User talk:Grye/Archive

I understand now...
According to the [U.S.] Department of Education's 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, only about 13% of Americans are capable of comparative analysis, & 5% cannot understand a restaurant bill or grocery receipt.

With that, I now say "nevermind. Go ahead with whatever you were doing. if I notice something askew, I'll only tell you once. No argument here."

Wandering Writer

 * User:Wandering_Writer & User:64.60.169.218 You are one and the same
 * Why'd you stop signing in? Grye 19:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I had signed out and just not signed back in but I referenced myself I believe clearly. By the way, I see you have used profanity against another user on the List of Masonic organizations page. Here it is quoted "No, it belongs on the article, Co-Masonry. or on a list, like this one, of links of co-masonry. I knew it, that's exactly why you created this article, because your cr@p got edited off the Freemasonry article & this page is less watched. Grye 19:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)"

Doesn't your use of profanity violate Wikipedia rules?

As for your contention that the list is not copyrighted, a close friend is an intellectual property attorney and he has informed me that almost any original written work can be copyright protected, and that includes lists. Wandering Writer 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it would, if I had, but I didn't.
 * & yeah, you might want to read up a little bit.
 * Also, No_original_research

Grye 23:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

proper use of speedy deletion tags
I have removed a speedy tag from an article you listed it on, because it does not qualify for the criteria listed under Criteria for speedy deletion. In the future, articles that do not qualify for such criteria should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. Thank you! -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Check yourself. From Criteria for speedy deletion, Articles, number 3
 * No content whatsoever. Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere ( including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. Grye
 * List articles use internal links, not external hyperlinks. In any case, the speedy tag is disputed. Please use afd instead, to gauge consensus. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The above is a direct quote from Criteria for speedy deletion, & thus it  does  apply to that article. But I do agree that there should be discussion where discussion's due. Added AfD tag. Grye 03:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

List of lists

 * The problem is that the orgs are not listed properly. Only York Rite, AASR, OES, and Shrine are recognized appendant bodies, because they are open to all Masons.  Philalethes is a research society, and National Sojourners I think is restricted to military only, but they aren't bodies as such, and belong ni the "related" category, but Tall Cedars, OES, and the youth groups are also extended official recognition AFAIK, so they are appendant.  In short, the problem is not with content, but organization. MSJapan 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Mizraim and Sciots might be questionable as being "related" MSJapan 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with all, & it is mostly with organization. That's why I said Please, check it for location, format, content, etc....;-) But note that this list is going to exist, here or on it's own page, where "Masonry" means "Co-Masonry, Freemasonry, whatever. Can we edit it to be here, listed properly? Grye 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See, the list was evolving unchecked where it was, & the way it was born. It was impossible for me to stay on it w/o violating 3RR, & I saw little support for very real concerns maybe because it wasn't watched so closely (or maybe because I was wrong, but the outcome seems to show differently?). Anyway, ya see now?~) Grye 10:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Slaps, smacks, and wallops for ya, lad
'''Yaknow, Mahabone, actually, & I'm not kidding here: The 3rd, the day you posted your "bastard" comment, was my mother's birthday. So your little "Bastard" comment is especially funny.'''
 * So, I'm DONE conversing with you. If you ever even respond to me, never mind post to the Grye article's talk page...................... I'll have to ask if you enjoy salt.

Grye 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mahabone's Blosked

 * For what it's worth: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
 * Why: Well, besides the article harassment? His personal attacks

Articles for deletion/List of Masonic organizations
Just stick to your merge and redirect. The redirect should indeed remain per policy. I've contacted the other people in the discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't now (OK, Shouldn't), according to:
 * Guide_to_deletion: You may edit the article during the discussion: You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community
 * I had a redirect tag on it 3X, it got taken out 3X by User:Mahabone, & I couldn't put it back again for 3RR... Grye 05:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather you refer to my comments on Gateman's talkpage which cite policy. It shouldn't be an attempt to hide if you leave a note to the original version. Just leave the AFD tag on. - Mgm|(talk) 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, will add redirect, & leave a note, & I'll just cite the Policy instead of you. Grye 06:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ALL the Bros I know offline (that surf Wiki) have been blocked from wikionary or whatever its called. I've just tried, and found out myself. Have you tried? Could be jabbabubble-gumed up? ;)

Yeah, no, I'm fine on wiktionary. odd that you aren't. Is this to do with Jahbulon I wonder?

Do the other voters of that issue have any problems over there? MSJapan, User:Bolton TI, User:Imacomp, User:Hiram man

user:Blueboar, Primetime & myself are  native users of Wiktionary, so if the others are blocked, but he and I are not, & there's no cited reason, than that's extremely suspicious. Grye 10:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Freemasons
We got a problem with Turkey and some other single edits. Can you make sure to rv anythin unverfied and point the users to the relevant talk page section? Furthermore, if Baphin continues to rv Turkey, make sure to report him to 3RR if the timestamps are valid - I've got a mediation request in on it, and I don't want to put myself in 3RR jeopardy. Thanks! MSJapan 00:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll watch it. I saw some things going on with the page but couldn't really jump on it w/o any real consensus. Grye 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually covered in WP:Cite and WP:Verifiability regarding adding unsourced material and adding foreign language material, respectively. A report would be great, as I believe the user is gaming the 3RR system. Three reverts in under two days when the reasons for lack of inclusion were clearly and politely stated is too much.  Not to mention the violation of WP:NPA that's going on. MSJapan 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the PA's on his page... I'll get on this tonight, I've got a lot of catching up to do on the subjects at hand... Grye 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Play wise gentlemen. Do not attempt to lift beyond your mosquito strength. Citations have been given actually but anyways. Grye, your removal of almost everything (not just Turkey, but more than half of the material been added there) in that list is sad though. Internet and the knowledge within does not only consists of Wikipedia, as your lives are. You should not make people repeat this sentence once again. Good luck. Baphin 08:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Grye. Er... have you visited Baphin's h/p? ??? :) Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 09:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * His homepage seems as oxmoronic as his statements...;~D Grye 09:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * VidKun user page has "S&C" and "Wiccan" boxes... Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but if he can honestly say he believes in (one) GAOTU, be that what it may, then he's kosher, at least as far as I (& obviously his Lodge, & according to him his GL) am concerned. As I'm reminded daily, in regular existance, it's largely about us all getting along... Grye 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? So that's why an S&C suddenly appearing on a userpage of an individual who seems to engage in nothing save PA seems so weird...I guess you learn something new every day. MSJapan 03:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, who is the guy involved in PA's, with an S&C on his page as well?--Vidkun 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC) n/m, figured that one out in context.--Vidkun 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it ended up being a matter for the GL Grievance Committee (sp?) and is referred to in either the 1995 or 1996 GL Proceedings for Vermonts, although, only that "an issue" came before the Committee and was decided on.--Vidkun 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Apperant vandal at work on Freemasonry
Hi.

It seems we have a vandal / misguided editor working on the article again... Jimmy James (seems, based on his edits, to be 24.68.242.147 logged in). I feel he needs to be keept an eye on.

I'm placing this notice on the talkpages of frequent editors on the topics of masonry - Im allready hovering close to 3RR and don't want to break the rules, and I got paying (but less interesting) work that needs doing.

WegianWarrior 10:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sincerely sorry I was not available for these issues, even tho they might be about me myself. I'm here, now, for now. So..What;s up? Grye 07:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon
Nice cleanup of unencyclopedic material *big smile* WegianWarrior 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon on Wiktionary

 * Just to give people a heads up. It seems that the block on our favorite page at Wiktionary has been removed.  I have slapped an rfv and rfd warning on it.  Feel free to edit. Blueboar 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * G-Rye, I agree with A.A.'s reversion of the AfD -- let the process play out, please.--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

'Note: It has been expressed that some of our votes may well not be counted there, as the vote is for the community's consensus'', & as a non-registered wiktionary user, some of us would not be a part of that community... Just a friendly heads-up...''' Grye 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As a note, I am a registered Wiktionary user; I just didn't have anything on my user page, so if my vote is not counted, that's violation of process. MSJapan 18:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh! I'm thinking that their process is... differn't... They do look to see who's a reg'd user, but probably solely by counting red links Vs blue, & w:'d usernames don't count, as they were (OK, rightly) rv'd. So yeah, that posting just now looks to make a difference. I was going to add I'm generally a 'contributor to Wikipedia '... to point to your wikipedia page, but figured you would if you wanted to. Grye 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jabbabbabubble-gumed by Wiki gods
It seems severeral Brethren blanked jahbulon.gif saying that it was copyright to some anti-masonic publication or other. This is some sort of “crime” against the gods of Wiki. They sure do get protective over this word – which prompts the question – why? Anyway, we all live quite close together, so I think they blocked one IP address and caught us all as collateral damage. I can get into Wikionary now, so the IP address has changed again, or the block has been lifted. We’ll get our revenge – come the revolution – send in the men in black, ha ha! ;) Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...... I think that, uh.... we  are  the Men In Black, acccording to many a theorist.... ;~D  Grye 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, but these days UGLE masons get to have a nice blue tie with gold S&Cs. Cool. ;) Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 01:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * heh heh... ;~D 
 * Yeah, I think maybe they're sooo over-protective of the word here because they think they've really got one of them thar "secrets" & are holding on for dear life. Grye 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooke Manuscript
I have wikisourced it; please check it if it is suitable. I spent a lot of time trying to keep the flow of the original translation as seen here while allowing for some logical structure. Avi 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:166.66.16.116
In fact, I have only blocked each of User:166.66.16.103 and User:166.66.16.116 once (for 24 hours). Anyway, IP addresses are normally not blocked permanently (except in case of anonymous proxies or extremely serious vandalism). - Mike Rosoft 11:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Co-Freemasonry
I left the message there, but I failed to see what you were trying to argue with your points at the bottom. Not that I'm trying to side against you, I'm just trying to understand the point of the argument so I can provide feedback. Thanks. Ardenn 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism and Freemasonry
I noticed your comment in the talk section on Mormonism and Freemasonry and answered your question. From your user page it looks like you know quite a bit about masonry. I don't. Could you look at my answer, and tell me a little bit more about the legal workings of Masonry? I also don't want to go too much into freemasonry in that article out of respect for freemasonry, would it be innapropriate to mention the different levels of masonry in an article? --User:Epachamo
 * As far as levels go, beyond a mention of a persons degree, you should probably direct them to the Freemasonry article, or Scottish Rite &/or York Rite. & ideally, when a person is noted a Freemason, they should be:


 * 1) Cited at Talk:List of Freemasons/citation
 * 2) Listed at List of Freemasons
 * 3) Then mention them as a Freemason in an article.

No offense taken. Ardenn 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Delta Award


Awarded to you for upholding the ANTIENT CHARGES in the face of anti-Masonry. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 10:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock Accusation
Accusing someone of being a sock with no evidence, and not bothering to post it on checkuser requests is not appropriate behavior. Seraphim 16:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Harassment
If you can find examples of me vandalising articles or violating any wikipedia policies please post them, or file an RFC against me. If you do not have any examples what you are doing is the defination of harassment and I will take the appropriate action. Seraphim 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will. Later. I'm out for now. It's a lot of homework, nailing some silly editor to the wall, & it's not really worth it, except to make them go create a sockpuppet, which you then have to again toss in the dryer to make them disappear... So if you want them, I'll get 'em. If not, then go edit. not on talk pages. & leave me to do the same. Grye 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking forward to it. And you don't have to worry about a sockpuppet from me. I have a static IP address and due to my campus network's security it's impossible for me to use a proxy server. If you do not come up with some legitimate examples of me vandalizing anything or violating wikipedia policy, I will be reporting you for harassment, there are plenty of examples for me to use.  Also I will be continuing to edit talk pages, since they are where discussion on improving the article takes place.  Seraphim  22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * improve something, then. Grye 22:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I am. Infact you actually accused me of "The user is trying to Change this interwiki redirect into the article it never was." Seraphim  22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you do. Just like a Co-Freemason believes they are a Regular Freemason. Grye 01:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's one, just an easy grab, no homework involved. & that's not even mine. & the example it cites is not the first & by far not the last example.
 * In that case moving that tag the first time was not vandalism. When they moved it the second time after I pointed out that the tag covered more then just that section it became vandalism. From that section "After having that explained, after the users admit the merger is not entirely based around that section, and then they still insist on moving it to that section, that is called vandalism. Seraphim 01:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)" I didn't vandalize or violate any WP policy there. Next :)  Seraphim  07:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to continue to point out that that was infact vandalism. From WP:VAND "Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.
 * I didn't remove them, I replaced them with the proper tags. Grye 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not place dispute tags improperly,
 * Like also, place them with the section disputed Grye 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus." the Merge disputed tag is a dispute tag.  By moving it from the top of the article to a section you are actually removing the "article" merge dispute tag, and replacing it with a "section" merge dispute tag which is vandalism.
 * Unless it is a section merge dispute Grye 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also once the tag got moved more then twice it became vandalism, and again moving the tag to the critisism section was placing it improperly because there was no dispute about merging the anti-freemasonry article with the Freemasonry article critisism subsection. So yeah, triple vandalism there. Seraphim 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I explained it many many times. You are unreceptive, or worse, to any opinion other to yours, so just edit away, have fun with your junk, & otherwise shut up. I think the brittish have a couple better terms, involving bugger & peeing, but I'll leave that to them. You do not know jack about htis subject, & you won't anytime soon, so have fun thinking you are at all qualified to make any edit whatsoever in this article. but hey, whatever, I'll leave you to it, as I've recently demonstrated. I'll just sit back and watch your edits get torn apart, sooner or later...Grye 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is Vandalism to re-create a page that was transwiki'd, & you did. Grye 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, your just making up your own policy here. The transwiki tag itself states "To begin an article here, feel free to edit this page, but please do not create merely a dictionary definition." Your making up your own policies Seraphim  00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is Vandalism to move the merge tag back to the top. It is a section merge.
 * It is unstable of mind to believe it is not going to be a section tag. Now you have to make sure a significant amount of material ends up outside the article, or you prove yourself wrong. Grye 23:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A substancial amount of material is going to end up outside the article. The history section on the Freemasonry page currently only shows a sanitized version of the history of freemasonry, this was mainly due to the History of Freemasonry page being sanitized also.  Currently we are integrating the information from Anti-Freemasonry to History of Freemasonry, and then the information will also be moved into the History of Freemasonry subsection on the page.  It is impossible to justify not including contravercy and scandals in a history section.  Since people's justification for a seperate anti-freemasonry article is that it is the freemasonry equivilant of anti-semitism I will use this example, Not including scandals and contravercy on the main freemasonry article's history is just like not mentioning the holocost in jewish history in the jewish article.  It's not correct.  I'd also like to point out that according to WP:VAND moving the tag was vandalism in 3 ways.  Reverting vandalism is not vandalism.  The original move of the merge tag was not a valid move, therefore moving it back is not in any way vandalism.  I'm still waiting for you to show me vandalizing something.  Seraphim  00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK Freemasonry pro...
 * Your (& my, for that matter) merge tag placements are 100% POV
 * I done showed you. Too busy to chase you down, otherwise.
 * Who, exactly, is "we"?
 * Grye 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So the only "vandalism" you can find that I have done is to revert vandalism that others did. And your claiming that placing a merge tag is vandalism?  This is where we can go from here. If you feel I did vandalize you should file an RFC against me for moving the merge tag back since you feel you have such a strong case, with WP policy on your side.  If you choose not to do that you have no right to go around calling me a vandal anymore.  Seraphim  10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am not going to waste my time with you, outside of talking here, to show how much time you waste NOT editing. & I did offer to talk to you about all this, aside, & you declined...
 * vandalvandalvandalvandalvandalSeraphimisavandal. and?
 * Until above, when did I call you a vandal??? WHEN? Relative to the rest of your edits, Vs. Mine?
 * Go write an article.
 * Grye 10:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When??? Going back the last 10 days.
















































 * Also I am editing articles as you can see by my contribution history, thanks for your consern though. Seraphim  00:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) When & where did I say or imply "Vandal"?
 * 2) Huh. So it's OK for you to call someone a vandal, but not for them to point out the fact that the reverse could be true to? & again, I did not actually call you a vandal.
 * 3) Not even a hint of vandal.
 * OK, Yeah, good one. I called your actions vandalist, while restoring a section & comments by others warning you of vandalism. Good one. Add that to your resume.
 * 1) Again. Vandal??
 * 2) Again. Vandal???
 * 3) Yeah, in the notes. & you are being vandal there. & here's a little bit of that "free time". thanks for consuming it.
 * 4) I'm not going to argue or, I wish, discuss. As can be seen in your cites, I explain in no uncertain terms your vandalism.
 * 5) Again. Vandal????
 * 6) I'm not going to argue or, I wish, discuss. As can be seen in your cites, I explain in no uncertain terms your vandalism.
 * 7) This is same as a couple above. Shouldn't you be learning how to do homework?
 * 8) Again. Vandal?????
 * 9) Again. Vandal??????
 * 10) As can be seen in your cites, I explain in no uncertain terms your vandalism.
 * 11) Again. Vandal??????? I can't even be nice & constructive. What's wrong with you? OH & yeah, I tried to approach you personally & nicely, but no.... Well, I tried.
 * 12) Again. Vandal??????? Oh, & that wasn't a personal attack, so your subsequent striking out was vandalism.
 * 13) Again. Vandal???????
 * 14) Again. Vandal??????? citing someone else's warning you of your vandalism???
 * 15) And?
 * 16) And?
 * 17) Again. Vandal????????
 * 18) Again. Vandal??????? Oh, & that wasn't a personal attack, so your subsequent striking out was vandalism. '''And your unstiking it is again vandalism.
 * 1) Again. Vandal??????? Oh, & that wasn't a personal attack, so your subsequent striking out was vandalism. '''And your unstiking it is again vandalism.

Congrats. You did manage to waste another hour+ of my time. I didn't edit anything meaningful. But you did nicely assemble your own vandalism for me, or some of it anyway, & in fact were attacking in doing so. Oh, & when you "do your homework", don't forget to not cite punctuation & spelling changes, & you might want to watch that you don't cite excellent examples opposite to your goals. Be civil, & I'll try to do the same. & stop wasting my time. Grye 11:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of GLdF page?
Hi there! It looks like you pasted the entire contents of Grand Lodge of France from this site. Are you the author or do you have copyright permission to use that article? It might be more appropriate to write an original blurb for Wikipedia and list the link as an External Resource. No reason to duplicate here something that exists elsewhere. ~ Bsktcase 00:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember creating this, but: Actually, it looks like it came from here: [GLdF's website]; Regarding it's appearance here, it looks like you can do whatever you want with it, provided it's intact, given the printer icon in the TR corner. But whatever, do whatever needs to be done with it. Grye 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, I do not know if you are still editing Wikipedia, but I have listed this page as an apparent copyright violation at WP:CP. It looks to me like the page was taken originally from the gldf.org, and later supplemented with a large amount of content from the freemasons-freemasonry.com link.  If you can explain why this text is acceptable, please do so here. Otherwise, you are welcome to begin writing a new article, in your own words, at Grand_Lodge_of_France/Temp. Regards. ×Meegs 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
I moved the archive you had created to User_talk:Grye/Archive. Here is the page on how to archive. You had just done it incorrectly, that's all. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, & I trust your judgement on the whole "stays at all - goes at all" thing. Thanks again. I'll watch & learn to properly archive in the futute ;-) Grye 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm sort of disappointed in the people who tagged the article but who didn't explain the process for archiving to you. Oh well. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)