| Revision as of 23:22, 8 October 2005 editMSJapan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers20,100 edits Freemasonry again← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:44, 13 October 2005 edit undoPjacobi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,850 edits Small noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| I'm posting this to all those majorly involved in editing ]. 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. ] 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | I'm posting this to all those majorly involved in editing ]. 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. ] 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Small note == | |||
| Thanks for your answers at ], 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 ]). | |||
| This is just the problem of ] in Misplaced Pages (see also ]): Some religions, movements, political beliefs, get the preference of being mostly dealt with from an inside view (], ] (partly), ]) and other from an outside view (], ]). IMHO it generally makes for better encyclopedic treatment, to have an outside view, but the Misplaced Pages 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 ] and other "Guru"-articles. | |||
| ] 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:44, 13 October 2005
Hi there. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for your contributions so far. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Misplaced Pages:New user log to introduce yourself.
If you need editing help, visit Misplaced Pages:How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.
You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.
Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines.
If you have any other questions about the project then check out Misplaced Pages:Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.
Happy editing, --Wolf530 06:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
(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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages (see also Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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.