User talk:Argusol

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry
I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you're just playing a "I'm a naive new user and not a vandal, and I don't possibly see what the problem is, tee hee" game. Either way, I'm going to explain it to you. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading - they are the official sites for parts of the organization. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless and weaselly. The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research, not a blatant attempt to be uncritical. It was also in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. MSJapan 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You need help, seriously.Argusol 06:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And seriously you need to discuss your edits before you make them. MSJapan 12:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)