User talk:Pax681

Your edits to Holy Royal Arch
Your edits, while in good faith, were unencyclopedic, and I have reverted them. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide to visiting Grand Bodies. Those interested should know where to go first in the first place. Supplying a main page reference to a fact contained within a website is not really a reference at all, and unless the specific item stated is on that page, it's as good as uncited and removable. MSJapan (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

i AM a Freemason and what i put there is fact.
 * The first point is not at issue, and in fact has nothing to do with this at all. The second point is an issue, because you linked to webpages where the information you claimed is there is not there.  Wikipedia is not anecdotal; please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. MSJapan (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

it wasn't abot visiting grand bodies. it showed dates of the earliest recorded Royal Arch Chapter. it showed that when visiting certain criteria have to be met for those visiting a Scottish Constitution RAC Also the information on the sites of the Grand Chapter DOES have that information i laid out. my Edits were 100% factual and thus encyclopaedic indeed in nature. If you had cared to actually READ the pages you would have seen that info WAS there as that's where i sourced it from under advice from my Province of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Also how is it that as a Freemason, Royal Arch Mason,member of the Cryptic Council,Rosicrucian and Knight Templar make me unqualified to edit something about which i AM qualified to talk about in depth? i am also my chapter historian as it happens
 * Because we're not talking about your experience; Wikipedia is not anecdotal. I'm also not going to play a qualifications game with you, because that's not the issue.  As a matter of fact, even if you wrote a published book (or a paper in AQC, for that matter) on the topics you added edits about, somebody else would have to cite it for us to use it.  This is why I wanted you to read the relevant policy pages, because that would have cleared up most of this misunderstanding.
 * Here is a diff of all of your edits I reverted. There's a whole chunk about visitations at the bottom if you scroll down that was not there previously.
 * In short, your edits are not keeping in mind what is encyclopedic. "Encyclopedic" and "factual" are not interchangeable terms. For example, it is a fact that socks come in pairs, but the fact that some are blue and some are green is trivial and unencyclopedic, despite being factual.  To say that they come in different colors would be encyclopedic.  Specificity causes triviality, and that's what we have here.
 * Visitation is not encyclopedic material. Why?  Because one can't just walk in the building and go to a meeting.  There's protocol to be followed through one's home grand body, despite what the website says, because every jurisdiction sets its own rules.  Therefore, what you added isn't really encyclopedic, despite being factual (personally, I would debate the factuality of it myself for the reason I stated, but this is not the place).
 * Additionally, your edits are not accurate, despite what the address bar indicates, because I actually took the time to go through this and check. The home page address http://www.supgrac.com/ will display said info, but not if I just type it in as-is.  The relevant menu bars have different page addresses, and therefore, none of the historical and visiting info info you added referring to that page appears on that page (as I stated).  Stirling's info is on http://www.supgrac.com/history.htm, and visiting info is on http://www.supgrac.com/visiting.htm. MSJapan (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)