User talk:MSJapan/Archive 5

Shadowyze
Yes, I wrote the bio. I was not aware that being personally familiar with a subject barred me from editing an entry. You don't know your facts about Shadowyze. That artist has won the Native American Music Award in 2005, I believe it says that in the article. The Native American Music Awards is a NATIONAL event and determines who gets nominated for the Grammy in the Native American Music category. The Artist has also featured in multiple publications including Rolling Stone Magazine, the New York Times and the Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune, Source Magazine and Native Peoples, just to name a few. Shadowyze has been recognized nationally and internationally and is even featured in an Encyclodpedia on Contemporary Native American Music which will be used as a resource on this article in the future. How is this not notable? As you can see there are countless resources online and in print that note Shadowyze even if you are ignorant of the subject. Here's a small list of resources to start you out;

The New York Times, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2001

XXL Magazine, April 2001, pg 038

Ritmo Beat Magazine, Aug 2001, pg 81

Black Beat Magazine, April 2003, pg 29

Native Peoples Magazine, Nov/Dec 2005, pg 13

Vibe magazine, July/Aug, 2005, pg 14

The Miami Herald, Thursday Feb. 10, 2005

Pensacola News Journal, Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Pensacola News Journal, Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Pensacola News Journal, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006

Indian Country Today

Indian Country Today 2005

Native Threads

News from Indian Country

Native American Music Awards

BeliefNet

Native Radio

Vibe AUSTRALIA

Amerindia.org

Reznet News

Pasadena Weekly

Four Directions Talent

Autry National Center

Indianz.com

Independent News

Amerindia.org Reawakening

Amazon.com

Lojah

___ You clearly did not read the articles. How can you claim to have doe your research when you project what you think an article MIGHT be like, rather than actually reading it to know? Maybe if you actually took the time to read the article rather than going around simply trying to destroy articles about subjects that you know nothing about, you’d see that Shadowyze fits the criteria for notable people on Wikipedia. Wikipedia clearly says that simply because you don't know about someone does not make them non-noteworthy. The criteria for noteworthy people on Wikipedia is not as clearly defined with the draconian rules you are trying to apply. I've got plenty of resources and you can do your fact checking. If you doubt the relevence of the NAMA you just prove your ignorance. You can contact Ellen Bello CEO of the NAMA's if you'd like. If you had actually looked at the NAMA site, you'd see that the NAMA practically created the Native American Music category for the Grammy's. Simply put, hundreds of articles nationally and internationally, winning a NATIONAL music award and being nominated for a Grammy, being involved in countless charitable causes that have been reported upon and having a place in an encyclopedia of Native American musicians, having multiple song on movie soundtracks and tracks on Virgin records compilations makes someone noteworthy, even if you yourself are ignorant of the subject. There is an article entry on the Native American Music Awards on Wikipedia, even if Shadowyze had not accomplished everything else he has, winning the award that is listed on Wikipedia is enough warrant a Wikipedia entry. You can fantasize all you want about the articles you have not read, but the facts still remain. And by the way, it might actually take more than a few minutes to do adequate research on subject.

Wikipedia does recognize first-hand resources such as witnesses to an event, which I am also. I knew the article needed work. It was a blurb when I found it and it’s still a work in progress, like ALL of Wikipedia. I would have appreciated some constructive dialogue on the subject. If you had a problem with the referencing and sourcing of information you could have assumed good faith opened a dialogue with the editors, suggesting better sourcing as Wikipedia recommends, rather than just going around trying to destroy things. But constructive advice is clearly not within your vocabulary.

Lojah

---Here's a couple more resources for your 'research' into the subject.

Wright-McLeod, Brian, Encyclopedia of Native Music, University of Arizona press, pg 180

44th Annual Grammy Award Entry List, NARAS 2001, Field 6-Rap, Category 32-Best Rap Album, pg 32-1, #049

Peace, Lojah

---You really are quite presumptuous regarding things you know nothing about. I’ve read the requirements for noteworthy people on Wikipedia. Making up your own standards means nothing. After reading your invented requirements he still meets nearly half of them. You are focused solely on his music, which is noteworthy too, but Shadowyze is noteworthy for a number of things. You can deny it all you like. And it is not for you to decide who should or should not write an article. I’ve read the COI suggestions and it does not apply in this case. If you doubt that I found the article as a stub, research the history on the site. The proof is in the pudding. But clearly rather than taste the pudding, you are a person who would rather stand back and look at the pudding while making assumptions about how it MIGHT taste and what ingredients you would have used if you made it. When you challenge my resources I will post them on your site. If you don’t like it don’t talk to me and I’ll leave you alone.

2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. – It was Platinum in France. 3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources. - This one is actually up for debae regarding the status of Indian reservations

4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Actually this is is a yes again.

5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. – Produced by and works in collaboration with platinum and gold selling and Grammy winning artists.

6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. – Well knownthroughout multiple reservations. Well considered the one of two most influentialpeople in Natiev hip-hop. What an entire nation of Reservations don’t count?

7. Has won (my emphasis) a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury award. - Nominations don't count by themselves but in conjunction with everything else he’s done it’s worth mentioning in the article.

8. Has won or placed in a major music competition. >>Maybe. Depends on if the NAMA is notable.<<   That’s one of those things that is just not subjective. The NAMA is notable and Wikipedia seems to agree.

9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) – Actually this one is a yes too.

11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network. – Yes it’s called the History Channel. But it’s about Indians so I’m sure to you it’s not worth mentioning.

Now, I can go through the list of what makes a noteworthy PERSON on Wikipedia regardless of music.

General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it.>>> Yes, over and over again.

If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources,>> Yes, over and over again

Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability.>> Articles, books, “Encyclopedia of Native Music”—this one checks out too.

I could continue, but you’ve got my point.

Lojah 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

--While it is traditional to say 'thanks' when someone tries to help you out, I'll refrain from such flattery here. Quite frankly, you had a chance to be friendly, helpful, respectful and to engage me in polite editorial conversation. That time is long since past and I'm afraid that after doing 'quite a bit of looking around' at your talk page and comparing that to my experience with you, I can see no reason to have 'good faith' in anything you do that concerns my projects or the betterment of Wikipedia. You have the freedom which you have already exercised to have a similar opinion about me. Now, I would like to call a truce and refrain from ever directly communicating with each other again. Of course you still have the freedom to do your own editing. Lojah 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

---You siad "No, plainly and simply, it illustrates that you took an article AfD nomination as a personal attack, and you have chosen to act contrary to policy with respect to that article. I'm perfectly willing to help you, but things need to be done within policy. If you don't want help, fine, but don't blame me for saying the same things at least five other users have said."

My response>> Clearly you can't leave the argument can you? I plainly and simply took the afd nomination as an IGNORANT act based on LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, PERSONAL BIAS and possibly racist perception regarding prominent Native American activists. You show up and start willy-nilly trying to destroy things. I do take it as an offense against Wikipedia that you never even contacted me about my resources.

Let me make this clear; I DO NOT want your help. Your chance to be helpful ended when you disrespectfully nominated the article for deletion without opening a dialogue with the editors. I will take advice and have taken advice from other people on Wikipedia who have not proven to be solely motivated by personal bias. Few of your edits have made sense. If you had actually bothered to organize the external links properly I would not have reverted it. I have organized them PROPERLY according to WP standards.

I also believe that User:Curvedtalk is a sock puppet of you, created to incriminate me. I now return you to your regularly scheduled 'trolling' on Wikipedia. Lojah 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Visual kei bands
Hi, I've written some articles on Visual Kei bands that are in danger of deletion for lack of proper references. If you read Kanji, could you find me some? Here are the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missalina_Rei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliene_Ma%27riage

Here's another I didn't write that also seems in danger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noir_Fleurir

Also, I see complaints that "notability" has not been established, which would be evidence of national hits, national or international tours, awards, etc. I'd greatly appreciate your help. Thank you.Pkeets 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the Visual kei bands. I got started on this because I'm sort of interested in Japanese culture and there was a request for Missalina rei, so I don't really know much about dealing with Wikipedia. However, I've read through the criteria for notability in musicians and I think these bands may marginally qualify. I did post a discography as part of the articles. What I seem to be lacking is the published references. I found a couple in English or easily translatable languages, but I'm having trouble navigating the Kanji/hirigana/katakana. Could you do a quick Nihon-go Google and see if there's anything suitable out there? Meanwhile, as a stopgap measure, how do I move these to user space? Pkeets 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google for Key Party and there are no references to be found on that in English, either, so likely I can't manage it. I'll keep it in mind. Pkeets 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

LB type edits
Don't know if you are around today... but we have an LB type editor at Freemasonry. Blueboar 19:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good... nice to know great minds think alike. Blueboar 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lightbringer
Thanks for the heads up on lightbringer! Btw, do you know if there are any other admins that are part of wikiprojet freemasonry? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "-tachi"
That makes perfect sense. :) I have seen the episode, and it's definitely a group thing (including the Starlights as well as their planet and princess), so the change seems to make sense in this case. Thanks for cleaning all those up, by the way. --Masamage ♫ 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

broken refs
You were just missing 1 closure on the 2nd reference:
 * But the numbers will only exist in the page's code, it won't render on page . The ref will, of course, be there like any other. I don't know if it's correct to use two closed refs back-to-back like that, but it works (both ways actually), so OK. use it like this, unless shown otherwise Grye 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Duncan
Many thanks for the info - BTW I note your Japan conncection - I am (was ...) keen on kendo and iaido .... got to black belt on both, so very low on the skill ladder, but involved in japanese martial arts since childhood. And a freemason too .... how did you get your page to look the way it does? Box to claim freemasonry? Must get more involved. BrianWalker 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry - regularity
Hi, I have been reading about the history of freemasonry and started to add some historical information on articles on freemasonry in Wikipedia. It seems that there is a bias towards the UGLE-type of freemasonry, while the GOdF-related freemasonry is largely disregarded or being classified as "co-freemasonry" from the point of view of the UGLE-type of freemasonry? How to bring more neutrality and avoid POV into this subject which seems te be highly divisive in masonic circles? Pvosta 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Response
Yeah, unfortunately "totally duplicated content" isn't a speedy reason... it's just a reason to boldly redirect to the earlier article. If there wasn't so much edit history at the article I would delete it as "housekeeping" non-controversial deletion, but I'd rather see an AfD establish consensus in case this ever comes up again...--Isotope23 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Your last message to me is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from using such a tone with me in the future. Jefferson Anderson 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. The changes I was referring to weren't even made by you, nor did I say they were. Your reaction to my simple statement was completely uncalled for and I believe you owe me an apology. Jefferson Anderson 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, please be advised that I will not tolerate the kind of incivilty you have engaged in in the past. Further uncivil posts to my talk page or elsewhere will be brought to the attention of an admin. Jefferson Anderson 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

personal rants
You don't know me MSJapan. How dare you suggest I am "advertising" the MOCHIP program. You don't like it for some reason, and have chosen to do your best to do away with it. I feel this needs to be reported. Obviously you are pissing off many people on here from reading your posts. Why don't you just relax and not take everything so pesonally. Jokerst44 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mason?
I question whether you are even a Mason at all. I know what "WE" as masons do for others in the Brotherhood, and this is not it.Jokerst44 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's messed up. Joker. He is a Freemason. Whatever else is going on, perhaps consider backing off that one? That is what "WE" as masons do for others in the Brotherhood...;~D Grye 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WHAT is messed up...calling him out on personally attacking a Brother Freemason? I know what is masonic conduct when I see it and I know unmasonic conduct when I see it too.  Perhaps you should read his comments toward me.  I may be new to WP, but I am not new to Freemasonry.  I do not know what Freemasonry means to people in other parts of the country, but I am getting a quick lesson of what it means to Freemasons on WP, and I am saddened.  Hey, do what you all feel you need to do.  That is the way it goes.  I'm a big boy and I will most certainly get over it.  But my contention is that he is NOT a Freemason.  It would take a lot to change my opinion at this point.  I am done talking about Masonic issues with those not in the Brotherhood.  Jokerst44 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, Joker, you are basically proving the suggestion (about Masons on wikipedia) that we are more concerned with Masonic strictures than wikipedia's. Way to prove a point.  For the "other side".  As a contributor on wikipedia, you are required to follow the wikipedia policies.  If that means calling out a Brother for violating those policies (such as notability, etc), that does not come to the level of unMasonic conduct.  If you honestly thought it did, you ask MSJapan for his Lodge information (via email) and then bring him on charges of unMasonic conduct.  Have you done so?  No?  Because it ISN'T.  Correcting someone, and point out their mistakes, is in fact, something we were all adminished to do.  But I guess only YOU can correct someone, nobody can correct you.--Vidkun 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say, & yes please do remind me of this when I err, is that the duty of friends & esp Brethren to eachother is to communicate & help eachother be good & better, not to just rip eachother apart. That's the whole point. K? Grye 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Joseph Harrington
Hi.

Why were quotes from published work removed as "inappropriate" to an author's article?

Why was the phrasing changed to be less effective in communication? The phrase "stories included in X" does not mean the same thing as "X includes the stories"; the former clearly implies more are likely.

Are anti-vandalism watchers supposed to prevent this kind of activity, or hold a monopoly on it?

Matthew Joseph Harrington 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody was caused any trouble by my failure to put my name on this anywhere other than the top of the post.

Done with you
I'm done with you. I am offcially asking that you stop writing me. This is my official request that you leave me alone.Jokerst44 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?
I find that since I undid MSJapan's edits of the article Matthew Joseph Harrington, it has been put up for deletion on the grounds that the subject is "non-notable". Why was it notable enough to contribute to before I did so?

I can ask Larry Niven to tell you his opinion re: notability, if that is a concern. He and the late Jim Baen decided to extend the Man-Kzin Wars series past the planned ten volumes in order to be able to include my stories. This is a series whose previous authors were all invited: Poul Anderson, Dr. Jerry Pournelle, Dean Ing, and Dr. Gregory Benford, for example. I just happened to get into an online conversation with Larry and mentioned an idea I'd had, he said "Sounds interesting", and I knocked it out in a few weeks and sent it. He bought it immediately. Not one word was cut.

There are currently upwards of ten thousand people familiar with the name below. Otherwise Baen Books wouldn't be putting out another volume.

Matthew Joseph Harrington 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As regards "conflict of interest": The term is accurate when describing someone who has more than one concern in a matter. The desire to provide information which is not generally available is one concern. This is known as "interest".

Second request
I am asking you for the second time to stop writing to me. I have asked once and I am trying to be civil and ask you for a second time to stop posting on my user page. If you can't stop writing to me, perhaps your judgement should be called into question by this site. Again stop writing me. Jokerst44 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Final request
You have given me no choice but to report this continued harrassment. I am done talking to you and this is the last time I am asking you to leave me alone. Perhaps you don't care that I am asking you to stop harrassing me. I think three requests is fair and I expect you to stop writing me. Jokerst44 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules are not for you
The personal nature of your retaliatory deletion request for my article, and the transparency of your excuse that you are "following the rules", are becoming ever more obvious. Now you've made a second post on the deletion discussion page, in violation of the one-post rule.Matthew Joseph Harrington 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I'm Aeon, Jeferson Anderson's Advocate from the AMA. I'm currently assisting in the De-escalation of the dispute he is involved in and I have noticed that some of your comments (the ones along the lines of, "He has a victim mentality) are indeed uncivil and could be taken as a personal attack against him. I do realize that you are not the only user involved and I will be taking that issue up with the others that have made similar comments.  I would like to advise you (and Jefferson Anderson as well) to seek Mediation through the Mediation Cabal (MEDCAB) to help resolve the issue peacefully.  MEDCAB is non binding and can help you both come to an agreement. Cheers  Æon  Insanity Now!  Give Back Our Membership! 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was the first to use the phrase victim mentality. On many occasions, since his "return", criticism of his behavior (which has been disruptive) is automatically called uncivil.  It is hard to assume good faith when someone's first few edits after a return are multiple yaps about civility, and how he is going to watch it really closely.  He all but stated his primary interest would be to start bringing people up on charges of incivility, especially if they made changes he "didn't agree with" (his words).--Vidkun 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * re "didn't agree with" - I never said any such thing. Show me the money, Vidkun. Jefferson Anderson 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Frist Jefferson, that comment is NOT going to help matters much. And Second to MSJapan dn Vidkun, All I saying is the wording of the criticism not the criticism itself is problem (saying that a user as a victim mentality is not good AGF way to point out a members issue.  Now as to the primary interest can you send me a dif of that comment on my talk page please (I'm interrested in the root cuase of the current issue so I would like to find it and figure out how he can prevent other issues in the future and resoulve the current one). Additionally Jeferson can request an advocate at anytime, and said advocate will assist in teh DR process with him.  Therefore reguardless of his past issues or current ones he has requested help and I will assist him (and anyothers that have a dispute) in the best and most neutral manner possible.  Æon  Insanity Now!  Give Back Our Membership! 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The money is right here.--Vidkun 01:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say I will use WP:CIVIL to get my way!!!! It just says there were changes made I disagreed with. They were all in the OTO section and had nothing to do with MSJapan, you or WP:CIVIL. Please do not project you own imaginary meanings onto my words. I did not say or even imply what you claim. Jefferson Anderson 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrington
Also this - now look at the last line of his article. Almost qualifies it as an attack page :)  Eliminator JR Talk  21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

e-mail
Got your e-mail... I'm purely York, so no I will not be there. Blueboar 00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

MasoniCHIP
The overall scheme looks highly notable; I've created a stub at MasoniCHIP. Tearlach 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note ("However, the name differs from state to state, so I think we're going to need to move it to "Masonic Child Identification Programs (CHIP)") - I've done the move.
 * I admit I didn't look at enough websites. The Masonichip.org site gives the impression that "MasoniCHIP" is a generally-used umbrella term for such schemes. Going through the individual Masonic CHIP sites, I see now that not all them do. Tearlach 12:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia...
Was a place where anything could be submitted. So it's nonsense now I see? Well look here: That is just the roots my friend. My cousins mom's great-grandfather happened to be one of the most popular men in Brazil: Carlos Drummond de Andrade. I started with my cousin's profile, and the next thing after that was my other cousin (his brother Rafael). Then his mom, then his great-great-grandfather which is believed to be the REAL "First in Flight". So...is this really nonsense? I think not. Unless you want to be a true assclown and disrespect people whom probably seem non-important to you I really suggest you get a career in law. This is my first time ever using Wikipedia...so things will start very slow. Just because it seems like a nonsensical article, doesn't mean it always is. Don't judge a book by it's cover. As I said to the first person who deleted it, I'm going to put the article back up. If you have a problem with it, sue me. If you want to finally learn some respect, then leave me be and when I have what I had originally planned and what was originally asked of me, then you can come in and tell me what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extremador (talk • contribs).
 * I've warned this user about personal attacks. Having looked at the deleted article I would not say that it's nonsense but certainly is covered under non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus of administrators
I had two articles deleted prior to mid-March. I had challenges to a dozen or so others, but won all the challenges. Since mid-March, I have had some twenty articles killed; some have been on the board for nine months. The "consensus" is often one person, who reads the comments and then decides as he wishes. I had one article killed in a 4-3 favorable vote, but I was told that it is not about the numbers but the "weight" of the arguments.

Billy Hathorn 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

3 Doors Down
Your revert is fine. The bot (a manual bot - WP:AWB ) ran perfectly. The article has a People from Mobile, Alabama category that AWB keyed on to add the project tag. I did not add the category, in fact it seems to have been added long ago. I have no idea where it came from. Anyway, do as you see fit - no problem here. Jody B  03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

POV on freemasonry
I noticed that articles on freemasonry are consistently changed to reflect the POV of "regular" freemasonry. Pvosta 07:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: SM NA anime alterations
Sure, though the best one is on a very detailed level, rather than a general one. Sailor Moon Uncensored, if you haven't seen it, is both informative and hilarious. --Masamage ♫ 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not how ot write an article at all
By the way, you realize that "Not how ot" (your exact spelling) is not what Harvard would consider proper:) With all due respect, this wikipage has been rated class B. Please do not delete information that is relevant to the biography of this important maker of the 20th century. Much of the information here was written by those who knew him as well as the author of Rocchi's biography. Thank you in advance. User:Milliot 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Sesto Rocchi wikipage, I would like you to reconsider your position (unreferenced|biography|date=April 2007).

Some of us (who are in the field of Lutherie and Music) have been trying to expand the Luthier section. This particular wikipage was started several years ago. Even the Sesto Rocchi biographer has contributed to the information. Much of the information that is sighted including quotes, is by personal friends of Sesto Rocchi who are professionals in the field of Violin Making, and references that were made are all valid references.

To delete relevant information which adds cohesive substance to the article in my mind is vandalism. I welcome input by those who have information that would add to the article, but to claim that there are serious errors is extreme.

The page has been maintained by many who were close to Sesto Rocchi. All of the information that has been contributed is relevant and can be confirmed with the references sighted on the page in 'References' section.

Susch as:

"Sesto Rocchi’s inborn capacities, his personal involvement, the passion that inhabited him, but mostly the teachings that he received from Sgarabotto in Parma and Leandro Bisiach in Milan helped him become one of the best Italian contemporary makers. His curious mind was always on alert, and his receptive attitude toward young people interested in violin making was remarkable." - —Gualtiero Nicolini, president of ALI (Associazione Liutaria Italiana), a teacher at the Cremona School of Violin Making, and an author of books on lutherie.

Gualtiero Nicolini,was a friend of Rocchi's.

"I feel proud to have had him as a colleague and then as a friend. The legacy left by Rocchi demonstrates that even in the 20th century, it is possible to conduct the activities of a violin maker with nobility." - —Gianfranco Boretti, author of Rocchi's biography "Life for Violin Making"

Gianfranco Boretti was also a personal friend.

"His work is very precise and the varnish varies from a warm orange to brownish red. He was constantly occupied with varnish experiments and research. He used Stradivarian "Amatise" and Guarneri models. The sonority is always excellent". - 'Liuteria Italiana' vol. 1 - Eric Blot 1994

Eric Blot is a known expert who knew Sesto Rocchi personally.

In the Lutherie field, bio's are always supported by quotes from experts to show the significance of the maker, and the use of instruments to show examples is of paramount importance. It is something that is not readily available to the public. If you and other experienced wiki editors have suggestions, we welcome them, but please understand that bio of a Bowmaker or Violin Maker is unlike the bio of other personalities. Milliot 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

S & C
It's obviously not WP:OR in the normal sense. Most of it clearly comes from information in ritual, at least my ritual. As to your concern about what "useful" information you could say about it, the article is obviously not about the "actual" tools, but the representation of them in Freemasonry, and as such, if considered notable enough for an article (I think it probably is), then all that is needed is a good sourced description of a general Masonic statement about the symbolic meaning of the S&C. Now, direct quotations from ritual should be considered out, as even though they are "published" in some form or another in most jurisdictions, a Mason isn't supposed to reveal it (although, really, the only truly secret part of a ritual are the signs, tokens, and words, and so you should be able to reveal the understood meaning of symbols without fear of "the traditional penalty" :)—but what to cite to; "the little black book given to Master Masons in X jurisdiction" isn't exactly a satisfactory citation.

However, there are undoubtedly some websites around that speak of the S&C and their symbolic meaning in Masonry, such as the one already cited to in the article (which itself cites to a handbook from the past Grand Lecturer of the GL of California), and so it shouldn't be too difficult to synthesize coherent description (not an original synthesis, just a summary synthesis) of the tools for the article. I'm sure a few GL websites could be found that give a "lecture" on the S&C. How about we just ask Jokerst44, who started the article, to do the work for us? Lexicon (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some information:

Lexicon (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Page at the GL of British Columbia and Yukon (which has lots of Masonic information) that has some of the history of the S&C as a copyrighted image:
 * Same site, article on the square:
 * And on the compasses:
 * And finally a very speculative article from Pietre-Stones on Kabbala, Gematria and the like in relation to the S&C:.

Your comments on WP:AIV
You can't block an IP indef, and your comment is assuming that he won't change and help the project, which is a blatant textbook violation of assuming good faith. Evilclown93 00:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I mighted have missed stuff like that, but frankly, I'm surprised that after a 24h block you don't give any further chance to the IP. Apparently, there might have been contact made with the school, and I just felt the block would be a bit harsh. Evilclown93 00:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I bugged here. I didn't notice the block had expired, so I thought you assumed that once the block would expire, then they'd restart the cycle. Sorry to bug you about it. Evilclown93 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Freemasons
Hello again. You have undone the changes I made to the list, I think the additions made it easier to use. You have also removed the section 'See Also'. Why have you done this? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (I have read the talk page)
 * Thanks for your reply, I hope all is well. I already understood that you did not think them helpful. Your second and third reasons given at my talk page are mutually exclusive.  You can place them as evenly and as often as you like, I checked that at the help file. Your first reason given, in your edit comment, was rm compact TOC - there's something wrong with it. See Talk.. There was nothing wrong with it, I checked in two browsers. They are useful for navigating long lists. I asked on the talk page a while ago and nobody objected.  What harm do they do? Please answer my second question also. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Postscript; The TOC has improved the introduction, I nearly chose that template myself. I may prefer your choice now. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

need diffs on WP:AN3
Please follow the instructions on WP:AN3. You need to provide diffs of the reverts, not oldid's. Thanks, ··coe l acan 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Asahi Shimbun. You have broken the three revert rule, but even if you had not, the rule is not a license to make three reverts every day. Slow motion edit warring is still disruptive, and this requires a block to stop the disruption for other editors. In the future, please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. I strongly suggest a request for comment. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. ··coe l acan 04:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: Obvious vandalism is "omfg cocks". This really should have been handled in another manner besides edit warring. For what it's worth, the other party is also blocked; you've both been in a slow motion edit war for quite some time. The recent page history is filled almost completely with you reverting each other. I can see that other editors agree with your version; you should wait for them to make reverts so that you don't have to break 3RR. If this editor keeps up the slow revert war, let me know; I may block again. If it keeps up, there will eventually be an indefinite block for disruption. ··coe l acan 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism. "Obvious vandalism" does not just mean obvious to you or obvious to editors of the page who are familiar with the subject matter;  it means obvious to anyone looking at the last edit.  For other vandalism, please see Administrator intervention against vandalism or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

Verifiability
What's with the hostility here? I'm expected to cite everything but anyone who dissents can just reference a rule without citing it. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a friendlier place than this. In any event, thank you for the link. --Dr who1975 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain it in a friendly manner on your talk page. A link to a for sale item, on a page where you can purchase it does not qualify as an appropriate external source. If there was an article that somebody wrote that talked about that book, that would be a different story, however a direct link to the for sale item is not appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MSJapan, you have now admitted to being hostile toward me on my talk page. Please do not post there again.--Dr who1975 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm sorry the boldness of my updates upset you. I am attepmting to discuss the issue now on the talk page. If you want to talk to me like I'm a normal person I suppose we could still discourse.--Dr who1975 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Asahi Shimbun
Any word yet on what those sources say? Nihonjoe has protected the page for now but it will eventually be unprotected... I think an RFC to get more outside opinion would be a good idea to finally get consensus, but first I want to see what specifically the sources are addressing (do they mention Asahi Shimbun and how much)? ··coe l acan 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think DDRG mentioned some page numbers on the article talk page. Also, you may want to watch for the outcome of this RFCU (could be a couple of days before a checkuser gets to it, though; they don't process requests every day). ··coe l acan 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Word?
"Some believe the Illuminati (The People of The Light), or illuminated ones, are the masterminds behind events that will lead to a New World Order." I don't think "some" counts as a weasel word in this case. It's strictly true, and actually makes the statment more true. Because, in fact, not all conspiracy theorists believe in the Illuminati, but some do. Weasel words are a bit different. Your edit would be like taking "some" from the statement "some ellipses are circles" in the article about ellipses on account that it's a "weasel word". Its clearly not, and not including it would end up with a false statement. As is the case with your edit. I think you misapplied the weasel word policy in other words. Brentt 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

People @Rosicrucian article
Hi! I see your point. Nevertheless, a brief list without entries of those names in the article will mislead the readers into assuming that the few names mentioned in the list are the main or relevant names related to the Rosicrucian movement (and this is not the case, as perhaps the most essential ones, from my point of view, are mentioned already in the article text, except the Rose-Cross van Helmont which is mentioned in a another article linked to this one). My objection to the list is only that people may add more recent names of individuals, 20th century, who although being members of even being in charge of modern Rosicrucian groups, didn't have an active contribution to the Rosicrucian tradition. Also it would be seen as publicity, not enlightenment; and as history records the true Rosicrucians always avoided all mention of themselves throughout the centuries... --Lusitanian 22:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed list: it was already removed in a 2005 edition of the article: . Cheers. --Lusitanian 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Memphis-Misram/APR
No objections to a merge on my part... but first a more basic question: are there sources for either article? If not... AfD instead of merge? Blueboar 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MSJapan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RTV
As I read it, the "Right to vanish" covers two distinct situations. One is the use of a real name or distinct username that identifies an editor. The editor has the right to change that name in order to protect their privacy. The other is the right to have one's talk pages, etc, deleted upon departure from the project. In the first case it would be appropriate for the user to keep contributing, but in the latter case the user pages may be restored if the user returns. Finally, in both cases those pages and links tied to community action, such as sock puppet listings, RfAs, etc., may be retained. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Josh Howard
Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the copy-edit! CAN 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

masonwiki
Would you be interested to be involved with 2 projects 1) masonwiki.com and novusordosaeculorum.com