User talk:Rosenkohl

Welcome[edit]

Hello Rosenkohl, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Rosenkohl, good luck, and have fun. --Brendon is here 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Brendon111, this actually is my second active account on en.wikipedia, however thank you very much ;-) --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I didn't know that. I invite you to recheck this. This is the furthest I can push my proposal. I think you and I previously were not in disagreement that much. Simple misunderstanding. Hurry! There is not much time left. Best wishes. Brendon is here 03:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need clarification[edit]

Do you think the present calligraphy File:Mohammad SAV.svg significantly enhances the understanding of Non-Arab readers about Muhammad? And, do you think that this sort of calligraphic representation can serve as a substitute or superior alternative for portraits of Muhammad or actual images of Muhammad drawn by primordial or premodern Muslims. A simple "yes" or "no" answer for each would be sufficient for now. Thank you! peace! Brendon ishere 17:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brendond111,

I think you make a couple of implicit assertions here, that I either don't understand or don't share, so I don't see a way to answer simply with "yes" or "no".

"Do you think the present calligraphy File:Mohammad SAV.svg significantly enhances the understanding of Non-Arab readers about Muhammad?"

I don't know what you mean with "present", and I'm not sure that this file is a "calligraphy", because I have seen no source calling it a calligraphy. I neither see how reading the script depicted in this file would significantly enhance the understanding of the reader about the person Muhammad, nor how viewing this file in the article Muhammad would enhance the understanding of Arab or Non-Arab readers about the person Muhammad. So in this sense, I would answer to your first question with "no".

"And, do you think that this sort of calligraphic representation can serve as a substitute or superior alternative for portraits of Muhammad or actual images of Muhammad drawn by primordial or premodern Muslims."

I don't understand the difference between drawn portraits and drawn actual images of someone. I don't see how the artist being a Muslim or belonging to another religion, or to no religion would matter for the quality of an image or for its value of use in Wikipedia articles. As said above, I'm not sure if File:Mohammad SAV.svg as a representation of the person Muhammad can really be called "calligraphic".

Anyway, some weeks ago in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Types_of_representation, I already tried to explain why in my opinion "calligraphy, or names in general on the one hand side, and actual depictions on the other hand side are not only two different types of representing something, but that they also result in representations of different educational quality," (16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)). In this sense, I would answer to your second question with "no",

Greetings, --Rosenkohl (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“I don't know what you mean with "present", and I'm not sure that this file is a "calligraphy", because I have seen no source calling it a calligraphy.” — You're right. I should have used something other than "calligraphy". Could you suggest something congruous?

“I would answer to your first question with "no"” — So, we agree here. Nice!

“I don't understand the difference between drawn portraits and drawn actual images of someone.” — I used "or" to indicate an alternative way of describing it, but not different things.
“I would answer to your second question with "no"” — Again, we don't disagree that much. We may explain things differently or rationalize differently but we conclude the same.

These vector images don't enhance the understanding of many readers too much. Brendon ishere 04:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I should have used something other than 'calligraphy'", well, I think it would not help much if you use something other, as long as the (now protected) Rfc-page is using the term calligraphy in an indefinit and unsourced way, which I think is part of the biased, misleading and preoccupied way this Rfc has been issued, --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that RfC talk-page locked? Don't we have the liberty to discuss things out? What are we going to do here in this virtual space anyway? I really don't understand how people think here. Sometimes I feel as if using words like "right" and "freedom" is taboo here. But honestly, editing under the hegemony of restrictive administrators (some, not all), sometimes becomes too suffocating for me. I know there are more like me. I'm not used to living with so many needless restraints like this in the real world. Brendon ishere 15:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Rosenkohl. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Rosenkohl~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)