User talk:Thiebes

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 16:21, 9 Mar 2005

Thiebes, I want a place to discuss Thelema outside the context of religion completely. Why can't you understand that? What precisely is wrong with that?

"We have a very different idea of what disgraces the name of wizard, Malfoy." --Arthur Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Aleph

I've already changed the name to Non-religious Views of Thelema. I didn't like "Alternative" either. Feel free to write all your want on Thelema & Religion. However, as the author of the material on non-relgious views of Thelema, I think it is for me to decide what does and what does not ghettoize my writing. That was my point in quoting H.P. Aleph

Copied from my talk page:

I see the name change now. Fine.

As for the content of your article, I'd point out that it's more than a little curious you've chosen to edit out all the other quotations of Crowley which do not go to support your case. Selective to be sure. Quite the opposite of what an encyclopedia is for, I think.

I didn't edit anything out. That was never in the Alternative Views of Thelema in the first place. You put that into Thelema & Religion. That's the right place for it.

As for your authorial whatever, look, get over your writing. This is open source. You don't own your writing here. We all get to discuss and decide together, and I think that excluding the "non-religious view" from the very article which discusses what is and is not religious could be used as a textbook example of ghettoizing an idea.

I disagree with you. It is not just me, Ash also supported separate articles.

As for Wiki etiquette and blanking -- as you had explicitly said that you would wait for me to implement my solution, which included eliminating the separate article. You clearly had some reservations, but you didn't let me finish what I was doing, or open it up for discussion before simply reverting my edit. THAT is definitely not wiki etiquette. My blanking of the other page, you had plenty of warning on, and you consented to wait and see. Now you're saying that I broke the rules? I think you'd like the rules to suit your fancy every time, but they don't this time.

I did not agree to wait for you to implement P.A.'s solution. I agreed to wait for P.A. to implement P.A.'s solution. I believe that he would have done Thelema & Religion very different. I also believe that you agree to wait for P.A. to implement his solution. So why are you the one doing it?

Thiebes, you are the MAN! You've added a ton of articles...thanks for doing such great work! —Fr. Ash

Hey, I see you are tackling the Zodiac articles. Thanks for helping! I've made an astrology template that should go on all the astro pages: {{astrology}} If you can see any improvements to be made to the astro template, by all means do so. Fr. Ash 22:13, 1 Mar 2005 (CST)

I noticed - excellent! :)

Retrieved from "http://thelemapedia.org/index.php/User_talk:Thiebes"

 :I've already changed the name to [[Non-religious Views of Thelema]]. I didn't like "Alternative" either. Feel free to write all your want on [[Thelema & Religion]]. However, as the ''author'' of the material on non-relgious views of Thelema, I think it is for ''me'' to decide what does and what does not ''ghettoize'' my writing. That was my point in quoting H.P. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]
+Copied from my talk page:
+::I see the name change now. Fine.
+::As for the content of your article, I'd point out that it's more than a little curious you've chosen to edit out all the other quotations of Crowley which do not go to support your case. Selective to be sure. Quite the opposite of what an encyclopedia is for, I think.
+:::I didn't edit anything out. That was never in the [[Alternative Views of Thelema]] in the first place. ''You'' put that into [[Thelema & Religion]]. That's the right place for it.
+::As for your authorial whatever, look, get over your writing. This is open source. You don't own your writing here. We all get to discuss and decide together, and I think that excluding the "non-religious view" from the very article which discusses what is and is not religious could be used as a textbook example of ghettoizing an idea.
+:::I disagree with you. It is not just me, Ash also supported separate articles.
+::As for Wiki etiquette and blanking -- as you had explicitly said that you would wait for me to implement my solution, which included eliminating the separate article. You clearly had some reservations, but you didn't let me finish what I was doing, or open it up for discussion before simply reverting my edit. THAT is definitely not wiki etiquette. My blanking of the other page, you had plenty of warning on, and you consented to wait and see. Now you're saying that I broke the rules? I think you'd like the rules to suit your fancy every time, but they don't this time.
+:::I did not agree to wait for ''you'' to implement P.A.'s solution. I agreed to wait for P.A. to implement P.A.'s solution. I believe that ''he'' would have done [[Thelema & Religion]] very different. I also believe that ''you'' agree to wait for P.A. to implement his solution. So why are you the one doing it?
 ----