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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 our discussion. Ritterschaft (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]