User talk:MSJapan/Archive 8

I saw your request at the village pump. I fixed your page by inserting {{-}}. 5:15 02:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I commented at WP:VPA#History merge request.... Flatscan (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that you may have placed {{db-histmerge}} on the wrong article, and you might want to double-check the directions. I don't know how much it matters – the merging admin may catch it, or it may only affect the merge destination. Flatscan (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish that the instructions were more detailed. My reasoning:

• Emphasis on tagging the new location. My interpretation is that the new title is correct, but merely done incorrectly (cut-and-paste).
• {{db-histmerge}}: "This requires an administrator to temporarily delete this page (CSD G6)." Geni's comment at your VPA thread: "Delete move undelete." The tagged page is temporarily deleted, but the other page is moved and no longer exists, aside from the automatically created redirect. The Repair process (for admins) seems to be consistent with this interpretation.

You could try listing at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen or contacting Anthony Appleyard, who seems to be active there.

On further inspection, the post-redirect edits to Lodoss to Senki should be excluded from the merged history. Listing at the holding pen may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I forgot to restore the newer edits. It should be fixed now. My apologies, --PeaceNT (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello my extremist friend? How are you, attending new seminars with brand new cloaks? (cantikadam (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

I thought you might provide some insight in improving the Grand Lodge of Kentucky article. Ignore the last three redlinks, as I'll be writing those articles this week.--Bedford ^Pray 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I seem to have touched a nerve with that NAC. I closed it after looking at the discussion, article and sources - it also seemed to me as if there was no other outcome possible for the AfD, given the !votes (and more importantly arguaments) cast - certainly not just by Renner. I will admit that I'm not the most experienced at non-admin closures, and I shall revert myself, as looking once again at it, I may have been a bit hasty, although I still recon there's no other outcome. Apologies for upsetting you, I thought I'd be WP:BOLD and invoke WP:IAR. I shall instead revert and voice my opinion in the debate. - Toon⁰⁵ 23:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere apologies. I was trying to fix a typo in my previous post, and I edited the previous version. I did not intend to delete your post. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is hard for me to fathom why you created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brhannan after two days of inactivity by that editor and after similar posts (at WP:AN/I and WP:COI/N) were ignored by all admin and archived without comment?

Nevermind that you never had any real evidence of trouble-making, never mind that your understanding of how new users are to be treated is completely contrary to wikipedia guidelines. Days after activity had ceased what action were you expecting? Are you not familiar with the Boy Who Cried Wolf? -MrFizyx (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that oversigning one's sig is in bad taste, I see it often, and I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy violated by doing so. Having a SPA is not a violation either. To violate WP:SOCK one must be deceptive, but as you noted this user was rather blatantly using the IP and Brhannan account. He didn't try to hide this nor, to my knowledge, did he attempt to vote twice or circumvent a policy such as the three revert rule.

You have a lot of good skills as an editor and an impressive history. You have been forthright and honest in my interactions with you. Still, I get the impression that you take things a bit personally when some of us strongly disagree with your positions. Although we all go about things in different ways, keep in mind that most everyone here is trying to make a better encyclopedia and I think you could be an even better editor. Regards, -MrFizyx (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you certainly are persistent. I really am going to sit out this one. I don't see any chance of the AfD being overturned, then again, I was surprised someone bothered to grant a block in the "sock puppetry" case. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you (directly, or via Blueboard) keeping tabs on the AfD for the above article? If the article is deleted then there is a question why anybody may want the nominated article; if someone is going to re-introduce the article they should want the last version with as much of the refs and expanded content to work with. Sometimes, when an article is going to be deleted, an editor requests it be usified for them to work on. Occasionally an admin is approached to supply a copy of the deleted article by email, so the editor can work on it before recreating the content (all of which is allowed). It is interesting that our friend does not wish to follow any of the above procedures - but it isn't particularly germane unless the article is deleted. I shall leave it to you to keep me informed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as we are on the subject... you may want to check out the GLDF article. I have corrected some of the worst mischaractarizations (such as stating that GLDF "enjoys a privileged status in America" due to being in amity with a few Prince Hall GLs (and I note they don't list which ones), but even with my edits it is still a masterpiece of puffery. Of course, I don't expect my corrections to stand unchallenged for very long. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you removed the category from Karl Heine. Who said that this category is not for people? I saw at least three other personal names in the list. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Maybe this restriction should be mentioned on the category's page as well, so authors don't add any random mason. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your undoing of my change: "10:56, August 11, 2008 MSJapan (Talk | contribs) (29,042 bytes) (Undid revision 231244813 by HalloweenHJB (talk) - we don't need multiple pictures of the same building in different sections) (undo)" It would appear that you favor only seeing a building from one angle, only seeing things from one perspective. The photo I added presented a completely different view of the Cathedral, and I wonder why you seem to think that the photo that is already there is the only possible way to view the building. HJB (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario Zef (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:United Grand Lodge of England
Category:Grand Orient de France
Category:Grand Lodge of Scotland
Zef (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your question there. I would not regard the local chapter of an organisation as making no assertion of notability in most cases, and i would certainly delete it via AfD or Prod, not speedy. The standard for speedy in no indication of importance, not insufficient indication. DGG (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've rewritten Pinoy and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinoy to see if your concerns have been addressed. Banjeboi 02:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this be sent to review? The rational for closing (and especially for dismissing WP:ORG) is quite strange and incorrect. The rational completely ignores the fact that we can point to the existance of UGLE to show that Freemasonry clearly does qualify as a national level Organization. To dismiss WP:ORG when it clearly applies is, I think, excellent grounds for review. I would seek review myself, but you are probably more familiar with how to set it up. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If it matters at all the article has changed considerably since MSJ first put the article up for deletion. JASpencer (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

fwiw gents I agree that the reasons for closing are pretty specious, but on the other hand I'd suggest that New Welcome has poential for some notability if some independent sourcing could be found. Some of the article content is, I think, wrong although it's a long time since I read anything about it. From my recollection it wasn't exclusively for Labour parliamentarians, it was for all. I think there was a rumour that it met in the Palace of Westminster, but I don't think that is correct.

The issue about influencing the leadership vote is fairly standard conspiracy theorist fare, given the state of internal party politics at the time if it wsn't blamed on NW it would have been blamed on something else.

I think the issue is going to be reliable sourcing discussing the significance. Given the current direction there is likely to be undue weight given to the leadership issue, but that shouldn't be a big surprise. The place I think I read about it was in Knight, so inherently biased, but there might be something in AQC about it.

ALR (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Both points bear consideration. The closure rationale was incorrect - it's not appropriate to (effectively) IAR when the whole point of AfD is to make policy-based statements for or against. There were other closure arguments that could have been made, so there's definitely something wrong there. Conversely, the article is different, but it may or may not be notable - the main underpinning of the notability of the argument is that the losing politician claimed he lost because of the Lodge, but the material from other sources does not seem to bear that out; even if it was started for Labour-only in 1929, the party split later that year, and as of 5 years later, it was wholly open to Westminster employees. Those are indisputable facts, and if the only other point in the article is is a perceived conspiracy theory that didn't even work, it's questionable. I'll see what I can locate, and then consider a course of action. MSJapan (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what the review is going to be based on? These was a rough consensus to keep regardless of me disregarding the delete based on WP:ORG. I should also note that you actually said "international organizations", which freemasonry definitely is not. Of course you can claim that the Grand Lodges are national organisations, but the article (Freemasonry) says:

It (lodge) will elect, initiate and promote its members and officers; it will build up and manage its property and assets, including its minutes and records; and it may own, occupy or share its premises. Like any organisation, it will have formal business to manage its meetings and proceedings, annual general meetings and committees, charity funds, correspondence and reports, membership and subscriptions, accounts and tax returns, special events and catering, and so forth. The balance of activities is individual to each Lodge, and under their common constitutions and forms of procedure, Lodges evolve very distinctive traditions.

especially very distinct traditions at the end. From this I concluded that lodges are organisationally

and financially independent entities, which exist under only a spiritual leadeship of Grand Lodges.

Freemasonry is much like Anglican communion in its organisation. Ruslik (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you get the relationship wrong. The Grand Lodges could be compared to the national churches of the Anglican communion, but the lodges are like parish churches. Not every parish church is inherently notable, the same applies for lodges. However if there was a parish that was credited by a frustrated leadership candidate, another prominent minister and many political historians you wouldn't delete it. JASpencer (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree the above comments as to the status of lodges. Like local churches, most are clearly NN. However there will be exceptions; and this is one. The article alleges that the members of the lodge voting as a block changed the result of the election of the leader of the British Labour Party. Since the party leader almost automatically becomes Prime Minister if the party wins a general election, the joint actions of the lodge members may have changed who would be Prime Minister. This is an issue of national importance in politics, and thus historically important. This clearly establishes notability. Note: I am not a freemason, though relatives are. I disapprove strongly of theit beliefs, but that does not prevent me recognising notability when I see it. I think you (User:MSJapan are probably not British and have failed to appreciate the great significance of what is stated in the article. This is not WP:OR, since it is based on articles in academic periodicals, which for WP purposes are clearly WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's based on one article and the citations therein. I understand the political situation, but later the same year that the Lodge was founded, the Labour Party split, which probably has more to do with the lack of votes than the Lodge did, and there is no indication that the Lodge caused the split. Therefore, it's closer to a conspiracy theory than anything else. The article's fundamental statement is "it was claimed", not "it was proven", and that's what concerns me. , BTW, indicates that Stanley Baldwin was the incumbent PM and election winner. Morrison isn't even mentioned, nor is Dalton. The article on Baldwin says that year he simply switched placed with Ramsay MacDonald and then he called a general election, which he won. Morrison's article says, "In the 1935 election Morrison was once again elected to the House of Commons and immediately challenged Clement Attlee for the leadership of the party. He lost badly, a defeat ascribed to his unfamiliarity with the MPs who had served in the previous Parliament. Both himself and his supporter Hugh Dalton put some of the blame on the masonic New Welcome Lodge, who they claimed backed the third place leadership candidate Arthur Greenwood and then switched their votes to Clement Atlee." Atlee wasn't the PM either that year. Morrison seems to be noted for never being Labour leader despite no lack of trying. There's just no weight behind the claim. So, I must admit that in that light, I do fail to see the importance of the claim. MSJapan (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I continue to think that lodges should not be treated like local churches. Local churches neither establish their own rules of membership, nor they have "very distinct traditions". However some editors expressed strong possition that I misinterpreted WP:ORG, so I changed the reason for Keep to No consensus. Ruslik (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"There's no weight behind the claim." With all due respect Wikipedia's notability criteria should be putting more weight on what Herbert Morrison, Hugh Dalton, Ben Pimlott, Andrew Thorpe, Chris Mullin and Max Madden think rather than what User:MSJapan thinks is notable. It may be complete tosh, but Morrison (who was a massive figure in London and Labour politics in the interwar and immediate postwar period) sincerely believed that he would have been leader and not Atlee if it wasn't for the machinations of the New Welcome Lodge. So did plenty of other people. And no Atlee was not the Prime Minister in 1935, but he did become the Prime Minister in 1945 - and one of the most influential Prime Ministers in British history. Seriously Atlee not Morrison is like Thatcher not Whitelaw. But I suppose you wouldn't get that reference either. JASpencer (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's debate the content, not what you think I know - I'm getting tired of personal attacks being used to support a claim in lieu of actual evidence. I've added the extent of the Mullin and Madden references to New Welcome to the refs, because I'd rather the extent of the source spoke for the utility of the source rqather than what anyone thinks it means. I also fail to see the relevance of mentions in 1989 and 1992 to events in 1935 (which is the insinuation being made - "all these people over the years commented"), and how one mention in a pages-long debate establishes notability. With respect to Atlee later on, what happened ten years later is not directly attributable, and considering Morrison failed not once, but on multiple times, to secure leadership of the Party and did not make the same claims later tends to refute the claim in the first place, especially if the Lodge was active all through that period. There's far too much insinuation in this supposedly encyclopedic (and therefore factual) article. There is either supporting evidence, or there isn't. It's not a question of making a case with circumstantial possibilities, unproven insinuations, and speculation.

Factually, Morrison lost the election, and claimed the Lodge had something to do with it. Was there proof? Not that has been shown. Also factual: Morrison lost on other occasions, and did not make the same claim, which indicates that there were other reasons to reach the same outcome. Even if the case were to be made that the individual Lodge members voted against him, that is their right and does not indicate the Lodge had something to do with it - UGLE bylaws prohibit political and religious activity as Lodges, but does not dictate member actions as individuals. If everyone in a Lodge were to vote for the same candidate (and we don't have proof this occurred, mind you, without a membership list and crossref to voting records that don't exist), that implies nothing more than a similar sociopolitical outlook, and for a Lodge designed for a target group, I don't know that that is either a surprise or as nefarious as it is attempting to be made out. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I was drawn into this discussion I want to observe that truthfulness of Morrison's claims is irrelevant. He claimed that the lodge influenced the elections, and by virtue of that claim the lodge became notable, probably, against the will of its members. Ruslik (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It may also be a good idea to point out that it was not merely this that makes it notable. I doubt that the Prince of Wales takes an interest in the founding of every Masonic lodge, or that many UGLE lodges have such a political backdrop. JASpencer (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Speculative again. He didn't "take an interest in the founding", he suggested it be founded, or so you claim the source says. It does not say Edward was present at any meetings. What you're also not mentioning here is that this particular Prince of Wales was a Freemason, and he very well could have "taken an interest" in many Lodges, or just the one, or maybe he only made the suggestion and then never had anything to do with it at all ever again. You have nothing to verify that statement in any manner. Furthermore, with thouands upon thousands of UGLE-warranted Lodges all over the world (at least 5139), you cannot say with certainty that no other Lodge like New Welcome exists. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. MSJapan (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... Looks okay, can you please check? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... Was I supposed to have handled the deletes at the time? I have done so anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I notice that Pvosta (talk · contribs) undid some of the component redirects, and changed the above articles accordingly. I have reverted the unredirects and left a note on their talkpage, and then delinked the redirects on the main article. I see that you have previously amicably discussed edits with this editor, and wonder if you feel if you should use your good offices to advance the consensus. Oh, and I have noted on my talkpage another Belgium Freemasonry article but would rather have the above matter sorted before merging the content and redirecting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the efforts by you and Blueboar in responding to the above. I suggest that you close the discussion - or your part in it, anyway - as fruitless, with a note to that effect on the talkpage (commenting that there does not seem to be an editing issue being addressed?) and ignore anything more that does not relate to a specific point in editing the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A long term project to consider... We should probably find better citations for any material currently cited to masonicinfo.com, throughout the various Freemasonry articles. After the discussions at the GOUSA article, I have some question as to whether it is really reliable (although useful and generally quite accurate, it is a Self-published page). Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

MSJ... I can assure you that the George Washington Inaugual Bible most certainly is used by St. John's Lodge No. 1. That Lodge is in my Lodge's district, and I have frequently attended their meetings. Due to it's age and value, they use a copy for business meetings, but they use the original for every degree conferal. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It was the Lodge's bible first. see: the lodge's webpage on the bible. The story is that, shortly before Washington arrived at Federal Hall to take his oath of office, it was discovered that no one had thought to obtain a bible. The Master of St. John's (who was attending the inauguration) rectified this oversight by running a few doors down the street to the Lodge's meeting room and grabbing their bible. The rest is history. A lot of people (especially Masons) think that the reason Washington added the unscripted "so help me God" and kissed the bible was that he knew it was a "Masonic" bible... however, there is no proof of that. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is why I said merge some of the material... obviously we would omit anything that is OR or copyvio. It may well be that all of the useful material is already discussed at Freemasonry (the section I suggested merging to already has some discussion of trestleboards)... in which case, the "merge" has effectively happened already. I just wanted to give an option to the folks who so commonly say: "OOOH, Look... Masonic Secretz ... I like it! Keep 'cause I'm facinated." Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There might be something in AQC about Tracing Boards/ Trestle Boards.

ALR (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Take another look at my photograph of the tracing board and the one you think it is copied from...they are not the same at all! I took this photo of a board from c.1876 myself. The one you claim it is copied from is totally different and has a copyright tag printed across it- mine doesn't! Please take more time to check images before you tag them --Jack1956 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• The three tracing boards (I have pictures of all three) were commissioned when the Lodge was consecrated in 1876...they are listed in the Minutes of the first meeting as being the gift of the first WM. --Jack1956 (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy I'd strongly suggest that you undo your redirect. JASpencer (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your wholesale removal of the information that Voltairesghost added, should not have been marked as a minor edt. I know you disagree with the addition of the information, but it certainly is an edit which meets the standard of Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor.--Vidkun (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... I am fairly sure that there is a difference between Kipling's original short story and the movie version. The pendant thing is in the movie, but I am not sure it is in the original. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have floated a proposal to rename Mother Supreme Council of the World (the article about the Southern Jurisdiction) to something along the lines of Supreme Council, AASR (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) ... please comment at that article's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Given no responce... I have moved the article to Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA), which seems to be the simplest and most common of several variations. Blueboar (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit : see WP:CAT-R. To sum up in this context: if a category will not be applicable to the article that is being redirected to, it's appropriate to categorize the redirect page. In this case, the categories apply to the person, so would not be appropriate for the article page, but would be for the redirect page. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI - I would need to find a reliable source for this, but about a year ago S. Brent Morris became the first American to be elected as master of Quatauro Corinati... that may impact his notability a bit. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's about right, he was JW about three years ago. A copy of AQC came through the door recently so I'll take a look.ALR (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For someone who's edit history started only a few days ago, and who has only edited two articles, I find it interesting that Uku is tossing around terms like "ad homonim arguments" and "sock puppet"... Kettle - black? Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just thought you might be amused by this diff.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Architect of the Universe... over "essoteric teaching of Freemasonry"... the other editor (not Uku... this one claims to be a brother) clearly does not get what I am saying, and wants to edit war and I really don't want to reply in kind. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

never mind... I think it is resolved (as soon as I pointed out that his material violated V and NOR, he backed down). Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku has complained about us at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (here), as well as forum shopping at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#"Masonic conspiracy theories" as part of the Freemasonry project, and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Blueboar, User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior... no need for a response at any of these pages, others have spoken up for us, and the admins are not bying his arguments. Just thought you should be notified of the complaints. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Rite of Memphis-Misraim reverted what to me appears to be a good faith edit by an IP user without providing any rationale for doing so. The Help:Edit summary page states the following in the section Recommendations: "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." __meco (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am contacting you in hopes that you can help address the multitude of punctuation and grammar issues in the Dog article. I recently had to fail it's GA nomination, and these glaring problems were one of the reasons. The normal contributors are too daunted by the task, and I think that if they could focus on content it would be easier for them to feel motivated about improving the article. you can find some problem areas outlined at Talk:Dog/GA1. Thanks! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you much! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Punniyamurthy Sathyamurthy, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! He is a journalist killed in conflict there are series of articles for journalists killed in War zone like Iraq feel it does not come under WP:BLP1E .But please feel free to take it to AFD if you differ with this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you Requested Speedy Deletion of my User Page? Are you working to prevent the release of new advansed material? Of course you are, you are a Mason, and that is what your enviromental doomsday orginization does. Are you willing to take the ride on the figural chopping block for working to prevent the H2onE2 work from public recognition?--H2onE2 (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Ralph Bakshi recently lost its sixth FA nomination, and it has been suggested that the article could use some copyediting. Could you take a look at the article and see what changes need to be made? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

I've been adding comments to the peer review, and I was wondering if you could say there why you removed the summary of the filmography section? See my comment here. Is that the normal way to present such sections? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not be bold and integrate the (minimal) information into Freemasonry and replace the article with a redirect? Bongomatic 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I used the new Books functionality to create a Freemasonry book. What do you think of the articles/organization?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at this page. While it is a serious attempt to discuss the topic, there are some errors (much of which are due to the fact that Uncle G has been drawing from some very old sources - Mackey for example). There may also be some ownership issues. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I only recall making two of those reverts, must have been an error of mine. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I realise that it is preferable to order the Masonic bodies by spread or notability, insofar as it is possible, but in the case of the section "Other Orders and Degrees", there are 16 of them. Not only does this make it different for readers unfamiliar with the orders to find a specific order, but also I think one would be hard-pressed to find a citation backing up the claim that—for example—the Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cite Sainte are more notable than the Societas Rosicruciana.

What are your thoughts?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The above editor has now placed a Freemasonry userbox on their userpage. I have agreed to remove the sockpuppet template on their talkpage and have redacted all comments about the close relationship with another account. I think that their acknowledgment of a COI in editing Masonry articles, especially those relating to Portugal, means that we can now move on per AGF. Problems relating to editing articles can now be viewed through the knowledge of their relationship to the subject, and the usual means of dispute resolution can be applied. I think this is the best that could have been hoped for in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello MSJapan and thank you for contacting me. Unfortunately, I do not edit the Portuguese Wikipedia. If the articles were here on the English one, I'd snap them into AfD. Regards, Húsönd 15:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think about that! BUT I was really trying to give the article time to grow as many people said the article had potential. It was worth a try. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I was just curious how much overlap there was here... http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=SarekOfVulcan&user2=MSJapan&user3=Blueboar&user4=Vidkun&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not add ALR and JASpencer to it?--Vidkun (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Article with lots of information. I(Creator)'m interested in promoting it to GA status. Can you help copyedit it? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about it, but on my part, i didn´t in porpuse, my intention was respectively the symbols of the author and not of a specific Logde or Organization. I guess on this one about it... If still possible, could you help me to choose the correct type of license for each image by..?!? Sorry, but i´am a novice here and I give my contributions to these and other images ... but if not, at least I tried ... Sorry for the inconvenience caused or if hurt some susceptibility...

Fraternity. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right! I will follow your important suggestions. My apologize once again. Every day, we are learning. Today, it was this. Best regards. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your comments (, ) at User talk:bjweeks. I requested the undeletion, based in part on an AN discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed them, I added a response and links at User talk:Flatscan#Your comments. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this. How does the hierarchy work? A Google search using "Patmos Lodge No" turns up a number of "Patmos" lodges, with different numbers, in such different locations as Kansas, Maryland, Vermont... Is "Patmos" the name of a "headquarters" someplace with the others being satellites? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Patmos is a name of a place in Greece. There are many Lodges, in many jurisdictions, that may use that as a name, or any other historical place name as the name of the Lodge. The different numbers refer to the order in which the Lodge was founded, historically, in most jurisdictional cases, ie, St. John's Lodge #1 is presumed to be older than Delphi Lodge #2. In the US, there are, 50+ separate, sovereign, jurisdictions, each of them with their own list of lodges and founding dates. Some jurisdictions, such as Massachusetts, do not use numbers to denote a Lodge's age.--Vidkun (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A very long time ago, I vandalised your user page.This is now forever in my contributions.I would like to apologise.You don't have to forgive me.I would like you to look at my other contributions to see that I was just angry that day.Now, I felt even worse when I found out your a Freemason, just like my dad.Sorry. --JordanITP (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know... Per Fullstop's suggestion the above article has been moved and redirected. The material has been moved to Papal ban on Freemasonry and the title has been redirected to Christianity and Freemasonry

Hi MSJapan! I found your name through the Wikipedia translators' directory for Japanese to English. I'm wondering whether you'd be able to help me out. I'm trying to get some material for fixing up the article on the Twin Spica manga series and found a statement by the author, Kō Yaginuma, but using online translators does not seem to render a comprehensible enough translation. The statement is posted here in a box with blue borders halfway down the page. If you could translate just this portion, that would be helpful. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That will be fine. Thanks for the help. :) Arsonal (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan; I saw you wrote on my page some comments about my edits regarding the National Heritage Museum (Lexington, MA) and in other places. I wanted to clarify that I had not edited the Museum's title on wiki (I left it as is, even though I know it was not accurate). Regardless, I do not agree with you about your comment regarding Scottish Rite Freemasonry. The page, before I edited, mentioned that the Norther Masonic Jurisdiction is the (only) Scottish Rite jurisdiction for the United States. I fixed it to specify that there are two Jurisdictions in the US. I am in the Scottish Rite myself and know that we have two jurisdictions in the US. So please, before undoing valid changes on a page, verify what you are undoing is truly incorrect. Regarding the National Heritage Museum, it was founded by the Scottish Rite, I do not see why you removed the reference to that. Thank you for your attention and for all your contributions to Wiki! Jnaaman (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are inquiring about doing is not really appropriate, because it would require talking about content rather than concept. MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Well there is a Hiram Abiff page, and what I am proposing would have no more than what is found on this site http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6255/Cmdry.html PeRshGo (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the impression you gave on initial contact, but I still don't think that it's a good idea, because it's relly on the level of trivia for that article. As a note, that site you linked to is a personal site which has not been updated since 1999, and GeoCities (as well as personal webpages) are not references that meet WP:RS. MSJapan (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is not to use that as a source by any means, but just to give an example of the level of content as not to venture into restricted material. Also given Zerubabbel is mentioned in BOTH the Royal Arch and Commandery I would say his Masonic connection is significantly more than trivia. PeRshGo (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How so? Critically speaking, the degrees were created long after even post-Biblical times, meaning Zerubbabel had nothing to do with them personally. Therefore, the best that we can say is "Zerubbabel is a character in some Masonic degrees." The "depth of connection" was created by a third party. Therefore, to ascribe anything more than a passing mention in the article really distorts the whole thing. MSJapan (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But given there is already a mention of a work of fiction on the page I don’t think it is unreasonable. I really don’t expect the depth of the Hiram Abiff page but the fact that he is considered so important to York Rite Masons is at least worth a few sentences. PeRshGo (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Subjective statement. I would say the undertaking itself is the focus, not who did it. MSJapan (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I miss what you meen there. Very rarely do we reenact someone's actions without reverence for the person who first performed them. PeRshGo (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)