User talk:Myopic Bookworm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Forgiveness Article

Some edits were made to your material that seem a bit off to me. Take a look if you have a moment. By the way, thank you so much for responding to my earlier request for input! Thanks. --speet 06:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I respect your opinion. My POV is that that the intro picture should be secular and be representitive of the result of forgiveness--freedom from resentment. ie. puts one in the place of "being like children." But I do get that it is a bit "flowery", on the other hand, don't many view the topic in that light? Isn't that the point of art--to evoke emotions and thought? Any other ideas? Thanks again, --speet 17:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I get that: "people reaching out to people". I also thought of something like the United Way two hands clasping. There is also the inner freedom and release if someone forgives without reaching out to another. Like forgiving a deceased parent who was abusive. It is an inner rebirth or transformation if you will. Hence the butterfly from the caterpiller, the joy the freedom. So there are both aspects. Perhaps two images??? --speet 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Bookworm, I need your learned opinion again. Is my head on sideways or has the forgiveness article taken a serious downgrade in flow of information since the lead was turned into what I think looks like a stub. (I had to hold back and not put one of those little stub thingies there.) :) Anyway, it took the fun out of this for me to see a lot of work relagated to about a footnote without meaningful colloboration or even discussion. As I apply my topic to myself, just let me know, in you honest opinion, upgrade or downgrade as it now sits. I promise not to draw you into anything. I just want to know if I am seeing straight. --speet 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Very diplomatic, thanks. On the ACIM size, I agree it is a bit large, unfortunately it is not summed up in the ACIM article. I will try and edit it down or shift some of it there. I am just taking a bit of a break. Thanks again.--speet 13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're quite something, given your status as "capo" in the "Forgiveness" mafia-- "edit, or be rubbed out." Now, I've been involved with Wikipedia now for several months, and no one has been, shall we say, so "helpful." Have you been watching the Sopranos, or were you an Untouchables fan years ago, or does this sense of ownership with regard to the written word come from your self-identified status as a bookworm? Blondlieut 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness mafia---not. Forgiveness practitioner and facilitator yes! Thanks for the sanity and excellent work. I am not trying to stir anything up with my proposal on the lead, just trying to tighten things up and provide some future direction. On the last paragraph of the lead as it is presently written, just doesn't work for me. Perhaps we could add a section on cutting edge forgiveness in the world, like South Africa, and it would make more sense. Let me know honestly what you think and what you were hoping for there. AS it sits, although I totally agree with it, it sounds a bit like an editorial. (Maybe some of my stuff has to others) Anyway, I work best when I know where people are coming from. Again thanks for rescuing things. --speet 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messiah

Hi! Regarding my comments on your edits in Messiah, please don't take anything personally. It looks like you are new to that article. I can't go into detail, but regarding the discussion page, let me just say, "Appearances can be deceiving." There is actually an edit/religious war going on between various editors involving several articles, some of which have been deleted without allowing a reasonable time for input. My comments about "your" edits are really more comments regarding other people's edits that continually violate POV under the pretense of making the Christianity section NPOV. (And yes, this is a pseudonym.) Charles Ulysses Farley 08:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Myopic, (if you don't mind me calling you by your "first name" (8->) I don't mean to be a butt in my comments on the Talk page, but I have learnt the hard way that in articles on certain religious topics if a person doesn't come across somewhat negative toward Christians his edits will almost immediately be gutted by a small group of self-appointed individuals. I see that Farley has run into the same thing. (I know we have contributed to some of the same articles. I always thought that was his real name. It sounds so WASPish.) Not only that, but they then "stalk" the person's contributions to other unrelated articles and start removing anything that is not referenced, to make it clear that they will be pains until the person stops contributing material contrary to their view to the articles they "protect". Since several of them are administrators, they will even do things like delete articles. To avoid that a contributor to that particular group of articles must give an appearance of negativity toward contributors who seem to be Christian or pro-Christian, and also to any edits that seem pro-Christian even if they are not POV. So, when you are reading my comments, try to imagine them toned down about three "notches". Judah haNasi 06:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Stub Tags

Hi! I noticed you recently removed the stub tags from the very short articles on Dinodocus and Paracantha cultaris. Please don't do that. I know you are new to Wikipedia, but these tags help us see which articles are still in need of expansion. And although you indicated in both articles that you thought the articles couldn't be expanded anymore, it's ironic that after you removed the stub tag from Dinodocus, you added more info. I added more, too.

Even if you yourself cannot think of a way to expand the article, other people certainly can. Removing the tag, which was placed there so that editors can see it is still very short, makes it difficult to find without the CatScan tool, which not every editor will know about. So, please, no more removing stub tags, unless the article is clearly no longer an actual stub.

Thanks in advance, --Firsfron 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. But what is the difference between a stub and a very short article? Myopic Bookworm 09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule. The DYK page indicates articles of less than 1,000 bytes are definitely stubs[1]: they won't accept stub articles to the DYK page, and the cutoff is at least 1,000 bytes. Dinodocus is currently at 781 bytes [2]. The Paracantha cultaris article is at 734 bytes [3]. Both are still clearly stubs. Articles greater than 1000 bytes could still be considered stubs, if they were still missing some key information. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Thank you kindly for showing up at the new Anglican doctrine stub. It is improving already. Please continue to be bold. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I particularly liked your recent contributions to 'Historical controversies' at Anglican doctrine. I have written a to-do list at Talk:Anglican doctrine that might give you some more ideas. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentioning allegory in J. R. R. Tolkien article

Hello! Regarding your revert on the Tolkien article: I think mentioning Tolkien's dislike for allegory would make the section clearer, as it deals with his attitude towards industrialization and the manifestation of these opinions in his works. I feel it boils down to whether he intentionally wanted to address these changes or whether these attitudes were subconsciouly embodied in LOTR. In its current form I feel the section suggests that he wrote his sentiments into the book on purpose – as an allegory. I would love to hear your opinion! --Jopo 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegory, precisely considered, is a literary form in which one thing (in the fiction) stands for another (in the real world), and the author's views about the real world dictate the course narrative, above any internal narrative structure. The classic instance is Pilgrim's Progress. Despite Tolkien's exaggerated statement in the introduction to LOTR, he used pretty plain allegory in several of his writings, notably 'Leaf by Niggle'. But I don't think there is a good case that his views on industrialization are 'allegorized' in LOTR: they are simply illustrated. For the topic to be allegorical, industrialization in the real world would be represented by something else in the fictional world, not just presented as industrialization. T embeds his views on industrialization in the book just as he embeds his views on heroism, leadership, love, death, etc.: these are not symbolized in the book, but presented as themselves. Since these are the author's views, not the reader's projection, they do not even meet Tolkien's own definition of 'applicability' (though that word seems a lot more accurate as a description of 'The Scouring of the Shire'). Myopic Bookworm 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EPT

It's true that Tekumel has a focus that D&D lacks, but I wouldn't so much call it coherent. As I've delved into the setting for my campaign, I've found it frankly unbelievable in its portrayal of human nature as expressed in society. Still, lots of fun, and thanks for the Hi. Jonathan Tweet 14:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Evolution of British Sigint

Hi, I was quite surprised, after typing out a quote from Johnson's relatively obscure booklet, to find that someone had beaten me to the punch... — Matt Crypto 10:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Many strange things lurk in a Bookworm's lair... Myopic Bookworm 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] doubleblue.info

Since this anonymous confrontational website now appears if you Google my username, I think some comment may be appropriate. For that matter, I wonder if my appearance there arises from my failure to comment previously. I did not do so, because the request for comment was anonymous. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably don't need to waste your time reading further. Since the 'latest news' is six months old, the website may be moribund by now, but it's still up.

I think it disappointing that this website is entirely anonymous, without even a pseudonym to identify the originator. Since it consists largely of personal attacks on Wikipedia users, the overall impression is one of skulking petulance rather than thoughtful criticism. I am aware of conflict over Christianity and other articles. I can see how the notion of a 'cabal' of editors might arise, but I think it reasonable to suppose that the apparent convergence of action by a number of editors represents an established consensus rather than a deliberate conspiracy.

He (not me) is normally an exemplary editor, clearly knowledgeable and generally reasonable. Yet on occasion he inexplicably pops up to help the hardcore DWEECs. (doubleblue.info)

It does not seem surprising to me that edits made by so-called "DWEECs" may be entirely reasonable, and so be supported by other knowledgeable and reasonable editors (such as I consider myself to be). And Wikipedia's "Watchlist" function makes it hard not to "pop up", if editing is active on a page you once contributed to.

For comparison, I have the impression that various articles on Atheism have been put together largely by committed atheists. It is noticeable that (last time I looked) the article on Criticism of atheism contains much more rebuttal and refutation of the criticisms than does the article on Criticism of Christianity. Actually, I found it quite helpful to have the atheists' responses given alongside the criticisms. In fact, the people behind doubleblue.info (if there is actually more than one person involved) look a lot more like a conspiracy than the "DWEECs" they are criticizing. Some users have suggested that a 'cabal' exists with an anti-Christian agenda, opposite to that of the "DWEECs": this is an unsolicited comment from my talk page:

I have learnt the hard way that in articles on certain religious topics if a person doesn't come across somewhat negative toward Christians his edits will almost immediately be gutted by a small group of self-appointed individuals. (Judah haNasi, 15 April 2006)

[edit] NPOV

Writing a reference work from a NPOV is inherently a difficult thing to do when addressing topics involving personal commitment, whether religious or anti-religious. It is tempting for Christians to write about Christianity as though their own form of the faith was correct. It is tempting for non-Christians to write about it as though it were a topic of purely anthropological and sociological interest. It is tempting for those with an axe to grind to engage in criticism of Christianity under cover of 'balancing' the mainstream line with reference to marginal or minority positions. Editors complain the Christianity article assumes that the "winners" are right, but there is a real sense in which the "winners" actually are right. What we call "Christianity" is the majority religion that resulted from the forces of history, and not the ideas and groups that did not survive, nor everything that existed along the way. (We don't give much space to monarchist points of view on the United States page.)

When fundamentalist Christians introduce POV editing, it is usually obvious, because the language and concepts in which they express themselves tend to be heavy with 'jargon'. Such writing tends to be weeded out by non-fundamentalist Christians, with the assistance or tacit approval of non-Christians. It is more difficult to deal with editing by non-Christians, and by moderate Christians, because both groups use an approach and a form of language which tends to appear neutral, and are often sincerely attempting to reach NPOV text.

My own stance includes, provisionally, the following principles:

The Principle of Conservatism

It is appropriate, in a general reference work, to take a relatively conservative stance on practically every issue: to present, essentially, the 'received wisdom' or 'party line' about a topic, and to introduce radical or innovative views only by way of comment on the main thread. This is not just the case in religion: for example, biological articles must adhere to a relatively stable and conservative taxonomy, rather than following (or even allowing for) radical revisions of classification, such as the Haemothermia theory which links birds and mammals, or the Calcichordate theory which links echinoderms and chordates in a way generally regarded as wholly peculiar.

In the Christian context, it is appropriate to phrase descriptions of Christian doctrine in such a way that the traditional understanding is represented, even if many modern Christians hold much less conservative interpretations of the teaching. But see next section:

The Principle of Inclusivity

In presenting traditional doctrines, it should not be implied that such doctrines are universally held by all Christians. For example, doctrines such as the Virgin Birth and the Second Coming are taken by Christians in a wide spectrum of ways, from literal to purely metaphorical or mythical. Literalism itself is highly controversial, even though fundamentalists try to present it as the 'mainstream' view. Much distortion and grief is caused, for example, by polarizing discussion of the Creation-Evolution debate in such a way that Theistic Evolution (which is a significant position at least in Europe) is effectively excluded from the outset, on the spurious grounds that religion and science are totally incompatible.

The Principle of Limited Ecumenism

It is appropriate, when discussing Christianity in a contemporary context, to allow for the views of mainstream and majority traditions (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) so far as possible. It is not appropriate to accommodate the views of marginal groups. Among the marginal, I would count groups which are regarded as not fully or authentically Christian by the majority churches (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Unitarian Universalists, Christian Scientists). I think there are parallels in other areas: I would not, for example, expect the views of Ismailis to be detailed when giving a general overview of Islam, or those of the ISKCON when discussing Hinduism.

The Principle of Contextual Significance

It is appropriate, when discussing Christanity in a historical context, to acknowledge that there were important traditions which lie outside the scope of the modern 'catholic' church, of which the Arian church is perhaps the most important. However, it is not appropriate to distort discussion of contemporary Christianity, or even of the history of contemporary Christianity, by exaggerating the importance of such groups. To cite a scientific parallel: the theories of phlogiston and caloric were historically very important, and must be mentioned in a historical context; but mention of them would be out of place when discussing the modern chemistry of oxygen.

To take another example: one sustained attempt to edit the Criticism of Christianity article was made by a well-meaning but ill-informed contributor who had found ambiguities or contradictions in English translations of ancient Hebrew biblical laws about sexual behaviour. I do not think that detailing such obsolete matters constitutes a useful contribution to an overview of criticisms of Christianity. Despite the efforts of many to assert it, the literal interpretation of the Bible is not an agreed doctrine among Christians, since it is rejected by the Catholic tradition, and by varying proportions of the Protestant and Orthodox traditions. In Islam, the exact wording of legal precepts in the Quran may be very important; in Christianity, the exact wording of legal precepts in the Pentateuch is almost entirely irrelevant.

[edit] Accusations

Am I a DWEEC? Well, as a British graduate, I cannot argue with Western or Educated, and I think my instincts are Ecumenical. Christian is more difficult: my position is such that many Christians would regard me as at best a sympathetic agnostic, at worst an unrepentant unbeliever. I'll admit that I go to church quite often (where else can you get free music and cheap coffee on a Sunday morning?). As for "Devout"... hahahahaha.

[I am described as:] A Christian who as his name suggests borrows [sic] away quietly so that you only notice the damage after an extended period. (doubleblue.info)

In other words, I'm working independently in my own way, without reference to other editors, and you have to work really hard to find a way of shoe-horning me into the DWEEC conspiracy.

Generally as a last resort, DWEECs will claim that the article is too long as it stands. (doubleblue.info)

I have several times made such claims, and they have always been based on this kind of screen message from Wikipedia:

Note: This page is 92 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.

And am I a meatpuppet, and not an "ordinary genuine user"? That I find deeply offensive. I began editing in Wikipedia in February 2006, and only looked at the Christianity page after an invitation in March from User:King_Vegita. I have never acted on anyone's suggestions, let alone instructions, as to how I should edit, beyond the natural give and take on a Talk page. No one who has actually looked at my contributions (many of which are on history of science) would consider me in such a way. And I'm not best pleased to discover that in April 2006 my user:talk page was manhandled without notification (so far as I recall) by the DWEEC administrator User:Musical Linguist, presumably while attempting to remove links to doubleblue.info which revealed personal information. I sympathize with users under pressure from such threatening websites, but it would have been nicer to ask.

[edit] Summary

My own feelings about the doubleblue.info website are, ironically, quite well summed up by this comment posted there:

Maybe I'm not too chuffed to find out that all the while I was editing in good faith there were suspicions about my integrity for the simple reason that I see things differently to you. I'm afraid I have taken this very personally as I've always tried to be moderate and as NPOV as I can - admitting when I've learned lessons and trying to bridge the gap of the more extreme views. Quite frankly I've got better things to do than waste my time with a load of people who can't be upfront and feel the need to check up behind your back if you differ. (SOPHIA, 15 February 2006, quoted on doubleblue.info)

Thank you for listening. Myopic Bookworm 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowan Williams

I feel that your changes have resulted in claims being made which I am not sure are justiifed. 'Formidable' seems such a high claim. You may be right, but your deletion of the word 'held' is what has got you into trouble. I think it was Ok as it was. Roger Arguile 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. S. Lewis GA nomination

Hi, I'm just letting regular contributors to the C. S. Lewis article know that its good article nomination is on hold until more references are added to the article. We have two weeks to bring the article up to the required GA standards. If you can spare some time, it'd be great if you could add some references to the article, and hopefully improve its chances of becoming a Good Article. If you know of any other editors who would be interested in helping out, please let them know. Cheers, Martin 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RVing RVW

Great minds think alike. And it's not even a symphony I like that much...it's actually at the bottom of my list of his, fwiw. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very partial to them, though I well know that a lot of people feel the way you do. Well, a lot within the category of people who know the VW symphonies, anyway! The Ninth in particular can feel very amorphous, and while there are certainly passages that seem rather aimless, or that recycle stuff from the Eighth, there are also passages of the greatest profundity, I think. Those outweigh the wandery bits for me. E minor is always an enigmatic key, in my experience. Once I learned that he began the work as a program symphony on Hardy & Tess, then I could make it work better...not as a story-telling kind of program piece, but in the sense that there's a story being told, rather than presenting a purely musical argument. Opera without words, in a way. (Like the Nielsen symphonies, especially the later ones.) I think it must be a very difficult score to pull off in performance; heaven knows it turns up rarely enough. It would be interesting to hear it in concert (which I never have), with the Brahms 4th after intermission: both in mysterious E minor, both the last symphony by the composer, but so different in so many other ways. The Handley recording is definitely the best one that I know of, with the first Boult probably second despite the rather rough & ready playing. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject University of Oxford

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omand

Hi there -- Thanks for the correction about David Omand. I mistakenly thought, based on the volume of User:Randall O's edits, that his changes were correct. I was unable to find an online edition of Debrett's, unfortunately. --Ken Gallager 12:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir David Ormand

Hi there Bookworm, my information is correct, you are incorrect. Just go to the Home Office site, or check the Prime Ministers office site. Try to put your spelling, in and see what happens. You should do more reading. Randall here, try this site, plus i have more. http://cryptome.sabotage.org/da-notice.htm#committee You will see on this offical site, they have his last name as Ormand. I also have several sites with the Ormand spelling. Who is right? Also several of the these sites, were the source of my information. Found the offical UK Gov. sites on my old hard drive, some date to 2005 which is recent. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/foi/pdf/chequers0106.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/626455.stm I think they need proof readers. I would say about 50% of the sites are wrong.

That's why you have to be a lot more careful before wellying in and altering Wikipedia entries on the basis of website information. Much of the information in the Web is crap, and you have to learn to judge it. A list of dinner guests at Chequers is hardly an "official" source for the names of senior civil servants, and I don't suppose anyone at the BBC had heard of Omand in 2000.

And it would still be nice if you would sign and date your comments: it doesn't take long to type four tildes in a row to sign your username. Myopic Bookworm 09:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant article title

Please create new plant articles under their scientific names, not their common names, as this is the WP policy for plant article names. I realize this differs from other organisms. In the case of well-known and economically important plants common names are usually used, although there are exceptions. Please feel free to post on my talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants if you have any questions. KP Botany 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's the En.wiki plant policy on article titles, most of the others can use common names, because there are fewer common names for most plants in other languages. KP Botany 13:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian Orthodox Church article

Hi, I noticed you've done some editing there. I would like to say you are on the right track. I would do it by myself, but being from that part of the world I'm sure I would be accused to be this or that. Anyway, that article still has total lack of relevant English resources (I couldn't find any) and a lot of weaseling. Although 'COC' is definitely part of Balkans political, not religious history in strict sense, maybe it can still be good to have it linked with Orthodox Christianity? BR, --Plantago 11:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican collaboration of the month

The current Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month is
Essays and Reviews
The next collaboration will be selected on 30 April 2008. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RVW numbering?

Hello: I am wondering about your rewording of the sentence regarding Vaughan Williams and the numbering of his symphonies. I believe that what was there originally says essentially the same thing as what you have it saying now, and the new wording feels very awkward and run-on to me. Can you please let me know your rationale? Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 12:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The existing wording felt stilted to me because it was a cut-and-paste job giving the same text each time, usually quite prominently, even though it is of differing relevance to (a) nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, still better known by name than by number; (b) nos. 4, 5, 8, originally known by key, and (c) nos. 6 and 9, which actually prompted the composer's action. Myopic Bookworm 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have . . .

multiple theories as to your identity. Sdedeo (tips) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidence: so have I. Myopic Bookworm 13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I'm not hard to figure out! Sdedeo (tips) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant I have multiple theories as to my identity. Myopic Bookworm 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Church of Southern Africa

Why was my edit seen to be vandalism?

Njongonkulu Ndungane retired on the 31st December, and is therefore no longer Primate. Thabo Makgoba will be installed on the 30th March, and is technically currently Primate.

I'd appreciate a reply as to why me correcting wrong information is seen as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.80.172 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the history. My edit (10 January) simply removed the comment "hello friends im writing this coz im bored", added by User:217.34.41.126, which is vandalism. I have no idea why User:Calabraxthis reverted your edit on 28 January. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just Asking

Do you know an organist from the school of Colet Court?T.Eigner (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)