Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 8 July 2007

The current date and time is 25 December 2024 T 02:15 UTC.

Archives

一: Oct. 2005 – Feb. 2006 二: Mar. 2006 - Jul. 2006 三: Aug. 2006 - Dec. 2006 四: Jan. 2007 - Mar 2007 五: Apr. 2007 - May 2007 六: Jun. 2007 -

Clarification requested

You said in the discussion of the "Freemasonry" article: "Morris shows a real historical bias that isn't supported by docs regarding precedence of GLs in the US." Could you contact me privately, bmorris@scottishrite.org, with details of how you think I should correct subsequent editions of my CIG to FM? Many thanks! S&F, S. Brent Morris

FUCKER

Assertion re Obligations in Freemasonry AfD

You said "most of the voters who voted keep in the second AfD were later confirmed socks". Please back up this assertion. Which AfD? 13 Jan 2007 or 9 April 2007? Specifically, which users were confirmed as socks? GlassFET 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ami-chan no Hatsukoi

Hitoshi Doi confirms that the kanji are the same. Thanks, Google! --Masamage ♫ 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on a second reading that looks snarky. It wasn't supposed to be; sorry. ^^; It was good to double-check. --Masamage ♫ 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a great help. :) (A lot of the episode summaries are problematic; I haven't had time to get to them, though some others have been hard at work.) --Masamage ♫ 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest LB sock

Block bumped up to 3 months... thanks for the good work. Blueboar 13:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

problems with the new template

The new Freemasonry2 template has some formatting problems... 1) for some reason it captures any text that comes after it is inserted and 2) thus ends up spreading all the way across the page... see York Rite as an example. Blueboar 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference?

Hi MSJapan. I think this is impolite. I improved the table of contents template, fixed the spacing and gave the comment a simplification and improvement in tone. I don't think your edit comment was correct. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 05:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit. Hmm, does sound a bit dangerous. There is no harm in one editor adding a name and another adding a citation from the ref section. I can't keep up with the citation system in that article - there are a few of them. The one I proposed is something like the one that SHOULD ;-) should be used. Shall we ask someone for a third opinion? Have a good one. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply this, my fellow wikimedian, it is uncivil. I have recently restored edits that were easily referenced, why not offer to help editors with this - or show by example. ... or ask them!? Too often, someone or other is met with reverts and growling at these articles. People add all sorts of things to all sorts of articles, sometimes vandalism, often potential contributions. The 'given standards' apply everywhere; it has not been explained why this is an exceptional case. I like citations too,  ;-) ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kristi Yamaoka AfDs

You've tried four times now over the last 15 months o have this article deleted. Enough is enough please. If 15 months after the first AfD you've been incapable of demonstrating lack of notability, it isn't going to happen. Continued attempts over and over again to have this deleted serves no purpose. Please, stop. Thank you, --Durin 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stroke order article

I started to rewrite this article, and I need help to correct my proposition Stroke order/Temp (with cleaned up Introduction, summaries of the current sections, but with "Pigeon's English"). If you have time to help, that's welcome. In any case, I agree : The introduction is misleading and need a frank clean up.

For the direction of each stroke, it's not strictly the "stroke order", but try to write strokes in the bad directions... I think the "stroke order" should explain "how write CJK characters", and so, explain briefly the stroke direction may be need.

--Yug (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Greece made comments

The standard scottish ritual is indeed the ritual which is used by the GL of Scotland(it is not as famous as the York rite or the Scottish rite).Beyond the blue lodge, this ritual has bodies like the york rite.But standard scottish ritual differs is many ways from the york rite,concerning the ceremony.It is a very deep ritual,very nice, simple but not casual.Even the tyler is different in a small detail.Anyway,concerning the emulation I don't have many details but I can get some if you want by the next week!In greece there are 2 GL.!The NationalGLGreece and the GLGreece.My GL (NGLG)follows the emulation,the other GL (GLG)follows the scottish rite.My lodge follows the standard scottish rittual as an exception!That is why i know about emulation,but not much.Maybe you have heard about our peculiar little green book(see:the standard scottish ritual).Anyway I will give you further info as soon as possible!

--Iordanis blue 10:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan you were partially right!Emullation ritual exists but it's not a actual ritual like the york or the scottish or the standard scottish!The emulation workings in Greece nevertheless is called the emullation ritual.I'm sorry but you know everyone tells whatever he wants and a general confusion exists above the craft of ours!I told you i was going to answer you in a week but finally it took me two weeks because i was working in a project about the Steward House in scottland and the King George I (quite interesting indeed!)assigned to me by my Mother Lodge.Greetings till next time! ps.I want to contribute to the project.please tell me what to do!

--Iordanis blue 15:25, 05 July 2007 (UTC)

About Blueboar comment (in 5th of July 2007) in the "signs grips and words" section. He asked whether the sentences about the recognition in use prior the mid-1600s sould be removed as non-sequitor,or not. My opinion is that we must refer to our roots and the origins of Freemasonery,because we are not just a club founded in 1717...we come from operative masonery.And in these Lodges of operative Masons maybe the whole concept was different from the modern Lodges, but the central idea was the same.They gathered to build better castles...we gather to build a better world.The modern Freemasonery and the operative Masonery are DIRECTLY connected meanings!It is not our fault that in 1717 when the Premier Grand Lodge of England was founded,English Freemasons destroyed the Medieval Scottish building manuscripts so that they would seem to be the first Freemasons in the history...they got to be kidding!

--Iordanis blue 16:35, 05 July 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan sorry to bother you all the time ! I desided to make a list of Greek Freemasons that are wellknown in Greece(politicians,etc.) and some of them are known to EU and worldwide.I want to ask you something.If I use lists from public pages is it needed to ask permission from the webmaster?what exactly is proper to do?

--Iordanis Blue 16:35, 08 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of All England at York

Do you know anything about this body?... According to their website, they seem to claim jurisdiction throughout England (which UGLE would dispute). They seem to be a "new creation" (started in 2005) claiming old roots and title. I note from their website that they recognize Grand Lodge de France... which UGLE does not... and they seem a bit overly defensive in trying to "prove" themselves older than UGLE. Regular? Irregular? Schismatic? Have also asked ALR who may know more about them. Blueboar 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ALR says they are a schism off of RGLE... work to delete? Blueboar 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati External Links

I think the subsection called "Groups identifying themselves as Illuminati" was a valid subsection of Illuminati and should be returned, especially since some of the groups are specifically mentioned in the article. I noticed that the O.T.O. has a long list of groups referenced in its article. I am sure there are others.

I realize that one of groups was apparently a blog site, but the Orden Illuminati and The Illuminati Order are actual groups that have been around for years. They are established claimants.

The reason given for the section's removal was: "The 'groups' links are nothing but advertising, and there's nothing notable about any of them." The last part is just your opinion with which I obviously disagree, but the first...is not all of this "advertising"? That is, is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to "make generally known" a vast array of information? Neither of the sites referenced above are pay sites or openly selling anything.

I reviewed WP:EL. The first item under "What should be linked" says, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." This is an article about an organization. When one tries to view a Misplaced Pages article of the Bavarian Illuminati or The Illuminati Order, one is redirected to Illuminati. Since the two groups mentioned above do not have their own Misplaced Pages article, I think it makes sense to include them (and any other valid groups) in the External Links of this article.

JustMe1776 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

<< So which one is accurate? Which one is "right"? >>

Proving the authenticity any particular group is not the purpose of the article. The article begins by saying, "The Illuminati is the name used for several groups, real and fictitious." It continues by discussing some of them them, including the section "Illuminati after 1790."

<< One of those sites is in German... >>

No, it is in Spanish and English. Do not let the German font in the header throw you off. The English version in down the right side of its home page, and an entire section of the site is in English.

Speaking of other languages, one of the citations in the Reference section is in German. If this is a problem, perhaps is should be removed.

<< ...wouldn't it be better to have information in the article than turning the article into a list of links? >>

Yes. I am new to editing Misplaced Pages. I see your point and agree. I read up on Misplaced Pages:Embedded citations and used them instead.

Thank you for your time. This has been a valuable learning experience.

JustMe1776 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm

Just checking... is this a legit version of the Grotto or not? Blueboar 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the name again... I thought Grotto was "Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm" while this is "Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm"... I have found that subtle name changes are often an indication of being bogus. The stub says it is the Pittsburgh chapter of the Grotto... but it also says it has a tie with Prince Hall Masonry ... so maybe this is a "black" version of MOVPER or something? Just to make sure we are dealing with a real grotto group. Blueboar 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know what you find out. Blueboar 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... prod is good. If someone objects and we need to go through a formal AFD let me know. Blueboar 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

We should be honored... the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of All England has graced us with his presence (SPLITTER!). He seems to be focused on the History of Freemasonry article at the moment. Just thought I would given you the heads up. Blueboar 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uriginal

Please read my opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uriginal and you can find the article not nonsense. よろしく。--Michael Friedrich 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The MFD

I don't define unconstructive as lazy, and people have lives outside of Misplaced Pages. I define unconstructive as adding cruft information into articles and like behavior, not userbox pimping. --DodgerOfZion 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me why exactly you were trying to tear me down in the MFD? Also yes they are cluttered but why should we delete a subpage that is clearly not causing harm? MAJ5 _(contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If our pages have nothing to do with wikipedia that's our problem not yours and wikipedia will handle it.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 23:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tact

Hi MSJ, hope everything else is well. Your approach, in my opinion, would only delight disruptive and combative editors, I find it unproductive and, frankly, pompous arrogance. I hope that you might take a different tack in future, I have been unable to discern any cause for your ungentlemanly manner toward myself, or any other editor. Any genuinely 'blockable' editor, you may have met in the past, is not cause to bite all and sundry. Try to adapt the ethic of another community, you may belong to, here. Please consider this, I'm sure it will serve you well in 'Misplaced Pages:' and 'User talk:' space, whom ever you meet. I'll get out of your way now. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue I raised above, I haven't contributed to that discussion. I had read it and read it again, it could be an example of biting two new users. My previous discussions with you have been unproductive, but I am left enough - with your bold statements and actions - to make some reasonable assumptions. Was it a standard note or yours? I'm assuming it the former, so I haven't looked. Anyway, I suppose I will just avoid your articles and deletion discussions in the future; congratulations on that, however policy suggests I should also avoid giving you an award. You deserve one for the 'subtractions'. Drop me a note if I happen to blunder into another of your interests. I hope you can find a way to improve the project, try adding to main space a bit more. And so Sir, I bid you (with a tone of finality), Good Day! ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That has little bearing on the substance of my complaints, or previous requests for explanations or retractions. Please do not contact me again. Thanks. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

Heads up:

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero#Origins and youth

"His paternal grandfather, Juan Rodríguez Lozano, was a Freemason and ".... Grye 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

LB is back again

Put in his usual holocaust denial at Freemasonry, and a typical comment on the talk page. I ran the ISP and it matches. Blueboar 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Centennial Group

Hi MSJapan. I understand that you had helped to check on the above article. I have spend some time to edit it and hopefully it meets the mark. I'm still a newbie to Misplaced Pages hence your comments would be appreciated deeply. Sg wiki editor 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Centennial Group

Hi MSJapan, you have given me a warning for having flagged this site for deletion. Considering the seniority of you in WIKI I would accept it, but would like ot understand what i have been flagged for. WIKI is not to be used for directories. 1. To be listed as a "major company" in Singapore, woudl you agree that its net worth should be of a significant amount, and it impacts many lives.
2. Small time company making miserable dollars are using WIKI to have their links plastered everywhere on WIKI, so that google can pick it up and boost their ranking, is a shameless way of getting better ranking on SEO, do you condone such actions?
3. I own take a look at his ALEXA ranking and mine compared over 3 years.. I started in June last year and you decide if I am trying to vandalise or trying to tidy up this place like yourself.
4. take a look at the users. He created at least 2 to 3 accounts for himself to edit the site!
IS THIS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WIKI EPITOMIZES? smartvirtualoffice 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It is only categorised as "Companies of Singapore". Take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:CORP. 2&3. I'm not sure why you keep on squabbling about Alexa or Google ranking. 4. The passwords of two previous accounts - petertan_singapore and singapore_editor were forgotten. On a glance, the first account was used to write up the article while the second account only did minor edits in terms of grammatical error. It was not created as a sock puppet or used for any activities that violate Misplaced Pages policies. Sg wiki editor 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Learning to help WIKI

Hi MGJapan, Genki Desu.... I would like to learn how to help you police this site the right way.. care to show the light... smartvirtualoffice

Pacific Centennial Group

Thanks for your reply, MS. Two reasons which you mentioned - the age of business and the state of business. For the first reason, I feel that it has no merit as businesses, whether young or old, do have encyclopedic value. For example (of age) - Between a 20 years old company and a 2 years old company, should we discriminate the younger one even though it may achieve much more significant presence in the industry it is involved in? Since it's highly subjective and I just feel that age may not be a sufficient reason to weigh notability. For the second reason, it is also highly subjective and complicated. Such a reason for deletion means that if anything that has "died" should be "removed", many articles in Misplaced Pages falls into this category.

BTW, the company was established in June 2003 and after 3 years and 10 months, it was sold. Just short of 2 months away. And in nowhere within WP:N has indicated that age makes a difference. Instead, I believe that many articles have their own merits and their historical values. Back to being notable, the reason of notability is to ensure that Misplaced Pages doesn't become a directory or listing of information has nobody cares for. That's why it stated - "worthy to be notice". As stated, I am able to produce the email which I received from National Library Board of Singapore on 11 June 2007, whom wish to preserve our website. However, I'm just wary of certain over-aggressive users who might exploit the situation for their own agenda. Still, if you do need the email for verification, do let me know.

Sorry to take up so much of your time because of these unnecessary flames. I appreciate your kind comments, and will strive hard to ensure that future articles is of quality. Sg wiki editor 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Companies

I agree that Pacific Centennial wasn't a worthwhile addition to a list, but if editing of a list isn't restricted, neither you nor I can keep that from happening. Deleting the entire list seems to be an extreme measure. If the material is duplicated elsewhere, seems like a redirect is the answer. Mandsford 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm extremely sorry about this. In the list - Companies of Singapore, I didn't realized that the list is for MAJOR PUBLIC-LISTED companies. I agree that Pacific Centennial Group is like other millions of small-medium businesses everywhere, with thousands opening up everyday. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is not a directory (we got Yellow Pages for that). To me, Misplaced Pages is just like Google but only with information that is verified correct. Users come in to search for information and expects that it has been properly researched.

Anyway as for being a small company, it is stated in Misplaced Pages: Notability -

Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Hence, being notable is highly subjective. Pacific Centennial Group is a small company with lesser available information. Still, it has achieved certain prominence within the industry. Thanks for your comments.Sg wiki editor 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sale, Greater Manchester article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Burnaby Masonic Reference

It’s just a little booklet I got from the Grand Lodge. I couldn’t find an individual author or an ICBN #, but it is available on their website ] if you want to look. The lodge seems to be the author of the booklet, but it credits the section I used as “Gleaned from John T. Marshall, History of the Grand Lodge of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1971”

Alternatively, we could cite:

• Robie L. Reid, Historical Notes and Biographical Sketches 1848 - 1935 "Bio of Robert Burnaby" at Grand Lodge BC & Yukon website
• Madge Wolfenden, "Robert Burnaby" at Dictionary of Canadian Biography online, 2000

Stevecudmore 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)