User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 2

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

Archive 3 →

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 25, 2005 and December 24, 2005.

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)

It looked to me like you had been watching Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and as part of doing so you were drawn into the dispute at Democracy & Nature back in November. I just assumed that you were an adminstrator. --JWSchmidt 05:13, 3 January 2006 (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 :-) - orion eight (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 [1]

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)

How? that is what links tell you, if you follow them. Skull 'n' Femurs 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A "Word" Footprint

Note Grye has produced a dumb page Http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/talk:Jahbulon (with History) by copying Jahbulon about. Why? Skull 'n' Femurs 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your page, S&F Grye 04:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
No message and no record in "History" from Grye? (I'm realy off now, darn cat!) Skull 'n' Femurs 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
S of V', a message from Grye was posted after I was off-line. He then changed it several times. Sorry, but the template mods were not me - but a small person is "currently" in a "Time-out" in his room. (I did not log off correctly - so password now changed), read ya after the Holiday - I'm of to Norway! Skull 'n' Femurs
- *grin* I can barely get my girls to read WP, let alone edit it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:28, 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. - Roy Boy 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.

for editing reference, these lead to some other wikipedia articles i feel are similar: List of graphic designers, artist collective, art collective

Inspectorpanther 16:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

does this look any better? GH avisualagency. please let me know what you think. thanks. Inspectorpanther 23:11, 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

NOTE: User Vidkun has nominated Grand Lodge as highly POV. Millennium Sentinel 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

I think bogus references to anti-masonic hoax words should be deleted - without creating links to them by using the words in chat. ;) Millennium Sentinel 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

At Freemasonry, is "secret or" needed in, "Freemasonry is a secret or esoteric society, but not occult, in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally disclosed to the public.", do you think? Millennium Sentinel 18:00, 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)

Categories: User talk archives