User talk:Alecmconroy

Archive 1 2

Wikiquette alert

I've put in a Wikiquette alert for Lima [1]. He's disappointed that only two people are denouncing him. Twice he's reverted your hard work on Purgatory. Maybe you'd like to comment. Leadwind (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Thanks for the note, Alecmconroy. I am currently busy and won't have a chance to review and comment until later this week. Majoreditor (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that it's difficult for me to make comparisons and provide feedback due to the frequent changes in the article. Perhaps I should wait; there may be too many cooks in the kitchen presently. Majoreditor (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on my talk page, Alec. I'll try to help out the editors in at least some small way. I'll examine the suggestions for the article's lead within the next few days and offer suggestions. Best of luck, Majoreditor (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei GAR

Dear Alec, Thank you for your work at Opus Dei. You might be interested to know that its GA status is under review and the major question raised is the present structure which you ably proposed and implemented: a separate controversy section containing both criticism and response. I tried my best to defend it but I believe you will be able to defend it better than I do. :) Marax (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to comment in so much detail at the GAR discussion. I agree with you entirely. You did a great job with this article, but it still is only within a ballpark of meeting NPOV. I am also stymied by articles like this. I don't know if you read my comments at the GAR, but in case not, I wanted to draw your attention to the link I made to Gosgood's comments in my talk archives, which has a beautiful description of the neutral editor (see especially the third paragraph). Sadly such editors are indeed rare, and articles inevitably tend to attract editors who care about the subject, and so if the subject is at all controversial, NPOV becomes extremely difficult to achieve. I don't know how to resolve this dilemma either. Geometry guy 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I second my appreciation for your thoughtful analysis there. In the event that your concern is borne out, that trying to stylistically incorporate criticisms and their responses into the article on a topicwise basis will only lead to a degradation of overall NPOV (a concern which I think has merit, IIRC the discussions of about a year ago), I wish to point out that it it well to not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Failing GAR is not the end of the world, especially if the alternative is a POV catfight that degrades the article in the near future. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy comment at GAR and your suggestion at my talk page. Although I feel inclined to try what you suggested, I frankly don't have the time to get the job done. I might attempt throughout this coming year some kind of evolutionary change. A bit by bit change could work out in the end. Thanks again! Marax (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it?

But, although you have commented positively, you don't seem to have voted with a keep [here] ... Abtract (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

re

Just tell me how to put it back like it was, or you put it back for me. I don't know exactly how to do it myself. But there is no excuse for what has happened, and I think its wrong to have the discussion on this side of things. The discussion should have happened first - that's what I want to put it back for; for our discussion. Ritterschaft (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a "purgatory in RC teaching" would be a good idea, maybe it would be a bad idea. Right now, I'm just thinking about the audacious move, which I oppose for its own sake, other issues aside. The move is a separate matter from the content, since everything about it was wrong. As for you and I, I know we disagree on some things, but that's to be expected - people disagree. In the end it probably makes a better article. But neither you nor I have the desire to do anything disrespectful, audacious, or flagrantly inconsiderate. Ritterschaft (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Preces vandalized

I've done a revert and some editing today. I also left a suggestion concerning clearing up the copyright question in the talk page. Louie (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Interest Inventory

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Strong Interest Inventory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Strong Interest Inventory. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it sounds like an ad. It was going to get PRODded sooner or later, with the writing style it has now. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Opus Dei controversy section

If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Thanks for your help. Marax (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Lima RfC

Alec, I'm ready to get back into purgatory, but first I need to open up an RfC on Lima. The Wikiquette alert didn't do the job. Interested in helping? I'm logging problems on my talk page. Leadwind (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana is helping me set up the RfC. We could use some diffs from your experience. There's a project page now. Take a look. User:Leadwind/LimaRFC. Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You deserve this

Hi Alec, :) I've just been given this and am passing it on to you, because you deserve it for all the work you've put in.

This user helped promote Opus Dei to good article status.

I still remember your encouragement that I work for FAC, and will continue to keep it in mind. One day I hope it will happen, and the hope has gotten stronger, specially after this latest Good Article approval. Marax (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. I took the initiative to place it as well in your userpage but you might want it moved elsewhere.

Good job! Is the Opus Dei or the BSA Membership Controversies article more contentious? --Jagz (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bible from Cover to Cover

Hey there, I just came across your interest in the Q document and was wondering if you've heard of The Bible from Cover to Cover by Peter Brancazio. I heard the author at a talk last month and he was an excellent speaker and, so far, the book is really good. It focuses on the four-source, documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament and the two-source hypothesis for the gospels. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

G'day Alec!

you bring this, and I'll make tea anytime....

It was great to see your clearly heartfelt post over at the arb talk page - there's a lot to talk about in your comment, but before getting into all that I just wanted to say that you were a fantastic colleague to me late last year, and I thank you for it enormously. Wikipedia isn't a lot of things that it kinda appears to be, and some of the darker sides are really quite ugly - though I suspect that's likely to be true of even the noblest human endeavor.

The trouble I ran into here actually ended up engaging me further in the project - and I remain fascinated about certain aspects of what goes on.. I hope your disillusionment can likewise be either set aside, or channeled into positive energies supporting the health of the project around and about the place...

oh - and it's great to 'see' you again! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actual information, my gawd

Thanks for setting forth actual information at ArbCom, rather than insider rants. --Blechnic (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

that was brilliant

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for the most brilliantly reasoned posting I've seen in a very long time, and certainly in that case. user:Everyme 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Ok, one thing though: SlimVirgin doesn't use the tools all that often (she's not exactly a backlog working slave), and one might argue that desysopping her does not have a whole lot of disadvantages while it carries a lot more warning potential than anything else, considering that she has occasionally directly threatened blocks in situations where she was involved up to the ears. But I understand that you're arguing in favour of a better and actually workable compromise. So wow again... Your post is one of the very few irreplaceable ones in this case. Thank you! user:Everyme 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) )

A Thought

You might also want to condense the essence of your recent arbcom proposals into to an essay/guideline/policy. I think they're sufficiently self-evident that might be useful to be able to get them endorsed by the community or listed as general principles applying outside of just this one arbcom case. Just a thought. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, presumably they should all be clear at WP:ADMIN. Whether they are or not is another matter : )

Perhaps after this case the page may be updated. - jc37 04:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Civility patrol"

Did you mean parole? --NE2 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did.. Thanks! Good catch. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On admins

Hi. I received your email, and am happy to reply, but would prefer to do so here, if that is OK with you. FNMF (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Got your second email: although I do have a view on the matter you raised, I really prefer engaging here rather than via email, unfortunately. I don't think you need to be worried about the effect of simply raising a question, although I should point out it is not a new idea, featuring regularly, in one form or another, on Village Pump. I don't think it has much chance. If you're interested in hearing my view, and you don't mind conversing here, let me know. FNMF (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)