User talk:Túrelio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Contents

[edit] Re disappearing letters at opus dei

For your info, we discussed this in the helpdesk:

Help_Desk#Disappearing_letters_in_the_article_on_Opus_Dei

Thanks, though the link should have been Wikipedia:Help_desk#Disappearing_letters_in_the_article_on_Opus_Dei.
Actually, I didn't suspect any intentional "wrong-doing". Túrelio 12:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge Killings

I've updated the wording on the lead in to the Economic and Human costs section. I realize why you would want to mention those two individuals. I found the wording you chose didn't make sense in that particular line. Perhaps you could add it as a secondary line? Netscott 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you too for having written me about that, much appreciated. Netscott 08:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] youre right

Dear Turelio,

Im Louisar. Youre right. I made a mistake about the unofficial homepage (opus dei). He has become a communist. I was simply not believing it and thought it was a malevolent joke by someone else!!!

Turelio, you are in error in believing that communism implies atheism. Many communists are atheists, but some are not. You have no basis to assume that the author is an atheist. If you feel an explanatory text is necessary, by all means, I think you can label him "a critic of Opus Dei", but that's about as far as you can go. The Opus Dei article he wrote does not reference his political beliefs, they just aren't relevant, any more than being a republican or a democrat is relevant. If the article was "How my beliefs about communism led me to doubt Opus Dei", obviously, it would be a different story. But as is, labeling the link "from a communist" is just an attempt to use his unpopular political views to slander him. --Alecmconroy 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Ogola

Sorry bout that. Her name wasn't wikilinked and a quick check seemed like she was only briefly mentioned in a few allen pieces. I will most definitely NOT delete anyone who has a wikipedia article --Alecmconroy 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ACK. --Túrelio 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on the Ruth Kelly talk page

As per my comments on the page, I accept that my wording was unclear- I had aimed in rewording that paragraph to explain the link between the two attacks. I thought it was clear from the words 'at the hearing' that it was then the plee change happened and at that point that it became unnecessary for her to give evidence. I take exception to your comment:

"Honestly, this smells like a sort of apology for the second attacker in a Blaming the victim manner."

I have never and would never suggest that a victim who goes to court after an attack upon them invites a second attack in so doing. I think it is regrettable that you suggested otherwise before seeking clarification from me. WJBscribe 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Kelly

Thank you very much for your help with improvements to this page, especially pointing out the limits of the support some references were giving to the article and in tracking down new references. Much appreciated. Fingers crossed for the GA nomination - WJBscribe 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biblio opus dei

Do you know what happened to bibliography-links on OD page? And what "redirected means"? It was much better when the bibliography was there. Louisar 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Louisar, 1) it was removed by Alecmconroy during his mayor "rewrite". 2) Redirected means, there is no longer the page that you wanted to get to, so you are re-directed to another page that had been linked to the lemma after the original page was deleted.(not the shortest explanation, sorry). By back-browsing the history of the Opus Dei-page I could extract the former references and external links section and put it into an rtf file. I could mail this file to you, but you didn't activate that function on your user page. Greetings --Túrelio 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ruth Kelly again

Thanks for bringing those edits to my attention. That does seem a ridiculous amount of detail and certainly not worthy of if its own main section in the article. I do think that a should be noted when a senior government minister, especially one who has or has had responsibility for the education system, chooses to educate their children privately rather than in the State sector. It shows an inherent lack of faith in a system it was their job to make work. I don't think there's a huge children's privacy issue, though I want to take out the references to learning difficulties, simply to mention what type of school they go to. I'll have a go at toning the section down to a minimum and you can see if that seems like fairer coverage. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My first Barnstar

Thank you ever so much for that. You've really made my day! WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wouldn't mind your opinion on something.

Hello.
I was hoping to get your opinion on something. I've noticed that you're very objective and consistent with your edits to the terrorist incidents list. Since you don't seem to have any predispositions, biases, or other issues (or, if you do, they don't affect your edits) I thought you might be the person to ask if I'm being too picky about something.
It's about the |jewish federation shooting.
You can read all the discussions on the terrorist incident list talk page, as well as the arguments on godfrey daniels' talk page, but to put it quickly:

  • I'd like the list to only have incidents that aren't logically challenged by reasonable people. (so, the twin towers is in, because no reasonable person would say that it wasn't terrorism, even if some nutjob might argue otherwise)
  • I'd like the list to hold basically trustworthy-at-a-glance information, with readers not having to then research every single entry to see if it really qualifies or not.
  • The FBI, prosecutor, jewish federation itself, and CNN all called it a "hate crime", with the FBI and prosecutor explicitly stating that it wasn't terrorism.
  • A decent case could probably be made for calling it terrorism anyways, but I don't think it's what one would call, "definitely and certainly terrorism, to any and all rational people", so I don't think it should be included on the list.
  • I do believe that the terrorism issue is entirely valid for the actual |article for the shooting itself, because there's more than enough room to cover both viewpoints.

So, what do you think? Should the list include things that were explicitly declared "not terrorism" by the government, and called "hate crimes" even by the victims of such acts? Bladestorm 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bladestorm,
thanks for your trust. As I'm not from the US, I'll first have to get into that subject. But I'll try. -- Túrelio 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Fleming

Basically yes, take a look :) Glen 10:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: You can still edit it if you wanna - its only protected against new users and IPs

[edit] Preces (Opus Dei)

Actually, if you look, the English translation is almost completely nonexistant at this point-- it's just a copy of latin text, so that it will be easy for a future editor to do the translation. I've filled in a little bit of the translation for those phrases which I know because they're also found in the Latin mass, but most of it still needs to be done. I've posted a request at Wikiproject Catholicism for someone to finish the translation. Obviously, anyone familiar with OD could likewise do it. If all those fail, I am friends with the chairman of my university's latin department and he's offered to a moment to type it out for us if all else fails. --Alecmconroy 10:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks so much for the correction. The OCR didn't do a very good job of it. Of course, I was frustrated that I had to do an OCR and translation in the first place, rather than "OD exposed" site doing it themselves like you would expect. That seems to be a common thread in those sorts of places-- lots of attempts to "expose", few attempts to genuinely understand. There's this subtexts to those anti-OD sites which scream "Here is a scan of our 'secret document'!!! in <drumroll> the secret society's secret language: Latin. Sure we could show you an English translation so you can see there's nothing at all controversial in the prayer, but, we're not going to".
Anyway, in response to your earlier comment-- yes, it's occurred to me that this article is one that needs to be watched very closely, because the vandals will undoubtedly try to falsify the text of the prayer at some point in their attempts to defame OD. I actually think fighting vandalism will be much easier on this page than on the others, though, because once the translation is done, there will be no need to change the text, so whenver it pops up on my watchlist, there's an excellent chance it's a vandal who will need to be reverted. I'll try to keep an extra-special eye out for it.
Tenna' telwan. (which my Elven->English dictionary tells me means "Until later!". As a side note-- I hope Tolkien fans dont wind up being the subject of Dan Brown's next novel. True be told, Fantasy/Scifi geeks have to be way more omnious and spooky than Opus Dei members-- we actually do have secret languages and wear robes. And i bet there is an albino Tolkien fan somewhere. --Alecmconroy 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Freefall.gif

Hello, Túrelio. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Freefall.gif) was found at the following location: User:Túrelio. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. -- Túrelio 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Millie.gif

Hello, Túrelio. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Millie.gif) was found at the following location: User:Túrelio. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sad, but o.k. -- Túrelio 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref making

I saw your awesome contributions over the List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE article, keep it up. Here's a new tool that will make your life, easy on ref formatting jobs. Happy editing! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. -- Túrelio 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, If you are interested with more and more new tools, hop in to my tools page. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Commons Ambassador Barnstar

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
I, Smee, hereby present Túrelio with The Commons Ambassador Barnstar. For your most beautiful and scenic image contributions. Thank you, they are so pretty. Yours, Smee 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sderotchilddrawing.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sderotchilddrawing.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei

My edit changed "Mind control cult" to "sect," how is that vandalism? If my edit had been reverted, why does it now say "organization." I fail to see how the synonym for 'religous movement' is vandalism, I would like clarification if possible.Gen.Bob 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paola Binetti and cilice

Thank you for your message. I updated the page with the reference source. Redgolpe 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I looked for an online copy of the newspaper but I couldnt find any, even if the present-day newspaper is available online (see http://www.gds.sm/). Anyway, you can find hundreds of reference online (try binetti cilicio, the italian for cilice, on Google) to the mentioned article, also because Binetti's cilice apparently has become a political issue in Italy ever since. I'm not very experienced with references but I thought I should cite the first source. If you feel it's more appropriate to cite an online source (even if it's not first hand), let me know or feel free to correct the article as you see fit. Redgolpe 12:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article on the cilice and Binetti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.156.132 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of terrorist incidents

Pease see Talk:List of terrorist incidents `'Míkka 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] POV

I was just commenting it. Anyway there are some strong accusations in the discussion page. I think we might say the neutrality is disputed by some or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.156.132 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot add a POV-tag without giving any reason. How should then anybody improve the article or remove the alleged POV? As you have supplied that reason finally, it's o.k. now. And please sign all your edits whether on regular or on user talk pages. Thanks. -- Túrelio 07:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Members of Opus Dei

Hi Túrelio,

I disagree with your clarification of "cooperators" as "are not members of Opus Dei". This is a matter of opinion. There is a sense, for example that non-voting preference shareholders in a company are part owners of the company, and a sense that, as non-voting shareholders, they are not.

Cooperators are listed by Opus Dei with the full permission of the former, and provide benefits to the Work without any expectation of rebursement. They have a formalised relationship with Opus that is recognised in the organisation's statutes. It could be argued, and sometimes is, that Cooperators form an outer ring of membership outside the level of numerary and supernumerary, with very limited responsibilities to and rights in Opus Dei. I appreciate that this argument is not shared by Opus Dei, and I'm not sure that even I agree with it, but the non-membership of Cooperators is not an objective truth. I've therefore modified your entry, though not back to my original entry, which I can see did not find favour with you.

Best Wishes,

Jaimehy (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Geraldine O'Connor in List of members of Opus Dei Túrelio, to be honest, I think you're setting the bar rather high. The newspaper article I used as a reference does not actually claim that Ms. O'Connor is a member of Opus Dei, but most definitely implies it. To provide an alternative explanation for her behaviour would be a difficult job. Geraldine O'Connor is clearly a member. I'll have a look for another reference, but to be honest, I rather think you're not quite playing fair. Remember that we're not in a court of law and that stating that someone is in Opus Dei is not a slander, any more than saying that they're Roman Catholic or a Manchester United fan.

Historical Order in List of members of Opus Dei Within each list (divided into logical enough sections) the order is rather higgledypiggledy. If you've no objection, I'll put the list into some sort of logical order.

Best Wishes,

Jaimehy (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Túrelio,

I've just found a site that clearly implies that Geraldine O'Connor is a member. It should be good enough for you as it's "straight from the horse's mouth", i.e. from an official Opus Dei site. I don't know whether she's a numerary or supernumerary, though.

[edit] "Vandalism"

You're really going to have to explain to me how you reckon the change made by 206.15.132.18 (changing "personal prelature of" to "cult within") is vandalism. I appreciate that don't agree with the use of the word "cult" in this context. In fact, I agree with you in this case. However, I also agree with 206.15.132.18 that the original text is also inappropriate in this position. Personally, I'd go for "organisation within", and explain what a prelature and personal prelature are elsewhere. But the change was not vandalism (unless you can tell me why you think it is). Jaimehy (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

Do you have any problem with me making the above-outlined change? Jaimehy (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you

Thanks for sorting out my ugly references! *Tips hat* --Jaimehy (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Kelly

It was originally added by Philip Stevens without any reference, so I talked to him about it first. It seems that he doesn't have any proof about her nationality either. Why ? Do you? MurphiaMan (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutto Assissination

"At the core of Mr. Musharraf’s problem is a widespread perception that he did too little to protect Ms. Bhutto or that his government carried out the killing itself, analysts said. On Thursday, members of Ms. Bhutto’s party accused Mr. Musharraf’s government of exactly that"[1]. If you want to widen it to his government is suspected that is fine. I have no time to check it now but there are riots occurring all over the place where the feeling is he was involved. Remember the word is suspected not a final conformation. The Al Qeada claim is notable but one has to remember that terrorist groups have been known make claims about attacks they are not responsible for. But I did put in my original entry Islamic Terrorists so I never had a problem with that. But the NY Times claiming the feeling is "widespread" and opposition party members are having this suspicion is enough to make it article worthy. Edkollin (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)