei on the Internet" to something like "© 2005, Information Office of Opus Dei on the Internet, released under the GFDL" on all the relevant pages, and have them link to a page such as http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html, containing the text of the GFDL. I am not a copyright expert! You may want to bring up these issues on the Opus Dei talk page. All the best. Sdedeo 17:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Late reply to your message

Hi, Lafem. Thanks for your message on my talk page about the Opus Dei article. I meant to reply sooner, and I would have liked to contribute more to that article. Unfortunately, shortly after getting your message, I began to get some anonymous stalking messages, with personal threats about finding out my home address, etc. It wasn't a big problem (my address is not listed in any public directory), but it took up quite a lot of my time, tracking IP adresses, writing to adminstrators, etc. I'm now revising for exams at the end of this month, so while I'm still on Wikipedia (mainly for relaxation), I only edit things that won't take up too much time. (At least, that's the rule I've made – I don't at all guarantee that I stick to it!) I hope to be back editing Opus Dei at the end of this month. Thanks again. Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:83.146.13.130

Much thanks. I have blocked him for 48 hours just as a first measure. I will try to keep track of him; anything further let me know and keep up the good work. - RoyBoy 800 01:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mala Fe

Lafem,

I have just seen that was you the one who changed one of my edits. You moved it first from the Opus Dei main page to a secondary one (18th of September), from were you erased it without any explanation (on the 30th).
You have tried to do the same with other edits I have done on Opus Dei page. Do you always behave this way? Are you this kind of person? Where have you learned this behaviour?
Please, be fair, I beg you. --Uncertain 17:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncertain! I am very sorry if I offended you. I can assure you I do not have any intention of hurting anybody. I am here to help the Wikipedia community come out with the best encyclopedia, one that is reliable, credible, scholarly, and orderly. I suppose you saw Royboy's comments on how I help Wikipedia. I think we have differing ideas on how to do things, and I respect yours. What you are presently doing to propose changes before changing major things, is in my opinion, the Wikipedia way. And I am glad that I have been able in some way to help you discover that way. Good luck and Godspeed on your next edits, big or small. Lafem 02:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV

Hi Lafem —

I replied to your question here. However, one thing that you should note is that the views of an "official administrator" aren't particularly more important in solving disputes than anyone else's — when people are making editorial decisions, everyone is at the same level. Also, let me say that, though I think your interpretation is roughly correct, it is far more difficult to make these kinds of judgements when there aren't clearly defined "experts". For instance, I'd trust an expert's view on, say, string theory, but non necessarily on social issues or, say, the Opus Dei (example used only because that seems to be what you're discussing above). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei and the apostates

Sorry, for my late reply, but I think that quoting Wilson is not a good idea, because if we quote Wilson then we could quote Duhaime and Zablocki as well and then where is the end? I think that it is important to write that there are some sociologists who oppose giving readily credibility to critical former members as the media sometimes do. Besides, one of the problems with quoting Wilson is that we do not know in what context he said those words (I have not read his book.) Just posting excerpts from his book that were available on the website of scientology and then copying it to Wikipedia and from there copying it to the Opus Dei article does not sound like good Wikipedia practice to me. The main problem is of course is that we treat a general complicated problem in a specific article which I think is bad practice: there is little indication that Wilson was referring to Opus Dei too. Andries 00:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism and Freemasonry

...has suddenly become a source of Opus Dei info (they are claiming it is a secret society on the page). I am only editing sporadically nowadays, and was wondering if you could keep a bit of an eye on that page as well - simply b/c the majority of editors there are taking a very anti-Opus Dei POV that requires some balance - plus the sources are pretty bad (for the page in general, it would seem). Thanks! DonaNobisPacem 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - although I know a fair bit about Opus Dei, I am not so knowledgeable in regards to sources, and more in-depth issues (such as their constitution) - although I should have caught the pre-1982 thing! Anyways, we'll see how it goes - one editor in particular on that page has been reverting any changes favourable to Catholicism willy-nilly, but your change gives me a basis to stand on in regards to Opus Dei. So again - thanks!

[edit] Charism

I would like you yourself to revise the paragraph, taking account of the fact that a charism is not a group or organization or movement or whatever you want to call the work that the founder, because of the charism with which God has endowed him or her, has given rise to. A religious congregation etc., too, has its charism, distinct from the personal charism of the founder, and distinct too from the congregation itself: the charism is something the congregation has, not what it is. Secondly, mentioning together the Second Vatican Council and Opus Dei seemed to imply that Opus Dei is an in some way anticipated fruit of the Council. If you want to mention both, this must be avoided in some way. How about including more of the JPII quotation you refer to? Lima 10:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Image:Benedict XVI.jpg This is a reminder to go vote by June 7 for the
Catholic Collaboration of the Week.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.

[edit] Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment

Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mira 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/f/User_talk%7ELafem_9523.html"