User talk:24.68.229.125

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Freemasonry

Hi, I wanted to commend you on challenging the mason propaganda being spewed out on Wikipedia! I had a note page on freemasonry and it was deleted because a few anonymous users and masons didn't like the notes I had collected for possible future inclusion in some articles. I also pointed out the known fact that masons in good standing have sworn that they will defend masonry which includes lying. I further suggested that some of the agressive editing on some of the pages on Wikipedia is actually adding incorrect information aka masonic propaganda. Here is a link to the page that was erased because some masons didn't like it. Good luck with your editing here on Wikipedia. Dwain 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Freemasonry. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Justin Eiler 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the addition of a link to a large website with hundreds of articles about Freemasonry 'inappropriate external links'? Why would this be considered 'spamming'? Why would this be considered 'advertising' when Masons have posted dozens of links to Masonic websites across Wikipedia?24.68.229.125 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive. Your actions will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked. MSJapan 04:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is posting a single link to a website that contains articles critical of Freemasonry 'vandalism'?24.68.229.125 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Academic Challenger 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is posting a link to one of the largest websites on the internet about Freemasonry a 'disruptive edit'? Why did you falsely accuse me of 3rr violation when only 2reversions had been made? Why did you not do anything about the abusive comments made by 'Blueboar'? How is it you are making an accusation of violating the 'neutral point of view policy'? How is posting a link to a website critical of freemasonry a violation when the page is so lopsided in using only masonic sources and pro-masonic language and bias?24.68.229.125 05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request Unblock

No abusive posting is taking place. The Masonic Editors who control the page refuse to accept any edits contrary to their wishes. They gang up and make 'tag team' deletions with no discussion as well as making false and defamatory edit descriptions. They refuse to allow any information from non-masonic sources or links to non pro-masonic websites or articles. This is grossly unfair. Additionally anyone making edits they dislike gets tagged with 'lightbringer' simply because the edits are deemed unflattering to Masonry. In the most recent incident the Admin made an accusation with no justification and also alledged that 3rr violation had occured when it hadn't, only 2 reverts had been made. Previously the arguement was used that deletions occured with no discussion, however the masonic editors did exactly that in this instance. It would seem that the Masons have some accomplices in the Admin dept. if not actual Masons themselves, as the repeated biased and bizarre decisions by Administrators on Masonry related pages can have no likely other rational.24.68.229.125 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, I am not a Mason. Secondly, I do not tolerate sockpuppetry. You have been banned for a year--abide by the ban. Justin Eiler 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who has been 'banned for a year'? Secondly you never made any accusation of 'sock puppetry' you instead violated the no deletion without discussion rule. Are you a Mason? Finally why are you replying to an unblock request to the Administrators, are you an Administrator?24.68.229.125 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the record of your activities, Lightbringer. I am a member of the Wikipedia community--as a member of that community, I am as capable of responding as an administrator. Justin Eiler 05:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not that user. This is a case of circular reasoning, or really a complete lack of reasoning. The Masonic editors throw the lable of 'lightbringer' on anyone making edits that go against their party line and their confederates in the admin just go along with them. The entire thing is a complete farce and makes Wikipedia look like a star chamber. For the record you are not an Administrator therefore you can not 'act' as an administrator. Either you are or you are not. This is the exact same attitude the Mason editors have. 24.68.229.125 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.68.229.125.html"