User talk:Schrandit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Catholicism and Freemasonry

From my talk page... You wrote:

Hi Bluebore – I’d like to change the sentence in the Freemasonry article that currently goes “A number of Catholics became Freemasons, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law and justifying their membership by their belief that Freemasonry does not plot against the Church” to “A number of Catholics became Freemasons, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law”. My justification for removing that last sentence fragment would that I believe it implies the Church’s objections to freemasonry are grounded in a belief that it is an anti-Church plot. You said “[this] section does not talk about Church's objections but why some Catholics have joined Freemasonry” and I understand that, but there are a plethora of other things that freemasonry is not that may or may nor have led Catholics to join; I imagine the statement “A number of Catholics became Freemasons, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law and justifying their membership by their belief that Freemasonry does not plot against the Church or Nicaragua” would be equally true. Let me know what you think. - Schrandit 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vidkun replied:

Let me step up to the plate on this one: if one reads the concerned section of the 1917 Canon Law, the wording for Canon 2335 reads, in English "Persons joining associations of the Masonic sect or any others of the same kind which plot against the Church and legitimate civil authorities contract ipso facto excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See." The new Canon, 1374, states "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict." SO, in the LETTER of the law, the situation is based on plotting against the church. All the Papal encyclicals and other condemnations don't add up to a hill of beans, when the law is written as it is. Now, some might say "The SPIRIT of the law is that that Freemasonry is still banned, for the various theological reasons, and not because of plotting against the Church; whether or NOT Freemasonry plots against the Church is irrelevant." That's nice. Why do they bother HAVING a code of written laws then? Additionally, Pope John Paul II wrote numerous times about the primacy of conscience, and that the conscience is where God speaks to man. Therefore, some Catholics who choose to be Freemasons make the claim that because the written law talks about organizations which plot against the Church, and their Lodge and Grand Lodge do NOT plot against the Church, they are then exercising their primacy of conscience by remaining members of the Lodge. It would definitely be an interesting case for Canon Lawyers, were it to be fought as a legal battle. If the Laws of the Church aren't the governing dictates, then why bother having them?--Vidkun 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He sums it up well... it was the change in the Code of Cannon Law that convinced some Catholics that it was ok to become Masons. The sentence you wish to change refers to this fact. Blueboar 17:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My camera

The photos I upload almost always mention the camera that I use to take it, as well as the lens. I use a Canon 5D. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brogman

Hey Schrandit, I noticed you have taken an insterest in my project. I was wondering if you could provide me some assistance if possible in editing the page, as well as creating a link or an extension of it. Write me back!

Brogman

[edit] Casey/Santorum nonsense

You wrote that I'm writing "nonsense". Could you be more specific please? If I've included anything that is unsubstantiated or untrue, please let me know. -- Samharmon 04:54, 9 November 2006

I didn't add the link to the Santorum page. I've only added links to newspaper articles about the candidates and the campaign. In fact, even though I wasn't a Santorum supporter, if I had seen the link, I would have deleted it. -- Samharmon 01:35, 10 November 2006

[edit] Aly

Do you know Aly's heritage. Um, I like, totally think it's Jewish and German! --Sylvia 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

She loooks Slavic. All I can trace is that she is EUropean, nothing else (or Aussie). Using my IP

[edit] Category:American liberals

  • Looking on your userpage I see that you are a fellow Republican. Even though there is a category labeling "American conservatives", the category labeling "American liberals" is up for deletion. This is obviously by liberals who don't want the bias pov of liberal celebrities and public figures to be known. So they don't want them categorized as what they are...liberals. I'm asking you to go to "Category:American liberals" follow the link to the nomination page and please vote to keep the category. -- AmeriCan 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: UN Security Council Resolution 52

Yes, but I didn't know that Wikisource was a source, maybe you should put that in text, like this:

  • Wikisource,

now I understand - Patricknoddy 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concord High School

Of course I don't believe it was built over an Indian burial ground, so if it remains unsourced it should be removed.HokieRNB 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salesianum

The model UN win was placed as a note in the Student Clubs and Activities section, but still needs a source. The triple crown was placed into the athletics section, but also needs a source. The arch-rival is probably not encyclopedic. HokieRNB 03:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the arch-rival information adds to the value of the article, feel free to work it into the text of the article. In general, trivia sections should not be added. If it's trivia, then it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. HokieRNB 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Security Council Resolution 122

Hi - it may be my browser, but there's something wrong with the link to the category you just posted on the above article; it seems to link to an editing page. I don't know what I'm doing with categories, so if you get a minute could you sort it out? Cheers.

See User_talk:Chrislintott#United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_122 and good luck with your goal of creating an article for every UN resolution!--Fisherjs 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem with only having one link. Thanks for adding the next set of articles - as you might not be online for a while I've removed the bot tags from the pages and dropped a note to the maintainer. It seems to me that what you wrote is fine. Chrislintott 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations

You might want to add {{United Nations}} to the bottom of all these resolution articles as well as {{UN-stub}} as per Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations. Just a suggestion. --Fisherjs 07:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Security Council Resolution 143

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United Nations Security Council Resolution 143, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_143. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Security Council Resolution 156

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United Nations Security Council Resolution 156, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_156. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Security Council Resolution 157

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United Nations Security Council Resolution 157, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_157. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN Security Council Resolution

Hi, before creating any more article on UN SC resolution, may I suggest you double check the listed date of adoption of article you are creating. I just came across two of your new creation and they both have the wrong dates in it. Another suggestion, link the article to the resolution available on the UN website (via a simple Google search), as well as linking to wikisource. Regards. KTC (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your work

Glad to hear of your work on the UNSC resolutions. I feel that your altruism in taking on this undertaking merits giving you this wiki-kitten. May the body of your work grow into maturity and completeness just as rapidly as a newborn kitten (shown here opening its eyes for the first time, just as the collection of information on UNSC resolutions is in its infancy) reaches adulthood. Actually, though, that may not be the best analogy because at some point a cat has to stop growing, while the number of UNSC resolutions (and hence articles on them) must continue to increase for as long as the UN exists, unless the UNSC goes dormant in a similar fashion as the UN Trusteeship Council. Anyway, here's your kitten. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you sure they all need their own pages?

Simply as someone who has read and worked with some of the higher numbered Security Council resolutions, I'd like to point out that resolutions are sometimes best read in clusters, and don't make much sense on their own. Often times resolutions just "reaffirm" older ones and extend their mandates, so aren't necessarily helpful if they are referenced on individual pages.

For example S/RES/1740(2007) establishes a UN mission in Nepal, and S/RES/1796(2008) simply recalls it and extends its mandate for a further few months. (There's a good technical reason why they don't do open ended ones any longer.)

A particularly long example is available at United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267. Even though the action of the original resolution has been heavily modified over a decade through 8 subsequent resolutions, the body which oversees its implementation is still called the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and Associated Individuals and Entities. Let me know if I can be of any help. The resolutions which I have downloaded for easy linking are available here. The interface allows template links to specific pages so you don't need to copy the text, as can be seen from this link. Goatchurch (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Schrandit! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delaware Schools

I had quite a time getting Wilmington Montessori School listed - survived both a Speedy and a challenging AfD. I actually used the Tatnall School article as a quasi-template, and have done some additional cites on Tatnall's page, too. If you get the chance to look at WMS between UNSC articles, I would appreciate any advice on improvements. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal immigration

Hi Schrandit, I saw this edit in my watchlist. I checked the ref, and you're right, the info is there, right at the top. A couple things though: the sentence needs to be reworded to avoid a copyright violation. I feel that that is the responsibility of the parties that want the info included, so I suggest you do that quickly so the info doesn't get removed. Also, I thought the edit summary violated WP:CIV, which explicitly discusses rudeness and edit summaries. Remember that civility is necessary whether or not you're in the right about a particular issue, and incivility on your part will make correction of the other user less likely. Just my thoughts, not trying to be a jerk. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 11:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for being cool about it. I absolutely hate getting involved in these things, but definitely let me know if you need me to. Peace, delldot talk 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of 40 Days For Life

I have nominated 40 Days For Life, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/40 Days For Life. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IIUS

This is insane. A user comes in and immediately accuses others of "lynching Mexico", "vent[ing] their personal opinions against Mexico", advise that they, therefore, "do some soul-searching", and "make room for those who can be objective", and users reply, "I don't see any lack of civility, personal attacks, or bad faith at all, but a good disposition". Its not like this is the first editor who started making it personal (forex. the accusation that I removed the Canadian section because I'm a Canadian illegal immigrant - which, by the way, I'm not). I really don't think this article has a prayer of being handled objectively as long as things like this and similar are going on (such as taking votes to keep statements in whether they reflect their source statements or not and griping about statistics disappearing and then griping that they didn't gripe about that). I don't know what to do about this article. I'm seriously contemplating dropping out of editing it. -75.179.153.110 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Sockpuppetry

Have you noticed that there has recently been about a dozen brand new user accounts which make edits almost exclusively (or, in some cases, not just 'almost') to the IIUS article, support one another in whatever they are doing to that article, and have contribution histories only two or three edits deep? I don't know if the editors are all legit or not, but it looks suspicious. You might find it worthwhile to read up on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. -75.179.157.247 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Don't forget to post a sentence or two in the RfC on IIUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect of Talk:Dick Sheath

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Dick Sheath, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Dick Sheath is a nonsense redirect page formed as a result of the reversion of page move vandalism (CSD G3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Dick Sheath, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ha Hey Tom

Yeah, how's it going man? What page did you find my name on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: United Nations Security Council Resolution 203

Sure, no problem. Sorry, I didn't see the sources at the bottom. --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korean War article

I simply did a revert yesterday because it was to time-consuming to try and piece back the original statements along with your additional edits, since that was the way you decided to make the changes. For future reference, it is much easier if you break the edits up into smaller sections, making your additions first, then saving those changes, then making a different edit where you (preferably) break up deletions into smaller chunks. If other editors have problems, it's usually 'cleaner' to revert back to a specific edit than to just disregard everything.

No regarding the deltions, as I kind of said on the edit summary, many of those deleted sentences are in the sources already cited in the references. I have been working, albiet slowly, on going back through the references and trying to find which one made the claim. It's a time-consuming process, as many of the sources are rather large in themselves. Usually if people would read and learn how to follow links, then they could see much more than what is in the actual article. There are a couple a references that I've made that are used in multiple locations throughout the article, and I know there are many more. This article unfortunately has had multiple authors over the years who would add sections or expand other sections, and only cite their source once, while having the content from that source scattered all throughout the article. An example is the sentence you deleted "Elections backed by the U.S. and the UN took place only in the South, where the Joint Commission was replaced by UNTCOK which oversaw the elections with minimal resources and knowledge of the Korean people." I've seen that in one of the references provided, but then trying to go back and read each reference that sounds like it might be the one so that one sentence can be cited (while also trying to remember what other sentences or sentence fragments were flagged) isn't a 10 minute job.

It is also a good rule in general to discuss major additions, deletions or rewrites on the articles talk page first, so if other editors have problems or suggestions, they can be discussed first so that the article doesn't get involved in edit wars. This particular article is also the subject of many vandalism edits, so sometimes reverting back does indeed lose many good edits interspersed with bad ones (vandalism). Usually anything constructive (additions with sources, typos or grammar corrections, etc.) go by without complaint. Deletions, etc. usually will get reverted without a discussion first, even if they are included as part of some constructive edits. wbfergus Talk 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC to BCE

Please don't change BCE to BC or CE to AD, many artciles use BC/AD while many others used BCE/CE, this will be balance. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I say that there are many articles that used BCE/CE, but seem like you didn't look all of them, so I want it stay like that, they're same thing. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The above IP has also been editing as User:JacquesNguyen, User:Mamenchisaurus and User:Doremon360, now all blocked. If you see this sort of BC/BCE pattern again, please let me know, it may be another Jacques sock. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

StaticGull  Talk  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Cheers!

Thanks for the barnstar! As a fellow nationalist (and Catholic) I am happy to reciprocate the feeling :)--Johnbull (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article userfied

User:Schrandit/Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not change CE/BCE to AD/BC

Please see Wikipedia policy here [1]

"Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used ... It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other."

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino555 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See Common Era. Explains better than I can. Neutrino555 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enoch Powell

Hi, I have improved the text as you suggested by including proper references (drawn from The Times newspaper) and published biographical material. Hope it looks better. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota

As refugees in many cases. If you change the meaning you need a source. -Ravedave (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U of D

Editing the U of D page to include its US News ranking is not vandalism. REAL vandalism is including references to seven-year-old dubious honors like being named a "Public Ivy" in something called "Greene's Guides." Whatever that is. - R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.186.191 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, I didn't revert those edits and agree with you that those awards are dubious and dangerously dated - Schrandit (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What it's about is that when I had previously included the US News ranking, you undid it and explained in the edit history that you were removing vandalism from the article.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Check the history log from that time period, my only edits then were on May 12th and they regarded the ResLife scandal - Schrandit (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:commies

Hello Schrandit. I replied to your post on my talk page, I like to keep discussions in one place. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hey Tom. It doesn't seem there's any real criteria you need to meet for it so, you have it now. Just... don't ever use it for your BC / BCE edits or anything that isn't clear vandalism because, well, that's not what it's for. Good luck. How did you find me? I ran into your name a while ago and was going to leave a message on your talk page. gren グレン 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)