Talk:Freemasonry - Revision history

Tannhaus: /* Delete? */

2007-01-25T02:34:36Z

‎Delete?

Iris2009 at 00:56, 25 January 2007

2007-01-25T00:56:50Z

OwenIsCool: delete? final answer?

2007-01-25T00:16:10Z

delete? final answer?

Tannhaus at 02:33, 7 December 2006

2006-12-07T02:33:30Z

Treefunk at 23:31, 6 December 2006

2006-12-06T23:31:15Z

Tannhaus at 20:12, 4 December 2006

2006-12-04T20:12:48Z

Treefunk at 20:01, 4 December 2006

2006-12-04T20:01:57Z

New page

The connection to LG15 is tenuous at best. But, still and all, this is an interesting and, I would argue, relevant enough page to be worth keeping. The fictitious ''[[the Order|Order]]'' has generated a lot of speculation and research regarding other secret quasi-religious organizations and arguably principal among them is Freemasonry. My hunch is that there will be enough people coming through here looking up information about the Freemasons to justify the article's inclusion. There should, however, be a quick statement at the top of the page explaining the relevance (or tenuousness thereof) to LG15. --[[User:Treefunk|Treefunk]] 14:01, 4 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 25 January 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Delete--[[User:Iris2009\|Iris2009]] 18:56, 24 January 2007 (CST)		Delete--[[User:Iris2009\|Iris2009]] 18:56, 24 January 2007 (CST)
		+
		+	Merge it and Christian cults...and whatever else.... into the sources for bree's religion article whatever it shall be called. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 20:34, 24 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, 25 January 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==Delete?==		==Delete?==
	This article has been nominated for deletion since December. I favor deletion because there's no need for us to have such a detailed article on this. If we do want to keep it though, someone should speak up, then maybe we can take the template down. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 18:16, 24 January 2007 (CST)		This article has been nominated for deletion since December. I favor deletion because there's no need for us to have such a detailed article on this. If we do want to keep it though, someone should speak up, then maybe we can take the template down. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 18:16, 24 January 2007 (CST)
		+
		+	Delete--[[User:Iris2009\|Iris2009]] 18:56, 24 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:16, 25 January 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Delete or not, I have no problems either way. Like I've said before, some articles I know something about the source information but don't know how it could relate to LG15. So, I can edit the source information without knowing how it ties into LG15..and leave that for someone else to add in. I just really really didn't like the old article. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:12, 4 December 2006 (CST)		Delete or not, I have no problems either way. Like I've said before, some articles I know something about the source information but don't know how it could relate to LG15. So, I can edit the source information without knowing how it ties into LG15..and leave that for someone else to add in. I just really really didn't like the old article. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:12, 4 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	==Delete?==
		+	This article has been nominated for deletion since December. I favor deletion because there's no need for us to have such a detailed article on this. If we do want to keep it though, someone should speak up, then maybe we can take the template down. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 18:16, 24 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 7 December 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:I think some commenters were saying that there are masonic symbols on the LG15 website--can anyone more knowledgeable than me (e.g., [[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]]) confirm? --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 17:31, 6 December 2006 (CST)		:I think some commenters were saying that there are masonic symbols on the LG15 website--can anyone more knowledgeable than me (e.g., [[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]]) confirm? --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 17:31, 6 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	::I don't see anything I'd recognize as a masonic symbol. There ARE thelemic symbols tho --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 20:33, 6 December 2006 (CST)

	Delete or not, I have no problems either way. Like I've said before, some articles I know something about the source information but don't know how it could relate to LG15. So, I can edit the source information without knowing how it ties into LG15..and leave that for someone else to add in. I just really really didn't like the old article. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:12, 4 December 2006 (CST)		Delete or not, I have no problems either way. Like I've said before, some articles I know something about the source information but don't know how it could relate to LG15. So, I can edit the source information without knowing how it ties into LG15..and leave that for someone else to add in. I just really really didn't like the old article. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:12, 4 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 6 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The connection to LG15 is tenuous at best. But, still and all, this is an interesting and, I would argue, relevant enough page to be worth keeping. The fictitious ''[[the Order\|Order]]'' has generated a lot of speculation and research regarding other secret quasi-religious organizations and arguably principal among them is Freemasonry. My hunch is that there will be enough people coming through here looking up information about the Freemasons to justify the article's inclusion. There should, however, be a quick statement at the top of the page explaining the relevance (or tenuousness thereof) to LG15. --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 14:01, 4 December 2006 (CST)		The connection to LG15 is tenuous at best. But, still and all, this is an interesting and, I would argue, relevant enough page to be worth keeping. The fictitious ''[[the Order\|Order]]'' has generated a lot of speculation and research regarding other secret quasi-religious organizations and arguably principal among them is Freemasonry. My hunch is that there will be enough people coming through here looking up information about the Freemasons to justify the article's inclusion. There should, however, be a quick statement at the top of the page explaining the relevance (or tenuousness thereof) to LG15. --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 14:01, 4 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	:I think some commenters were saying that there are masonic symbols on the LG15 website--can anyone more knowledgeable than me (e.g., [[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]]) confirm? --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 17:31, 6 December 2006 (CST)

	Delete or not, I have no problems either way. Like I've said before, some articles I know something about the source information but don't know how it could relate to LG15. So, I can edit the source information without knowing how it ties into LG15..and leave that for someone else to add in. I just really really didn't like the old article. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:12, 4 December 2006 (CST)		Delete or not, I have no problems either way. Like I've said before, some articles I know something about the source information but don't know how it could relate to LG15. So, I can edit the source information without knowing how it ties into LG15..and leave that for someone else to add in. I just really really didn't like the old article. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:12, 4 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 4 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The connection to LG15 is tenuous at best. But, still and all, this is an interesting and, I would argue, relevant enough page to be worth keeping. The fictitious ''[[the Order\|Order]]'' has generated a lot of speculation and research regarding other secret quasi-religious organizations and arguably principal among them is Freemasonry. My hunch is that there will be enough people coming through here looking up information about the Freemasons to justify the article's inclusion. There should, however, be a quick statement at the top of the page explaining the relevance (or tenuousness thereof) to LG15. --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 14:01, 4 December 2006 (CST)		The connection to LG15 is tenuous at best. But, still and all, this is an interesting and, I would argue, relevant enough page to be worth keeping. The fictitious ''[[the Order\|Order]]'' has generated a lot of speculation and research regarding other secret quasi-religious organizations and arguably principal among them is Freemasonry. My hunch is that there will be enough people coming through here looking up information about the Freemasons to justify the article's inclusion. There should, however, be a quick statement at the top of the page explaining the relevance (or tenuousness thereof) to LG15. --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 14:01, 4 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	Delete or not, I have no problems either way. Like I've said before, some articles I know something about the source information but don't know how it could relate to LG15. So, I can edit the source information without knowing how it ties into LG15..and leave that for someone else to add in. I just really really didn't like the old article. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:12, 4 December 2006 (CST)