User talk:MSJapan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current time and date is 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Archive 1: Oct. 2005 – Feb. 2006
Archive 2: Mar. 2006 - Jul. 2006
Archive 3: Aug. 2006 -


Contents

[edit] New AFD on Jahbulon?

by applying a strict application of WP:RS... we may now be ready to resubmit Jahbulon for AFD... see talk:Jahbulon Blueboar 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kadosh degree

FYI... I have found that my Grand Lodge's Library (open to the public) has a copy of Pike's ritual... As soon as I can get down there when they are open (unfortunately its during work hours) I am going to read the ritual for the Kadosh degree from the source. If the tiara trampling stuff is NOT in Pike's ritual (and I suspect it is not) ... I am going to add a statement to that effect (properly citing Pike of course). We can then mention the fact that tiara trampling does show up in the Cerulian Scotch Rite, return the Blanchard Citation, and let the reader make the connection.

This should make it clear that the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia does not know what it is talking about. I am tempted to go one step further and challenge the reliability of the entire Freemasonry chapter of the Catholic Encyclopedia... for it will be obvious that it can not be relied on to give accurate information on the topic of Freemasonry. Blueboar 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the director of the Livingston Library, the book is entitled "Magnum Opus" by Albert Pike... and he says it contains the ritual for the entire scottish rite as Pike wrote it. But your caution on making sure that it is indeed the correct ritual is well taken. Thanks. Blueboar 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guess who's back?

I'm pretty sure we have Lightbringer active again on the Anti-Masonry article, using what looks to be a range of open proxies in Korea. I can't stay and keep an eye on it (and have three reverts allready), but decided to let the other regular editors know about it. I've reported the open proxires he used so far on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Thank you, and enjoy the weekend. WegianWarrior 11:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New AfD on Jahbulon

FYI - I have filed a new AfD on Jahbulon. With most of the supporting material for the speculative stuff deleted due to WP:RS issues, I think it is ready for deletion. Blueboar 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the AfD talkpage you may be interested in.LessHeard vanU 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Magnum Opus"

You wrote to me saying: Pike's Magnum Opus is indeed his ritual revisions, and it is a very large book. I've also got a Bibliography of Pike's writings, as well as Legendas. Kessinger's going to like me, apparently. (23:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC))


That was in relation to Catholicism and Freemasonry... the Knights Kadosh Section. Unfortunately, to definitively debunk this allegation, we need something called "Inner Sanctuary" which is what the CE quotes. JAS thinks this may be an even later version of the Ritual (ie the one that would have been in place at the time the CE was being compliled.) I don't think Kessinger has this. I am going to try contact the House of the Temple and see if they can tell me anything about it and if they have a copy. No one said research would be easy! Blueboar 13:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To be clear I said that the CE did not cite the Magnum Opus and so we need to look at the Inner Sanctuary article before commenting on the article's use of sources. It would be nice if the article could be put on Wikisource. It could be groundbreaking as Inner Sanctuary is almost forgotten - at least on the Internet. If you need any help in deciphering the citations to the Pike books in the CE just ask. I'm going to try to put up a list of all the citations from the CE at some point soon - if you are going to look for Pike's stuff soon you may want to tell me so I can prioritise that. JASpencer 13:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SC Template

Actually, I tried to make it small; I really think the BR one is disgustingly huge... And as for the related topics, bear in mind that they're not about the Suicide Circle movie alone; the family stuff comes mostly about Noriko's Dinner Table (and probably has more "relevance", so to speak, seeing how the third movie will (according to Sono in the german interview) be a direct sequel to NDT). So I don't know; do you want to make the template small again? And now that we're into it: after making the article on the manga, should it be next to the novel? I mean... it's not very fitting next to a book. --Roberto C. Guión 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: As per an edit comment...

Hi! What exactly are you replying to? I'll have a better grasp of the issue if I know. :) Thanks! --Masamage 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh, I see. Fair enough; since the entire point of those title translations is to, well, translate the titles, you definately have a good point. I'll go back through the episode list and fix it. Thanks! --Masamage 01:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rv back to edit on Freemasonry

Please read discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry#Christian_Anti-Masonry_Section_Content_Problem before assuming a revert has not been discussed. Cite sources for removed content. See WP:NOR. (Simonapro 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Again the debate is open for you on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry#Christian_Anti-Masonry_Section_Content_Problem to resolve. (Simonapro 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Catholicism and Freemasonry - Thank you

Thank you very much for your attention on the Catholicism and Freemasonry pages. I've tried to make sure that no one gets indigestion by introducing changes slowly. This was an unexpected and pleasant surprise. God bless you. JASpencer 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are in violation of WP:NOR on Freemasonry

Your revert includes two passages that do not have citations. This means that you are possibly violating WP:NOR by not using the WP:CITE style.

  • As for Pike, his opinions are his own personal (and now somewhat outdated) interpretations. Most tellingly, Pike himself admits that his book is more culled from other sources than his original work. Most importantly, Pike is but one commentator amongst many, and no one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.
  • The negative reaction of "Grand Orient" Continental European Freemasonry—to what was perceived as Catholicism's theocratic and authoritarian political influence—has in countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal historically tended towards anticlericalism, secularism and at times even total Anti-Catholicism.

Please give citations for each of these using the [{WP:CITE]] style or the WP:NOR violating material will be removed. Thanks. (Simonapro 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Those quotes weren't originally my addition. Therefore, you can't accuse me of violating NOR (it's not my research). The other thing is, you were just told in the discussion that the quote sources exist, and what the sources are. So where's the NOR violation you're accusing everybody of doing? - MSJapan 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC).
  • It doesn't matter if you didn't originally make them. They where removed because of WP:NOR violations. You where told that. You put them back in without using the WP:CITE style. That violates WP:NOR.
  • Being told that the source quotes potentially exist and actually citing using the WP:CITE style are two different things. WP:CITE does not include support for quotes that potentially exist. Sorry it still remains in violation of WP:NOR until the WP:CITE style is used. (Simonapro 14:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC))
Discussion continued in relevant section on article page. MSJapan 21:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for using < ref > type style. (Simonapro 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Paris Commune

No problem, it's not an article I pay much attention to and I was at work so just keeping an eye. I just saw an unexplained deletion of a big chunk by an anon, so saw it as likely vandalism. Regards. ALR 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 209.209.140.21

This looks more like a content dispute to me than vandalism. The user has posted the same content twice; if s/he does it a third time, feel free to report it as a 3RR violation. Thanks, NawlinWiki 21:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, 209's edits here don't make much sense. Overall, though, this account has plenty of legitimate contributions on other subjects and I don't want to act hastily. If the Mason nonsense happens again, I am not opposed to a block on vandalism as well as 3RR grounds. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. NawlinWiki 21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simonapro

I see a rough diamond in him. I would hate to see him go off the rails (and he hasn't yet). Some firm but gentle guidance could make him a valuable contributor.

Thank you for your concern any way, it really is appreciated.

JASpencer 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why you can't add PS review to all the Freemasonry articles...

You wrote: This is about thew third time I've removed PS Review from a Masonry-related article, os I think it's time to explain Wikipedia policies. On WP:EL, which explains the policy regarding external links, it states that personal sites are not appropriate, nor are advertising links. Now, obviously, PS is your site (or you've got a key role in it someplace, by your username), and unfortunately, as it's not an official site like a GL site, it's a personal site, and in the grand scheme of things, PS is also not any more notable than any other non-GL Masonic site.

Yes, I'm the editor of PS Review of FM, but the online magazine is not a personal website. It is an international masonic review written in five languages. PS Review of Freemasonry has been established in 1996 and since then eminent Freemasons Scholars, members of Quatuor Coronati Lodge 2076 United Grand Lodge of England, Australian and New Zealand Masonic Research Council, the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Research Society USA and The Philalethes Society USA, have published their Masonic papers on this site. Mainly in English, but with a lot of Masonic research papers available also in Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese, the site is a reliable resource of Masonic Education on the net allowing you to be more acquainted on the Origin of Freemasonry as far as on the Ritual performed in a Masonic Lodge and the Degrees of Freemasonry.

PS Review of Freemasonry publishes only articles, papers and books written by Master Masons members of a Regular Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons and therefore on the roll of a Grand Lodge recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England.

The website is NOT commercial.

We are a team of volunteers and our mission is to serve our wonderful Craft at the best. I know that what we do is a little stone, but ...a squared one.

I'm new to wikipedia and probably I made a mistake adding our link. Please accept my apologizies but your comment is a little bit offensive. We are not a personal website but a big project and we have worked hard since 1996 on volunteer basis. Please take a look to PS Review of FM.

S&F

R.W.Bro. Bruno Gazzo Past Assistant Grand Master (Honorary Grand Rank) The Regular Grand Lodge of Italy recognised regular by UGLE (pietre-stones 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] PUFFY

Sorry kiddo . . . but please at LEAST make redirects to your corrections! I don't like all that red! --Zeldamaster3 18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

Firts of all my claims disruptive indeed thats what I want to do actually. Above all I do not have to comment positively in discussion part. To tell the truth I can give precise references since 1780s the establishment of masons in Turkey. And it is a interesting to speak to a mason. Well what I believe apart from what I know is that. The elitist masonary is a small part of elits who have the power like illuminatis those have good education and vision of life and could see the world above a certain point of view, clearified from religion or nationalism which can manupilate individual decisions. I respect you guys, but it is not what I believe. Masons act as in Kabala Doctrine. Not good, I can never leave it, sorry. (cantikadam 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC))


By the way what I do not respect is you have deleted my comments. (cantikadam 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] read

Let me tell you what do they do. In Turkey Freemasons first of all divided in three same as in World community; Freemasons, Lions Club and Rotary Club. These coorperate on bussiness. Let me explain it, imagine that you are a car seller and a mason or lion. Every mason buys their cars from your shop and recommned the shop other businessmen therefore you as a mason get hell rich. But it is the simplest visionary of a mason this is just the most superficial activity of masons. I know personally that one of my freind's father is a mason they are connected to jews indeed. They have strange rituals so it is not a social club you go to dance with ladies!! They wear white gloves to indicate "we do it clean" wear "felt hats" does not it sound like a religion? This is too deep to talk here, there are lots of references to masons Sebetayists(Muslim-Jews who belive that Christ shall return as a Jew) and Jews who belive in "Secrecy" profoundly so Freemasonary is a secret. There have been mason PMs in Turkish governments and what is funny USA was founded by masons! Hell yeah it is a social club! This is enough for now. (cantikadam 14:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Rejected - Why?

You just rejected the article "Millennia Foundation" on the grounds that "sources don't establish notability." The Foundation's benefactor ranks #1 out of 11,400,000 hits on Google. The benefactor is discussed in numerous books, periodicals, and weblogs. A highly respected Foundation that gives schoarships, grants, and large donations may not be "notable" in your eyes, but to a student searching the Internet for grants or scholarship, it could be one of the most important things in their life. Or to a NPO looking for funding (etc.).

Benevolence is one of the most noble and notable causes we have in life. Your acceptance or rejection of this article could impact the world. So - tell me again why this article was rejected.. I'll take it before the Wiki board if you're convinced that this is non-encyclopedic material.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.91 (talk • contribs).

Well, first of all, you're making an empty threat. Moreover, you're telling me right now that the benefactor (a company, not a person) is well-known, and you've said nothing about the foundation.
As for your submission, your text is as follows:
The not-for-profit Millennia Foundation was established by Millennia Media, Inc. in 2001 to support charitable organizations in areas of social justice, humanitarian aid, and resource sustainability. The Millennia Foundation also provides grants and scholarships in areas of post-foundational education.
Sources
Google search on the word "Millennia" finds 11,400,000 hits. The Millennia Foundation's benefactor (Millennia Media, Inc.) is in position number one. Numerous books, periodicals, and websites cite Millennia (Katz, Bob., Mastering Audio, Focal Press, 2002, ISBN 0-240-80545-3), etc.
66.82.9.91 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You have said nothing about the foundation at all, and it is stated clearly in the guidelines that Google hits do not establish notability for article creation. Said hits also only establish notability for the company, not the foundation. For sources besides Google, you make vague references to sources that cite the company, not the foundation. They aren't the same thing. In fine, your submission and further comments here sound more like an attempt to advertise your group than an attempt to cerate an encyclopedic article. The fact that you think that a WP article on the foundation could affect the world means you want it for publicity, and that is wholly inappropriate and goes against WP policies. MSJapan 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a Wiki entry will generate publicity for the public good - in the same way that the "One" campaign, or any other NPO, would generate positive publicity for a worthy cause. The Foundation doesn't generate "publicity" on its own - perhaps this is grounds for rejection? I know the One Campaign spends money promoting itself and generating publicity, so how is it justified with a Wiki entry? Is this simply a matter of magnitude over substance?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.91 (talk • contribs).
Well, first of all, the ONE Campaign article isn't written by foundation members with an agenda to push their group. I personally hadn't heard of it until you mentioned them, but the article is objective, whereas I still think you see WP as a publicity vehicle for Millennia Foundation, and that is one of the things that Wikipedia isexplicitly not for doing. Second of all, we have guidelines for notability, and even looking at the Foundation site, I see nothing that would tell me how much money they give out, nor is there even a mission statement, spokespeople, or anything.
Your article also stated no specifics as to who is involved, how much money the foundation gives out, who speaks for the foundation, and so on, and the article also did not state that the group is Christian-themed. I didn't find that out until I read the scholarship application. On the other hand, you claimed that the scholarships are open to anyone, and they simply are not. Leaving out information like that is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.
The ONE article, on the other hand, lists the goals, mission statement, endorsers, and (most importantly, I think) critics of the campaign. A reader knows exactly what the group does when he or she reads the article. Contrast that with your submission, and what I've pointed out. Add in the total lack of third-party information. That's a problem for expandability. The second hit after your site is the WP title that has no article. That's usually a bad sign for notability, as well as for expandability, as there are no third-party sources. Add in the fact that you're a member of the foundation, and there's a self-publishing violation, as well as the aforementioned advertising problem.
At this point I don't know what else to say about this -- I can't ground the argument any further in WP policy than I already have, and I know you're not going to get any farther with anyone else who knows WP policy well. The AFC page specifically states most articles are rejected, and it is also clear as to why. I don't think this is a surmountable problem for you at this point. Certainly, if you really want to get another opinion, go to the help page and ask an admin, though I do not think you will get the reply you want. MSJapan 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Your assessment makes sense and I agree. Thanks for helping out.

[edit] Kristi Yamaoka AfD

I'd like to ask you to withdraw your AfD nomination for this article. Please see my latest comments on the AfD. There indeed were repercussions from the event, resulting in permanent safety rule changes for the same type of stunt Yamaoka was in that resulted in her fall. Further, the AfD is currently 9 in favor of keeping to 3 in favor of deleting; this is a clear consensus in favor of keeping at this time, and would require another ~25 people in favor of deleting without another in favor of keeping in order to get towards deleting this article. It's highly unlikely that will happen. Respectfully, --Durin 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the opposite question should be asked. What does retaining it accomplish? Part of the basis of your nomination is that there were no permanent effects from her fall. That's provably false now. The consensus that has developed is in favor of keeping, and it's highly unlikely there will be a massive shift to cause this article to be deleted. So what does retaining the nomination in an open state accomplish? --Durin 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • First, I didn't think you would really do it. After you accused me and others in opposition to you of being "irrational" I thought it highly unlikely you'd proceed with an AfD. Second, I simply didn't. I don't have time for everything at every moment and I strongly believe in m:Eventualism. Third, the AfD was doomed to fail before I found the information; it was 9-3 against deleting before I added it. I wasn't making some secret attempt at witholding information to undermine the AfD until you ran it. --Durin 18:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're Nonsense!

Riley Brown is a great man and a true warrior of the western frontier! If an article about him is not wiki-worthy than I don't know what is. You're a disgrace and a representation of all that is wrong with the wiki-universe. Furthermore, I wasn't the least bit surprised to see that your wiki-awards page was wiki-lacking wiki-awards. You are not worthy and I personally think you should shove that Riley Brown article right up your wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.202.240.97 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

  • You could have expressed your sentiments without the harsh personal attacks. Insulting a person is not a way to work in concert with other people. --Durin 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we all know what it was all about, here's the submission:
Riley Brown is the single most important figure of all time in the sport of unicycle marathoning. He grew up without a father or mother figure in the orphanarium of East Germany. His father, Adolf Hitler, and mother, Eva Braun, died right after he was created; so, being the lovechild of Germany's last great leader, he is the sole heir to the Third Reich.


Sources
http://www.myspace.com/rileystylie


205.202.240.97 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I would also advise anyone who thinks there might be any merit in this whatsoever to check the MySpace source and notice that said source has absolutely nothing in common with the content of the article. MSJapan 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No worries. You were spot on. It's his verbal assault that was out of line. --Durin 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: You're Nonsense!

I thank God everyday for people like you, MSJapan, for keeping Wikipedia a credible source of information.



I also thank him for dropping those two magical bombs that to this day continue to shrivel your japo wiki-winkies.

[edit] General Guidelines for WP:40k

I guess I didn't understand exactly what you were talking about. Colonel Marksman 21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for creation blanking

Thanks for fixing the Articles for creation page. Unless I've misunderstood your edits, you might find it quicker to click on the version before 69.158.166.79 added edits, click edit and then save. Antonrojo 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kadosh

I've replied on my talk page. JASpencer 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Msjapan

Thank you for your message. Regarding the article GLRP i agree with your comments except the fact that its never too much remember the principles of our Universal organization. Anyway Im going to do a lot of work in it and hope you can help the way you can. Recognized or unrecognised accept Fraternal regards and our help and hospitality when you'll need Carlos Botelho 11:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello MSJ thank you for your kindness in first place. I saw the stub you made with GLRP and im in a position to say that you have a wrong idea of what GLRP is. Its not quite fair to judge regularity by the recognition of the UGLE or accept a "regular" membership just without hear two parts, in this case: Our's GLRP and our initiated brothers of the GLRP/GLRP. Thats what happened in this particular case. I know you dont understand a Portuguese~, anyway i tell you; The GLRP- Grande Loja Regular de Portugal - is a Regular Lodge in Portugal and no one can be Initated without the requirement of belief in a Supreme Being. The history will reveal the facts,if there's no one able at UGLE to do today. A great Master Work would it be!! Concerning us we'll keep on working guided by the light of The Great Architect. Unfortunately theres a lot of misundertandings out of portugal trough campaigns of (really advertisement)but those not ours. We have the records, the books, the law as guaranty and the will to go on with our work. Im preparing another article as you recommended. Please accept my apologies for any english error as i forgive your misunderstandings (of portuguese of course). Thank You MSJ

God bless Carlos Botelho 01:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Lightbringer attack

Heads up at Freemasonry... note the ISP. Blueboar 13:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He learns... He repeats the same edits, but spaces the repetition across several days so as to avoid 3rr. Who should we report him to? Blueboar 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I see that you are a フリーメーソン (FM)! Note that the Japanese page on the Craft is now NPOV. (I looked at it some time back, using an auto-translation web page). I took up Iaido after finding out my "Japanese Name" was 鳴琳ニル博士 (and my PhD makes me a Samurai!). Cool :-) Generic Character 16:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply :-) I'm an Analytical Chemistry PhD, and I only dabble in Japanese... so I'm making a very low bow to your expertise. However, being a "Samurai" is good BS, at least superficially! :-) Generic Character 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories

Freemasonry is an existing category and Masonic scholars probably should be. So what is the problem for Chornenky article? --71.198.95.28 05:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GLRP

Hello MSJ Nice to read you :) Thank you for your post and the advise. As a matter of fact we are going to put some of our most important documents on Wiki Commons and reveal to the world our very true history. Im hope that my small contribution will make a great difference to a better masonic relation all over. So we are doing our best for the article and uploading important documents to "prove" our most important claims. We are very aprecciated for your help Best regards with triple cumpliments Carlos Botelho 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"UGLE currently recognises the Regular Grand Lodge of Portugal (Legal), Grande Loja Legal de Portugal (GLRP) and provides a link to this Grand Lodge, (as GLLP) [1] on the UGLE website. [2]" Generic Character 10:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Generic Character 10:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi MSJ. Just a quickie before I shoot off to a Lodge. I think I've gone as far as any English (web) sources can take me, as I'm not from Portugal. At best it looks a liittle less like a one-sided advert, now? ;-) Generic Character 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeMolay Brazil

OK,no problems.

Regards,

Leonardo Freitas Master Councilour "Grande Rio" Chapter - Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

(moved from Talk:Notes)MSJapan 23:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moorish Rite Freemasonry

Because the speedy was nn and I couldn't tell from a quick check if they were nn or not. I didn't look at the history and I would have if it was tagged with "G4: Previously deleted". Gone now. Thanks for pointing it out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literaryagent

Thanks for taking the time to request a checkuser - I looked at the new policy when I reverted him erarlier today and found them rather confusing and I just didn't have the time to figure them out, the wife wanted to go shopping for materials for Halloween costumes... WegianWarrior 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Masonic Architects/bamboodragon

regarding your comments on masonic architects the purpose of the article was to start an article which others could edit and expand, and although I agree that it suffers from list-mania I did attempt to include discussion of architectural movements, eg baroque, Palladian (although the Gothic and Egyptian revivals could also be included) that were'connected' to Freemasonry or Freemasons. Whether there is a definite Freemasonic style of architecture is debatable but the fact that a great many architects were (and are) Freemasons is not, Freemasonry has also influenced town planning in some places and there are, in my humble opinion, good reasons for having a specific article or sub-entry on this theme. I am a new user and fully understanding the wikipedia process clearly takes time and dedication and any contributions are welcome, not because I wish to claim ownership of other people's collaberative research but because it could make for an interesting and informative article. bamboodragon 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Hi MSJapan, I'm sorry you disapporve of my userpage. The information I have colected on freemasonry and the links is, in fact, very pertinent to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia for anything added to one of the articles on freemasonry has to go through a freemason filter. I have, for the moment, given up trying to improve any of the articles because masons will quickly remove it. So I have gathered information and quotes for possible inclusion in some of the Freemasonry related articles in future. As for pointing out the fact that people who are freemasons are writing the articles on freemasonry and may have a slight bias in favor of their subject, I myself have been scrutinized for my beliefs here at Wikipedia too, and rightly so. Although when editing an article I try to be as unbiased as possible, people sometimes still find things that they feel are biased. Previously when trying to improve an article I have been told that anything that I tried to add was incorrect, even when quoting and using information from masonic sources. Later, I find that all the people involved in preventing my information from being included were masons. Hence the list of Wikipedia users who are self professed masons. I can't say that I like the conclusions you ave jumped to that "I don't like Freemasons" that is not true. My father, grandfather, great grandfather and great great grandfather were all masons. I like Ernest Borgnine for that matter. I also dispute your conclusion that it violates the Wikipedia user page rules and I hope your "(if not the rest of your userspace)" is not a warning that if I don't comply with your request you are going to fight those pages as well. It is clear that you (Wiki-masons) don't want any criticism of freemasonry without being in charge of how it is written. What are you afraid of? Dwain 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Generic Character

Hi. Saw your message on User_talk:David Gerard, thought I would reply. On Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Billinge-and-Winstanley, Prescriptive Barony, June Croft, I found he had copied and pastes sentences and paragraphs from websites, sometimes citing them, sometimes not. I wasn't able to find any actual content he had written for himself, but he may have done. I would suggest a thorough review of all his contributions and googling distinctive phrases. Morwen - Talk 13:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC:The Tunnel Rats

Hey brother, just wondering if I could get an opinion from you in relation to an article a close friend of mine is attempting to get undeleted. The article in question is of an urban exploration group numbering 2,000+ members. It's been front page news numerous times and had a lot of media coverage as advocates of exploring what mankind has forgotten and is also known for having uncovered numerous WWII fortifications that were lost and / or buried. It's based in Australia and has chapters in Sydney and Melbourne.

User:Vegaswikian listed it for speedy deletion as a non-notable group. The problem is to appeal for undeletion you need at least three votes in support, yet unfortunately no wikipedians seem to bother reviewing such sections of material. Thus, it's terribly easy to speedy delete anything, whether it meets the criteria or not; and almost impossible to have material undeleted.

Discussion with the random deleter appears here and the appeal for reinstate ment is located here. Your input would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance if you get a chance to take a look at this.  :) Jachin 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your modifications to the WinZip article

Hi,

is my understanding correct that "From at least version 6.0 and up until version 10.0" includes version 10? Wouldn't "From at least version 6.0 and [up] until version 9 [included]" be clearer? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is certainly clunkier. My intent was for "until version 10" to mean everything up to that point, but it actually might be clearer to say "until version 9." MSJapan 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I made an attempt… a check by a native speaker would be welcome :-) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re your message

as you failed to notice, i did remove the links, and it went some time until it was removed. and do not say do not visit the page, i find that highly offensive, completely against what you represent and unsocial to your custom, something that shouldn't be seen on a well known site as this. if i find this rule break again, i will be complaining to your superiors Shas'o sodit 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

++ the fact remains, i find your manner highly offensive, you have no right to tell me what to do if you are not doing your job properly! now, leave me alone, & go read your own rules! Shas'o sodit 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Freemasons in Manitoba

You may want to checkout History of Freemasons in Manitoba. The main editor seems to be acting in good faith ... but the article reads as if it were simply cut and pasted from some other source (I am always suspicious when an article uses "we" instead of "they"). I suspect it is simply a case of a slightly over eager brother, proud of his GL. Blueboar 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New RFC at Jahbulon

please add your two cents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] AfD

I'm not convinced that it's wise at the moment, given activity wrt recruiting supportive commenters for the RFC (look at the contribution history) I'd anticipate the same thing happening for an AfD.

Despite that all it needs is an Admin to have some backbone when they close and recognise that most of the opposition to deletion is based on specious reasoning, not the articles value.

I think a merge with anti-Masonry is a better route, but recognise the resistance to that because of the impact on that article.

ALR 13:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing other people's posts

Please do not change other people's posts on talk pages. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AS I noted on Hanuman's talk page, the post asked that others change the list if needed, which I did. MSJapan 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/s/j/User_talk%7EMSJapan_0c77.html"