User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan

(rv dates)

You removed my edit. Why? -- Jason Palpatine 05:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Potential spoiler in a way-too-obvious place. Give it a few weeks. --SarekOfVulcan 05:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Why the revert on Freemasonry? Canon law isn't civil law, there aren't interpretations differing from what Rome says.

Gah, forgot to sign it. --Kadett 03:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canon law doesn't mention Freemasonry. I have seen letters from dioceses post-dating the canon change explicitly allowing Catholics to join lodges. (In case it's not obvious from context, I'm both Catholic and a Freemason, and see no conflict between the two.) --SarekOfVulcan 21:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However, as I linked, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that the lack of mentioning of Freemasonry is irrelevant, it is still forbidden to join. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Office of the Holy Inquisition), what he says goes. That some dioceses are ignorant or have refused to listen to Rome isn't particularly unusual. Much of the American Church is in a de facto schism with Rome. --Kadett 03:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry Page

On Catholicism and Freemasonry you've made a couple of odd changes, for a full discussion please see the discussion page for the article.

JASpencer 11:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Project Buffy

I left an answer to your question under "scope". Making the Firefly and Buffy information consistent would be a great idea, but I don't have the knowledge to do it. My primary concern is the BtVS etc. universe, but I would welcome people to work on FF as well. If you'd like to help, that would be great. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 20:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent typo corrections in my merge of the Aubrey-Maturin series article. DES 01:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Links in Aubrey-Maturin series

1) It is not required that we link every mention of a particualr term, such as Jack Aubrey's name. Over-repeating such links is considerd poor style.

Right, that's why I pulled the multi-links out. At least, I think I did...

2) WP:MOS and various other places now discourages making a wiki-link out of a year except when it is part of a full date. Wikilinking of dates is the way in which the date preferece software is enabled, but thsi only works on complete dates. Specifically it says: If the date does not contain a day and a month, then date preferences do not work. In such cases, square brackets around dates do not respond to user preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting.

Ok -- I'll pull those back out. (You siad on my talk page: Ah, I see you already re-fixed the dates. Sorry.) But I'm not at all sure if I got all the ones you added, please check.DES 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

3) There should be a standard style for how to refer to the name of a ship. I think it takes italics but I need to check that. DES 02:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- I fixed that in a case or two. It's HMS/USS ShipName, rather than HMS/USS Shipname.

And what about simply Shipname such as Suprise during the period after it was sold out of the navy? DES 02:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/td/1064/td1064g.html, italics.--SarekOfVulcan 02:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected that. I'll try to do an edit for consistancy whn I have a chance. DES 16:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry again

I'm posting this to all those majorly involved in editing Freemasonry. I think discretion is the better part of valor here. Reasonable arguments have failed with Lightbringer, and I am very sure that he is in fact confusing people (he claimed I edited Taxil hoax, when I did not) and statements (he accused me of deleting sections from Freemasonry that were clearly still part of the article). That being said, I'm sure he doesn't care how stupid he looks, as long as it gets us, "the Masonic editors" to look stupid as well. To that end, I would suggest that we merely follow the revision path, and comment on nothing Lightbringer says, positive or negative. MSJapan 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Small note

Thanks for your answers at Talk:Taxil hoax, and your sincere attempts there for reasonable evolving the article. But (sorry, I'm notorious for these "buts"), your statement at Lightbringer's talk page:

Lightbringer, you've read about Masonry. We've lived it. Can you see why we might think we have a slightly more realistic view?

did ring a bell for me (independant of the question, how good a editor Lightbringer is. You've seen my statement at WP:RFAr).

This is just the problem of systemic bias in Wikipedia (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias): Some religions, movements, political beliefs, get the preference of being mostly dealt with from an inside view (Christianity, Buddhism (partly), Libertarianism) and other from an outside view (Animism, Communism). IMHO it generally makes for better encyclopedic treatment, to have an outside view, but the Wikipedia principle will always attract inside view treatments, because everybody is free to edit the topics most dear to his heart.

By and large this works anyway, and at many topics, the inside view editors are careful to abstract from their personal feelings. Of course there are also spectacular failures, especially where articles have become a battleground between apostats and apologetics, seee Prem Rawat and other "Guru"-articles.

Pjacobi 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence Fred Bauder 01:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonrywatch

Freemasonry watch in addition to being full of sh_t is titled "Freemasonry Watch" hence they are a current events site hence they shouldn't be link to the article which is about people and movements of historical note.

However I'll post a site that links to them.

grazon 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they're full of what you assert, but I'd say offhand they should stay. However, if you want to cite someone who cites them instead, that works fine.--SarekOfVulcan 20:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

You seem to be attempting to discuss matters rather than blindly reverting Fred Bauder 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that up. Moot while the page is protected, of course....--SarekOfVulcan 04:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I second Fred's comment, and your reply as well. :) Eaglizard 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

User: Victrix

You may well be right, and I may have been too hasty in raising the allegation (although I tried to avoid the term 'sockpuppet' in reference to Victrix, since using multiple accounts is perfectly permissable, but would need clarification here, imo). On the other hand, I did consider the issue for over 3 days before deciding on how to raise it. BTW, did you mean to leave your comment on the \Workshop page unsigned? Also, I'd like to point out that of the main earlier contributions, 2 (Stephen Knight and [[Image:Juwes1.jpg]] were previously edited by our friend User: Lightbringer, and many of the others cluster around Jack the Ripper, an article hotly contested by User:DreamGuy. Perhaps a coincidence, I know. However, consider also how neatly the times and dates of Victrix's edits dovetail with MSJapan's, particularly in light of a couple of edits during 15-17 Oct, which are very convenient from MSJapan's POV... Well, I have boldly stated my opinion, we'll see what happens. :) Also, I have posted a paragraph to this effect in Talk: Freemasonry#Deceptive edit comments (where Victrix appears to reply as MSJapan) asking either party to respond to this appearance of oddity. I'm curious to see what they may say. Eaglizard 21:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, when I leave the sig off, it's forgetfulness. Thanks. (Like right here. :-) )--SarekOfVulcan 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Further comment

"THE MUSLIMS ARE PLANNING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD. HEEEEEELP!" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer&curid=2923869&diff=26039380&oldid=26039285

Funny, I thought it was the Masons who were taking over... --SarekOfVulcan 21:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Might as well have that bit of nonsense here. I do admit I am a critic of freemasonry, having extensive personal experience. Although I did once meet a Mason I admired, I think the slogan ought to be, "Making the Philistine arrogant" rather then "Making the good better" Fred Bauder 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

May I inquire as to details? I admit to arrogance, etc., but I do try to keep it in check. And I don't consider people who are against Masonry as enemies (though I'm sure the edit comment was tongue-in-cheek). I just have issues with people trying to shove things down my throat saying that their third-hand light reading trumps my first-hand experience. --SarekOfVulcan 22:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I live in Saguache County, Colorado, which, if you are thoroughly familiar with, is Mason ridden. The newspaper in Saguache is the "Saguache Crescent". There is a long history of rather mediocre Anglo men thinking that as they have participated in rituals, ought to run things. The situation is not uniformly dismal, but pathetic accurately describes the spectacle of a person without moral compass imagining that he is wise. Fred Bauder 22:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Basically there is a failure to internalize moral precepts and ideals Fred Bauder 22:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Admitting, that I still watch this page, I'll partly agree with Fred Bauder. This criticism should go into the NPOV treatment of Freemasonry, whereas all these wacko satanism theories can -- alongside with the Nazi's persecutions of freemasons etc -- be detailled in Anti-Freemasonry (as they tell less about freemasons than about their enemies). Also, in Freemasonry, not a single literature reference is given, no work of academic historty or sociology is mentioned and cited. --Pjacobi 09:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Pjacobi -- I'll start working on citing some of this over the weekend. I don't know if I'll find much in the way of academic research, but that would be great if I can find any. There is a section in Anti-Freemasonry called [1] "Criticisms based on the moral faults of known Masons"] - is that the kind of thing you're looking to re-include in the main article? --SarekOfVulcan 16:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, look how it is handled at Fraternities and sororities, only to realize, that this is another article with zero literature and zero sociological coverage. A very quick trip to http://scholar.google.com on first sight only unearthed [2]. Unfortunately the authors mainly demonstrate that they can use their statistics package without too much thinking which questions to ask or which conclusions to draw.

I can recommend comparing de:Studentenverbindung. Even if you don't know any German, you can see the general structure rather well from the babelfished version: [3].

Pjacobi 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a mistake

I titled the anti-freemasonry page poorly.

I intended for the article to be about their persecution not what may be wrong with them.

grazon 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Which is fine, but there's a lot of information there that is not covered in your original intent, and you can't unilaterally decide that it doesn't go there, unless there are reasons in the Wikipedia Guidelines that disqualify it.--SarekOfVulcan 23:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: I believe that you're not supposed to be working on Freemasonry articles anyway, pending the outcome of the arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer/Workshop#Temporary_editing_restrictions_2. I don't know if information under Workshop counts, but I haven't seen anyone else listed there editing.--SarekOfVulcan 23:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Filk Article

Not sure what you meant about a "list of links".

UrbanTerrorist 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Any idea

Where the info on the lack of converage by FoxNews on Rosa Parks funeral should go?

Nowhere, IMNSHO. We shouldn't be insulting her memory by including it, no matter how much FauxNews deserves to get slammed.--SarekOfVulcan 00:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

How about on the foxnews article?

grazon 00:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Up to you.--SarekOfVulcan 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

syncretic vs. ecumenical

I noticed the change too, but IMHo, neither word is correct given the strong religious connotation the terms have. We need a third alternative, and I'm not certain that "universal" is right either. MSJapan 01:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer

Why did you revert Lightbringer's talk page? It isn't protected; he can edit it himself. --Scïmïłar ^parley 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Two of those comments were borderline NPA: I wanted to keep things on a non-inflammatory level. I could have left the third comment, but thought it was best to leave it as you had left it.--SarekOfVulcan 18:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I've removed the first comment, but I don't really see a problem with the other two. Frankly, I think the comment I removed was accurate, but, as you said, it's probably best to keep things on a non-inflammatory level.--Scïmïłar ^parley 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Masons

Oh, I didn't realize you were one, too! Neat.--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, they'll let anyone in these days! :P I jest, actually, there are quite a few brethren, in my lodge alone, who are RC. Many usually persue trinitarian perfection also, quite a few well ranked RC's in my district. What's the situation where you are? Jachin 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know: it doesn't usually come up in conversation. I know that when I joined the new Knights of Columbus chapter at my church, I specifically brought up my Masonic membership and was told it wasn't an issue.--SarekOfVulcan 21:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Democracy & Nature saga

I'd like to thank you for all the time you put in and all the interest you showed. In the end the whole thing was apparently solved by your idea to simply change the name of the Advisory Board section. However, I'd like to point out that if I had not insisted all this while, if I hadn't gotten administrators (like you, I presume?) involved, these people would have kept removing the two sections they didn't like, without even bothering to have a constructive dialogue. And as you have seen (I am assuming you had nothing to do with the journal; I myself was involved with it, being Alex from the "5th phase" on the Editorial Board - I have obviously stopped being involved with these people, which automatically means that I am to be thrown into the Inferno!) instead of making any necessary corrections, these people would have just kept on going removing any piece of information they did not want the world to know. Anyway, I sort of think this whole thing is sad/silly, but I am sure you have been dealing with such things on Wikipedia fairly often.

Once again, thanks!--User:PaulCardan 04:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)