User talk:MSJapan/Archive 1

Good luck!
I wanted to wish you good luck in your arbitration with Lightbringer. -- Spinboy 04:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Favor requested re: Freemasonry Arbitration
I think DreamGuy has made a pretty good case already. However, I'll see what I can do. -- Spinboy 02:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a statement, but I didn't go and go through every edit, there are simply too many. Instead I included his edit summaries where possible, and provided a link to his contributions. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 02:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer
I say we ship him off to the Americas on the next available boat. ;-) -- Spinboy 15:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you revert his restoring of those links? I can't do it without violating the 3RR myself. I reported him and hopefully he'll get blocked. I also reported him for vandalism on Anti-Freemasonry. -- Spinboy 06:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Great job! I hope they block him soon, he's getting on my nerves. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 06:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence Fred Bauder 01:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for help
Could you look at the evidence page for the case and add your own material, and make sure mine makes sense? There's so much that it's hard to keep it all straight. MSJapan 03:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean brother, I've had the same difficulty in the past with astro-turfing twats, somehow when they are really obnoxious and leave an evidence trail so huge, it gets overwhelming keeping it all together. If you're on MSN messenger, add me, val@tunnelrats.org.au and we can work over it together. Jachin 04:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page.))

Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence
Thanks for the kind words =)

Walking thru his contributions with a fine toothed comb took me some time, but I would say it was worth it to show that this has been a long term problem. I might tackle the contributionlist of the IP he used previous to registring tomorrow. Just hope the arbitrators block him for good. WegianWarrior 17:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I really liked the evidence you presented. Great job! -- Spinboy 03:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In re: "Accusations"
First, please see the semi-apologetic clarification I added to the workshop page. I would like to clarify here that I asked you or Victrix to respond on the talk page b/c that was the context of the quote I questioned, and I felt the questioning and any response should be seen in context. You may disagree, but I promise there was no intent to be "funny". Also, I'm curious to know how you say you know the IP of another logged-in user; I wasn't aware there was a tool for this, if there is then I would greatly appreciate being pointed to it.

In any case, I'd like you to understand my overall intent: User: Spinboy has bluntly suggested I "put my money where my mouth is", and I intend to do just that. Having read nearly all the history of both Freemasonry and Anti-Freemasonry, revision by revision, it's clear you are knowledgeable of and very interested in this subject. I will try to take into account all the substantial contribution you have made to the conversation, and anything you care to suggest will certainly be considered. However, I simply will not engage in any sort of edit-warring, personal attack, or other behaviors I view as disruptive to the project. In this article, your passions seem (to me) to have sometimes gotten the better of you, as they have plenty of other editors involved. I will only ask you to respect the process -- my only intent is to work in good faith to reach a consensus NPOV of these two articles, and I hope you'll do the same.Eaglizard 05:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Block request
I've warned him, and if he does it again I will block. Please warn vandals before requesting blocks. -- Scïmïłar parley 16:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but if you look at his User contributions page, right under the bold writing at the top, in small print is:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For 163.167.62.87 (Talk) Jump to: navigation, search
 * It's pretty easy to miss, but it's there.-- Scïmïłar parley 16:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer Arbitration case
The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

220.101.187.113
Thanks for your note. This user doesn't seem to have made any other edits since you left your comment, so I'm going to leave it alone for now. However in the future, if you have a few minutes and find someone who has clearly vandalized an article/articles after being warned "for the last time", feel free to list them yourself on Administrator Intervention against Vandalism, or on Vandalism In Progress if the vandalism is over a longer period of time. Thanks again, and cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Scotland
Grand Lodge of Scotland is a small, yet perfectly formed, article. ;) Talk   Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering, academically speaking, about the accuracy of the statement regarding tracing the oldest Freemasonry back to Scotland, and the operative and speculative ties. Gould seems to tie it in to German Steinmetzen (note he's miswritten the word) who came to build cathedrals (including Kilwinning), but he's admittedly not 100% correct all the time. Also, according to J.A. Ness' History of Ludge Mother Kilwinning, the earliest documents available still postdate the events by over 200 years, as they are copies of copies. The oldest document I can think of off the top of my head is the Regius Manuscript, and that's English, IIRC.

Now, traditionally speaking, the history is a different matter, but I think that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, fact is as important as commonly held belief, and we must at least present both sides, and actually, if you've got a differnt source, I'd be interested to hear about it. MSJapan 01:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

MSJapan I've taken the liberty of posting the above "back-at-ya", so as to reply here - as well. I added Grand Lodge of Scotland to plug an obvious hole in the Wiki-work. I got the information from the “horses mouth”, and this is how they see it. I’m a UGLE “Stone Chipper” not Scots, and you are one of the Great Sage-Tylers in the East. Edit away! But remember what happened to those who crossed P2 (allegedly)! I would not associate Scots with anything naughty either, but all-the-same, I would not want you to end your days holding up a “Freeway”. LoL :o Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

PigottDM
Sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do exactly. RSVP

PigottDM 08:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you speedy delete this?
Freemasonry Criticism is an article created by a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer. It basically puts forth his version of Anti-Freemasonry, and the arbitration case against said user banned him indefinitely from editing any article relating to Freemasonry, which should certainly include creating an article as well. MSJapan 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey MSJapan - unfortunately, I'm not an admin, so I can't delete the article. I'm not entirely certain on the specifics of this Lightbringer RfArb, but I'd say the best place to put notices about activity like this would be on the administrator's noticeboard. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas Card
Just in case I forget later my Christian brethren, “I have news of great joy, for a child and Saviour is born to us.” Greetings of this Christ-tide to you and yours! Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 18:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Square News

 * NOTE: User Vidkun has nominated Grand Lodge as highly POV. Millennium Sentinel 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At Freemasonry, is "secret or" needed in, "Freemasonry is a secret or esoteric society, but not occult, in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally disclosed to the public.", do you think? Millennium Sentinel 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that you've already responded to this point elsewhere, I remain uncomfortable with the use of 'Secret', since it's clearly not (with buildings clearly marked, web pages, phone directory entries, and in Scotland meeting being publicised in local papers). Some of the content is considered Secret, that content varying by Juristiction in UGLE, GLoS and GLI that being limited to the modes of recognition, in some US states the entirety of the ritual within the Tyled environment.  Esoteric doesn't stand on it's own, since the meaning in this context is merely 'hidden content'.  The phrase that has been exised twice is that used by UGLE in response to the assertion that FM is a 'Secret Society' but again it requires amplification to be meaningful.  There may be value in a subsection discussing the issues around the society being secret and some of the content within the society being secret.ALR 22:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to create an entire subsection, but the point would at least be worthy of a paragraph. I think "esoteric" works, in the sense that it is not common knowledge, but "secret" simply doesn't work, as, after consideration, it's obviously not factual as such. It maybe a matter of conjunction. Let me try a minor edit and see what people think. MSJapan 23:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's a lot clearer. ALR 09:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lists of LIsts...
Hey MSJ those were there because the page List of Masonic organizations.  please  read the talkpage history there before rv-ing again. Other than that, I'm not fighting this. email me if you want to talk level-headedly... Grye 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Another extraneous category...
Fixed it. Basicly, one need to find the and place it in    tags. If I can help with anything else, just ask :) WegianWarrior 08:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon
You expressed interest in the word, Jahbulon, going away. stick yer vote here, brother:

To vote on the deletion of this article, follow this big ol' link to the AfD page & vote there.

& Delete this, my entry, at will. Grye 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)



PS what's with that whacked entry at the bottom, catagory:GAOTU? Looks like User:Jachin added it 22:22, 17 October 2005...kinda funny....;~) Grye 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I set the request myself, actually, so it should be all set. I think I'm going to get rid of the GAOTU thing, though, just so people don't get the wrong idea. MSJapan 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jubbllybubbilly or whatever it is... is back, and locked, in all the wikies... but the Hebrew etymology stuff now gets a look-in. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 10:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon on wiktionary
Note: It has been expressed that your vote may well not be counted there, as the vote is for the community's consensus, & as a non-registered wiktionary user, you would not be a part of that community... Just a friendly heads-up... Grye 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan has a lot to learn about Freemasonry
I've been a Freemason for over 25 years. I will not be posting any further on Wikipedia because of types like you and Grye. I was very nice to Grye when I first encountered him and he became rude and offensive, as did you. It appears that you and Grye have learned nothing in lodge about conduct. That is sad. Wandering Writer 06:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is not Lodge, this is a publicly accessible encyclopedia with guidelines. When those guidelines are not followed, problems result.  The edits you made were contrary to Wikipedia policy, but you tried to force them anyway, without any discussion once they were pointed out.  When people force edits without asking, that's called vandalism.  Notices were posted, and the reverts continued.  Explanations were made, and the reverts continued.  On the AfDs, you showed a lack of knowledge of the WP policies and the entire system. I notice you said "became" offensive, meaning that that was not the case initially.  Perhaps your actions may be to blame?    Now, if we're going to take potshots, wouldn't your prior actions (doing things contrary to policy) be in violation of the obligation to follow the laws of the area in which you reside, in this case Wikipedia?  In any case, if you want to leave, leave, but don't place the blame of your misunderstanding on others.  MSJapan 08:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Picked this up on the "Watch" section). "Peace Love and Harmony…" I wish to register my support for you, Bro. MSJapan, and concur with your remarks. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That should more or less be the end of it, as Wandering Writer has removed the material from his talk page, save Mahabone the sockpuppet's comments (again). MSJapan 02:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan should think twice about Freemasonry
I happen to agree to the comment above. Even though MSJapan puts himself forward as being a Freemason, I really do not think this really is the case. Any regular freemason has a chance to visit the secretary of his Grand Lodge and learn the names of the notable freemasons all around the world. These are usually posted or published by the same GLs anyway. You should first check them out "to learn", if not enough, you should check the GL Web Sites, -again- "to learn" the remarkable names of the countries, instead of jumping on lousy edits with an incomprehensible greed you showed, NOT a masonic virtue at all. This really is sad. Baphin 12:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first accusation - Try me. Next: I should not have to do all the fact-checking for this article.  Proper Netiquette states that you read forums and other boards before making posts.  The List of Freemasons article specifically states that no edits are to be added to the page without citation.  The only info we have on any of those individuals is that they are not verified as Freemasons, and you did not prove otherwise.  Once again, don't get mad at me because you didn't read and become informed beforehand.  Secondly, I don't know what you think a Grand Secretary is for, but they have no ability whatsoever to pull membership records from another jurisdiction, so visiting my Grand Lodge (which I do on fairly regular occasion, BTW) would not yield me that information. MSJapan 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * extremely vulgar, highly ignorant and unbelievably illiterate in terms of freemasonry. no freemason would use such words and attitude. it is obvious that he has no idea about how craft works out at all. no such person in bigotry can be a member of the craft, or should stay as a a member of the craft with this atttitude. i guess, this small but illuminating conversation of yours uncovered the face of this user. of course, i have nothing more to say. i am just sorry for the unnecessary usage of the world's oxygen by such living organisms. Baphin 12:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He He...Do some people stay too long after the Festive Board? What are the above on about MSJapan? All the Best in Amity Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 10:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

PS... Wither da Vulcan these days? Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 10:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

PPS... ALL the Bros I know offline (that surf Wiki) have been blocked from wikionary or whatever its called. I've just tried, and found out myself. Have you tried? Could be jabbabubble-gumed up? ;) Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blue Turkey?
Now MSJapan, you show the S&C. So do I, (as I got my badge from your Home Page!). From your track record I would say that you are, or act like, a regular member of the craft – with a more even temperament than I have. :)

Now, what if you are not in fact of the Craft? You can still edit Wiki stuff, and again your record points to regularity of thought. You seem to have shown rather gentle caution in the case of Famous Turkish Freemasons. With the shoe on the other foot, how do any Wiki users know I am a regular member of the Craft (UGLE)? The answer is that we all build our own CVs here – independent of our outside lives. We are known by the regularity, or otherwise, of our written Wiki contributions. The more we add, the more we are trusted, or otherwise - in common with all Wiki users. MSJapan I back your stand. So moving on I now add the following.

MSJapan. I found these on a quick surf:

From UGLE link (site in Turkish?): Grand Lodge of Turkey http://www.mason.org.tr/ From Google: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/layiktez_barkai.html From Google: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/layiktez.html

I would say that the evidence supports Grand Lodge of Turkey as being regular to UGLE. Even if was not, the list of individuals seems to include names from historically, or presently, irregular jurisdictions. It is up to the certain editor to convince the other interested editors about the changes he or she makes. I do not think I have re-invented the wheel, here, in what I have said. MSJapan, I think you have acted in good faith, and was unfairly and personally attacked. As you know I tend to stand on a rather radical, chequered pavement as regards Wiki – and put S&C first – so my thoughts may have POV to the general reader. I can also be guilty of being sarcastic – when provoked. ;)  Yours in written amity, Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 13:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PS The above could be said for StV, as he seems to have the same type of even provenance as yourself. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 13:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "...the jurisdiction is not the issue, rather that no one has yet been able to verify that any of those people on the Turkey list is or was a Freemason." Yes, and I agree with you. I'm a little, “Weakly”, uneasy about such lists, in general. Even verified masons have a right to private lives - unless Freemasonry has a large part to play in their public lives, as well. I'm also,“Weakly”, scepticle about the value of a list to the cause of the Craft. These are only passing remarks though, as I'm not too bothered either way. Verification is definitely necessary, if a list is done at all - and you make the point well. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary
Re - logging on issue... ...but I thought we ran everything? (Can't trust that Area 51 re-engineered alien tech though). :) Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 08:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to give people a heads up. It seems that the block on our favorite page at Wiktionary has been removed.  I have slapped an rfv and rfd warning on it.  Feel free to edit. Blueboar 14:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes?
Wondering if you have time to help out on something. I'm not familiar enough with wiki formatting, nor html etc, but, where many of us are now using the Freemason userbox like you have, how about creating it as a template, similar to the ones for the various religions, which then also will self-populate a Freemason Wikipedian category?--Vidkun 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) See discussion at Skull 'n' Femurs User Talk --Vidkun 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

VidKun has "S&C" and "Wiccan" boxes?... Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jabbabbabubble-gumed by Wiki gods
It seems severeral Brethren blanked jahbulon.gif saying that it was copyright to some anti-masonic publication or other. This is some sort of “crime” against the gods of Wiki. They sure do get protective over this word – which prompts the question – why? Anyway, we all live quite close together, so I think they blocked one IP address and caught us all as collateral damage. I can get into Wikionary now, so the IP address has changed again, or the block has been lifted. We’ll get our revenge – come the revolution – send in the men in black, ha ha! ;) Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Massachusetts project
Page has been created at List_of_Masonic_Grand_Lodges/Grand_Lodge_of_Massachusetts--Vidkun 14:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Our favorite word
New info on "that word"... the speedy deletion has been rejected for now, it seems there was no history of the deletion (no AfD page). Thinking back... perhaps we did not delete it, but simply moved it to Wiktionary? I do know that the entire entry disappeared from Wikipedia (article and talk page) in late Dec. of last Year. Perhaps we will need to do a full AfD on it? Blueboar 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. Feel like starting it? I've done about 6 myself lately, and it's starting to look like a habit. MSJapan 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Apperant vandal at work on Freemasonry
Hi.

It seems we have a vandal / misguided editor working on the article again... Jimmy James (seems, based on his edits, to be 24.68.242.147 logged in). I feel he needs to be keept an eye on.

I'm placing this notice on the talkpages of frequent editors on the topics of masonry - Im allready hovering close to 3RR and don't want to break the rules, and I got paying (but less interesting) work that needs doing.

WegianWarrior 10:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

MS Japan. I make decisions in the cause of my favourite articles. I’m certainly not as bad as some who are able to use a bigger tool box. I repeat – Craft defended 1st. Am I the one your getting frustrated with? Well I've done some good editing myself. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 08:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review
Hello! I've left a response to your inquiry on the Deletion_review page. Regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry NPOV tag
The fact that I do not know alot about freemasonry has zero impact on my ability to judge an article for being NPOV or not. I clearly stated that I cannot judge the factual sections in the middle, however there are some sections that have glaring NPOV violations. The most obvious is the content fork, where all of the anti-freemasonry information is moved to a seperate page.

However if you want an example of an Npov violation that is extremely easy to spot, look at the last line in the opening paragraph "It [the freemasonry system] is referred to, in some sources, as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." the source linked for that is http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/macoy/bl_masonicmanual.htm "The Masonic Manual" which is obviously a manual written by Mason's for Masons. A group saying good things about themselves is not NPOV. If I was editing a page about myself and called myself "beautiful" and sourced a website that I made that says "seraphimxi is beautiful" that is obviously not NPOV.  Simply the existance and protection of that edit added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freemasonry&oldid=27994618 makes adding a NPOV tag to the article justifiable.  Since If I were to right now go on the page, and edit out that line with the reason "biased source" it would immediatly get reverted. Seraphim 22:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing at all. What is being quoted is a portion of historic Masonic ritual.  Where else would you expect to find it, except in a reference book of ritual?  You've got a fundamental misunderstanding here, and that's where the problem is. MSJapan 22:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we have moved this discussion to the Anti-Freemasonry talk page. For ease of reading lets keep it there.

Syndicating talk....
It was a cut and paste job - I too would welcome an easier way to messasge several people at once. WegianWarrior 04:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding unsubstantiated sock tags
this is considered vandalism--P0P0 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice cut and paste from your own warning. I think a user with no edits (save posting a sock tag on another user's page) is suspect enough to warrant it. MSJapan 02:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. If you hadn't AN/I'd that, I would never have known about the edit. :-) Thanks!--Sar e kOfVulcan 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikistress
Sounds like you need a nice cup of tea. :-)

Job's Daughters Bethel
Actually, I'd been considering much of the same things you mentioned on my Talk regarding this. There's really not much more to say about the topic other than what's there. If it were to be consolidated into the larger article it wouldn't hurt my feelings any. --Faustus37 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mahabone/Mystical organizations
Umm... all I see is that he corrected a typo. Where do you see that he put the Freemasonry section in?--Sar e kOfVulcan 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rathbone
Took me a little while to figure out how to report it, but I did.--Vidkun 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He's blocked now. If you wish to add commentary, please do so at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Vidkun 18:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the block on Basil Rathbone has ended, and he has picked up right where he left off!. Same edits, same reverts, etc. Can we get him blocked perminantly? I would put the request in, but I don't know how. Blueboar 14:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He seems to have moved over to the Anti article, which is more in his line. I suspect that it will end up being very POV by the time he is done... sad too, it was becoming a nice, balanced article about Anti-masonry in total, and not just a rant on why Masons are evil.  Oh well... I will let them play for a while, and go back later to work on re-balancing the Article.Blueboar 23:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If I count correctly, he is in violation of 3RR yet again. I can not figure out how to submit the violation, could you do it? Blueboar 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert needed again, please. Ardenn 16:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. MSJapan 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Needed again. Ardenn 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Only admins can protect a page, normal users adding the protected tag is pointless. Seraphim 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. The idea was that if Basil did not know that, we would not have another problem. MSJapan 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay  Talk •  Contact, Chairman, 12:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Enoch Legends
I've responded to your note on my talk page - look forward to working with you. -Visorstuff 17:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Duncan's
I know that all the GL's have different stuff. I'm just saying that a source is needed to show that what Duncan wrote was only used in one jurisdiction. Since they changed the wording to "Jahbulon is a word historically used byFreemasons participating in one jurisdiction[citation needed] of the York Rite" and "applicable only in that Jurisdiction". I can provide a source that shows that the secrets can change from GL to GL, but I can also supply a source that shows that some of the rituals do infact stay the same between jurisdictions. If they are claiming in the article that it only applies to that 1 jurisdiction they need a reference that shows that since Duncan's just says "Royal Arch Masons". I originally had text that said "It should also be noted that Freemasonry is not a single coherent system, there are many different branches of Freemasonry, and it is impossible to state that what is true at one lodge is true at all other lodges" but they removed it and replaced it with the "one jurisdiction" stuff. Seraphim 03:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * hey MS, jumping in here: Duncan's doesn't say that it is for any jurisdiction specifically does it?  I will go and check my copy:  without anything showing a specific jurisdiction, I'm of the opinion it shouldn't be cited as being appropriate for any jurisdiction, unless it, in and of itself, shows a claim for it being the proper work for a specific one.  As for the counter-claim requiring/requesting we show that what we do use is not like what Duncan's shows, I would simply, again, say that the burden of proof lies upon anyone who is making the claim that Duncan's is valid Masonic ritual.  Just my opinion.  --Vidkun 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe it does, but outside sources would validate the statement that it was valid for a jurisdiction at one time. Not knowing where Duncan was from, I couldn't say which jurisdiction that was.  It had to have been appropriate for some jurisdiction at some point, so that is a fair statement, but it's certainly not valid for any contemporary jurisdiction. MSJapan 05:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Duncan's is in the public domain you can find it on a few websites. He doesn't say anything about a jurisdiction, the title page says "GUIDE TO THE THREE SYMBOLIC DEGREES OF THE ANCIENT YORK RITE AND TO THE DEGREES OF MARK MASTER, PAST MASTER, MOST EXCELLENT MASTER, AND THE ROYAL ARCH BY MALCOLM C. DUNCAN EXPLAINED AND INTERPRETED BY COPIOUS NOTES AND NUMEROUS ENGRAVINGS".  Seraphim  05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

New articles
Have you seen the new articles Master Mason and Rose Croix which have appeared? They appear to be good faith but need to be managed appropriately.ALR 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Belay my last. Knight of the Rose Croix. ALR 14:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually Master Masons. With no S it redirects to Freemasonry.  Right now, neither page has any citation for what it says.--Vidkun 14:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment added to the authors talk page inviting him to discuss in the two parent pages before they get redirected.ALR 14:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection for Freemasonry
MSJapan, The semi-protection policy is not designed to quell edit wars or lock articles. I understand your concerns, as that article has suffered from much vandalism and edit conflicts, to the point of delisting it as a FA, however that is not what SPP is for. If someone starts repeatedly vandalizing the article, you should list them at WP:AIV if they have been warned, if it is getting severe you can request re-semi-protection on the approriate page, or you can leave me a Talk Message and I will look at it personally, I am usually on every day. xaosflux Talk  / CVU  02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked this page again, and the edits being added do not seem to meet the vandalism test. SPP is clear, in that it is only to be used in response to serious vandalism of a page, and for that it works pretty well.  This article is having a content dispute, and is breaching 3RR in it's course.  I'd agree with the full protection status until the dispute can be resolved on the talk page, as SPP is "not an appropriate solution to editorial disputes of any kind".  The option I would pursue now would be to gain a consensus on the talk page as to the diputed section, then request unprotection.  If I'm interperting you correctly, you feel that the vandalism is all hapening from socks, if so all of them will easily be able to be blocked under future 3RR vios if needed, withouth putting your selves in that situation, as there also seems to be a number of editors who disagree witht those changes that can do the reversions as needed.  xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  15:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Shefman AfD

 * Hey there, perhaps you weren't aware, but the last time we went through an AfD on the Shefman article, we agreed that every member of Vaughan Council is entitled to a Wiki article. Thus, I'm not sure of the motivation behind your AfD. In a desire to maintain balance and neutrality here, it wouldn't make sense to remove the article of one member of council, while leaving the other 8, especially since Shefman is arguably more noteable than many others as per his OHRC positions, hopefully you can clear this up. Thanks. pm_shef 05:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that there should be a WP Policy specifically for political notability, in the meantime however, I feel that its best to avoid fights (like this is likely to cause). Regarding your Boston analogy, IMHO, I think that every member of their council should get an article - if no one is willing to write one, there's nothing I can do about it. Also, you said that "I would support an RFC on notability for all of the Council as long as there wasn't a skewed vote", sorry, whats an RFC?


 * That's actually a pretty good idea. If we could find some way to get an RFC for the whole Vaughan Council group, it might give us a neutral viewpoint. Alternatively, and maybe a much simpler idea, i recently found the category "Canadian city councils", we could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members with facts about them, kinda like mini-articles but actually just sections of the Vaughan Council main article. Thoughts? pm_shef 05:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Snide Accusations
I'm getting sick and tired of some of the editors around here making snide accusations against me. Grye accused me of being a vandal, yet couldn't produce any vandalistic edits i've ever made. It's getting rather old. If you want to accuse me of something present your evidence and make it formal, don't make snide comments like "Interesting choice of terminology on your part, though. It's starting to sound familiar." because that's 100% uncalled for. If you want to accuse me of something make it official and file a conduct RFC. If you don't you have no right to accuse me of anything, since you obviously don't have the evidence to back your accusations up. It's annoying and uncalled for. Seraphim 05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First off i'll address your "Further more" points. I posted that I knew next to nothing about freemasonry well over a month ago, and have done a ton of research, and been instructed about various issues since then. I am well aware the section of duncans including the word Jahbulon is in the section on the royal arch, however the majority of the Duncan's book is about the York Right which is one of the 2 main branches of freemasonry.  The websites that make the allogations that jahbulon is the masonic god do not specify only "royal arch" masons, they accuse freemasonry as a whole, and therefore changing the text to say that they accuse only royal arch masons is incorrect.  I'm the one that added "Jahbulon is a word historically used by Royal Arch Masons under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Grand Chapter of England[1]." i'm well aware that it's a royal arch word.
 * Your second point makes no sence. I've never edited the content on the main freemasonry page, i've been in alot of discussions but the only freemasonry page that i've edited is the Jahbulon page, since grye decided to delete the page contents against the wishes of an AFD discussion, and it was pointed out in the freemasonry FARC discussion. The vast majority of my article edits are on the video-game pages I am on. The majority of discussion that I am involved in is problary on the freemasonry related articles, since in the masonry articles everything turns into a long drawn out debate.
 * Your 3rd point doesn't make sence. You don't understand the concept of NPOV. Nowhere in the Jahbulon article do I ever push a side, or make any claims as to the validity of the arguments presented.  In every case it is presented as a person's opinion. The fact that a person has an opinion is verified by posting a reference that shows that the person has that opinion. I suggest you look up in WP:NPOV the section called "Writing for the Enemy POV" that explains how biased sources can be portrayed in a NPOV manner, also if you look at WP:RS it says "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." even if people are off their rocker, you can still present their opinion as long as it is portrayed as their opinion. Also I just went back to google books and it does look like they restricted the article, however you can still search the contents of the book and it shows that jahbulon is infact used.  The book discussed claims that jahbulon is the name of a masonic satanic god. That is a fact, if you want to go get the book you will see that that is correct.
 * I would be very interested in seeing what agenda you feel I have. The only agenda I have is that I don't like people removing or blocking verifiable information. If you believe I have some other secret agenda, like a religious nutcase out to get freemasonry, or an anti-masonic agenda, I can show plenty of examples where I have made "pro-masonic" edits.  Infact in the jahublon article i've been fighting ALR to keep in the article UGLE's page that says that freemasonry is NOT a religion.
 * I can assure you, I have no hidden agenda. If you want to continue accusing me of having an agenda take the time to create a case and present it formally, I consider all the little snippy bashing of me bullying. Grye tried to accuse me of being a vandal, yet was not able to present even 1 edit where I vandalized a page. I feel that when you try to show that I have an "agenda" you will find the same thing. Either make a formal complaint that I can be cleared of or stop harassing me.  Seraphim  06:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet
He already checked me, when grye accused me, I'm not a sock of anyone. But getting myself cleared even further is always fun. Seraphim 05:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) That checks out for me as well.Imacomp 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Freemasonry
Posted to Imacomp: It's fine if you don't like the article, but putting in a lot of spurious citation requests mucks up the article for everybody else, because now we need to figure out what needs to be cited and what does not. If you don't like the article, fine. Either contribute positively, or simply leave it alone and don't bother with it. MSJapan 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Bach at ya re Freemasonry/Holocaust "editors".Imacomp 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (Bach as in German guy (its a pun, I think).Imacomp 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry
There was no mention in either the protection log or the recent section on the talk page about a banned user. Which banned user is it, please? I'm happy to reinstate semi if they have been trouble lately. -Splash talk 21:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's very hard to work that out when faced with a request for unprotection and non-descriptive reason in the protection log. I've taken it back to semi protection so you can edit it again. Note that you need to get the socks blocked since they are older than 4 days and not affected by semiprotection. -Splash talk 23:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RFM Jahbulon
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Jahbulon, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.