User talk:MSJapan/Archive 11

Tyewolfe
'Dear MS Japan: First, a bit of cordiality. Hi, how are you? A traveler to the East and a Cambridge man? We have some things in common. Anyway, I just wrote and erased a rather contrary response to what I felt was the umpteenth patronizing note from a person (you, this time) from an org. that avows a need to employ etiquette even when rightly exasperated by repeated errors from this wannabe editor. Because this was a slightly ad hominem, pointlessly defensive first draft, I erased my whining and distilled this down so my tone reflects my character and so I will just ask one favor. If you nor any other person can assist me in this request, I will take your curt advice and shove off. But I could be a great asset to wikipedia considering my background in English (two advanced degrees). However, I have a strong learning disorder that makes it very hard to navigate this Web site to understand and learn how to employ the correct procedures for actual corrections or issues worthy of the talk page. I would benefit if there were the sort of person who might recognize that with a little bit of patience and --polite- interaction, they could cease having someone who makes life difficult and is an asset, a very big asset. For example, because of my misunderstanding about talk page access/ how to raise issues, I wrote out what my problems were within the intro of the masonry article, not to be printed in the body, but to show that the first citation links right to basically a hate site. I don't know how that itself can be objectionable, even if how I did it is not acceptable. But I want to learn. Instead I am just made to feel unwelcome, without even a pause for a greeting to make such critiques a bit more humanizing. As w.p. is losing editors, women, and complaints of rudeness abound (no one has even said hello to me), is there not someone who could engage me so that I am not confused about the basics? Telling me where to read is not good enough. I would need a little walking through at the beginning but then I imagine it will be like riding a bicycle. But I must concede that navigating the site to grok its rules is not to be done lightly, or alone in my case, as I find they don't always seem the most user-friendly. So, please either guide me to the next step or reiterate the lack of compatability you believe you perceive, and I will bow to the wikipashas and do writing that I get paid for, as that is my only job. Please remember I am a person like you. Have a great weekend. Fratermally, MTW Tyewolfe (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) tyewolfe' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyewolfe (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied again. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Landmarks
I am not sure this qualifies as a direct quote ... we are citing Paul Bessel's webpage, and not the original report prepared for the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America (COGMINA). It may be an indirect quotation - if Bessel is directly quoting GOGMINA. However, I did not get the impression that Bessel was quoting ... I got the impression that he was summarizing the COGMINA report.

If we want to actually quote what GOGMINA says about the landmarks, then we need to find a published copy of the original text of the report and cite that. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So let's find the original report and check. (I seriously doubt that COGMINA would be so vague as to issue a statement that could be interpreted as saying a Brother discussing religious interpretation in his synagog/church, or a Brother discussing a political issue at a party rally is somehow violating a Masonic Landmark.) Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paul Udouj
Hello MSJapan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul Udouj, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Frid
Most of the sources said the 13th. A few others said the 14th (early hours). I just checked up on sources, and according to this article, it was indeed the 14th, saying it earlier had the incorrect date of death. []Crboyer (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Let Me Be There
The Navin Harris vandalism was added 2 years ago and just never caught. I assume the source you linked just picked up the vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Planes, Trains and Cars
Hello MSJapan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Planes, Trains and Cars, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ted (2012 film)
Hello MSJapan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ted (2012 film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page has incoming links and more than 1600 page views this month. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tom tucker the man and his dream
Hello MSJapan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tom tucker the man and his dream, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page had 90 views in February, 20 in March; a useful redirect. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: United States (country)
Hello MSJapan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of United States (country), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page was viewed ~25 times in February, 15 in March; obviously a useful redirect. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

a request
You placed prod on Osama_bin_Laden_bodyguard. But when you did so you did not follow the recommendation that you should leave a heads-up on the talk page of the article creator.

For the wikipedia to function smoothly we all need to show consideration and civility to other contributors. Our decisions are supposed to be reached openly and transparently, in so far as possible. Our decisions are supposed to be made after a civil and collegial discussion of the underlying issues.

For a deletion discussion to appear fair, it is absolutely essential that the nominator does not give the appearance that they chose not to leave that heads-up for the article creator, so that only one side of the issues is considered by the closing administrator.

Could you please make a greater effort to comply with the deletion policies if you chose to nominate another article for deletion in the future? Geo Swan (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Masonic Lodge Officers: change
Sir, you incorrectly changed my edit to Masonic Lodge Officers. http://www.pagrandlodge.org/districtb/436/officers.html lists the required lodge officers in the State of PA. As I am myself a Pennsylvania Mason, I have first hand knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.160.25 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You were incorrect to change my last edit, where I wrote that they are not always used in PA. This is correct, as the citation shows. In response to your suggestion to the Masters of Ceremonies. They do not take on this role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.160.25 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to tit for tat over a little detail. I just thought that the purpose was to make sure people were informed to the best of knowledge. I would just like it to say that they are not always used, which I have proven, is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.160.25 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mouli Cohen
Hi MS Japan - Please see my notes on the Mouli Cohen AfD discussion page. But, I wanted to address something about notability and the personal knowledge editors may or may not have about subjects. As an example, Kenzo Tsujimoto is a totally unfamiliar name to 99.99% of people. Perhaps even unknown to the consumers of video games. But, I know him to be the founder, Chairman, and CEO of Capcom - one of the largest video game publishers. I know about him because I worked in the video game industry for decades before retiring - and that's how I know Mouli, who founded and ran several video game companies as Chairman and CEO. Not vanity titles or insubstantial companies - that all have good documentation for references. I don't think this problem and your flagging the article would have come up, except for the poor editing after the news this week. The original article was up since January - with no negative comments - and some helpful additions. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the Mouli Cohen article now. Thanks,Ellis408 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

a request
You made a comment when I removed the prod you placed on Osama bin Laden bodyguard -- IIRC you asserted that it was bad form for the article creator to remove a prod. You may be correct, although that is not my recollection of the relevant policy documents. I'd be interested in pointers to the relevant passage(s) of relevant wikidocuments -- if you were citing wikidocuments.

I am curious -- 83 different contributors made 166 edits to the article prior to your prod. Didn't that make you wonder whether at least one of those 83 other contributors would dispute your prod?

No offense, I still think it is a mistake to ignore the recommendations of policy that nominators leave a heads-up for article creators, as, as I said before, our decisions are supposed to follow informed, collegial discussions. But the discussion isn't an informed, meaningful discussion if the nominator actively discludes those who disagree with the nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland
There is also a source at the Grand Lodge's site about the current Grand Master.--The Theosophist (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had already mentioned it in the AfD at some point. That still doesn't address the initial copyright violation or source GMs from 1933-2011 (because we don't know when the current GM took office) MSJapan (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we know! It is in his bio http://www.grandlodgescotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=180 --The Theosophist (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So it does, but the odd thing is that, if he started in 2008, he's now in his fourth year, and that seems to be contrary to established practice (no it isn't, actually). Are we sure that the info is current as of 2012, especially given that the copyright date on the site is 2011? MSJapan (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this thing:http://www.omdhs.syracusemasons.com/sites/default/files/history/Grand%20Masters%20of%20Scotlan1.pdf Ironically, it even contains some wikipedia material but it has loads of other sources. Can you check it out?--The Theosophist (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't use it. It's self-referential to Wikipedia. The "loads of other sources" applies to the biographies, but the list itself was very clearly taken from Wikipedia, down to the formatting and the fact that it is out of date. 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The List is taken from Wikipedia but the "loads of other sources" apply to the wikipedia's list as there are references about the grandmastership. By the way, shouldn't we have an article about William Saint Clair of Rosslyn as we have for Anthony Sayer and we have sources, proof of existance and notability?--The Theosophist (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I went back and looked at that omdhs document again. It is entirely cut and pasted from other sources (including WP), many of which do not back up the GM claim so much as show existence of a given person or his family. In short, the whole thing is still based off the WP list, and can't be used as such. As for St. Clair, you're making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - just because we have X doesn't mean we have to have Y. There's a fair number of Lords Sinclair who aren't even mentioned in the Clan Sinclair article, and we have established that being a GM alone does not confer notability. So, as long as you can meet GNG with it, go right ahead. MSJapan (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done!. By the way, the only source I could find for Sayer http://www.masonicdictionary.com/sayer.html --The Theosophist (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sayer's got an entry on the GLBC&Y site with a few other potential sources there as well, but even UGLE says they don't know much about him. The sourcing issues surrounding the early GMs of almost all GLs founded before the 1900s is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of notability based solely on a Masonic connection. TBH, I think that in most cases, the "noble as patron" idea is what is really at play. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your last point?--The Theosophist (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the early Grand Masters are notable because they were nobles. It is because they were nobles that they were chosen to be Grand Masters. Whether this had something to do with royal patronage of operative guilds, or just a way to get money if needed, who knows, but it was that connection that seemed to be the key. MSJapan (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look better, all but less than twenty weren't nobles. From them, many were MPs or Lord Provosts of Edinburgh. Not just the first ones.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Note... the AfD was closed with a keep... however the closer also commented that we should a) remove unsourced GMs and b) consider merging. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mass reversions
See my message on the talk page of the user whose edits I've reverted. Graham 87 02:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your audacity amazes me.
"this is not the sort of source that should be used for this information. Find it elsewhere or don't add it."

What exactly do you mean by "this sort of source"? I have very well proven that this is an RS. Who are you to dictate the world?VivaWikipedia (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles on various AMD degrees
User:Vtr1781249 seems to be a fan of the Allied Masonic Degrees... and has been writing articles about them (Ex: Order of the Secret Monitor). I don't think these degrees are really notable enough for Wikipedia to have stand-alone articles about them. Heck... I question whether the entire AMD, as an organization, is notable (its borderline... does it really pass WP:ORG?). You are more conversant on the topic than I am... what are your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I love how all the Masonic controllers of propaganda continue to censor me, and by doing so, they have reconfirmed what I have stated as being fact. As fellow brother Mason they are privy to the secret details that incriminate them which I am completely free from obligation to keep secret. They keep forgetting how TRUTH never changes, regardless of how complex or convoluted they have constructed the lie which is covering up the TRUTH that is FIGHTING successfully to be known. Hows this for secrets untold...... the Lodge orgies where each brother gets humiliated by the same transsexual are my favorite. I've been there to witness it and yet they call me crazy for talking about the things which they practice regularly. The big secret is how the entire fraternity of Freemasonry is just one big walk-in closet and my hand is right on the light switch that they keep telling themselves, doesn't exist. --ACE 12:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanChris948 (talk • contribs)

Talkback
A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy
If you're going to talk about my actions then please:
 * 1) don't tell lies ("... made no improvements to the article", "... without editing to support it") and
 * 2) let me know about the discussion rather than talk about me behind my back.

Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Albert Pike - Philosopher
Isn't Morals and Dogma a philosophical book?--94.65.40.162 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! --94.65.40.162 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, would Aleister Crowley be considered a philosopher?--94.65.40.162 (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Crowley has written on these subjects...--94.65.40.162 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is basically a matter of opinion. Even established sources are someone's opinion, so we'd better make a consensus based on what Crowley written, not how was it commented. In Liber OZ (http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib77.htm), for example, he demonstrates a Man's rights in his opinion.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Albert Pike removal
Why did you delete my information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.66.185 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Godlien
Now, out of curiosity, MSJ, what was that?--The Theosophist (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure about that. However, as it has been oversighted, it was surely something more peculiar than just that. These were always happening, while this one must have been more unseemly than usual.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Pirouz Davani
Thanks for the note! My understanding was that they aren't acceptable for the purposes of establishing the notability (as coverage) of the organisation that published them. Eg. Promo-spammers often try to use re-printed company releases as proof the company is notable. But in this case, the releases are not being used to establish the notability of RSF, they are being used to verify specific claims/facts in an article about an unrelated subject and, I suppose, notability of that subject too. In that context I would be inclined to consider them independent (relatively, given the subject) and third-party (though I don't know if the subject was an RSF member) as the subject obviously can't exert control over editorial if he's missing, presumed dead. While I don't believe (in this context) they are primary sources (created by the subject), primary sources would probably still be acceptable for verifying facts. I suppose the subject's own newspaper would be a primary source... but I don't think we have any of his work. Sorry for rambling, does any of that make sense? Stalwart 111  06:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Understand entirely where you're coming from, which is why I didn't simply cite WP:BEFORE and question the nomination. I think the nomination is justified, I just think the article might be worth keeping. There's not much about his Pirouz newspaper but if he was kidnapped/killed for its content then as Editor there might be another argument to be made there. I think his long-term campaigns, imprisonment, paper and disappearance put it beyond WP:BLP1E. But I imagine there might be some contention about my opinion... Stalwart 111  08:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Memphis Misraim / Ancient and Primitive Rite
Please keep insisting that Memphis/Misriam/Memphis Misraim is not used in "regular" masonry since you are correct. Oh wait you are not because you do not know what you are talking about. http://www.freres-inconnus-memphis.ch/ damn you just got some light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.28.150 (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel the burn
First

http://www.grandcollegeofrites.org/

The guy on the main page who heads said organization is seen very clearly David L. Hargett, Jr. He runs this organization that says no to Memphis Misraim that you seemingly believe is true and you follow. You know the guys here in the US who take the oath of the 33rd degree and not to recognize higher degrees who then broke their own oath and obtained the degrees through mercenary motives. Feel the burn.

Second

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94009874/2011-Oct-Byzantium-Web

Check David L. Hargettt, Jr's esoteric background. Then see how he is a member of Memphis Misraim. Then notice where he went to get them. Damn how does it feel to be dictated to, and all the high players don't follow those rules that you abide by. Its like that meme with all the republicans and they are laughing and it says we told them it would trickle down. They are laughing at guys like you saying we told them it wasnt regular. Maybe one day you will see the light. Really though how does it feel to be dictated to while you sit on the sidelines from the peanut gallery? If you really care so much about this topic put your money where your mouth is, and go to the Grand Lodge of North Carolina, and bring him up on charges. You won't do though tough guy. lol Feel the burn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.28.150 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The exception is the rule means Memphis Misraim is practiced, and there is nothing wrong with it, and whatever lies you believe that have been peddled are false. Like I said you wouldn't dare to bring him up on Masonic charges, because at the end of the day you like being dictated to, and you know your place in the peanut gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.28.150 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing the argument? You are the one who did so after I showed you a Masonic lodge under a Grand Lodge in amity with the UGLE. You are hypocritical. Again thank god you are not a scientist you suck at empirical data. You still won't go to the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and bring up on charges. Stay in your place like you are supposed to, and keep being dictated to. One day you may see the light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.28.150 (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD
Hey, it was brought to my attention that the Diamonds World Tour AfD that I closed was only open for a day. I for some unknown reason missed that, otherwise I would've let it open a few days prior to performing an NAC. If you object to my closing of the AfD, I would be willing to revert myself, it just seemed to me that five strong keep !votes almost classified as a WP:SNOW keep. Let me know if you disagree. Since you were the only one who was in favor of deletion, I thought I'd notify you. Thanks in advance. Go  Phightins  !  01:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Double Talkback
At both Floquenbeam and my talk pages. Go  Phightins  !  03:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Vacation nine 13:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Freemasons by nationality cats
Incorrect: they were deleted along with the parent category for reasons unrelated to fears of overcategorization. The parent category was restored in January. Given that a few of the subcategories are populated with dozens of individuals, their recreation seems perfectly sensible. However, if you object, feel free to take them to CfD and make your case there. - Biruitorul Talk 00:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am an employee of Fr. Mark Gantley, the old source that I was correcting. I have a copy of the primary source that I have corrected the foot notes to cite. Please do not revert to the old version. I can email you the primary document if you would like me to do so. LamellaX (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC) LamellaX /

POV Cite Warning
"POV citation-warring. Per CITE, this is easily verifiable. Not liking the POV is not a reason to claim citations - things like this are why we can't GA because it causes overcitation." What is "GA"? kcylsnavS 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that MSJ means that "over-citation" is a greater problem for an article getting to Good Article status than imposing a systematic bias. If that's the case he's not making a good call. JASpencer (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
'''-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers, ] Ri l ey   ''' 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Same here. -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I suggest you also read further into guidelines, policies and essays that deal with references/sources. "as I'm concerned" is not appropriate when Wikipedia pages say otherwise. '''-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers, ] Ri l ey   ''' 02:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi MSJapan,

I know that I may not be the most welcome poster here, but as Sarek no longer seems to look over Masonic stuff (particularly contentious things), ALR seems to have stopped editing and Blueboar doesn't seem to have the strength to ever tell a fellow conservative Freemason any home truths in public I rather oddly find myself as being cast as the "true friend" who has to tell you to calm down. I'm finding it as odd as you are.

You had a very bad outing at AN/I, when none of the four admins who looked at your request (if you include the one who closed the complaint) thought it had any merit and furthermore a pattern of worrying editing by yourself was commented on by two of the admins. There's even a chance that all the Freemasonry articles (not simply the ones that interact with the Catholic church) will go to arb com.

I would recomend that you behave with a bit less forcefulness over the next few months and you at least try to show some respect towards non-Freemasons. It is perfectly OK for you to publicly reject this advice, even by deleting it, but I hope you at least show it in your behaviour - and I will try to let you know if you do show restreaint and consideration over that time.

Blueboar and yourself have suffered from some of the more moderate or temperate (not always the same thing) Masonic editors leaving the scene. You two will now need to do the job that these editors did to you - and reign in each other, try to understand other points of view and suggest compromises. It will take time, but I'm sure two intelligent editors like you can change your editing style.

Imacomp was a one off, and you are not like him at all - but he was a one off because he refused to accept any advice or restraint. You and the other Masonic editors have to provide your own restraint if you don't want to seem to be acting like him.

JASpencer (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Widefox ; talk 11:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessment
There is a new note at WikiProject Freemasonry/Assessment. kcylsnavS 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Lodge
Please note http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Lodge&curid=14053107&diff=530312181&oldid=528986544 kcylsnavS 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

new list article
If you thought all those lists of Grand Masters were bad enough ... now we have a List of Grand Line of the Grand Lodge of New York. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Is there such as a thing as a "bad faith keep"?
Saw your query at WT:AFD... You do have a point about editors claiming that there are "lots of sources" but never adding them to the article. So here is what I do in that situation... I wait. If after several months (or even a year) none of the "lots of sources" actually get used, I go back to AfD and renominate - in the renom, I explicitly acknowledge the fact that the previous nomination was kept on the grounds that there were apparently lots of source that could potentially be used... and then I go on to note the additional fact that none of these sources actually have been used since the previous discussion... and thus, I can only conclude that none of the sources are good enough to be used (they might be "passing references" that don't actually support anything directly related to the article topic... they might be considered unreliable... or any of a host of other reasons... the point being that since after a year they weren't used, we have to question whether the reality of the sources lived up to the potential). I find this counters the folks who simply do a google book hit count and saying "see... lots of sources", without actually reading any of them. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

PROD v. AFD
JASpencer had asked me to PROD instead of AFD. I thought AFD was the "safer" thing to do, but had this very short article on my list of questionable articles so I posted a PROD template. I did not realize JASpencer was the author until another editor pointed out to me that the seventh edit in the article history says so. I does not seem he was offended; I did not prod the article based on who was the creator. In any case, do you prefer that we use generally AFD instead? kcylsnavS 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See WikiProject_Freemasonry. Maybe we just nominated the same article. Both my notice and yours are on JASPencer's talk page.Svanslyck (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We are all set to adopt the changes suggested by you in the lead. Before making teh final move, I just wanted to make sure everyone is in the same page. So, I created a new lead, and posted that in the talk page. Please see that, then we can replace the existing lead. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

ToDo List
Which is the "real" ToDo list, WikiProject_Freemasonry/ToDo or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Freemasonry/ToDo ? It seems the first one populates the portal, but WikiProject_Freemasonry sorta kinda points to both and the talk page says it is the ToDo List: "Welcome to the talk page for the Project Freemasonry: To Do List." I'd like to resolve, looking for guidance. (Please reply here.) RiverStyx23 01:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is the first one, as the other one didn't get used for three years, and I don't think we actually managed to do anything on anything on it. We should probably MfD the second one to prevent future confusion. MSJapan (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Masonic ritual murders
Suggest a merger into Masonic conspiracy theories is a better approach than AfD. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Project activity
As you know, I've been on a edit streak. I was thinking of cleanup of the active member list at WP:WikiProject_Freemasonry/Participants. Is there a way to generate a list of editors by project sorted by most recent edit. RiverStyx23 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I looked at the options available at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/pindex.fcgi but didn't see anything helpful. RiverStyx23 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - I found it. RiverStyx23 19:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead improvement in Hyderabad, India
Please have a look. We incorporated most of your suggestions, and added slightly more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Oprea
Leonard Oprea: Discrimination, Racism, Ignorance & Censorship, or ..what against me? I protest firmly against the slandering of my article in your English Wikipedia. Your “creation” of my “Biography” and “Works” are OUT of the reliable sources, OUT of the truth concerning who I am as writer worldwide. I never wrote a novella “X-Ray of an Instant”, for example; this is the title of a short stories and novellas volume. My first book – well-know – is “Domenii Interzise” / Forbidden Areas/ 1984 published – but premeditatedly you made my article a FALSE image of my biography and works. Premeditatedly you “adjusted” my image as looking … stupid… Probably I have to sue you. I want to be civilized and I like to have a common sense dialog with you… Alas! sorry, you do not have any excuse for your American ignorance and more for your OBVIOULSY CENSORSHIP. I do not agree to have such an article in your racist American space, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO MY FORMER ANTI-COMMUNIST DISSIDENCE WIDELY RECOGNIZED. I did not do anything to deserve this discrimination. Therefore, I think I will have to make public your discrimination. This is NOT a threat – yet what can I do against this evil ignorance? Leonardoprea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardoprea (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardoprea (talk • contribs)

Talkback
Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Tero Kinnunen
Back in August 2010 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, andd now notify you in case you want to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doncram
I believe he has indicated in the past that he doesn't like having his username shortened to "Don". -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You have about 5 minutes...
...to amend your last post on ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for egregious attacks on an anonymous editors, as evidenced here. WP:AGF is not just lip-service, nor is civility optional. I did provide the opportunity and reasoning for you to remove your comments. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked following additional discussion at ANI. This removal does not absolve you from the improper treatment of an IP editor, merely that at this time 2 respected individuals suggest that "NPA-block" was not yet the right thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To add onto what Bwilkins said, opposition to the block does not equate to endorsement of your behavior. Please reconsider your remarks about this IP editor.--v/r - TP 23:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I left for two days anyway, and I see no reason to dredge up a closed thread.


 * I will say that the whole point of the thread (as Calton indicated) was to not have to get involved in it myself, and there was also really no need for an IP which displayed disruptive behavior in the past to get involved. IPs are nice to hide behind, and I will bet money on the fact that it's been the same person all along (which is where my remarks came from). I'm happy to admit a mistake when I make one, but this was not a mistake. I will stand behind everything I said, based on the following line of reasoning: a static IP is often tied to the same computer in an office (MHEC, the IP location, is not a school, it's a governing authority for the state schools in Massachusetts, so it has an office and an .edu address, but not a campus of 50 million people using a computer in the library). The chances of two different people on the same IP (meaning at the same computer) knowing enough of Wiki internals to: go poking around ANI, try to run for ArbCom, request a block for an admin, and then have troll unblock requests ("hello" is not a spurious unblock request, really?), is just too small for my liking. I'm sorry if I'm not going to AGF that, but I cannot suspend my disbelief that far, and I got hammered for it.


 * I neither expect nor require an apology, but I do want it to be known that something important was missed in that thread, and that IP's going to be a problem until someone takes care of it. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the future, feel free to ping me if you do not want to engage yourself. I'd rather deal with it than bring someone in front of a shooting squad ANI.--v/r - TP 01:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

wolf alice
why are you telling me this, it was deleted so I gave up on it

RFC at WikiProject Freemasonry
This is going out to all active members of WikiProject:Freemasonry. We are attempting to determine the "consensus of the project" on an issue relating to categorization. Please see: WT:WikiProject Freemasonry and share your opinion. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556052549 your edit] to Annibale Bugnini may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Betelgeuse
Thank you; I've made a note at ANI. Never heard of the movie before, so it's an easy mistake to make. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
JackFrost2121( Frostbitten? / My Work) 02:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tobias Churton
Hi. Can you please link at the PROD notice the criteria by which you have placed the PROD. Something a little bit more specific than "No real sources for years". Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. MSJapan (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I removed it. Frankly it irks me when people prod articles without first looking in Google Scholar to see if there are more sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Police misconduct cats...
Please read the entire closing statement. I pointed out that these need a larger discussion to determine what is the correct outcome. On the France category you dismissed the keep as being a weak argument. However there was a detailed comment including asking you a specific question which was not answered. If that question is not answered how can you come back afterwards basically asking to ignore the entire comment based on the first few words. So, yes, I stand on the close and this needs to be taken to a talk page for a discussion about what is right. Based on the arguments, and not simple counting, I don't see any consensus. If anything, someone could argue that a stronger argument exists for keeping or renaming then for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the two involved categories would seem the most logical leaving a pointer on the other. You could also move up a level in the category tree and try there. Be aware that category talk pages do have very limited readership. So the only other option would be a WikiProject supporting the area. You can find this from the category talk or a related article's talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm not sure what you can do. From your comment it does not appear that there is much interest in discussing this. I guess your only option may be to either drop the suggestion, or at some point in the future renominate the categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

An idea on Freemason categories
I am not really happy with having expelled Freemasons categorized in the main Freemasons cat. How would you feel about having a sub-cat: Category:People expelled from Freemasonry (or something like that)? Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Rob Wyda
I hope you'll agree the article on Rob Wyda is much improved now. By the way, you might want to consider in the future not trying to send the biography of someone about whom we've had an article for 6 1/2 years into the dustbin of history so quickly after their demise, per WP:TIND. I worry it sends a terrible message to the grieving family, essentially saying: "well, in the end, that guy never amounted to much." -- Kendrick7talk 04:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

calling for discussion
When you nominated Rob Wyda for deletion at Articles for deletion/Rob Wyda you made some comments that concerned me.

First you asserted that references going 404 was grounds for deletion. It never used to be.

Second in this comment you wrote:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * When every substantial piece of information about the subject is supplied directly by the subject in conversation with the reporter, that material is not independent of the subject (it's likely not neutral, either). I could claim anything I wanted about myself consistently (like this actual situation). Note that independent verification found otherwise. That is why it's not really reliable - no reporter has ever done research to verify what Wyda did or said; they all spoke to him directly and used whatever he said.
 * When every substantial piece of information about the subject is supplied directly by the subject in conversation with the reporter, that material is not independent of the subject (it's likely not neutral, either). I could claim anything I wanted about myself consistently (like this actual situation). Note that independent verification found otherwise. That is why it's not really reliable - no reporter has ever done research to verify what Wyda did or said; they all spoke to him directly and used whatever he said.

Well, reporters, and their editors, have usually studied journalism, where they are supposed to learn how to interview people, and still maintain their neutrality, and independence, when they write about them. They are supposed to do fact checking.
 * }

How do you know what steps the reporters who interviewed Wyda took to verify what he told them? Reporters aren't required to show their work. Verifying the credibility of what they write is part of their jobs, and we have usually assume reporters have performed this step.

I asked for other's input at WP:RSN You should of course feel free to weigh in there.

You weren't specific as to which references you don't consider independent. Was it these three?

Continental, Liberal, Adogmatic etc
I'm going to be away for a week or so... I trust you to find an appropriate compromise on all that. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bose Corporation NPOV Tag
I noted your concern about the opinions section. One thing you can do to help is contribute more positive reviews/information. My personal view about wikipedia is that if an editor doesn't like something, it's better if they contribute. Care to join the writers? Mattnad (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert Because EL Asks for Donations
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustus_Tolton&action=history

You stated that you reverted one of my external links because it asks for donation. You didn't cite that rule. Also you failed to delete all the other links that ask for donation. It's a religious category. EL's are going to ask for donation. Please support you revert with documentation. You also deleted another link because the URL had changed. It would have been more helpful to update the link rather than delete it. Thank you. Looking forward to your documentation on religious EL's --Wiki Comic Relief 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)--Wiki Comic Relief 13:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Different Masonic interpretation of symbols prohibited?
Dear MS Japan, RE Masonic Semiotics. In conversation with a Freemason family friend myself I first came across this Divide and Rule interpretation of the dividers and the square ruler and I see plenty of others suggesting it online too with, apparently, no inside knowledge of the craft. Can I respectfully ask that you allow both interpretations, the 'official' and 'unofficial' to remain in the spirit of brotherly love. There may be others to come in the future and I would like to think it would be down to the reader to make up their own mind on semiotics. Respectfully Yours, From the Templar port of Bristol, England.


 * Well, here's the issue: you're saying that this interpretation comes from people with no knowledge of the craft. I would think that that would run afoul of the reliable sources policy or that it would fall into fringe theories. I am aware of several "outside interpretations" of symbols, and they generally correspond with conspiracy theory more so than actual usage. There are people who think, for example, that the Masonic Child Identification Programs, because the acronym is "CHIP", involve actual implantation of microchips into children. Were any of these people to attend such an event, however, they would see that not only is that not the case, it's not even possible to do. Similarly, I'm not so sure that we should incorporate incorrect information based solely on the point of its existence. I would suggest that this be opened up to wider discussion on the article talk page. MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)