User talk:MSJapan/Archive 9

List of Cardinals alleged to be Freemasons
I was thinking it might be a good idea if we had an article entitled list of Cardinals alleged to be Freemasons. This might sound a tad strange, but there is in fact a vast history of Cardinals who have been accused of having ties to Masonic associations, it dates back to the early 1800s. For instance, one of the notable affairs occured during the P2 scandal, where over 50 Cardinals were then alleged to have been members of the Propaganda Due society. Apart from this, there have been notable allegations against Mariano Rampolla and Angelo Roncalli, in 1903 and 1958 respectively. Even Cardinal Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti was alleged to have ties to the lodges. The most recent allegation appears to have launched against Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in 2009, due to the perception that he participated in Masonic rituals with his father [kreuz.net/article.9768.html]. A related issue is that several Cardinals were also alleged to have made a few Masonic handshakes. ADM (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think not... for one thing it sounds as if some of this would violate WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the links, none of that material is from anywhere considered reliable, and let's put it this way (which would really wipe out any "secret society" claims whatsoever): if people who are not Masons see an alleged "Masonic handshake" and know what it is, it's not very secret, is it? Conversely, if Masonry is a big bad really secret society, how would a non-Mason know what a "Masonic handshake" is without having been a Mason and thereby showing himself as a hypocrite for "outing" other Masons and keeping his own membership a secret?  Interesting quandary, is it not? MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that quandary makes sense ... that's like saying do you have to be a Nazi to criticize Nazis, do you have to be a Communist to criticize Communists, do you have to be Black to criticize Black people, etc. ADM (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense, because we're not talking about criticizing anyone, we're talking about being able to identify someone by a supposedly secret handshake - if a non-member figures it out, it's not a secret, is it?--Vidkun (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Grand Lodge page
So, it looks like someone working on the webpage from Overlook (it's a Charlton IP), is going thorugh and beefing up, as it were, the page. All well and good. None of it is cited, and it's duplicating info already in the article, and is out of order. Suggestions?--Vidkun (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
can you copy edit Family Guy.-- Pedro J. the rookie 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at Peer review/Family Guy/archive4, i am the user who made fg an GA and now i want it on FA.-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you help me?-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

yes it is in a pr and the reviewers say it needs it.-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

so would you?-- Pedro J. the rookie 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Freemasonry
It might look like I got my namespaces crossed, but all the history ended up in its proper location. I imported the history of the article "Freemasonry" from the Nostalgia Wikipedia to the title "MediaWiki talk:Freemasonry", to avoid overlapping edits. I then moved the English article from "Freemasonry" to "MediaWiki talk:Freemasonry", caught the edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, then moved it back to the right place. I did the same thing to the talk page. I imported edits from "Freemasonry/Talk", which was the title of the talk page on the Nostalgia Wikipedia, moved the talk page to that title, caught the old edits, then moved it back to Talk:Freemasonry. Checking the page histories of the article and the talk page will make this a bit more clear. Graham 87 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Amaranthine Order
Good point. I hadn't picked up on the link. I would draw your attention to this article. It may very well be that the link is entirely co-incidental, or at least co-incidental inasmuch as this is a masonic symbol with a degree of common currency. Orthorhombic (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Orthorhombic (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated
As I think you know, I have been dealing with the blatantly POV article Anticlericalism and Freemasonry. The article is nothing but a POV forked resurection of problematic material that was cut from the old Catholicism and Freemasonry article (note that this the bulk of that article's contents was moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry and the title now redirects to Christianity and Freemasonry).

I do intend to nominate this article for deletion (I am working on how best to phrase the nom, as it is a very complicated situation... the article will, at first glance, appear to be well sourced, when in fact it isn't.)

I have also written up a section by section critique of the article, noting what the problems are, which I intend to post the articles talk page (so that if the AfD ends up saying "OOOh... Masons!... kooool... it must be notable... keep and clean up", I have firm grounds to essentially gut the article back to a stub)

Would you take a look at my critique, and comment. Feel free to edit. Any other advice is welcome. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No rush... better to go slow and get it right. That way if we kill this monster it will stay dead. Blueboar (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I've replied to your message. Minima c  94 ( talk ) 16:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: So mote it be
Hello MSJapan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of So mote it be, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Ged UK  21:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You being wrong
Ages ago I posted on here saying you had deleted some useful information. You deleted my post (guess you didn't want to look bad) saying you were above the opinions of those without wikipedia accounts (seemed a touch arrogant). The information is back, added by someone with an account. Guess you were wrong. I'm pointing it out as I feel the right to be arrogant (having been told I was beneath you). 131.111.220.6 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I went back and looked at the diff, and the reason I deleted it was because you took issue with me as an editor as opposed to the removal of the information. You apparently were (and are) incapable of taking that which you dish out. MSJapan (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Question re GLO page
Why did you cut the external lodge links? 12.51.248.245 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it then turns into a link repository rather than an encyclopedia article. Generally speaking, we don't do individual lodge links on GL articles, either, just because it gets excessive without adding value to the page. MSJapan (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense. Thank you. Svanslyck (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Question re unused image on sandbox page
I've uploaded GLNDSeal.gif and just realized I can't post it on the sandbox page where I'm working on the article. Do you perhaps have a useful and relevant place where you can use it, so that it doesn't get deleted while I work up the article to something worth moving into mainspace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Svanslyck (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Problem is that non-free media isn't allowed in userspace. I'll figure out something. Maybe I'll get the article finished up. Or maybe I can just link without displaying - have to check on that. Svanslyck (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

GLND ready for review
Grand Lodge of North Dakota is ready for you to look over. Also it is OK to remove my two comments/questions above. And this one. I will be adding content of the next week or two. Svanslyck (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a message at GLND. kcylsnavS 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessing articles
Re Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, Is it OK for me to make assessments of unassessed pages, e.g., by assinging them tot he Start tag and so on, if I'm reasonably confident that I've got it right? How about importance level? Is it OK to assign eether tag to my own articles? I asked SarekOfVulcan and he said it depended on the group I was doing the assessing in. I don't know whom to ask so I'm, um, asking here. Svanslyck (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

GL infobox
How do we change the info box on the GLMA article, because I tried to remove the word "Latin" from it, and it killed the motto entirely. The motto is in english, not latin.--Vidkun (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried shifting to "motto-english", but that seems to have a size glitch. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried earlier today, but the column size confused me too, I'd thought it didn't work. Maybe if there's away to single space the lines where "Follow" is followed by "Reason," that might help. kcylsnavS (kalt) 22:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Order from chaos
I have been attempting to bring some order out of chaos as far as the duplication between List of Masonic buildings and Category:Masonic buildings. Related to this are the various dab pages like Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), Masonic Building, Masonic Temple (which needs to be moved so we can write a stub article on what a Masonic temple actually is.)

That has lead me to an interesting conversation about scope and inclusion criteria with someone who works on the the articles under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) project about this (see Talk:Masonic Temple)... your input and viewpoint would be helpful. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Notice
Just so you know... I have decided to take the bull by the horns and nominate List of Masonic buildings for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Selena
Hello! can you please edit the Japanese version of the Selena article, it's just too short and lacks sources. Thank you! AJona1992 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protection
You may need to make a new request... it was Semi-protected instead of Full-protected... which means both Doncram and I can still make edits (defeating the entire purpose of the page protection). Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue at Masonic buildings
I have realized something that may explain why we keep going in circles in the debate at List of Masonic buildings... the participants are not even in sync as to what what the debate is about. Doncram and OrLady seem to think it is about whether we can use the NRIS database as a source... while I have been focused on how we cite the NRIS database (ie whether we can use a specific web page to cite the NRIS database). If we are not even talking about the same problem... then I don't think we will ever come to a resolution as to how to solve the problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. MSJapan (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I also came here to ask MSJ to please do take a look. Could you please either make a summary judgment, or give other clear direction, such as demanding prompt statements by the third party persons that you stated you would round up. My preferred alternative now would be for MSJ to give summary judgment that a NRIS reference must be allowed, and that either the original NRIS reference or the modified version I suggested in my statement must be allowed to support information sourced from NRIS in the article (until any further modified final version of NRIS reference is adopted by NRHP editors and rolled out, at which time the NRIS references here would be revised to that).

I believe the consensus of reasoned opinion is clear that the NRIS reference is valid generally, and the specific modified form suggested there is fine for this article, and that the NPS Focus-based new references should be dropped. My statement and Orlady's are 100% clear about the issues, separated into a, b, and c sections for simple reading. The edit warring was by Blueboar and Jayjg removing references to NRIS, because either they did not like the format or because they regard the NRIS source as invalid, and I was restoring it. Blueboar has now acknowledged in Talk:List of Masonic buildings that he has no basis to dispute the basic validity of the NRIS reference, and he is suggesting an alternative formatting. Jayjg has not commented. I think the Comments by others section there is not the place to go back and forth with Blueboar about preferred wording for a revised NRIS reference; it should be left to the NRHP editors and/or wp:RSN. Blueboar does not get to negotiate that wording. No offense intended, but he does not have the understanding needed. His latest proposal is unsuitable, for it being in the Comments by others section, and for it suggesting a reference that appears to suggest inaccurately there is a source titled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall", when there is no such database. The database is named the National Register Information System database. To update you, there is productive-seeming discussion about revision to the NRIS reference at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, an appropriate forum, which will probably lead to a change.

MSJapan, can you please step in with a summary judgment or some other direction about how this is supposed to proceed? I am refraining from replying directly to Blueboar in the Comments by others section, but don't see how this is going to be resolved without your taking some action. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Got your message at my Talk page. Sorry, i was done with my statement.  I didn't realize you were waiting for me to say i was done with my stateemntn.  I guess i should have understood that, but i am unclear on the process going on here.  Seeing some followup by you at the Talk page of the list-article, towards a resolution, i just replied there.  I hope this can be kept short.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your decision
Sigh... Apparently it is not going to be accepted by Orlady. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor by me, as I already responded there. MSJ, i am sorry to you if I might seem to be harsh in my criticism of you at the Talk page there.  I did hope for you to be able to provide resolution, and I did try to work with, and actually to support, your role as a self-appointed mediator.  But then you would have to negotiate an acceptable solution, for this one list-article, about how to show a reference to the NRIS database where the NRIS database (which all seem to agree is reliable and valid) can be shown.  You have not done that.  I am just making that as an observation:  you have not accepted any specific alternative that serves to indicate data is from NRIS, when it is in fact from NRIS and when it is not available from anywhere else.  I don't mean to open more discussion here really.  Hope this is helpful. --doncram (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusation
FYI - IP editor 129.133.127.244 (who has been editing at General list of masonic Grand Lodges) has filed a sock puppet investigation that names you... see: Sockpuppet investigations/Amatulic. You can probably ignore it... the only "evidence" is that you and Amatulic both used the same phrase, which is not enough to determine sock puppetry. Still, you deserve to be notified. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Jyukai (band)
Hi,

just to inform you that i depproded Jyukai (band) as references were found at Oricon and Geneon Universal Entertainment websites. Independent labels rarely do anime opening or ending themes.

For the others related PRODs, i think they are justified. --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Triple tau image
Hello MS!! i have a doubt... this is a copyvio image...right?! Best regards Light Warrior  Conspiracy?!?  20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well my friend, this is the point... I don´t know if you remember, but one year ago, i uploaded some masonic images... And one them was the image... in the beginning, i was naive and not knowing the rules at all about of Wikicommons, the images were subsequently erase. our past conversation is here.

By the way... what is necessary to win this award "The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar"...?! I´am part to of WikiProject Freemasonry and a Mason as well! (snif) :-( Light Warrior  Conspiracy?!?  06:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ernest E. Cole on list of Freemasons
I copied and pasted an incorrect reference from his wikipedia article; I corrected it in the list, with a new reference that includes a website. In answer to your question, all it says is that he was a member of the freemasons, there is no lodge info et c.  I hope that is helpful. Remclaecsec (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Oricon
Hi,

To reply your question, Oricon offer charts ranks for free however accurate sells numbers require a paid account.

I did not remove the sells numbers (even if i wished so) because there are contributors who will edit war you to keep those "Numbers" and i simply do not want to be dragged into some disputes especially outside my field of editing which remains anime/manga article.

A more sober Oricon pro website than the grand public one can be found here. Like the grand public website, you still can get the ranking there for free but in a way less garbled fashion. For comparison Anata ga ita on grand public & Anata ga ita page 1 Anata ga ita page 2 on pro website.

I think Geneon was on decline due changing hands and being restructured so many time in a rather short lapse of years but it still remains a Major Label by its big catalog if nothing else. Sending Jyukai (band) to AfD would be hazardous as the Major Label, CDs ranked & Opening/Closing themes arguments will be put on the table.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Left-wing fascism
Thanks,

I seem to have a partial duplicate line Left-wing fascism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ( Left-wing fascism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • AfD statistics) How do I remove the first line? Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I tried the shortcut code for a 2nd nomination but the AFD page turned out blank so then I tried to copy the code from other pages and screwed up somewhere. Thanks for the help! Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Focus
It might be worth focusing on the task at hand, the list article, rather than hammering away at the stubs. While the behaviour of Doncram is getting a lot of peoples backs up there is a large segment of the project space community that don't see an issue with the outcome of that, and I rather suspect that if one takes a fairly lax view of what non trivial means then most of the stubs he creates probably can pass the GNG; newspaper mentions and the like whilst incidental are seen as satisfactory by large numbers of people. I think you're on a fairly futile mission trying to clear up his crap.

The issue of notability of individual buildings, and notability of buildings as a class are different things. Clearly the majority of votes in most Masonic topics end up as pile on's in opposition to you or Blueboar, as evidenced by Uncle G making the AN/I report about personalities not policy and guidance. So with that in mind we need to recognise that whilst the topic may not meet policy demands it's going to stay anyway. A campaign to clear up the crap is undermining our ability to orient the article to something that more reasonably recognises the Masonic view of buildings as a class (they're commercial enterprises that we use to meet in) but the view of other projects in WP that buildings are important in and of themselves.

IT may also be a bit more productive to steap away from the personal stuff. I've called Doncram on his personal attacks on me a number of times and whilst I have views on the approach that certain individuals are taking it's more productive to merely recognise and identify where they are going OTT, and remaining apart from that.

ALR (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)