Talk:Charles H. Wesley

Contribution to Freemasonry cat
Yosesphdaviyd, if you are indeed who you claimed to be on your user page, you should not be deciding who was notable for what in your own jurisdiction. That is a COI because you are far too close to the subject. Normally, I'd bring that up on your talk page, but you have decided you're not going to use it, so it goes here instead.

All that aside, however, writing a history book is not enough to be "noted for contribution to Freemasonry". It is not for every Masonic author who ever existed, and I would classify Wesley as a Masonic author - of his many works, only two were about Freemasonry, and I would say therefore that he seems to have made a greater contribution to African-American history than he had to Freemasonry. As a matter of fact, there's on mention of the impact of his Masonic works in the article. So where is the proof needed for his inclusion? MSJapan (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

MSJ - What COI are you talking about? I'm anonymous - I just threw out that PGM thing as a joke.

Anyway, Wesley wrote the DEFINITIVE work on Prince Hall called 'Prince Hall Life and Legacy'. That changed the ball game on what we know about Prince Hall the Man - everyone who studies the subject knows that. That is the notable work and the monumental contribution to Freemasonry. If you take the time to look at your Prince Hall pages, you will see that that is the book by Wesley that is quoted - no surprise. Blessings! --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me go through this from the basics. Wikipedia is not written for Freemasons (of any kind); it is written for a general audience.  Therefore, you illustrate the problem very clearly - "those who study it know".  Wikipedia is not written for those people; it is written for the average person is not going to know anything about this person, much less the book.  Your further argument aside from "people who know know" (which we can't use) seems to be "this book is used in a Wikipedia article, so it is notable."  That is not acceptable either, because Wikipedia is not self-referential.  If the work is so notable, it should be easy to show that in an independent source.
 * The underlying situation is that just because you think something is notable in Freemasonry does not make it so in Wikipedia. If every person who ever wrote a book on any aspect of Freemasonry was notable for that accomplishment, we would cease to have an encyclopedia.  Instead, we would have an information dump.  All I am asking for is a reliable independent source to show that what you say is true, and if what you say is true, that should be easy to find, especially coming from a noted historian.
 * Also, before you start complaining in edit summaries about people "messing up" your edits, as you do here (and no substantial change was made in that revision), make sure you are right. This diff shows that the main error you fixed was one you introduced in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

MSJ Dude, I'm about tired of the harassment, stalking, and subjective editing. I filed a Harassment complaint on your talk page. If this continues I'm going to file a formal complaint. Please don't have anymore contact with me. If my edits are so horrible, I am sure someone else who doesn't have your COI (harassment, stalking), as you do with me, will correct them. Thank you and God Bless! --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then file a complaint. MSJapan (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)