Jump to content

User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

(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)

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)
Interesting chapter name, sounds very rosicrucian actually. Wouldn't mind hearing more about it, feel free to add me on MSN, val@valdebauchee.com (new address). :) Jachin 09:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
On the KofC page you have posted that you are both a 3rd Degree Knight and a 3rd Degree Mason, and thereby it is evident that the KofC allows Masons to join. That's a bit misleading - as a Knight, one takes an oath to uphold the teachings of the Holy See, and must be a practicing Catholic to be a member. That said, upon reading (then) Cardinal Ratzinger's 1996 clarification on Masonic membership for Catholics (ie, stating that Catholics can't belong to Masonic organizations, or receive ipso facto excommunication), it is clear that if one chooses to be a Knight in good standing (ie, upholding one's oath), then one should not belong to a Masonic organization. If the Knights in your council failed to recognize that fact, probably due to the confusion promulgated by the Western Bishops at the time, it does not change the fact that the Supreme Council does not permit a dual membership simply on the basis of your oath. If you have any doubts as to the validity of that statement, you may contact the Supreme Council directly at info@kofc.org.
Conversely, it can be noted Masonic organizations have no prescriptions on Catholic membership.
Cheerio, DonaNobisPacem 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The Holy See also says that my wife and I can't use contraception. Are you trying to tell me that this also disqualifies me? (Note, please, that it wasn't the Knights in my council -- the question was verified at the state level.) --SarekOfVulcan 02:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I am saying that the Knights take an oath to uphold the teachings of the Holy See. If you hold to this oath, then yes, it disqualifies you - particularly if one publicly teaches against the teachings of the Holy See. Although it is the Knights who have the requirement to be a practicing Catholic, you too choose to disqualify yourself by the very oath you take to become a Knight. However - I feel the discussion on your personal choices in a public forum, particularly on a delicate issue such as contraception, is both awkward and innapropriate, and I do not wish to challenge those beliefs on a public board. If you wish to discuss things like this further, I would be happy to carry on a discourse by email.DonaNobisPacem 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, since I don't need your approval to be a Catholic, a Knight, or a Mason, I have no interest in discussing it with you either here or in email.--SarekOfVulcan 20:10, 21 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 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not an admin, just a concerned Wikipedian, and I didn't put in all that much time. I'm very concerned that NPOV be maintained, and it seemed to me that your addition, including criticisms and responses, belonged in the article. Feel free to tell me I'm being POV in the articles I'm working on. --SarekOfVulcan 02:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Classical High School

Just thought I'd leave a comment regarding my edits to Classical High School. My main reason for the revert was that I didn't consider a bulleted list to be very encyclopedic (and the article was still tagged for cleanup). I intentionally ommitted the motto for the same reasons, but will respect your decision to re-add it. Apologies for the British spelling of colour, I re-typed it without thinking, and fully appreciate color would be more appropriate for an article on a US school! All the best, └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 22:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

An infobox would have been prettier, but I didn't know what really belonged there: I should do more HS research. The Motto is apparently considered encyclopedic for colleges, so I don't see why it shouldn't be for high schools as well. Thanks for your cleanup efforts! :-) --SarekOfVulcan 22:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Very true, an infobox would look good. I tried to do some research online, but couldn't find much. Unfortunately, being British, I didn't have much original info to contrbute! Fair point about the motto. Cheers, └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 22:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Another sockcheck request

User:Novembre 19 is doing a darned good imitation of User:Lightbringer. Edits on Freemasonry are here -- he complains about links being removed with no explanation when, in fact, User:Jachin was clear on the talk page about why he was doing it.

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 00:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask that he be checked as well. Not a normal way to make your first three edits. Dmcdevit·t 01:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Possible, but not confirmable at this time. Same ISP, but different address, and I think this ISP issues IPs on a "semistatic" basis. If it's him, he took steps to cause his ISP to issue a new IP. I recommend a watch and wait posture for now. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Buffy

Your edits to my pages of Buffy / Angel have been careful and I wanted to say thanks. There seems to be too many editors lately that are fond of carelessly erasing what they don't see apropriate (don't like) or being unnecesarily unfriendly. So, thanks.

Abaraibar 08:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer sockery

How about User:The Brotherhood? His last edit summaries follow Lightbringer's pattern. (And no, I'm not going to ask if every one who edits those pages is a Lightbringer puppet -- just the ones who follow the same pattern.)

The Brotherhood (talk · contribs) is the same editor as Novembre 19 (talk · contribs) and also Vitamin a (talk · contribs). At this point I am reasonably convinced that these users are all sockpuppets of Lightbringer (talk · contribs); all should be blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets used to evade an ArbCom injunction.

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

I have added nothing to this article. The reverts were done as a response to activity from the latest in a *long* series of sockpuppets used by one individual to disrupt Wikipedia by defacing my user & talk pages, and articles that I have contributed to or edited. - Chadbryant 20:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, chad, but I _can_ read history lists.--SarekOfVulcan 20:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

-Sorry, but the history list in this case shows that my only recent activity regarding the RSPW article is in regards to Mr. Cain (under the "RSPW Poster" sock) and his reverts & unwarranted neutrality disputes. - Chadbryant 20:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. First of all, Chad has NO proof to back up his claims of the identity of "RSPW Poster" on *or* offline. Second of all, like you said, history lists don't lie. CHAD lies -- all the time, as a matter of fact -- but history lists certainly do not. His sad attempts to justify his behavior to you only show how far he is willing to go to vandalise Wikipedia and yet try not to look like the "bad guy" in doing so! ~~ RSPW Coaster 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian Masons

Hey check out http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/russia/russian_masons.html There is a wealth of information here. There is a proviso on the page, but I have started with some of the better known masons. Perhaps Andrei Priakhin might be interested in contribtuting to wikipedia. Harrypotter 00:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

I’m glad you like it :) Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 18:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, re the "Vandalising Nutter", oh Tyler o' Wiki. Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

DeMolay

Hey, just so you know, I have renamed Order of DeMolay to DeMolay International, as I posted in the discussion board a long time ago, DeMolay no longer refers to itself as the 'Order of DeMolay' but DeMolay International. When I get the chance I plan to heavily expand this article and give the organization the elaborate detail it deserves. I hope this OK, Avador 18:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no issues with this -- I'm not as involved with DeMolay as I should be.--SarekOfVulcan 18:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


on the "non-dogmatic nature of Freemasonry"

Hi, I beg to disagree with your edit of my edit. Asserting, a priori, that Freemasonry is "non-dogmatic" by nature is certainly a Masonic-POV statement. Such an assertion is neitheir neutral nor self-evident to a non-Mason. Rastapopoulos 13:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, for re-adding that statement to be POV, there would have to be Masonic dogma. Since every member brings his own religion to lodge, this is not the case.--SarekOfVulcan 17:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious for a Mason's POV - I know Mackey asserted that Freemasonry WAS a religion in his History - is this claim taken seriously? I know his book seems highly regarded by many Masons/in Masonic literature, but other Masons seem to detract from his work. Opinion?DonaNobisPacem 20:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I do regard Mackey's work highly (never having read the whole thing, admittedly), but in this case, he is very much mistaken. I had my own firmly developed belief in God before joining Freemasonry, and nothing I have heard in Lodge has changed it. See the BC Grand Lodge site for a much more eloquent explanation than I can give.--SarekOfVulcan 22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess our difference is in the interpretation of "dogmatic". YOu apparently use the word "dogmatic" in the sense of "denominational." However, "dogmatic" has a wider meaning than that: besides religion, dogma can mean any doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; belief in an abstract grand architect of the universe can sound dogmatic to a non-Mason. QED. Rastapopoulos 08:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Freemasonry is "non-dogmatic". It is not a religion, or a substitute for religion. The canon of Mackey's work - is just that - Mackey's work. No person, or even Grand Lodge, speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. The "rule" that says a Freemason must have believe in God is a constitutional matter, not a matter of dogma. Atheistic Grand Lodge constitutions are not recognised by Grand Lodges holding fast to the "Ancient Charges", and vice versa. The "Ancient Charges", are constitutional documents not "holy writ". Magna Carta in England or the written US American Constitution are not, as far as I know, regarded as "holy books" - but are the basis of law in their jurisdictions. Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 15:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
But it's not an "abstract GAoTU" -- it's God. We refer to Him by that term to avoid denominational quarrels, and to remind us that He created the heavens and the earth.--SarekOfVulcan 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
True - for "our" Grand Lodges. However those "we" would term "irregular" are Freemasons of other constitutions who, may well, regard "GAoTU" as abstract. I would regard "GAoTU" as a constitutional position, when writing about Freemasonry in general - for a religiously pluralistic readership. I'm oh-so PC, am I not? ;) I agree with UGLE's constitutional stand, regarding Co-Masonry. However in the article "Freemasonry" they may well have a place. Each Grand Lodge's article should cover their own stand-points in more detail. UGLE's stated position, as yours, does not make English - or your - Freemasonry a Religion. GAoTU is a description of God, not a "name" of the god (note the little "g") of Freemasonry - to be interpreted as you think fit, within "the" (or your) Grand Lodge's Constitution. To nail my flag to the mast - I am a Congregational/Presbyterian Christian, and a Church Elder. "We" - in my Congregation - have no trouble being "Biblical" and "Masonic", at the same time. May the GAoTU be with you, and you with the GAoTU.Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I should add that I have met many masons of other denominations and religions, and would never consider evangelizing in a Masonic context, but I often do evangelize in other contexts. I have no conflict of conscience in the preceding statement. Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 18:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sarek, I see your point. Mine is that any notion of divinity, and any belief that he/she/it created the heavens and the earth cannot self-evidently be designated as "non-dogmatic." I guess we agree we disagree on this one! PS Vulkans always striked me as somewhat Masonic ;) Rastapopoulos 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Scotland

Grand Lodge of Scotland is a small, yet perfectly formed, article - discuss. ;) Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry article

Looks like the sockpuppets aren't going to stop coming for a while, so I've protected the page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, please feel free to revert any silly hitlerisms that are added to the talk page :) But seriously, anything that blanks the talk page and inserts an essay would be considered vanadalism and not held to the [[[WP:3RR|three revert rule]]. I've added the page to my watchlist as well, so I'll keep an eye out. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops -- thanks for reminding me that I missed the template. I'm going to go ahead and unprotect for now -- haven't seen anything from the sockpuppets for a while now so hopefully, they got bored. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the Democracy & Nature saga

So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_%26_Nature was not deleted after all, even though the guys who run it want to keep total control over its content. Don't you think though that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Journal_of_Inclusive_Democracy page (run by the same people) is totally ridiculous and would get easily deleted? I am thinking of nominating it for deletion. What do you think?

User:DisposableAccount 00:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved with this one again. Good luck, though!--SarekOfVulcan 23:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I just dropped in to let you know that I've started the process. You can at least look at what they'll come up with! :-) User:DisposableAccount 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle3 could sure use your comments on location: so far we have no clear consensus. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Just in case I forget later my Christian brethren, “I have news of great joy, for a child and Saviour is born to us.” Greetings of this Christ-tide to you and yours! Skull 'n' Femurs 18:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Michigan Night

Yeah, I noticed the User:MS Japan thing too, but didn't know what to make of it. I'd figured it was another sockpuppet of Lightbringer. BTW, I just realized that I accidentally called you a sockpuppet on User_talk:Nandesuka. I meant to say User:Anna2005, sorry! Oh, the mass confusion! Hope you're not offended :-) - orioneight (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

*grin* I'll get over it.--SarekOfVulcan 20:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
If I'm a very good boy, do I get a "sock" for Christmas? (lol) :) Skull 'n' Femurs 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) PS [4]

Freemasonry & User: 2B1LIE41

Speakin of puppets, check out freemasonry history lately esp by 2B1LIE41. You're good at this Sarek....Grye 01:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This 2B1LIE41 user clocked up "messages" 1 to 4 in quick-time on "his?" discussion page. (Fell over this after shooing away a cat from my window! Back to bed and Christmaszzzz) Skull 'n' Femurs 02:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn, I'm just too slow, and I miss all the fun. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 02:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A "Word" Footprint

Note Grye has produced a dumb page [[5]] (with History) by copying Jahbulon about. Why? Skull 'n' Femurs 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what this Jahbulon stuff is about, but I have moved all the bad-titled left-overs in article namespace by Grue into the history of Talk:Transwiki:Jahbulon. jni 08:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rhode Island Capitol

I found a reliable source saying that the capitol in Providence has the fourth-largest self-supporting marble dome. I have put it into the article with a citation attached. Logophile 11:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! While I like the other stat better, I'd rather have the proper one. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Brown University

Certainly is relevant, but was already in the lead – further down – where it belongs. - RoyBoy 800 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I just tried to email you but perhaps I should have posted a message here instead. I saw your comments on the Critical Review article and I was just curious as to which years you attended Brown? - NBS525 16:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Either way works. '84-'90, and hung around campus for a couple of years afterwards, since I lived in Providence at the time.--SarekOfVulcan 22:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I created a wikipedia category "Brown alumni" yesterday. There is probably still quite a bit that needs to be added to it. Maybe you'll know of some people that I missed. NBS525 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1.800 Vending

I protected the page and added a note to the talk page. Thanks for the heads up...always appreciated. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the determined efforts to keep Bulk vending and 1.800.Vending clear of advertising. Captain Zyrain 05:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

please do not delete GHava from this site

i am doing everything i possibly can to make the correct modifications to our listing to make everyone here happy. Please do take the time and research us and you will definitely find that we do meet the notability standards for this site.sincerlyLerner 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the help on the GHava AfD. Like I said, delete or keep doesn't matter, but I wasn't sure how far I could go to combat (possible) vote fraud. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization in Freemasonry

a little help here? I'm not always, if ever, right, and I'm not saying a lot of these caps belong 1000%, but I know a lot of them do. Plus DreamGuy said I reverted & changed a bunch of other stuff, & I didn't, not a one. just the caps. something about Cosmology he had deleted too. Whatevs. I'm not getting into it with him, at least not today, I'd rather see other's show up (eventually) & correct it.

PS did you see the points on the links revision? Grye 08:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please help

Thanks so much for your help editing the formating on the GH avisualagency article. Since i am new here I am not sure what to do about the below problem. Any help you can offer would be sincerely appreciated.

Please note: 

208.27.111.121 is the same user as Mrethan.

NOT 207.237.118.48, as KLAW claims it is.

compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GH_avisualagency™&diff=31655489&oldid=31655443

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GH_avisualagency™&diff=31391556&oldid=31391419

and you will see that they are the same user who signed in later as Mrethan. KLAW clearly vandalised that vote and deleted it, forcing the user to have to post it again.Lerner 23:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

advice please

  • sorry to bother you but you seem to be one of the only nice people on here who is knowledgeable. i just put more notable sources to cite for the GH avisualagency article but i am not sure if i made them comply to wikipedia standards of neutrality. they come from the village voice, paper magazine and dazed & confused magazine, all of which are reputable outside sources. would you mind please taking another look and letting me know if there is anything i can do to improve it? i would sincerely appreciate any advice you can give me. even if the article does end up getting deleted, at least i'll know that i've given it my all to try and help spread knowledge about a very talented group of artists. thank you in advance. Inspectorpanther 00:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


  • thanks for your great feedback. i've been trying to contribute to the GH article but everyone on the discussion page keeps giving me the wrong advice. most insisted that i have to prove notability, then they said that it was wrong to list articles about the collective. i don't know who to believe as they all keep leading me astray. i just updated it. if you could please offer me any advice on how to make it better or make any adjustments to the article yourself i would sincerely appreciate it. i really am trying my best to make it a better article. thanks so much.

Inspectorpanther 16:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Why

Why did you remove my recent addition to the condoms page? It had a clear source...and I found another which I was going to add. Chooserr 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored the section by copying and pasting the text into your version, so I don't see how I could have done so. Looks like I munged the job overall, though, so I'll fix what I screwed up. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Done (I hope). Sorry about the mix-up. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"not paper"

short for "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper." Maybe I should have made that clearer. Cheers, Dave (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


mediation

I am the mediator for your request on Was Jefferson a Mason?

I suggest you to add a new paragraph like:

Possible members of Freemasonry

  • T. Jefferson


I think this may be a good compromise. I'm looking forward your reaction. Bonaparte talk 15:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Firefly

Okay so you deleted the EW thing - but your link just looks like a fan blog site. It doesn't look official to me. Cyberia23 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed

I fixed the line that you found inappropriate, who says I'm not a team player, but the rest of my edits were sound weren't they? I think they were. Thanks, Chooserr 08:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On the condoms page my paragraph says it is unlikely not impossible, and also it tends to explain WHY it doesn't work all that well. So please do revert it...Please Chooserr

Do you read your messages? Chooserr 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure do.--SarekOfVulcan 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, even AnnH agrees with the HPV research...what do you know? Chooserr 08:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

weasel word misunderstanding

hey sarek, i did remove "grass roots" -- that might have been what you were concerned about. no biggie.

happy holidays...if they celebrate *anything* on vulcan ;)

-Justforasecond 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Square News

I concur with your edits of Grand Lodge, SarekOfVulcan, from 17:07, 23 December 2005 to 17:18, 23 December 2005 Millennium Sentinel 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr

I'm not sure I meant that ArbCom is overused... by "abuse" I meant the powers of it, not the use of it. The ArbCom is already quite good at avoiding too many difficult cases.

Anyway, I personally am not in the position of being able to get involved in the disputes you mention. However, I would suggest you take the pages to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and perhaps Wikipedia:Peer review, though try the former first. This should serve to bring in outside parties to chime in on the relevant matters.

In the meantime, you may want to consider removing the disputed content from the article page for the time being -- by this I mean both Chooserr's content that you dispute, and the prior article content that he disputes. The excised portions can be moved to the Talk page for visibility. Chooserr should be able to provide relevant sources for his disputed additions. This will generally be expected during a RFC or peer review of contradicting positions.

If RFC doesn't bring in enough people to provide a sense of broad consensus, another route is to visit the talk pages of related pages from across the spectrum, such as Contraception or Safe sex or diaphragm, birth control, reproductive rights, etc. Include "bad guys" as well as "good guys" if you include articles on non-neutral topics.

HTH, Keith D. Tyler 18:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Philip K Dick

I was trying to be NPOV...No one is sure of anything (outside their own life of course) unless someone else tells them. Since he's dead you can't really ask him the full impact this had on the pre-people. I urge you to re-include it, by reverting your edits, unless you can give me a better explanation for its deletion. Thanks, Chooserr 00:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't revert it. It violates WP:NOR and WP:WEASEL.--SarekOfVulcan 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic

You're Catholic?????????????? Chooserr 00:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Used to be on the Liturgy Committee in college, and I'm an informal member of the choir at my church.--SarekOfVulcan 00:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"The S&C hasn't been used in any Masonic ritual I've been a part of." You're a Mason too? Chooserr 00:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not the only Catholic Mason I know: there was one in my lodge in Maine, and there another on the Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan 00:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And I'm a 3rd degree Knight of Columbus, as well.--SarekOfVulcan 00:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

K of C

You asked -

Just curious, are you a Knight, or are you just interested in the subject?--SarekOfVulcan 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a 3rd degree Knight myself....DonaNobisPacem 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that we were coming at things from more or less the same angle. Now all I have to do is start attending meetings more regularly. :-) Hope I can do something about my busted car soon -- last time I took it in to be repaired, my mechanic advised me not to bother bringing it in again. :-)
I'm assuming you're close to Seattle, what with the Wikipedia meet info on your user page - I'm a west-coaster not far from Seattle myself! Just a wee bit North, in that frigid wasteland known as Canada......DonaNobisPacem 06:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed? Maybe we'll meet sometime, then. :-) I've never been further up than Vancouver, though...--SarekOfVulcan 06:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we shall! Anyways, I think I'm signing off for the holidays (yeah right - I've seen a couple hundred comments like that from users so far) - have a Merry Christmas, and I'm sure we'll argue over posts before the New Year!!!!DonaNobisPacem 06:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I look forward to it *grin* God bless, and Merry Christmas. --SarekOfVulcan 06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

I to understand that we have differences and admire you especially for being the one to step forth and wish me a Merry Christmas. So I will reply in kind, "Merry Christmas", and will try my best to remain kind. If we can work together (as I'm trying to do with Uthbrain) then it would probably eliminate most of the tension between us. Chooserr 05:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello?

You didn't really justify your revert, and I'm unsure as to why you did that for it is your third revert on the condoms page today. I stated that they are different substances or atleast that one may be generic and the other specific. Why else would they have different names?

Could you please reply on my talk page. Chooserr 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Illegality of condoms

Since I started the section, I was wondering if you might help in its expansion? I think it would be a valuable addition, but don't think I could do this all on my own because so many countries allow condoms and other forms of birth control. Chooserr 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Fairly accurate

[6] I take it you've never been to Barcelona? (If I used smileys, I'd put one here.) -- Jmabel | Talk 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Most exotic place I've been is old Quebec City.--SarekOfVulcan 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

Basically I just said that to try and prevent Tony from making more of an ass of himself, per average when there's anything for anything he's involved in(rfc,mfd,rfar,etc.). He's a good contributor outside of Metapedian issues, after I asked that, there was a nonstop string of delete votes, and when he did that, it was almost on consensus, so I hoped we could avoid some more foot stomping. My goal was to make sure the project participants would not see the process as railroaded and feel justified to recreate the thing. karmafist 00:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Really, you sure? I saw your sig on there. I can check again and bring the diff if you'd like, but i'm pretty sure it was you. Anyway, just wanted to explain what was going on just in case. karmafist 00:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
lol, yeah, heated topics usually get ugly, and the best thing to do is make sure you end it as soon as possible without it starting up again. I just wish Tony would admit that he's basically the thing he hates the most -- a rouge admin. karmafist 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


case closed

I would like to let you know that I consider case closed Was Jefferson a Mason, see also here [[7]] -- Bonaparte talk 08:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

University of Ottawa

No one seems to be stepping in to help out. Mr Sarek. Put your money where your mouth is. Ardenn 00:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, what did I miss? I couldn't find anything in search of UofO & Sarek, but I am prone to missing the obvious... Grye

Deleting an Image

Could you list Image:Nuns-Bru logo.jpg this image of mine for deletion. I don't know how. Chooserr 00:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well thanks for your help. Chooserr 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL!!!

I just saw your edit on latex clothing. Not so much your edit but the one before it with thumbnail descriptions like "Bianca Beauchamp in her latex catsuit and corset with exposed, soaking wet breasts." and "Bianca Beauchamp all wet and letting down her hair in her unzipped latex catsuit and corset."

I think fireman to go outside and get some fresh air haha --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


depends.
some of the clubs in London REALLY wouldn't help I know that.. lol.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been stalking every edit I've ever made

Are you a sock puppet of Kmccoy? Please be honest. DyslexicEditor 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

166.66.16.116

Every one of this user's additions have been reverted...OK, yeah a lot by me, but a lot by other users too. Made the exact same edits the other day. Grye 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to delete this section when you've read it. Grye 05:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge & delete

Merging something into another article and then deleting the article it was merged from is not allowed by the GFDL. That's because the licence requires Wikipedia to display attributions for every edit. If content written by someone is pasted into another article without explicitly stating that in the edit summary (or somewhere) then it's essentially a copyvio. - ulayiti (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Help Me

Help me in writting the sypnosis of So You Want to be a Wizard

Abraham Lincoln - Debated Freemason

Hi Sarek,

I understand your reasoning for removing Lincoln from the Debated Freemasons section of the List of Freemasons page, but shouldn't there be someway of noting that he applied for membership and later withdrew. That was information I was glad to come across as I always wondered where Lincoln stood on the subject of Masonry. It would be nice to include the fact in the article somehow. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I put an honest question at the village pump and I don't understand you answer. I don't know the policy about pictures like that but believe I have seen one something like that deleted before. I tried to finish an afd on an article that did not google, AVN or imdb nothing Julian Adams (Porn star) but I could not form the vote page because it would not open. I already listed it on articles for 

deletion so someone else with an account will have to finish it.--71.28.249.55 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mercer Island

No, I am not on Mercer Island. I'm Californian. Clarinetplayer 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Knights and the Lodge, a proposal

I've put a proposal about the KofC and Masons article. Please have a look. God Bless. --JASpencer 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact

Thanks for informing me that you put my article up for deletion - Chooserr 05:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Figured you'd probably have the courtesy to do the same, if the situation came up...--SarekOfVulcan 05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Right I would - Chooserr 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Public Office Category

Eh, somebody deleted it awhile ago. Feel free to recreate it if you'd like, I'd bet there are more than a few of us on here now if we look. What did you run for? Karmafist 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Town Council in Orono, Maine. 6th out of 6 with 15% of the vote. (It was a vote-for-three election, if I remember correctly.)--SarekOfVulcan 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Ouch. Then again, I understand how you feel. I finished 14th out of 16 in Hillsborough 19's State Rep race during the 2004 New Hampshire General Court Election(that article there is a work in progress), as well as finishing 23rd out of 27 for a special election in June 2005 to become a member of a board that would be creating a new charter to put forth to the voters this April(which will likely fail). Heh, I'm likely to run for something this April too, there's two Selectman spots open, and the people running are fairly unpopular. I personally don't think i'm ready, but who ever is, you know? One of these days i'll win one, I finally won one on Wikipedia just a few weeks ago at Esperanza, but that's been disappointing so far. Karmafist 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

This page is such a long-term pain in the arse I a) can't blame other people for staying away, and b) can't believe that you've kpet up the slog. You've got some stamina, that's for sure.

Here's my advice: Change the reference style to footnotes, eliminate all but one of the external links. You'll almost certainly get rolled back, but don't revert the page again. That anon has already reverted three times, but his talk page is still red. Leave him a warning about 3RR and if he reverts again report him at 3RR. Also you can ssk for semi-protection, and definitely open a request for comment. Once the page isn't subject ot contstant reversion and edit wars, then there will be space to try and get the text right.

brenneman(t)(c) 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

PS - I've decided to make some changes myself, but all the rest of the above is still valid, I'm just too lazy to re-write it.

Thanks! I opened a Politics RFC earlier, and knew that I had hit my 3rd revert already. Since this isn't clear-cut vandalism, I don't have a get-out-of-jail-free card. :-) SProtect would be nice here -- we know who's doing the edits, pretty much, but at least this would require them to put their name on it.--SarekOfVulcan 00:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't "kept up" the slog -- I was ignoring it for a while, but ended up dragging myself back in. --SarekOfVulcan 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature2

I've seen that you are editing D&N's entry by adding extra information about Bookchin and Castoriadis (more accurately, reproducing information of Paul Cardan, who proved to be using many usernames in order to influence or delete wikipedia entries about Inclusive Democracy). I think that this is unfair against all the other contributors of the journal, especially those that are equally important and notable. Furthermore, it gives the wrong "signal" because it reproduces a misleading picture about D&N, namely that it was just a journal around (or about) Castoriadis' and Bookchin's work. The truth is, contrary, that the journal was very original, something that led Bookchin to resignation and Castoriadis in a tactic of not providing original texts of him to the journal, but only republications. I hope you will consider this. --TheVel 01:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your immediate response. Do you think that all this information needs incorporation? It's more like tittle-tattle or chattering and not important information. And it would be like a discussion between editors inside an entry. I will think about it though. Why don't you try, since you found the above summary interesting, to incorporate it? --TheVel 01:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature3

It will be appreciated if users SarekOfVulcan and Aaron Brenneman could let everybody know how they are so sure about the role of Bookchin and Castoriadis with respect to the history of D&N. As they have no primary information on the matter it is obvious that they base their actions on the distorted information of the proved sockpuppet Paulcardan. Have they read the discussion page of D&N in which the 'arguments' of Paulcardan have beem shown to be malicious and false, one by one? Have they any alternative information to prove the opposite? If not, then they break the WP rule of Neutral point of view and if they ban me for supporting the present view, without producing a shred of evidence on why they wish to add these two paragraphs, despite the fact that in the Introduction I put links to the debates with Bookchin and Castoriadis, they simply show once more their own bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.43.88 (talk • contribs)

Ohh yeah, the fun never stops, eh? Anyway, I've done a massive re-write. I'm sure it won't stick, and I do have concernsabout including anything other than Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a reference. However in light of the unceasing bad behavior, willful ignorance of most of our community codes of conduct and frightful wiki-lawyering, I'm happy to let that issue ride. Once there is some stability to the article it can always be improved. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3rvt

I've read into the rule if not very thoroughly, but have realised that it is a limit and not an entitlement. I just don't go over the limit. Chooserr 06:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Any chance I could sway your vote to support. I agree that the edit summary you point to could be better; but other than a very small number of things from nine months ago that some other voters point out, I believe my edit history has been consistently professional and productive. The one edit comment you point to was snippy, but it wasn't snippy out of the immediate edit, but more about a recent series of changes by a POV-mongering editor I was responding to. Yeah... I still should have been more detached and professional in that case, but it wasn't that bad even so.

Beyond that, is there anything I could do to better reassure your concerns, and make you able to support my RfA nomination? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Weston Priory

Although I'm familiar with the music of Norbet, having played a lot of it while I was in music ministry, I am not familiar with the Priory itself other than in name.....sorry. And sorry it took so long to respond! DonaNobisPacem 06:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Needle and Wheel.jpg

The licensing was CCbySA with no note that the uploader was the picture taker and no information on the talk page either. Since the image was listed as fully copyrighted on flickr, I didn't connect that the uploader was the same guy. Sorry about that! .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Sarek, I hope you will read what you reverted it to, and know that my edition wasn't POV, because it says exactly what the Church Believes. Joseph's Version states that the Church favours those who use Birth Control which is a blant lie and in direct opposition to Church Teachings. Chooserr 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see that it states that at all. You need to read it more carefully, along with my comments at WP:AN/I.--SarekOfVulcan 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm a fucking idiot, for not understanding the word. Sorry I contradicted you and made such a fuss. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Chooserr 04:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot

Thanks for the heads-up. That was...bizarre. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Waves across the Square

Hows ya doin mi old Vulcan? Yours in Amity Skull 'n' Femurs 11:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

PS ALL the Bros I know offline (that surf Wiki) have been blocked from wikionary or whatever its called. I've just tried, and found out myself. Have you tried? Could be jabbabubble-gumed up? ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 21:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Freemasons

Can you rv Baphin's additions? They are unverifiable because his only source is completely in Turkish (never mind the fact that my inability to read Turkish and my lack of knowledge regarding famous Turkish freemasons apparently makes me illiterate in Masonry), and he keeps adding them in despite my request to add the cite to the talk page first. He's also clearly gaming the 3RR rule, and I'd prefer not to get myself into trouble because of someone who just doesn't want to listen. MSJapan 00:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are backed up by http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/layiktez.html. I don't think I want to revert _just_ because he's not being cooperative.--SarekOfVulcan 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but as I said, he would rather argue than provide a simple citation where it belongs, and the policy by consensus is no citation = removal. If he wants to add something, the burden of proof should be on him, not me. MSJapan 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually

Larry C. Johnson, Valerie Plame and Knights of Solamnia are all linked together. Edit wars between the same 2 users on all 3. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly can't I copyright my user page? I'm the sole author... I don't get it. Chooserr 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

burr

Hey, is he is is he not a Freemason? I didn't want to just delete when a Lodge was cited, but... Is it incorrect? If so, please consider posting something to that effect on his listing at Talk:List of Freemasons... I'm looking more closely myself. Grye 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes?

Wondering if you have time to help out on something. I'm not familiar enough with wiki formatting, nor html etc, but, where many of us are now using the Freemason userbox like you have, how about creating it as a template, similar to the ones for the various religions, which then also will self-populate a Freemason Wikipedian category?--Vidkun 18:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to have this done right now, considering all the... ummm.... discussion about userboxes and categories lately. Can we let it settle out a bit first, see what the consensus for userboxes in general is?--SarekOfVulcan 18:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess, although, I might say, hey, if they go away, they go away, no skin off anyone's back if they make one, unless they take it personally.--Vidkun 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, SarekOfVulcan I copied this here, from my talk page. I do not know if Vidkun was asking just me - or if it was a general posting? Anyway you sorted it. I do not have the time to find "how to", as I'm too busy doing a run-up to several Installation meetings. Anyway done-and-done, thanks. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Hi, SarekOfVulcan Did you the Vidkun user page has "S&C" and "Wiccan" boxes? Skull 'n' Femurs 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jabbabbabubble-gumed by Wiki gods

It seems severeral Brethren blanked jahbulon.gif saying that it was copyright to some anti-masonic publication or other. This is some sort of “crime” against the gods of Wiki. They sure do get protective over this word – which prompts the question – why? Anyway, we all live quite close together, so I think they blocked one IP address and caught us all as collateral damage. I can get into Wikionary now, so the IP address has changed again, or the block has been lifted. We’ll get our revenge – come the revolution – send in the men in black, ha ha! ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User pages vs. article space...

User pages are in fact subject to the same policies, which is why I started the AfD. There is a policy on it here.MSJapan 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ... and silver linings Thank you for your support on my RfA.
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

F M N

Please email me. I have a little more info to go with on this issue.--Vidkun 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Apperant vandal at work on Freemasonry

Hi.

It seems we have a vandal / misguided editor working on the article again... Jimmy James (seems, based on his edits, to be 24.68.242.147 logged in). I feel he needs to be keept an eye on.

I'm placing this notice on the talkpages of frequent editors on the topics of masonry - Im allready hovering close to 3RR and don't want to break the rules, and I got paying (but less interesting) work that needs doing.

WegianWarrior 10:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bro. S of V. I’m quite willing to bend a few Wiki rules in defence of the Craft. Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 12:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a limit on patience?

I'm slowly getting to the end of mine. Every time I do something about a troublesome user so we can do some work on the article, another one shows up. Do you want to maybe start an RFC, if we can figure out exactly what it is that this person wants? I think I know, and he isn't going to get it. He's harping on a minor point for some reason. MSJapan 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My patience hasn't quite played out yet -- especially since I'm watching, not participating. :-) Just take it easy, see what discussion can do, if anything.--SarekOfVulcan 03:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Who are you talking about? Skull 'n' Femurs 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
See the NPOV flag discussion on Anti. MSJapan 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of KJV....

He has a bad habit of using parts of sites that support his claim, and ignores the site as BS when it doesn't. He's done this with Bessel, freemasonry.bcy.ca, and PA Grand Lodge, so it's definitely a habitual problem. I notice he responded to you and not to me, but he does that too. On the plus side, if that gets 100% factual, he violates a userspace policy. MSJapan 03:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I said "he uses "vandal" waaay too much, & the exactly same as Mahabone"
You replied "Gee, couldn't possibly be because we use it for his edits now, could it?"
What do you mean? & why are you so sure they are different? Grye 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that we called his edits vandalism before he returned the favor, but I don't have any diffs handy to prove it. I think that his edit style, and areas of interest, are sufficiently different from that other editor to conclude on the face of it that they are different editors. On the other hand, I was sure that one of the Lightbringer socks wasn't him.--SarekOfVulcan 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As a note, guys, we as an editor's group seem to be bordering on infighting (or at least that's the impression I'm starting to get). I'm sure a lot of it is misdirected frustration, but I'd like everybody to keep in mind that we're all here for the same purpose, which is to create the best articles we can. However, unless we work together, we're not going to get there. MSJapan 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's been a source of concern to me as well. Part of my problem is that, as I said before, I think we need to stand as an example. I also believe in the Wikipedia, and that it needs to be protected with as much fervor as the Craft. Unfortunately, that's leading to collisions with people who prioritize differently.--SarekOfVulcan 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, all, except that I'm not sure about others, but I'm nine nines % sure I didn't mention Vandal before him. Oh, & I for one do a lot better if I just remember to breath (not as easy as it sounds at 9000') & come back later. To all, peace. I mean it. & thanks all, I learn every day ;~D Grye 07:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, SarekOfVulcan/Archive 1, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. Redwolf24 runs the spam to keep members up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of FireFox, Flcelloguy, Titoxd, and Karmafist. The next set of elections will be in February, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Condom revert

What info did I delete? Chooserr 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The dangers of using the wrong kind of lubricant, the issues with application, etc. Notice that I didn't touch the two edits before that, as I couldn't disagree with your rationale.--SarekOfVulcan 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan,

I followed what you said and have replace the lubricant part, but am researching more information on that matter. The Environmental POV pushing I was doing was non existant in my view though. I may not have acheived a perfectly neutral tone of voice, but I tried, and the information is sound with an external web source. I could find more if you need verification. Chooserr 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please post your reply on my talk :)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive_1&oldid=1139112270"