User talk:Thrasymedes/Archive 6

← Archive 5 |

Archive 6

| Archive 7 →

---

Gallipoli Campaign

Hello, Thrasymedes. You have new messages at Benzband's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Benzband (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello, I saw that you tagged the Freemasonry article as violating npov. I think that it might have been because I placed in the article that the Catholic Church opposes it, that is a well known fact. I'm not saying I agree with the church's position on the issue. --RJR3333 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry it was my fault. For some reason, I thought that this was still on the article:

Also, Freemasons are widely believed to worship Satan and are involved in many satanic practices. They keep this secret but many signs have been shown in songs and books. The highest degree of freemasonry is the 33rd which is believed to hold many secrets of the universe. They are like a brotherhood and secrets never go astray willingly without punishment of death.

I strongly believe this is not NPOV (what do you think?) but I agree that the Catholic Church does opposes it. It was false article tagging on my part. I apologise again and thanks for informing me. Happy editing, DJDunsie (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, yes I would agree that is not npov, also sorry for putting what I wrote on the wrong page I'm kind of sloppy and careless. Regards. --RJR3333 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Saturn (planet).

Hi. I saw this edit. Who said that you couldn't change it? I decided to be bold there and change it since in my opinion, 'other' is simpler than 'related'. --Orashmatash 17:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought (see my last comment here). After all, "other" is on the BE 850 list while "related" is not. However, I was told not to. I completely agree with you. What should we do? DJDunsie (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and rename it. Other is simpler than related in my own opinion, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the same way. If Macdonald-ross doesn't like it, he can bring it up with me. --Orashmatash 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we bring this up at simple talk and have a referendum? We have apparently already had one, but I don't know where it is. DJDunsie (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll search the archives and get back to you. --Orashmatash 15:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. It appears there actually was consensus for "related pages" over "other pages". See here. I'll go change them back. --Orashmatash 15:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we change Other pages and Other websites to Related pages and Related websites as and when we see them? Or can we do as we wish? I still think that they should be called other. The argument that "other is too vague" is weak in my opinion. Of course the other pages are related, it's implied. There would be no point in putting random, unrelated pages in the Other pages section just because the title of the section lets you. I think that other is simpler, despite relation being on the BE 850 list. What do you think? DJDunsie (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Related websites implies that the listed websites have something to do with Wikimedia, so that would be a very, very bad idea. In my own opinion, it doesn't matter which one is used as they're both in the BE 850 list and they're not complex. --Orashmatash 14:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)