Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 20

message: This is an archived page, please do not edit. The current active talkpage is at Talk:Freemasonry. WegianWarrior 07:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

message: The line under the symbol should read 'Compass' not 'Compasses'.
:The line under the symbol should read 'Compasses' not 'Compass'.
:Nuttyskin 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in context both are correct - for historical reasons. Imacomp 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Edits

message: Hi. How come I cannot edit the article here? Do I sign in again? Azuredeltascribe 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be logged in, and be an "established" editor (I think the minimum is 50 edits or so.) User:Ben Standeven 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Editors 

message: I took the time to go through all of Osgoodelawyer's edits... they are all small formatting changes.  I agree that it would have been easier for me if he had made these changes all in one lump edit... and will leave him a message on his home talk page to point this out... but nothing he did is worth further comment. Blueboar 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass of individual edits by Osgoodelawyer 

message: For some reason, the interlanguage links are getting cut off after italian, as though the FA linker isn't working properly; I don't know if the problem is here or somewhere else. Ben Standeven 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage links 

message: User 128.61.98.24 poped in to add the comment "The line under the symbol should read 'Compass' not 'Compasses'."  Unfortunately, he added it at the top of the talk page and not here where it belongs (I will assume he is a new user, and didn't know the standard practice).  Anyway, I will answer it here...
User:128.61.98.24, Thank you for trying to help, but the instrament shown in the picture is a "set of compasses"  not a "compass".  A compass has one pointy end and, usually, a holder for a writing utensil.  A "set" of compasses has two pointy ends and no holder.  It's a singular vs. plural thing that dates to medieval times.  Thus, in Masonic terminology one always refers to the "square and compasses". Blueboar 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compasses 

message: What kind of junk is that?  "Rv.to Edits that are trusted." !?  It's easy to check a bunch of edits at once, use the compare version button and if anything jumps out of you that was changed fix it.  Don't do a blanket revert like that, it basically tells all the users who's edits that you blanked that they aren't welcome here.  If you actually care about the article atleast take the time to look at what people are contribuiting instead of simply reverting back to the last time someone you know edited. Seraphim 05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, now give the same respect to the people that you blanket reverted earlier with that junk reason.  Seraphim 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh Seraphim, but I do give others the respect I give to you. Imacomp 09:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No you don't, reverting people because they made alot of edits that you don't feel like checking with a reason "Rv.to Edits that are trusted." shows that you have no respect for the editors at all.  Seraphim 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rv.to Edits that are trusted." What??? 

message: Reading thru the assessment scale, it's clear that this is not a 'B' grade article. Personly, I find it to be somewhere between B and A, but closer to A. WegianWarrior 07:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and concur that the article is "Grade A" - hence it is "Complete". Imacomp 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No article is ever 'complete' - there is always room for improvements. Much like life in general, we must always strive to become better and never let ourself rest on our laurels. WegianWarrior 10:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is complete as per the description of Grade A. Imacomp 11:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Number 1, the "complete" that Grade A describes isn't really "complete" in the normal way the word is used, it means that the article has enough content to become a FA.  Secondly, from the A-Grade requirements " It should be of a length suitable for the subject" the article is way way too long, sections like "History of Freemasonry" are longer or as long as their sub articles, if you want put the article up to see if someone will give it good article status.  But right now it simply is not A-Class. Seraphim 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Seraphim here. The article is extremely long. Ardenn 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I know it must kill you ;p Seraphim 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur... still way to long.  A lot of the information in this article has been copied over to the sub-articles, but we never got around to summarizing what we have here.  This is especially true for the History section and History of Freemasonry.  We definitely need to cut what we have here down and simply summarize the key points. Oh... welcome back Seraphim.  We missed you. (not your arguments - just you ;p )Blueboar 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :P Thankee Blueboar, I won't be around non-stop like I used to be, cause i'm at home and not at school, but i'm baaack.  And I promise not to edit Jahbulon for atleast a month ;P Seraphim 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grading of article 

message: Going over a rather tedious summary of the Muslim section, as above in talk: “… Muslim anti-Semitism is directly related to anti-Freemasonry, and visa versa - as the text and links show. the section, as restored covers Islam over the three sections - Political, Religious and Holocaust - and is thus placed in the introduction to these topics…  Imacomp 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reiterating my own edits: Muslim anti-Semitism now has its own section, eliminating the problem of classification. The fact that Freemasonry welcomes Muslims is prominently mentioned in this section. (I have not changed the Holocaust section) Ben Standeven 18:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of edits with little discussion. So be it. Imacomp 08:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...This [Holocaust section] is a very important contribution to the balance of the main Freemasonry article - and is a much overlooked part of our cultural history. Imacomp 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Freemasonry (Cont)

message: You can find it here.  
If you want to know why, simply look at the section right above this one. Seraphim 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC filed against Imacomp 

message: Does anyone know anything about Moorish Rite Freemasonry?  Is this recognized or irregular?  Blueboar 18:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to guess that, since it's only five years old and not very widespread, at this time it is irregular. MSJapan 01:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moorish Rite Freemasonry‎ 

message: Thank you Blueboar - I'm happy with this revised wording. BlueValour 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Blueboar 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosures and exposés  

message: We have been having some difficulty over on the Hiram Abif article... over the last three days several different editors have popped in and amended the stub tag.  First someone added that it was an "occult related stub" (deleted summarily and reverted to just plain "stub")... then someone came by and changed it to "history related stub" (also deleted and reverted, as the Hiram Legend is not history)... more recently another editor changed it to "religion related stub" (also summarily deleted as Freemasonry is not a religion... although as it currently stands, the article talks more about the Biblical Hiram than the Masonic one, so at least this had some modicum of plausibility).  I am sure that all these people were acting out of good intentions... they want to categorize things.  But none of the existing stubs seem to fit.  What we need is a "Freemasonry related stub" tag.  Does anyone know how to create one? Blueboar 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: .  Of course, any article with the  tag on the talk page with the modifier of "Stub" will also show up in :Category:Stub-Class Freemasonry-related articles (or the talk page itself will, actually). OzLawyer 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, forgot that stub templates have to be proposed, so that one will be deleted. I'll propose it. OzLawyer 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is here. OzLawyer 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Blueboar 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub tags 

message: The quality of this "article"(?), and its spawn of sub-articles in the "project”, is zooming through the floor at the speed of BS. I note that no classification can be awarded below "B", but a realistic one would be "F-". I would try to salvage something out of the mess, but I've more important things to attend to - such as picking the lint out of my belly-button. And the lint could do a better job than the current “project” effort anyway. Why not cut your losses and just post a link to the Taxil hoax? Imacomp 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality going, going, gone 

message: In in reading the discussion about the links Thunderbird15 wished to add (see discussion above) there was a comment that I feel needs to be made again - and it is important enough that I wanted to seperate it from the discussion of any particlar link or citation:  WP:EL clearly outlines what is not acceptable in an external link, including: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"  No link or citation should be included in, or rejected from this article just because it is "Pro-Masonic" or "Anti-Masonic".  To do so would violate every NPOV standard that wikipedia has. Any link, "pro" or "con" should be tested for factual accuracy. We do need to include material that is critical of Freemasonry... in fact, NOPV insists that we include such material... however, not ALL critical material is the same.  It must be worthy of inclusion.  When a site has been repeatedly shown to contain factually inaccurate material, not only is it not worthy - it MAY not be included - based upon Wikipedia's own guidelines. Blueboar 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: “Since Morgan’s heap of Alien Autopsy Innards is “so credible” as to get into “Project Gutenberg” then by the same logic  - should be reinstated… Imacomp 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't complain to me... take it up with "Projct Gutenberg" :>) (of course they will take anything.) Blueboar 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!Thunderbird15 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See directly above, "If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!Thunderbird15 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reported him for personal attacks to user:Jpgordon and made a checkuser request as a LB sock.  Hopefully it helps.  Chtirrell 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Imacomp 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding material that is critical of Freemasonry 

message: From Freemasonry History page:
17:59, 28 June 2006 MSJapan (Talk | contribs) (rv to ALR. SOP on this page requires discussion of changes, and the discussion is not over.)
17:40, 28 June 2006 999 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 61032491 dated 2006-06-28 15:39:24 by SeraphimXI using popups)
17:37, 28 June 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (N o they don't,. This has already been discussed to death.)
15:39, 28 June 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (rv - the critical links must stay) 
14:35, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv - my 3rd revert today.)
13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website. 
13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website. The websites are critical of Masonry.) 
12:55, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to me - read and _understand_ discussion on talkpage.)
12:17, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (No "discussion" took place, just a tirade against the websites which criticize Masonry.) 
12:12, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to Tagishsimon - refer to discussion on talkpage why these links are unsuited.) 
11:04, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (→External links - restored links that are critical of Masonry that were repeatedly deleted in an unjustified and biased way using misleading edit summaries) 
05:46, 28 June 2006 Tagishsimon (Talk | contribs) (→External links - *The Mysteries of Free Masonry, by William Morgan, from Project Gutenberg) 
Here endeth the lesson? Imacomp 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Textbook case of how a Revert War is conducted, using “Tag Teams”