User talk:Mptp94/18 October 2006 to 30 March 2007

Search4Lancer
Vidkun, I know that S4L's comment when editing Wicca was not the most civil thing I've read lately. Maybe he was in a rush or having a bad day ... hey, I know I've snapped off at people under those circumstances. Probably a lot of us have. But I do have to point out that just like us, he's only human. I took the liberty of removing your comment from his talk page. Yes, I quite agree with what you said, but I also have to remember that civility is NOT a two-way street--I like to try to remain civil even when someone wasn't civil to me.

I hope you don't take offense at my actions ... and if you do, I apologize. Justin Eiler 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey - Vidkun - take a chill pill. Apparently you mistook the tone in which I said what I said. Search  4  Lancer  06:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

New job
Just picked up that you'd got a new job. Congratulations on that, hope it turns out well. ALR 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Being selected for a uniformed role says a lot, I assume you're structure puts you at Maj? The couple of exchange jobs we had (probably still have) were at that level.ALR 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NGL Greece

 * Funny thing is, neither UGLE nor our jurisdiction recognize them. Funnily enough, GLoS does not list the GL in Greece that *is* recognized by UGLE. MSJapan 03:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wicca
Thanks for removing that bit about Wicca and the US constitution. I was trying to find a source for it and couldn't. Perhaps it was a vandal trying to imply that "Wicca is un-American". Totnesmartin 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There IS no source. The wording looks like it is stemming from the current fight with the United States Veterans' Administration's National Cemetery Administration over the Wiccan Pentagram/Pentacle.  One argument brought out by the NCA and VA was that a religion needed to show who their national leader and national organization was, to qualify for getting the symbol approved.  I won't even begin to discuess the unconstitutionality of that . . . but that requirement was dropped in one of the numerous regulation changes the VA has tapped danced through in the last nine years.--Vidkun 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

new RFC at Jahbalon
Please add your two cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 04:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

US Games and the Rider-Waite deck copyright
US Games asserts copyright over their particular colouring of the cards. In order for us to publish the Rider-Waite deck on Wikipedia, the cards must be recoloured. Bastique actually began a project of doing this for the major arcana. You can find them at commons:Category:Tarot cards. You should ask her if she ever got any farther than the Hermit. A scan of cards with US Games' colouring needs to be deleted if it has been uploaded here, but luckily it is possible to make unquestionably free versions for our use. Jkelly 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. Please extend my warm regard to our mutual friends.  Jkelly 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking
Nicely phrased. Jkelly 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alls I did was quote from the header of the EL section in editing view, which we snagged from somewhere else (maybe WP:EL).--Vidkun 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cabinda.net
I am am not understanding the reasoning for removing the cabinda.net from the Cabinda pages. I'm just wanting some clarification. --Nathan Holland 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks. --Nathan Holland 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Cabinda website
Hi Vidkun,

What do you mean "spam blacklist"? Has there been some determination at Wikipedia that this site isn't appropriate? I've been reverting POV edits to the this article in support of this position. However it seems to me that linking to the website is not an endorsement of its content, and has the important advantage of presenting a significant minority position in the words of its supporters.

--Rbraunwa 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I just found the answer on the talk page. I can't say I disagree with that. --Rbraunwa 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thank you!
Right you were! You are certainly welcome. Thanks for keeping us updated on how it was doing, and for predicting that it would get worse. -- Nataly a 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Union Lodge
Since my Google search showed as first result User:Vidkun/List of Masonic Grand Lodges/Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, I thought you might be able to shed light on the following AfD discussion: Articles for deletion/Union Lodge. 151.46.170.137 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply
When I determine which ones are likely. From behavioral patterns (coming to each others defense rather quickly and same long-winded style of talking to each other (themselves) with apparent immediate understanding of each other's convoluted logic), I'm certain of ALR, Blueboar, and MSJapan. The only other user I suspect is Grye. They were all created and/or became active during December of 2005. Anyway, the editing pattern will tell. I've got to have somewhere to accumulate data. Eventually I may find contradictory evidence and will have to eliminate one or more. I have no desire to accuse someone just because they disagree with me, as they have done with me and Xyzzy, but only if the evidence indicates deception. Could be a week or more, I keep getting interupted by phone calls. Jefferson Anderson 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How so? I haven't actually filed it, and I may never do so, depending on what my exploration shows. An intitial peak at their edit history shows largely non-overlapping periods of editing, that is, one does some edits, then another, then the other, and so forth. Seems unlikely. But I think I will take your advice and take a detour into self-defence, I think, as I am pretty sure Xyzzy and I have some overlapping sessions... Jefferson Anderson 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think somebody clever enough to use what sounds like a networking center the way ALR describes is clever enough to create a couple of personas. They sure seem the same to me, though. Say, are you trying to make me suspect you too, to make me look ever crazier? %p Jefferson Anderson 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, that's just what MSJapan did, shopping around for an admin to get Frater Xyzzy blocked, claiming he was blocked for disruption when he was not. Have you looked at the various posts on AN/I and admin talk pages MSJapan and ALR have done? They have certainly waged an attack on the persons of people they consider to be their opponents. They are completely intimidating and should be stopped, not for their differences of opinion about content, which I don't care nearly as much about as their attacking behavior. Jefferson Anderson 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Operatives
I've just had a look at the draft, that comment was put into the discussion by MSJ when he reviewed it so it might be worth directing the question towards him. The operatives here in the UK are an order of 7 grades originated around 1913, claims of earlier. From Beyond the Craft, Jackson, the ritual is more archaic and fuller than speculative. 65 assemblages in England and abroad.

It may be that MSJ was alluding to lodges which only accept operative builders for membership, I get the impression that such special interest lodges aren't common in the UK, whereas here we have lodges for all kinds of things, divers, motorcyclists, etc. My mother lodge is has a military heritage for example.

ALR 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert re: Boston, MA.
I think we both were trying to do the same thing when editing Boston, MA I reverted because I saw reference to Hyde Park, which by the way, I never included in the article at all. I do not know who did. It did not match the dates of the History, as Hyde Park was supposedly annexed in 1921. When looking at the history, it looks as if I added that part about Hyde Park, which I didn't. I reverted a previous edit, that I thought was the one including Hyde Park. Partly it was. Someone added more information about Hyde Park I'm confused about the map of annexation, I don't see one. Cheers. __Jeeny 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did misunderstand your revert here because you put Hyde Park back at the end of the list, which, being one of the three last cities (in the version as you left it) suggested Hyde Park was annexed in 1874. This is incorrect, as my source here shows.  I realise you did a revert and the addition of hyde park where it was WASN'T originally your work, but this is why a simple revert should always be a last resort:  you should actually look at the info that is changing, and see if it matches what you meant to do.  The image thing is weird as heck, because I can see it in this section and get to the image, but a link to the image doesn't seem to work.--Vidkun 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree a revert should be a last resort, but you did it too. LOL. I have been watching this page for a while and didn't notice any other edits regarding Hyde Park. (the same reason you mentioned above about the last three cities, was my reason for the revert). I didn't put Hyde Park at the end as it was already there, I guess from another edit, which I missed . I do try not to revert as apposed to just editing, but I guess I got lazy and assumed by my watch list that this was a recent edit. Ah, thanks for the link to the annexing image. Thanks for understanding. __Jeeny 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wicca refs
Just a quick note, when I have some time (perhaps tonight at work), I'll go through and attempt to standardize the references in the article. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I saw a few redlinked authors names in the refs section, looked at the actual ref entries, and my eyes started to bleed.  Someone, or multiple someones, just went in and made their refs wikilinked author name, book title, and page.  I'd like to see technical errors reduced on an article that is about a controversial/misunderstood/contentious what-have you article, so at LEAST it's useable.  Same thing led me to try and clean up ABCD, while I was looking up the term after hearing it used on Law an Order.--Vidkun 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Settle down
I asked someone to site it and you have. I am not suggesting the Temple IS or IS NOT doing anything. Don't put words in my mouth. Why do you think I asked to be double checked??? This must raise a lot of emotion in you to warrent such a response. I wrote to them, as I said, they said they had no record. Period. Don't infer anything more beyond that. Jokerst44 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you had actually looked at the talk page, you would see it was already cited. If you would do some homework, before arbitrarily deleting something, you wouldn't get reverted.--Vidkun 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Religio Romana
Are you really going to make me take this to AfD? It's a Latin term but as I'm sure you know Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The stub also claims that a new Pagan movement is using the term as a neologism for its revistionist religion...without any claim to notability and reliable sources (heck any type of sources at all). So explain to me why this shouldn't be deleted? I'd ask you to correct these problems or restore the prod. Otherwise we have to play this game at AfD. NeoFreak 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not restoring the prod, you take it afd as you see fit. I don't care, but that may be because I'm not a deletionist.  Have a nice day!--Vidkun 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do, you too. NeoFreak 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NeoFreak
As he said in the comment you responded to on my talk page, he has stuck his fingers in his ears. I am fairly sure that unless you put the message on HIS talk page, he is not gonna see it. But, thanks fro the support anyway. Gods, but running into the deletionista's just removes my capacity for WP:COOL. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm figuring he is watching your talk page, too (I tend to auto watch anything I edit, as, it seems, most do) so, I'm guessing he saw it. I see some of his concerns, and they are all things the wikiproject is working on, but he does seem to be an exclusionist.  Hard to assume good faith, but I'll take his comments and work on improving articles.  Most of the deletionists seem to only be concerned with removal, not actual improvement.--Vidkun 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MOCHIP
You should not change this to a CHIP only article. The CHIP programs are NOT related. They are similar in vision and goal, but they operate differently and independently. Meshing them together would be a disservice and dis-information. Jokerst44 01:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Man
Not referenced? Vandalism? Ur offensive! Having devoted my life to learning and scholarship I appreciate and honour the tradition of referencing and sourcing information and ideas. Some Wikikin are being STOOPID and promoting over-referencing as a reactionary (and possibly and albeit necessary) caution to certain wiki-editors...the relationship between Kirtimukha and Greenman is patently apparent and is pervasive in the literature. I am WORKING on it atm in Wikipedia...give me a little space and time to work please before indulging in accusations! B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is people like you that give the electronic medium a bad name. Tact and politeness go a long way.
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Polite, Tact...we obviously have different understandings of the term. Good thing for Wiktionary! Now, as to the matter of unsourced content, have you read the articles the paragraph references?
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments are bordering on personal attacks. Please stop. I suggest no longer engaging in any edits which involve B9 hummingbird hovering. Jokerst44 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Understand
I am not attacking anyone. Period. I do find it interesting though how people on WP get fired up when they don't agree with each other.Jokerst44 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)