User talk:Lafem

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, ! I hope you like the place and decide to keep contributing. Since I see you've already been active here, let me just give you a few links that are always useful as a handy reference guide: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question at the village pump or feel free to ask me on my Talk page. Oh, and just in case you don't already know: to sign your name on a Talk page like I did below, the easiest way is just to type four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;). To customize your signature, look here. And remember:Be Bold!
 * How to write a great article
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikiquette
 * Wikipedia's NPOV policies
 * Current polls
 * &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 09:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Hi Lafem &mdash;

I replied to your question here. However, one thing that you should note is that the views of an "official administrator" aren't particularly more important in solving disputes than anyone else's &mdash; when people are making editorial decisions, everyone is at the same level. Also, let me say that, though I think your interpretation is roughly correct, it is far more difficult to make these kinds of judgements when there aren't clearly defined "experts". For instance, I'd trust an expert's view on, say, string theory, but non necessarily on social issues or, say, the Opus Dei (example used only because that seems to be what you're discussing above). &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  15:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry
...has suddenly become a source of Opus Dei info (they are claiming it is a secret society on the page). I am only editing sporadically nowadays, and was wondering if you could keep a bit of an eye on that page as well - simply b/c the majority of editors there are taking a very anti-Opus Dei POV that requires some balance - plus the sources are pretty bad (for the page in general, it would seem). Thanks! DonaNobisPacem 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - although I know a fair bit about Opus Dei, I am not so knowledgeable in regards to sources, and more in-depth issues (such as their constitution) - although I should have caught the pre-1982 thing! Anyways, we'll see how it goes - one editor in particular on that page has been reverting any changes favourable to Catholicism willy-nilly, but your change gives me a basis to stand on in regards to Opus Dei.  So again - thanks!

Charism
I would like you yourself to revise the paragraph, taking account of the fact that a charism is not a group or organization or movement or whatever you want to call the work that the founder, because of the charism with which God has endowed him or her, has given rise to. A religious congregation etc., too, has its charism, distinct from the personal charism of the founder, and distinct too from the congregation itself: the charism is something the congregation has, not what it is. Secondly, mentioning together the Second Vatican Council and Opus Dei seemed to imply that Opus Dei is an in some way anticipated fruit of the Council. If you want to mention both, this must be avoided in some way. How about including more of the JPII quotation you refer to? Lima 10:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment
Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mi ra  07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Maggywhitehouse.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:MegCMYK1.jpg. The copy called Image:MegCMYK1.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 01:45, 21 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. :) Kindly comment on this. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You deserve this
Hi Lafem, :) 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.

Hope you can continue helping in bringing the article up to FAC. Marax (talk) 01:03, 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.

WikiProject Christianity
Hello !

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lafem, I have read your mail. The best place to put your concerns is the talk page of the project : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. There are people from all denominations and we will happy to help you as we could - Tinucherian (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lafem, having the honor to post the first comment here since nearly 3 full years, I just want to notify you, that your edit here seems to have untintentionally cut a sentence. I didn't change it, as I wasn't sure about. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Maggywhitehouse.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Maggywhitehouse.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Acather96 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OTD
In your edit you cited "importance" as a reason for putting in Opus Dei. Since that's a subjective quality, it's not really a reason why one article should trump another. Not that I'm going to remove it or anything, but just so you know. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 17:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Opus Dei - Society
If Opus Dei is not a society "A group of people who meet from time to time to engage in a common interest; an association or organization." (Wikitionary), please tell me what it is? Neither of your sources say it is a society - in fact the word society only appears in them to refer to society in general, not Opus Dei. I do not want to start an edit war with you. Template:Opus Dei was created to include all lay Catholic spiritualities, which evidently includes Opus Dei (I doubt you would debate that), it was later considered better to rename it as "movements and societies" with the latter including all those which are not movements such as Opus Dei. You did not respond to the similarities I pointed out but simply re-posted your comments. Please respond to my comments.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for informing me of the revert. Let me put the argumentation this way: If Opus Dei as a prelature is included in that template, then we will have to include all Roman Catholic prelatures and dioceses too because they are composed of 99% laity which meet from time to time to engage in a common interest.


 * With all the good will the template is trying to generate, it is not helping people understand the true nature of Opus Dei, based on its God-given charism.


 * It is an excellent template for societies, but a more precise (i.e. encyclopedic) template for Opus Dei would be that for Roman Catholic dioceses and prelatures.


 * If the title of the template is Catholic lay spirituality, then that would be acceptable. Lafem (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed it to avoid Lay Catholic Spiritual Organizations as I realized it specified one type (movements) but not others. I also suggested Lay Catholic Charisms on the talk page. Since the canon lawyers are slowly catching up to the Holy Spirit, many of the other groups listed have awkward or uncertain canonical statuses (like Opus Dei in its early years). I think there is a value for combining these specific charisms / spiritualities directed at lay people but due to the multiform legal statuses (or lack thereof) a precise title seems awkward. I have no disagreements regarding Opus Dei's canonical status or that it has a specific charism directed to lay people. I think this charism directed to lay people is what unites all those groups listed in the navbox I may not have expressed it well. I want to find a way to include all these charisms directed to lay people together. (p.s. You can note in the edits that I also made the Opus Dei navbox and removed ODAN as an unreliable source from Opus Dei, and my username gives away who I am).>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 12:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not doubts about your intentions, MPSchneiderLC. You are doing a service. The new title is acceptable to me. Thanks. Lafem (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

COI vis-a-vis Opus Dei
I asked you about this at Talk:Opus Dei but you ignored the question so now I will ask a little more formally. Your honesty in this regard is appreciated.

Hello, Lafem. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Opus Dei, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

GAR Opus Dei
Opus Dei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  16:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)