User talk:Grye/Archive2007

Are redlinks bad form?

regarding the Co-Freemasonry article:

I was under the impression that redlinks in articles were quite acceptable, as long as they point to (nonexistent) articles on notable subjects that could or should be created. I could reinstate the links and create stubs for them all, but that would involve quite a bit of work; isn't the point that redlinks serve as useful signposts for others who might be able to contribute material? I'd like to put at least some of the redlinks back in...

In fact, I've just done a quick search and found Wikipedia:Red link, which agrees with what I thought. I'll add the redlinks back, checking as I go to make sure they're all notable and desirable articles. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Check it, Fuzz: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I agree, not all of them exactly need to be removed, but there's too many. Check policy, determine what should be linked, & relink it...:-) Grye 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Righto, I have checked it, and I stick by my position. None of the redlinks should be removed. They are all relevant to the article. Please excuse me if I'm being dense, but which particular redlinks do you believe are irrelevant? Some of the blue-linked dates should be unlinked (those not containing both month and day, as per Wikipedia:Dates); apart from that, the links in the article are fine. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatev's...;~) the idea of leaving many red links in is to give people an idea of articles which should probably be created, especially in a newly-created article. If they stay too long, &/or the article becomes long-of-tooth, then they should almost always be removed. Obviously, do as you feel best. I'm for sure not going to express too much care, not there... Grye 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments. I'm not too worried now. I've run roughshod over people in the past, and I know how easy it is to do. At the moment I'm probably in danger of running roughshod over some of the people who claim to be Wiccan but have no initiatory lineage. Just as you don't consider Co-Freemasons to be Freemasons, I don't consider them to be Wiccan. The thing is, everyone editing here is doing so because there's a subject that's important to them, so there are bound to be disagreements. I feel like we're all on the same side, though, ultimately: our goal is to establish truth (or rather the wikipedia equivalent, verifiability), regardless of how many of our preconceived opinions are sacrificed in the process. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry category stuff

Grye - Just took a look at the stuff you have been doing on the Freemason/citation project (your proposed templates etc.) ... WOW. Thanks for what was obviously a lot of hard work. Blueboar 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FRS

If you're adding the categories, you should add the postnominals, too: Sir Forname Surname, FRS. Thanks. Choess 04:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that, but 1)I'm burnt on this... & 2).. I'm burnt on this, worried about people whining, & figured that'd be easy to do from Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. maybe another time...;-) Grye 04:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what do you mean: at the top, by their name, or in the Cat: listing? Grye 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Freimaurer32

I don't watch the Obligations page, but the gist of the discussion was that we can't ascertain the validity of what's in Duncan, so if it's missing for the moment, it's really not a huge issue. I don't like that article because it's not really an "article"; it's just some nonsense to get a sort of OMG!!!! MASONIC SECRETZ!!!!!1111 reaction and push people's buttons, as it doesn't discuss so much as reproduce verbatim, and the only reason that article is not gone due to copyvio is because it's almost 200 years out of date and not subject to copyright law.

Furthermore, given the circumstances under which Hanuman Das left Wikipedia (an Arbcom case that also involved all his buddies who voted on the last Jahbulon AfD, funnily enough, including Frater Xyzzy), I'm not tempted to put much stock in an "article" like that, and if we can't think of anything else to say about them other than to reproduce historical examples that have no modern validity, we might as well AfD it.

In short, I don't really think the Obligations edits were vandalism, per se, as there wasn't really an article there in the first place to ruin, whereas the removals from the main article do impact it. I'm considering what to do about that article, though. MSJapan 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Grye, I began adding names to the image file after an early vandalism incident. I noticed that it's more difficult for a vandal to alter the image file name on Wikipedia than it is to change any text info that goes along with that file.

More recently, one of my images of London was posted on the digg.com site Dugg and, as a result, that image is on blogs and web pages all over the internet...but the image is not always linked to Wikipedia or coupled to the text info that went along with it. However, in those cases, the full image file name usually shows up...even when all reference to Wikipedia and all text is gone.

Thanks for the commons uploads. Best regards, User:Sba2

Hi Grye, That's very interesting about the punctuation...I didn't know that. I'll use the alternate punctuation for my future uploads. Thanks again, Sba2

Telluride edits

Thanks for the comments/criticism. I'm not a hack and slash kind of person most of the time. I only delete when I really notice something blatant. Not that those links were all unhelpful, but we have to reduce the number of links. The internet is huge, as we all know. And competition for business is something WP wants to avoid I should say. Feel free to remove other comparatively enterprise related links. And thanks for being so polite. Some people can get a little too serious. (You can delete this whenever as well.)--SidP 17:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't do it!"

LOL. Don't worry about it. I didn't bother saying anything to you about it because figured it was probably a mistake or a glitch or something. Cheers, Sarah 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

MOCHIP

Thanks for the edit. Jokerst44 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Undone

I removed your edit at List of Freemasons. If you have a grievance with an editor, try to seek a civil resolution. Fred 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Redone

Back atya. & BTW, check out Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Grye 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am seeking the opinion of a third party. In the meantime, please do not use my talk page or make further accusations. I hope you will respect this wish until a resolution is found. Yours faithfully, Fred 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Khalil Saeed Hawayek & Masonry

Masonry Never Been Adverstized Over Public Communication. If You Want To Find Out Check With The Grand Lodge In Puerto Rico under the name of Khalil 'Julian' S. Hawayek. From A Mason~

If it's never been advertised, it fails RS. Delete him. MSJapan 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry FAC

See the article talk page for details. MSJapan 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lost a tag again. MSJapan 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

n/m. I found it. I figurted out that wherever the ref error starts is where the tag is missing. MSJapan 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got the book, but I don't know how to do refnames, so if you want to do that, that would be great. I'm going to stop adding refs for now. MSJapan 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we need page refs, or somebody's going to complain. Also, I'm not sure why you got a different publisher for the book than what's on the book, but it should be Wiley, though Amazon lists it as "For Dummies" (which works too). Maybe we should only use named refs for web stuff, then? Or can we set it up somehow to take a named ref and a differnt page number, maybe if you go <refname> page # <closeref>? MSJapan 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can put in page #s in the ref tag, but it wont render on the page, only in the code (edit mode), & yes that'd be like you said <refname></closeref>, Vs. only the open-closed <refname/>. I think. I'm going to go play with it now. I'll just do it, we can change it later no prob -just your keep pp# notes Grye 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Yeah, the title thing, I didn't invent anything, I just copied what was there, but the tag I have now, from the publisher, & will go use now, is correct. The ISBN was different too... Grye 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mozart, et al.

LeNordique posted the refs at the bottom of the talk page because he didn't know how to do refs. Speaking of the bottom of the talk page, it might be time to think about archiving. MSJapan 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see them in the edit history. If so, I'll go make them. Grye 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Done & Done Grye 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

images in Freemasonry

I actually started WikiProject Freemasonry, but haven't been terribly involved in it. I just noted that the couple articles I added were imageless and so should be fixed up some in that respect. Nice work on the commons cat, there are certainly a lot of good images there, perhaps some would be usable in the articles I listed. Lexicon (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Indiana Masonic buildings/markers

I saw where you were editing some of the photos I took of various Masonic markers. I thought you might want to know of the article Jefferson General Hospital, which discusses how the land is now used as a Masonic temple, and includes a picture of the current Temple.--Bedford 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, yeah thanks. I'm thowing dags on the barbie right now, check it later. Do let me know about any others, esp those w/images not transwikid to commons... Oh, hope you saw the edits were "transwiki" so they are still 100% the same, just at a better place, hopefully to be used more ;~) Grye 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

POV of freemasonry

<s> I noticed that you consistently change articles on freemasonry so they reflect the POV of "regular" freemasonry. [[User:Pvosta|Pvosta]] 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC) :I notice you create dozens of stumps which don't evolve about liberal &/or Co-Freemasonry. I'm just trying to make distictions, as "liberally" as possible. Anything else? [[User:Grye|Grye]] 08:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC) </s>

<s>Thank you very much for the clarification, but</s>Aren't there any criteria for classifying articles? "Liberal" freemasonry just doesn't seem to be a popular topic it seems as from the stagnation in writing? I just want to fill some "gaps", without any prejudice against any form of freemasonry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pvosta (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Way back in antient history (last year & year before ;~) the term in articles and elsewhere was :Irregular". Being termed Irregular, obviously, didn't sit well with some... Liberal "Freemasons". So it all came down to "OK OK how about Co-Freemason?"... "Yeah, OK"... & there we were, All's good. Now, very recently, Probably around September '06, especially with the creation of dozens of articles on irregular Freemasonry, terminology for Co-Freemasonry & other Irregular Freemasonry is an issue again, i.e. "OK they aren't CO, but they DEF aren't regular, in fact are demonstratibly isrregular, so... what now??. Here is introduced wholesale the term "Liberal". So OK, I propose that subcat:Liberal, & sub-sub & keep subcat:Co- if you like, it might be good... Grye 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again for taking the trouble to answer, now I understand the history of the issue (glad I asked). Do you indeed think for yourself that the category "Liberal-" is a good solution or would it just start another round of dicussion ? I may not always express myself properly in English, but I really appreciate the way you deal with comments and issues. Pvosta 10:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad this is working out. About the Liberal, Co- & Freemasonry: I'd bring that one to the rest of the project for sure, I'd suggest at project Freemassonry. Again I don't care that much, except that if we can have consensus now then we will have peace & harmony later...

Just a thought: as much as Liberal & Co-Freemasons felt to be termed "irregular" was derogatory, I wonder if they consider that terming themselves "Liberal" is derogatory to regular Freemassons?!? Because if they are liberal, then the others must not be wikt:liberal? So they (Regular Freemasons) must: 1) not be generous, 3) pessimistic, 4) intolerant 5) Bigoted 6.a) Conservative 6.b) Socialist 6.d) Authoritarian... Yet, I don't care, if it works out, fine.

Anyway, If you'd like to consider this change, etc we should move this entire conversation to the project talk pages. is it OK w/you if I move our comments here, there? if you want something discluded, you can strike it out (using <s>comment</s>)... Grye 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I like this exchange of ideas. I have commented out my what I expect not to contribute to the classification discussion. Feel free to take the rest into the talk page of the Freemasonry project. I hope there will be a possibility to reach a consensus, otherwise we should just drop the issue for the sake of peace.Pvosta 10:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:ShrineLogo.gif

Hello, Grye. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (:Image:ShrineLogo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Grye/freemason template. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A heads up

We should be honored... the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of All England (splinter group from the scismating RGLE) 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 13:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)