User talk:Craxd1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abel Clarin de la Rive (August 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abel Clarin de la Rive and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Abel_Clarin_de_la_Rive Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Abel_Clarin_de_la_Rive reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abel Clarin de la Rive has been accepted
 Abel Clarin de la Rive, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  20:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Abel_Clarin_de_la_Rive help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

August 2015
Hello, I'm Elizium23. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Chick tract seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, when it was the actual truth about Freemasonry, especially from S. Brent Morris, a PhD, and a Masonic historian in the Authentic School of Freemasonry. That sort of sounds to me, that the article is a little more lop-sided towards religion, than the truth, but so be it, let Chick spread his lies about us.--Craxd1 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Edward L. King's website, Masonicinfo, criticizes Chick Publications on Freemasonry, because the fraternity has corrected Chick about what they have printed, but Chick barely changed the content so it is still incorrect." Hatred for Jesus' sake masonicinfo.com lacks editorial oversight as well as a reputation for fact-checking. It is not a WP:RS. The same is true for freemasonry.bcy.ca. These will not be acceptable as sources for the things you are trying to say. They are only valid for non-contentious claims about themselves. Please try to work with us here or you will be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not use freemasonry.bcy.ca to cite as a Chick critic. I cited a published book, as stated.--Craxd1 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Craxd1. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Chick tract, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It was neutral, especially in the citation to Brent Morris' book, which is quite factual, and shows the change Chick made. Even though the Masonicinfo website may have poked fun at Chick, they did tell the truth, and show both versions of his comic tract, that Chick barely corrected, where both were still wrong, and he still spread the lie. On top of that, the article shows religions using their own sources to defend themselves. That is my last reply on this. Quote from Is It True What They Sat About Freemasonry, by S. Brent Morris PhD: "Mr. Jack Chick showed some clever originality in his use of the bogus Albert Pike "quote" in the 1991 edition of his comic book, The Curse of Baphomet. Rather than plagiarizing Lady Queenborough, as have so many of his allies, he used a fictitious reference to a legitimate publication: "'The Freemason' (the organ of English Freemasonry), 19th January, 1935"!(9) Although he has removed the fictitious reference from current editions, the bogus quote remains."--Craxd1 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "neutral" is at marked variance with what Wikipedia or I consider to be neutral. Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What you consider neutral, even though you are an editor, matters not, as it is what Wikipedia considers neutral, or has Wikipedia changed its rules allowing anyone to edit an article, and have a discussion before it is reverted?. It shows in the way you just reverted and trashed the Luciferian Doctrine article, which has been re-written for months with no complaints, from showing both views, especially where the doctrine originated. Then, you have the audacity to revert the article I just wrote, that was published on AC de la Rive. It sounds to me that you have a strong bias against Freemasonry, and are pro religion, and have no business editing Wikipedia articles about either. I'll make sure to let several of my brethren, who watch over the Freemasonry articles, know about your handiwork.--Craxd1 (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Abel Clarin de la Rive, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no personal analysis in the entire article. Every paragraph, and in some cases, sentences, were cited.--Craxd1 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Talk:Abel Clarin de la Rive could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not threaten Wikipedia, but said that others could, by allowing the article on Luciferian Doctrine to be posted, in its original form. However, that was removed from the talk on AC de la Rive.--Craxd1 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That text was removed on the talk page of AC de la Rive. However, I was stating fact, that someone could take offense to the Article on Luciferian Doctrine, in the way it was written before I edited it. I would be glad to see the article removed. Go back and see what it said, it claimed that Freemasons worshiped Lucifer. I noticed you said it would be, and that is not the case, I said it could be.--Craxd1 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As to the wording, it doesn't matter. Stating that material in Wikipedia may result in a lawsuit, even if it doesn't say that it will, has, and probably is intended to have, a chilling effect.  I will let the admins deal with it, but the no legal threats policy, and that includes veiled legal threats, is taken very seriously.  Reply at WP:ANI, not on any other talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for arbitration removed
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I know you withdrew your request, this notice is just a formality. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I am glad I got that cleared up.--Craxd1 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
 * Your comment here had enough nonsense legal verbiage for me. The Arbitration committee threat is baseless but fine but quote the word "libelous" and other nonsense to scare people into supporting your view is precisely what WP:NLT is about. Until you agree to rescind your language, you won't be allowed to edit here. Convince people of your edits by going by reliable sources, not by making baseless threats as to whether Wikipedia or they personally will or could be sued. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)