User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 16, 2005 and November 24, 2005.

Contents 1 (rv dates) 2 Freemasonry 3 Catholicism and Freemasonry Page 4 Project Buffy 5 Thanks 6 Wiki Links in Aubrey-Maturin series 7 Freemasonry again 8 Small note 9 Arbitration accepted 10 Freemasonrywatch 11 Temporary injunction 12 User: Victrix 13 Further comment 14 I made a mistake 15 Filk Article 16 Any idea 17 syncretic vs. ecumenical 18 Lightbringer 19 Catholic Masons 20 The Democracy & Nature saga 21 Re: Classical High School 22 Another sockcheck request 23 Buffy 24 Lightbringer sockery 25 Rec.sport.pro-wrestling 26 Lightbringer Arbitration case 27 Russian Masons

(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)

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)