User talk:Pepe Oats

Your submission at Articles for creation: Icelandic Order of Freemasons has been accepted
 Icelandic Order of Freemasons, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Icelandic_Order_of_Freemasons help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Moving Toward A One World Government, A One World Economy And A One World Religion
Hello Pepe Oats, I found an interesting article which I thought may be of interest for you, too:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/moving-toward-a-one-world-government-a-one-world-economy-and-a-one-world-religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.22.26 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't buy into the anti-rational fear and blame vacuum.Pepe Oats (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Freemasonry South Africa
Good day Pepe Oats

I would first of all like to thank you for taking the time and effort to look at my article, or for that matter any article written on Wikipedia. High standards need to be maintained. This is a motto of mine. I am open to criticism and take it always as constructive. I see you are making substantial changes to my article, both in content and in layout. I belief each change should be evaluated and so far I only differed at a few small places. If your participation in my article will help to improve it and Wikipedia as a whole, I am satisfied.

Regards

Barry Ne (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Pepe... you left me a talk page message, asking for my input on this article... unfortunately, while my knowledge of the history and nuances of Freemasonry (in general) is extensive, I do not know enough about the specifics of the fraternity’s history in South Africa to be of much use (I do know that there are multiple Jurisdictions... some descending from UGLE, some from various Dutch Grand Lodges, and perhaps yet others formed independently... but I don’t know which ones are recognized by the others - or have international recognition by jurisdictions outside of South Africa). I will keep an eye on the article, but won’t be able to contribute much.  Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering if you could offer your input on the reliability of a source relating to Prince Hall Freemasonry. There is currently a dispute between myself and another editor on the reliability of some sources, and I'd like a third opinion. If you don't mind, could you look at the talk page to the article? Pepe Oats (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Username
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Pepe Oats", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it potentially contravenes WP:ATTACKNAME. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to explain why I think the name doesn't go against Wikipedia naming policy. It's hard because I can't see how it would be. "Oats" is a type of food, and therefore isn't offensive, "Pepe" is a name which I've heard in children's cartoons, and a name by itself shouldn't be offensive. I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea why anyone would think my name would violate namong policy. Pepe Oats (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In this edit, you introduced yourself as (wikilink added). Does that help? Zazpot (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Anti-Defamation League added certain incarnations of Pepe the Frog to their database of hate symbols in 2016, adding that not all Pepe memes are racist."
 * My name still doesn't seem to violate any policy. Names like "DirtyJew" "George14/88" and even quite possibly "GulagJoe" would seem to be closer to what vioates naming policy than my own name. Pepe Oats (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the passage you quoted, although not all Pepe memes are racist, some of them are (and indeed may be considered hate symbols). As such, your username may be derived from one that is. Without some evidence that it is derived from one that isn't, there is a possibility that it may be considered offensive and in breach of WP:ATTACKNAME. If you do intend to keep using your current username, would you be willing to be more specific about the meme from which you derived it?
 * I don't see that inventing fictitious offensive usernames adds any value to the discussion. Kindly refrain from doing that. Zazpot (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

First, you're trying to get me to prove a negative. You don't have any proof that my username is offensive, which is not the case with those other usernames I used as examples. If whole purpose of this interrogation is to prove that my username is not racist, my userpage should be proof enough, as most of the page is me listing off my support for/membership in organizations and ideas that are in opposition to the anti-semitic, bigoted, economically challenged Alt-Right. Second, as for the meme itself, I've stated in my userpage that it's derived from the Quaker Oats guy and Pepe the Frog. Based on that alone, there's no reason to conclude a racist undertone because Oats are just a food. The meme was made by Quakers to be ironic, and contrast the Quaker religion with the ideas that have been associated with Pepe the Frog. It is supposed to be in support of the Quaker religion, its non-violence, inner-light, generally positive ideology while denouncing the ideas associated with the Alt-Right. Pepe Oats (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My unsolicited advice... if you picked your username as a nod to the meme... there will be those who will misunderstand. Rightly or wrongly, The meme has taken on connotations that go beyond its original meaning... and some will see your use of it as: “this guy must be pushing a right wing (racist) agenda”. From what you have said above, this isn’t what you want people to think. The problem is that they will think it anyway. They will misconstrue your edits and comments as being politically motivated.  You will save yourself a lot of hassle if you choose a new username.  That’s my advice... take it or leave it ... as you will.  Happy editing. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If so, then I guess it would be fairly easy for you to confirm this by posting one or more links to examples of the meme being used in that way. I would be grateful if you could do so. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point it is no longer "is the username offensive?" but, "how far can we pursue the allegation that it is offensive?" If I wanted, I could manufacture a million peices of evidence showing such a meme used in such a way, and there'd still be no proof they were genuine, so that moght as well be pursued. This is no longer empirical, but hysterical. I've explained my intent, and my intent was not to offend or be racist. The interrogation seems to have stemmed from reading my talk page (that's really the only honest way that the conclusion it was racist could have been made), and so I've changed it so as not to bring hinest individuals to such a conclusion again. If you want me to supply you with my private conversations, and the private conversations of those others associated with the meme, I will not, as that'd be unreasonable.Pepe Oats (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for private conversations: that would indeed be unreasonable. I am striving to assume good faith here, but it is not entirely easy in the circumstances.
 * You yourself noted that your username derived from an internet meme concerning Pepe the Frog, and that such memes may be hate symbols. You have claimed that your invocation of the meme was not done with hateful intent, and instead comes from a Pepe-based meme that exists among Quakers and that is intended to express connotations of peacefulness. I would like to believe that is true, but unfortunately you have provided no evidence for your claim about this specific meme; and my own independent efforts to find evidence of its existence have failed. (I am also aware that many people who invoke the Pepe meme intend to be disingenuous, though I hope that does not apply to you.)
 * Without that sort of evidence, I suspect that some users may find your username offensive whatever your intentions; and your username has already proven to be disruptive. Blueboar's comment above seems to me to be good advice in the circumstances. Zazpot (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela a Freemason
Good day Pepe Oats

There is currently no reliable confirmed source that show that Mr Mandela ever was a Freemason. That is why I have deleted the entry. if a Freemason source(s) and not newspaper speculation is (are) found, it might be correct to show it there.

Regards

Barry Ne (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I know for a fact that he was a Freemason. After his death, the MW Grandmaster of the Prince Hall Masons of North Carolina sent out a document mourning the loss of one of their members, this member being Mandela himself. When he visted the United States at one point during his life, he met with the Grandmaster of the PHA Masons of NC and was made a mason at sight. He was then given a charter to start a lodge in South Africa, of which he served as the first Worshipful Master. His name is mentioned in the proceedings of the same grand lodge as being the master of said lodge in South Africa. https://masonologyblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/nelson-mandela-a-freemason-and-the-end-of-apartheid/amp/ I have not cited this because it is a blog, but the sources are shown within it. Pepe Oats (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pepe Oats

I accept your creditionals. Mr Mandela may stay on the page

Barry Ne (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversion
Hello Pepe Oats,

Please explain why this properly-cited addition to Masonic Landmarks was undone? Was this in error? The Pony Toast (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. It seems I have made a mistake. I happened to be viewing two different articles with recent changes (one of them being your edit) and I meant to undo one. I undid the wrong one. My apologies. Pepe Oats (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi Pepe Oats,

I wonder why you reverted my minor edit (of two mere words...) on Propaganda Due. My edit didn't add something truly significant or indispensable, but it wasn't superfluous either and what I wrote was correct and accurate. Cheers, Shams lnm (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons you have outlined:

1. It wasn't significant.

2. It wasn't necessary.

You expanded the name while the linked article didn't include such middle name, and the title of archbishop added nothing to the article. They'd be able to find out information about that person on the article devoted to them. I might write in an article on Jefferson's actions as president, "Thomas Jefferson died on the same day as John Adams", which is perfectly correct and accurate... But it doesn't have any value to the article. Pepe Oats (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What I wrote:

i) wasn’t wrong.

ii) wasn’t superfluous (although, I admit that the middle name isn’t indispensable).

“You expanded the name while the linked article didn’t include such middle name”... Next time, before reverting an edit, please read more carefully. The middle name is correct and, of course, is included in Wikipedia’s entry on Paul Marcinkus: read the whole entry, not just the title. The Lithuanian middle name (Casimir) gives the reader a hint/clue on Marcinkus’s (Lithuanian) family background and ethnic origin without having to click at the link and read his comprehensive bio.

Yes, it makes sense to cite his ecclesiastical rank (i.e., archbishop) to make clear that he was a clergyman, not a layman. Most private banks (including the “Istituto per le Opere di Religione”) are headed by laymen. During the time period in question (1971-1989), the “Istituto per le Opere di Religione” was managed by a clergyman, archbishop Paul Casimir Marcinkus. Marcinkus’s immediate predecessors (Bernardino Nogara and Massimo Spada) as well as his immediate successors (Angelo Caloia, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, Ernst von Freyberg, Jean-Baptiste de Franssu) were laymen, professional economists and bankers. Marcinkus was the only clergyman, who was appointed to lead the “Istituto per le Opere di Religione” in the post World War II period; in the paragraph on the “Corriere della Sera takeover” by Propaganda Due -with the implicit consent of the Vatican and with financial resources provided by the Catholic church- it is important to cite Marcinkus’s ecclesiastical rank. Please, read carefully before reverting edits (no matter how small and insignificant they may be) without a valid reason. Shams lnm (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not my job to prove lack of notability. It is your job to prove notability. His middle name and ethnic backgeound aren't relevant to the article. If the reader wishes to learn about a person mentioned in the article, they can and shoukd go to that article. Pepe Oats (talk)

All right. I have acknowledged that “the middle name isn’t indispensable”. I am deleting it. The ecclesiastical title, though, is quite essential and will remain (because that section of the text -“Corriere della Sera takeover”- focuses on the ties between P2, the Catholic church, and Democrazia Cristiana). Shams lnm (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Pike plagiarism
Hello. I undid your unexplained deletion of information I added to the Morals and Dogma article. The information has a source and is cited properly. Why do you think it should be removed? --Virtuus (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see talk page of the article for the exact quote.--Virtuus (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)