User talk:Heavyrock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw that you reversed my edit. May I learn more why so? Please take into account the reasons I stated in the edit summary. Thank you so much! :) Thomas S. Major 02:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 My apologies for reverting your edit 2 Let's stick to proportions 3 Ruiz Mateos 4 Opus Dei

[edit] My apologies for reverting your edit

Dear Heavyrock. Welcome to Wikipedia!

My sincerest apologies though for reverting your latest edit. There is an existing photo of the cilice. The additional photo of the cilice you linked to is therefore unnecessary. The same goes to the addditional details which unnecessarily lengthens our introduction. I hope you understand. Best wishes. Marax 08:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's stick to proportions

I reverted your move for discussion on 1950 constitutions, what you called "secret constitutions". The issue of secrecy already dealt with in the general strategy-- that is the space it is given based on NPOV proportionality. Pradeshkava 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Heavyrock-- the Opus Dei article has caused me a lot of Wikistress over the last few months. This seems to be wikipedia weak spot-- NPOV is hard to acheive on articles where a lot of like-minded people have strong views on an issue, but where people who disagree are less likely to devote an equal amount of energy to the same article. At this point, the Opus Dei article has so many NPOV problems, and so many good edits are easily reverted, that I have absolutely no hope that further discussion and simple editing will result in a page that complies with my intepretation of NPOV as it applies to this article. If it's going to happen, it'll take an arbcom case, or some major solicitation of eyeballs. I can't figure out how to get this page to a better place, and it frustrates me to no end. I've been hesistant to devote the energy to doing a full arbcom case, because if it doesn't go my way-- it'll mean that wikipedia and I have to part ways-- either I am misapplying it's priniciples and should stop editing it, or else Wikipedia just doesn't work. I don't want that to happen, so I'm sort of procrastinating about the whole thing-- but if you want Opus Dei fixed, that's the direction I think you'll have to take, and I'll support ya as best I can. --Alecmconroy 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruiz Mateos

Not a member, really. Didn't you know that? Ndss 10:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

hey heavy!! You proved me right, didn't you? ;) Thanks pal. Ndss 08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.pontealdia.net/dinero/rumasa.htm

==

[edit] Opus Dei

Heavyrock, I have done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. Could you look it over and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 08:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alec, my congratulations to you for your efforts with these articles, by the way, do you understand Spanish language? Why? well I think that the information about OD in that language is very useful, for your interest about the prelature. The enormous amount with very hight quality information from ex members, testimonies, deep analysis, books about controversial elements, internal OD documents, writings of the foundator, etc published by opuslibros are an excellent source..--Heavyrock 02:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, no-- I do not speak Spanish. I wish I did-- I wish I could speak every language there is, of course. I have however perused some of the spanish-language information on Opus Dei with the help of the automated translation services. Fortunately, there has been enough written on Opus Dei in English that I think we have all we need for the purposes of a short encyclopedia article. --Alecmconroy 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)