Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 155.33.245.196 (talk) at 11:19, 6 December 2006 (rv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Ross Petot

Hi, Pitchka. I took at good look at the article's history, and you're right, it shouldn't have been tagged as a speedy delete and I should've looked at it more closedly before deleting it. I gladly reinstated it and included a comment that it's no longer eligible for speedy deletion.

I'm sorry that you've been meeting with difficulty so far. It's really unfortunate, but many new users aren't treated with the respect they deserve, and I'm very sorry about that. Please know I'm always open if you have any questions or problems that you might need help with. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! – ClockworkSoul 01:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alessio Tramello

Hi! This article was tagged for notability and it caught my interest. As you would know, the guy was famous in his time and now becuse of his body of work. I added a bit of stuff and removed the tag but the article deserves some work. Someone who reads Italian could do a service on this one. I'm watching it with interest. Cheers! Stormbay 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis Matthews

That was a good catch that they are one in the same Francis Matthews. I googled it to double check, and you are right. Well done! --Briancua 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carl A. Anderson

Hi Dwain. I note that you created Carl A. Anderson. Do you have any connection to the organisation? --WikiCats 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If your are a good catholic man over 18 you would be eligible to be nominated. If you have any interest in this organisation please email me. --WikiCats 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Many are called, few are chosen. Pray about it. Email me.--WikiCats 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk: Ouija

Hi, Dwain. I'd like to respond to you regarding your allegations of bigotry on Talk:Ouija. Please be sure to assume good faith and not to make accusations about other editors' beliefs. Please remember to be calm and civil and to comment on content, not the contributor. Thanks! -- Merope 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dwain, one can hardly fault him for pointing out that you're a Christian--your userpage practically screams it.  ;) I disagree with his notion of perserving neutrality by removing information about Christianity, but I think that belies a misunderstanding of NPOV and BIAS more than a covert New Age agenda he's pushing. I admire your decision to back away from the situation (as I've urged both of you to do in my latest edit to the talk page), and I expect that things will simmer down quickly. Thank you for responding so rationally and calmly. -- Merope 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanford Ransdell

I have nominated this article for deletion via the AFD process - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Brianyoumans 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

I would just like to point out that your userpage on Freemasonry (if not the rest of your userspace) violates the Misplaced Pages user page policy. You have clearly set up a "Hey, look! I'm Catholic, I don't like Freemasons, here's some dubious links that I think tell the truth, and here's a list of supposed Freemasons on Misplaced Pages, and the stuff they say that I took out of context and consider to be THE TRUTH!" type of page.

You're entitled to your opinions, but not here. None of that material is WP-related, it's unencyclopedic, and polemical. Therefore, I would ask that you remove it. MSJapan 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fear has nothing to do with it. Your "sources" are poorly-researched and biased themselves; Arbcom actually stated in relation to a case that FreemasonryWatch was too fantastical. Yet you have your links listed as if they are completely true. Like most critics of Freemasonry, you have a bad habit of taking things out of context. However, if a Mason tells you you're wrong, it's "Masonic bias", and apparently because we don't want you to reveal some deep, dark secret. I know perfectrly well that people love conspiracy theories, so there's that to consider, but my main concern is that it appears to be that you are attempting to wage some sort of personal crusade. Otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to publicize said material on your userpage. The sources you have were discussed at length, and were shown to be inaccurate by objective evidence rather than personal opinion. There is a difference.

Now, let's look at it this way: not being a Roman Catholic, if I were to turn around and say that "Roman Catholics are pagans" because I could find instances where it was stated or claimed that Roman Catholics worship idols (largely by picking and choosing my quotes out of context as I saw fit), and tried to put it in an article, do you think it would be "fear" on your part that would make you remove that information, or rather the simple fact that as a Roman Catholic, you know better and are aware that the statement is false? Or would that be "Roman Catholic bias"?

As for accuracy of sources, so-called "Masonic sources" as fed through Ephesians, FMW, and other sites are inaccurate from a fundamental verifiability standpoint. I would be more than happy to discuss all these various materials so you can see what they really say, but I just don't think they're user page appropriate. MSJapan 17:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statements about paganism on your userpage are considered polemical; wikipedia's resources aren't to be used for expounding bigotry, and it would be best if you removed the statement.