User talk:Grye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Grye, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

If you ever need anything, drop a note by my user page! I'm always glad to help. Happy editing! --Dvyost 05:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Colorado

Welcome, Grye to WikiProject Colorado! We hope you can contribute to our ongoing effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Some useful links:

What you can do:

  • Add {{Project Colorado}} to talk pages of all Colorado-related articles.
  • De-stub Colorado stubs.
— † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are redlinks bad form?

[edit] regarding the Co-Freemasonry article:

I was under the impression that redlinks in articles were quite acceptable, as long as they point to (nonexistent) articles on notable subjects that could or should be created. I could reinstate the links and create stubs for them all, but that would involve quite a bit of work; isn't the point that redlinks serve as useful signposts for others who might be able to contribute material? I'd like to put at least some of the redlinks back in...

In fact, I've just done a quick search and found Wikipedia:Red link, which agrees with what I thought. I'll add the redlinks back, checking as I go to make sure they're all notable and desirable articles. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Check it, Fuzz: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I agree, not all of them exactly need to be removed, but there's too many. Check policy, determine what should be linked, & relink it...:-) Grye 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Righto, I have checked it, and I stick by my position. None of the redlinks should be removed. They are all relevant to the article. Please excuse me if I'm being dense, but which particular redlinks do you believe are irrelevant? Some of the blue-linked dates should be unlinked (those not containing both month and day, as per Wikipedia:Dates); apart from that, the links in the article are fine. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatev's...;~) the idea of leaving many red links in is to give people an idea of articles which should probably be created, especially in a newly-created article. If they stay too long, &/or the article becomes long-of-tooth, then they should almost always be removed. Obviously, do as you feel best. I'm for sure not going to express too much care, not there... Grye 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments. I'm not too worried now. I've run roughshod over people in the past, and I know how easy it is to do. At the moment I'm probably in danger of running roughshod over some of the people who claim to be Wiccan but have no initiatory lineage. Just as you don't consider Co-Freemasons to be Freemasons, I don't consider them to be Wiccan. The thing is, everyone editing here is doing so because there's a subject that's important to them, so there are bound to be disagreements. I feel like we're all on the same side, though, ultimately: our goal is to establish truth (or rather the wikipedia equivalent, verifiability), regardless of how many of our preconceived opinions are sacrificed in the process. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry category stuff

Grye - Just took a look at the stuff you have been doing on the Freemason/citation project (your proposed templates etc.) ... WOW. Thanks for what was obviously a lot of hard work. Blueboar 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] FRS

If you're adding the categories, you should add the postnominals, too: Sir Forname Surname, FRS. Thanks. Choess 04:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that, but 1)I'm burnt on this... & 2).. I'm burnt on this, worried about people whining, & figured that'd be easy to do from Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. maybe another time...;-) Grye 04:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what do you mean: at the top, by their name, or in the Cat: listing? Grye 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Freimaurer32

I don't watch the Obligations page, but the gist of the discussion was that we can't ascertain the validity of what's in Duncan, so if it's missing for the moment, it's really not a huge issue. I don't like that article because it's not really an "article"; it's just some nonsense to get a sort of OMG!!!! MASONIC SECRETZ!!!!!1111 reaction and push people's buttons, as it doesn't discuss so much as reproduce verbatim, and the only reason that article is not gone due to copyvio is because it's almost 200 years out of date and not subject to copyright law.

Furthermore, given the circumstances under which Hanuman Das left Wikipedia (an Arbcom case that also involved all his buddies who voted on the last Jahbulon AfD, funnily enough, including Frater Xyzzy), I'm not tempted to put much stock in an "article" like that, and if we can't think of anything else to say about them other than to reproduce historical examples that have no modern validity, we might as well AfD it.

In short, I don't really think the Obligations edits were vandalism, per se, as there wasn't really an article there in the first place to ruin, whereas the removals from the main article do impact it. I'm considering what to do about that article, though. MSJapan 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Hi Grye, I began adding names to the image file after an early vandalism incident. I noticed that it's more difficult for a vandal to alter the image file name on Wikipedia than it is to change any text info that goes along with that file.

More recently, one of my images of London was posted on the digg.com site Dugg and, as a result, that image is on blogs and web pages all over the internet...but the image is not always linked to Wikipedia or coupled to the text info that went along with it. However, in those cases, the full image file name usually shows up...even when all reference to Wikipedia and all text is gone.

Thanks for the commons uploads. Best regards, User:Sba2

Hi Grye, That's very interesting about the punctuation...I didn't know that. I'll use the alternate punctuation for my future uploads. Thanks again, Sba2

[edit] Telluride edits

Thanks for the comments/criticism. I'm not a hack and slash kind of person most of the time. I only delete when I really notice something blatant. Not that those links were all unhelpful, but we have to reduce the number of links. The internet is huge, as we all know. And competition for business is something WP wants to avoid I should say. Feel free to remove other comparatively enterprise related links. And thanks for being so polite. Some people can get a little too serious. (You can delete this whenever as well.)--SidP 17:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "I didn't do it!"

LOL. Don't worry about it. I didn't bother saying anything to you about it because figured it was probably a mistake or a glitch or something. Cheers, Sarah 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOCHIP

Thanks for the edit. Jokerst44 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undone

I removed your edit at List of Freemasons. If you have a grievance with an editor, try to seek a civil resolution. Fred 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redone

Back atya. & BTW, check out Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Grye 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am seeking the opinion of a third party. In the meantime, please do not use my talk page or make further accusations. I hope you will respect this wish until a resolution is found. Yours faithfully, Fred 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khalil Saeed Hawayek & Masonry

Masonry Never Been Adverstized Over Public Communication. If You Want To Find Out Check With The Grand Lodge In Puerto Rico under the name of Khalil 'Julian' S. Hawayek. From A Mason~

If it's never been advertised, it fails RS. Delete him. MSJapan 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry FAC

See the article talk page for details. MSJapan 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lost a tag again. MSJapan 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
n/m. I found it. I figurted out that wherever the ref error starts is where the tag is missing. MSJapan 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got the book, but I don't know how to do refnames, so if you want to do that, that would be great. I'm going to stop adding refs for now. MSJapan 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we need page refs, or somebody's going to complain. Also, I'm not sure why you got a different publisher for the book than what's on the book, but it should be Wiley, though Amazon lists it as "For Dummies" (which works too). Maybe we should only use named refs for web stuff, then? Or can we set it up somehow to take a named ref and a differnt page number, maybe if you go <refname> page # <closeref>? MSJapan 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/y/User_talk%7EGrye_5707.html"