Jump to content

User talk:MSJapan/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

a little help

Do me a favor... I am running up against 3rrr (and to some extent POINT) at George Washington and religion... The issue is Washington's funeral. All the sources say that he had an Episcopal funeral service, but because it included a Masonic service there is a group are insisting that we can not simply leave it at "the Episcopal Order of Burial was read at his funeral." They insist on including an irrelevant mention of the Masonic service, and implying that this made him a Deist. They are insisting that the Masonic service is a religious service. Blueboar 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder...

...would it be worth asking to have some of Plightbringer's favo(u)rite conspiracy-cr—p sites blocked? 68.39.174.238 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They seem at least receptive to the idea. 68.39.174.238 18:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit of César Chávez

Hello, that was a pretty big copyedit of César Chávez's article. It might have been nice to discuss it on the talkpage as that is a major edit. Ronbo76 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That comment may be there, yes, but there are also two comments above my current comment asking for Requests for Comments. And, yes this is other users' watchpages. Ronbo76 22:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of WP:CIVIL, I am not trying to get into an argument with you. I am trying to point out to you that you could discussed the changes prior. Oct and Nov were just three months ago.

Kristi Yamaoka

I would agree that she is probably nn, and at best a few lines in the cheerleading article about the consequences of the fall would be all that is needed. But I also think that putting it up for another AfD will also end up with it being kept. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there's a disconnect between someone being notable and someone being mentioned in many reliable sources. The article on Kristi Yamaoka doesn't pass the notability test... but some contributors think anyone ever mentioned by several newspapers should have an article about themselves. My biggest complaint about these editors is that they don't see the difference between an incident and an actual person. Incidents may deserve an entry, but people who have done nothing notable outside of said incident, usually do not. AniMate 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lodge Officers - Response

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Yes, I think there is indeed a case for an all-in-one article and in fact I have begun working on it. I hope to post it within the next 48 hours, though there will then be much work to be done on redirects! Timothy Titus 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is now complete and posted at Masonic Lodge Officers. Timothy Titus 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold

Yup... A few years ago they had an exhibition on Colonial Freemasonry at Frauncis Tavern here in NYC... they had his Lodge's original minutes book open to the page with the notice of his expulsion. Facinating stuff. I still think we should list him... just with the note that he was expelled. (Washington's greatest error - he should have kept Arnold as a field commander. He ended up being the best tactical commander on both sides of the war.) Blueboar 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

SRIA

I'll need to dig out the history of the order and take a look, although it may not refer to his craft affiliations. It may be that there is an AQC article which could be dug out. I might drop into GQS when I'm in town in the near future. btw did you get my email before Xmas about QC? ALR 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The history isn't clear, it doesn't mention any resignation from the Lodge and given the cultural issue and the Masonic activities of the other members of the SRIA then it would have been unusual. Not out of the question that he was in more than one Lodge and resigned from Hengist, which would make sense since Hengist was in Bournemouth and he was in London by that time.ALR 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion / WP Japan

Hello, I would like to ask for your opinion on my recent rewrite of Visual kei, seeing that you have previously commented on the article's talk page and appear to be an experienced editor, not too involved with the subject. You know, whether my edits were to harsh, the reasoning behind them not sufficient - I would really appreciate an outside view. I am also interested in becoming involved with the Wikiproject Japan in some capacity. Is there any sort of step-by-step approach to that or how do these things go? Regards - Cyrus XIII 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but your rewrite is not good at all. There isn't even a basic definition of what VK is. It's certainly not an art movement, appearances in anime and manga are almost tertiary, and works of fiction are totally irrelevant. VK is not necessarily bishonen or androgynous - Mana, for example, would be closer to a drag queen, because his mannerisms and dress are feminine. Most of the bands you cite at one point or another had members who wore Victorian-style dresses, and to claim bishonen for that isn't really a good idea, especially since the bishonen article is wrong, too. You're leaving out a lot of the influences on earlier VK. Up until a few years ago with the advent of cosplay-type VK bands, most bands were gothic in the New Romantic sense. This is my OR, so we can't use it, but VK has had different "waves" that are distinguishable blocks of time where there has been a specific style and sound. The problem is that it is very hard to source an indie genre's origins except through chronicles, and there aren't that many. I would suggest, however, that you rv the article back to the old version, because it is more accurate and comprehensive than the current version. Also, do not add Visual Rock as a link. I looked at the article, and it's not correct either.
As for Wikiproject Japan, just go to the page here and sign up. That's it! It helps to add your area of expertise, as well. For projects, though, it's not quite as haphazard as WP as a whole is: it is generally expected that you have a decent level of knowledge in whatever area you choose to work in. MSJapan 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice but I will probably resort to editing/expanding the current stub. It might be a bit of a deletionist attitude but I consider the gain of actual information for the average reader to be higher with a short, rough overview in place, rather than several paragraphs filled with completely uncited information; especially when they do not appear to be entirely written for people without any preconceptions of the phenomenon. One might also add that if reliable sources are that hard to come by the issue of verifiability is joined by one of notability. Regards - Cyrus XIII 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Freimaurer32

This user made 3 edits to Obligations in Freemasonry to take out all the degrees. Not that I disagree, Masonically, but article-wise... But that was their intention...

Grye 01:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

masonic jewel on ebay

I got your email... I have forwarded it to the Grand Secretary's office so he can contact someone at Concordia about it. Thanks. Blueboar 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch (2nd nomination)

Hi. Per your comments at DRV, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch (2nd nomination)? Cheers. The JPStalk to me 22:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RGLE crowd, again

It looks like we've got the RGLE crowd in again putting their POV stuff into the Regular Masonic jurisdictions article.ALR 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

& @ United Grand Lodge of England. I left a warning on IP userpage for UGLE edits, someone want to leave one for Regular Masonic jurisdictions edits? Grye 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
PS, my editsum comment How's that? there's innumerable similar refs out there in the world was toward Aquizard. sorry.Grye 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have left a vandalism tag relating to Regular Masonic jurisdictions on the user's talk page. Blueboar 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Not Guilty! Firstly I am UGLE and NOT RGLE. Secondly it is possible that someone else who is not RGLE is making these edits. Aquizard 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not fair to hijack MSJs talk page, but what makes you think that this was in reference to you?ALR 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freemasonry for talking about /Vandalism... ...knowhatimean...?~)
Delete my comments at will,
Grye 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles

MSjapan send me an email and I will let you have details of the articles which relate to the Middle East. Aquizard 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiram etc

I assume that like me you've been taught to be cautious about articles without references - any other articles that you think should be cleared up? Dave 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Urco and Anti-Masonry cat.

I notice that User:Urco is creating and populating a category for "Anti-Masonry"... and that you reverted out a few of his cat tags. FYI... I have left him a message stating that I don't mind the creation of an Anti-Masonry category... in addition to the one for Freemasonry. If you have a more substantive objection, let me know your reasoning. Blueboar 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

so that the category is being considered for deletion, if also exists the category Antisemitism and Anti-communism?--Urco 20:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

LB

Yes, I agree it is warranted, but in the end we must always be reluctant when giving someone the big official boot. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Re: Temporary block

I think I'm going to let Makinson block the IP permanently, since I am always unsure about blocking IPs permanently, and it would take me a while to find it. Academic Challenger 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jake1982

I've added a "Suspected Lightbringer sockpuppet," but I'm not sure what the next step to take would be--go to Checkuser, report to the Admin, or update the Long-Term Abuse page on him. Can I dump the problem on you? Justin Eiler 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Justin Eiler 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD at William Guy Carr

You may want to see this article and add your two cents to the AfD. Blueboar 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Taxil Hoax

hi

there is some discussion on the taxil hoax page about the line I removed.

my specific source is this: http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_confessiontaxil3.htm

the part that reads: "At first, Freemasons were indignant; they did not foresee that the patiently prepared conclusion of the hoax would result in a worldwide outburst of laughter. They actually thought I had joined for good. It was said and repeated that it was a way of avenging myself for having been expelled from my Lodge in 1881, a well-known story which was not in the least dishonorable for me, but the mere consequence of a little row initiated by two men having nowadays disappeared, and disappeared under sad circumstances.

No! I was not avenging myself, I was having fun. And if one examines now the undersides of this campaign, even the Freemasons who were most hostile to me will acknowledge that I did not harm anyone. I would go as far as to say that I did a good turn to French Masonry. (Interruption: You go too far!...) Pardon me, wait until I explain myself, and I am sure you will agree with me. I mean that my publication of the rituals was certainly not irrelevant to reforms which resulted in suppressing outmoded practices which had become ridiculous in the eyes of all masons befriended with the notion of progress."

Everything Inane 15:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, sounds good, feel free. Im not doing it myself though because I dont really know and I don't really care if free masons have an opinion on whether they were being aimed at. It seems to me that throughout his speech taxil is simply making a mock of superstitious people (the Catholics) it is clear that before he feigned conversion he was very anticlerical and anti-catholic (as witnessed by the titles of some of his works before conversion), if it was a prank from the start I just don't see it being against the freemasons, it just doenst make sense to me, but feel free to add what you may in this context

Everything Inane 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Luck

I have to admit initially I was angered by your behavior and your obvious disgruntled tactics to get me in trouble or banned from editing at Wikipedia. But now I just feel sorry for you. Even previously when I was angry I prayed for you but now frankly I just feel very badly for you. I don’t condone your actions of seemingly using Wikipedia to disseminate misleading and manipulative information regarding the craft and preventing others from successfully contributing. Nor do I approve of your misguided tactics against me and others. All in all I feel pity for you and will no longer respond to anymore of your accusations. If you succeeed in your quest so be it. I truly hope that you can find peace in life. I also apologize if I may have crossed the line of civility in some of my responses to you or your accusations. I don’t intend to change my beliefs, or my website, and feel that there is some serious conflict of interest going on with freemasons editing the articles because of the oaths they take regarding the craft. Good luck and Peace be with you. Dwain 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SRIA

I accept that the articles are pretty short, and at the moment the SRIS articles are very similar. I have to say the official history of the SRIA is pretty turgid reading, so it's taking time in amongst everything else, but I should be able to grow it up a little. I don't know a great deal about SRIS. An alternative approach could be to beef up the SocRos article and talk about SRIA, SRIS and the US order SRICF? as elements of that. The article size wouldn't be too big and there is commonality in terms of grade structure and philosophical approach.ALR 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Visual Kei

First of all, If you can provide a good source of that info you say. And then, one thing is Visual and another one Visual Kei, for example Visual cames from late 70s early 80s, with bands like Visual Scandal or Yokosuka Saver Tiger (actually this movement was created by english bands) and then there was one band called X Japan that put this into the mainstream, and some years later Mana created Visual Kei and Malice Mizer, actually there's lot of interviews (in fan sites I guess) that Mana confirms this and also says that if you don't wear "gothic" stuff you're not Visual Kei, X Japan was not Visual kei, for example look what people say about Yoshiki: Visual God, but not Visual kei ;) I'll try to find a source of this meanwhile you search one from saying that X Japan was Visual Kei, in this cases it's better to look just to some pictures and compare. X Japan was VISUAL, yes the Visual Kei comes from Visual, because Visual Kei it's just a "new version" of Visual, let me explain... yes, there were like two eras, we can say eras like: Visual (more kabuki looks) and Visual Kei (more gothic looks), actually this two are like "inside the same" but X Japan was the first (Visual) not the second one (Visual Kei), Visual Kei started when X Japan was with less long hairs and different clothes. We can also say that X Japan was shock rock. Darkcat21 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Obligations in Freemasonry

  1. The text in the article matches the source exactly. If you assert otherwise, please point out the differences.
  2. You are not allowed to replace a prod tag. Once removed, you have to either leave it removed, or take it to AfD.

204.122.16.13 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

I have drafted (at User:Blueboar/drafts) a paragraph or two that I would like you to see, comment on, and add to (especially if you can think of any citations that might be useful)... don't know if I will use it or not, but I thought it worth at least drafting. Blueboar 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do

Well, get on with it, please report me. That will accomplish precisely what I want, which is to prove that I am not and never was the sockpuppet of Jefferson Anderson. All they have to do is to check this IP against J.A.'s and they'll have to unblock my account and apologize, if they're honest. So hurry up!. 204.122.16.13 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yah OoO!¡!

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spam_blacklist&diff=521691&oldid=521682 68.39.174.238 05:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the LTA page on LB to reflect that. Hopefully it'll make his "work" a little harder. 68.39.174.238 02:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Frater Xyzzy unblock

You said: "I dispute the unblocking, for the following reason: I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match. He had to have been blocked for a very good reason by the admin who did so. My reason for the RFCU was that while Xyzzy was blocked, he continued to edit as an IP, thus evading the block, and later admitted he was said Xyzzy openly. He masqueraded as an anon IP editor on an article he wrote as Xyzzy (Obligations in Freemasonry when it was prodded; he removed the prod (which he in hindsight should not have done, as he was evading a block) and forced an AfD as a result. He then claimed COI on said article on AN, when being the original author, he was in fact the one with the COI, and has generally been acting disruptively on that article. He has now gone back and changed all his IP comments to "Frater Xyzzy". I don't care what the technicality was, he did not follow proper procedure, he knowingly evaded a block, and has violated a number of policies by doing so. As a disruptive bad-faith editor, his block should not have been lifted."

This user was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Jefferson Anderson. When the checkuser came back conclusively negative, it was no longer appropriate to leave this user blocked. If there have been other violations meriting a block, please report the user. He was unblocked solely because the reason claimed for the block turned out to be false. --Yamla 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Magick Edits

Could you tell me why the new article in the section magick makes no sense. I like to change a article once in a while and i know the articles aren't always as profesional as they should be, but that makes it only better for highlighting because someone will come across it and shange it.

I changed the intro back for now; because i feel that it comes closer to describing the full breath of the occult traditions.

Please feel free to discuss this with me. --Manyminds17 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC

Do you believe that its better to discuss entire magickal tradition instead of different concepts associated with the occult? I was looking for a wiki article about barbarous names but i could not find one so i choose the next best thing: evocations. I will mention what kind of magickal traditions we mean when we talk about the occult and i will mention myself in the talkpage. --Manyminds17 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Running to admins

I find your running to admins to attempt to get editors who are editing in good faith blocked to be rather dubious behavior. You do not own the article, Jahbulon. I am trying to improve it. You have biased it to your own view, eliminated sources while keeping debunking of the same sources as references. I am trying to assume good faith here, but you are making it very difficult... Jefferson Anderson 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I find your tone to be extremely uncivil. I've had Jahbulon on my watchlist since the AfD. Please don't post on my talk page again unless you can maintain a more civil tone. Jefferson Anderson 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Freemasons

Thanks for noticing! I don't often get a chance to review it (List of Freemasons), but I like to check what I can. What I'd *love* to do is cross check through "10,000 Famous Freemasons," and then use that as a reference, but two things are getting in the way- 1) I don't have a copy of that out-of-print tome, and 2) severe lack of time. (I'm an ob/gyn resident.) Still, I figure an incremental approach can help, or at least won't hurt. Everwyck 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

THanks again! Crimson handed? Heh. :^) I wasn't aware that cutting and pasting in this regard was considered stealing, or were you tongue-in-cheek? ANyway, I put up the FReemason, MD, and Harvard boxes since I consider myself elegible to use them, being a Freemason, a doctor, and someone who attended GSAS. The MD box went missing (I may have saved improperly), and I decided to take down the Harvard box, since, ultimately, it was really the least part of my education.

--Everwyck 01:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Un - related note

Thanks I will now use ここがいい thank you very much. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Failure To Read Complete Articles & Discussions

MSJapan, it seems obvious from your discussion page that you have a history of entering article discussions and dropping little "Hit and Run" "stink bombs" and then scurrying off in to the night. Before commenting on articles, you need to actually read the original article and the complete discussion before commenting. If an article is "stubbed", you need to make the extra effort of viewing the pre-stubbed version. Otherwise, your comments will continue to appear incoherent and you will be viewed as a troll interested only in starting personal wars. Ballog 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Pot, kettle, black? MSJapan 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I just hope you learned your lesson about trying to help people... ;)--Isotope23 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I'm sure you have allready spotted it, but in cause you haven't you might want to look here. WegianWarrior 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh great and powerful master of puppets... (Are you one of the secret 35th degree Illuminati Grand Master's we keep hearing about?) Blueboar 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


It's not important but you probably want to do some research about the Grand Orient before making corrective revisions, especially if your going to write to me about them. I know the problems with some crazies that go on about wildly unfounded allegations of anti-Christian or anti-religious practices in Masonry. Having said that, most Grand Orient Lodges do not require the use of religious texts or belief in a Supreme Being. (They don't forbid it either.) If you disagree with the practice, and many Grand Lodges do, it is still no reason to change something. I gave a citation about it, and I know it is the case in practice. Fraternally, J.

re:Request for closure

Sorry to bother you with this, but all of the deputies are inactive. I'm wondering if this case could be closed as a gross violation of procedure? The AMA request was not filed by the party named, and the request itself pertains to getting an administrative action overturned. AFAIK, none of the parties named by the filer are planning on justifying the case with a response, and the original filer seems to have lost interest as well. I'd just as soon see it cleared so the advocates can focus their efforts on legitimate cases. MSJapan 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we have dealt with AMA cases where the party in question was banned at the time of filing; unfortunately, such cases usually do not get very far. What we do with it depends on if the user in question genuinely wished to open a case with the AMA in the first place and would still like assistance. Generally, it is a better idea to seek out help from the AMA before a ban is enacted. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

my talk page

FYI... the anon user stuff you just deleted on my page was actually me seeing what my home ISP is... but thanks for looking out for me. Blueboar 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Grammar and syntax

Huh. I had a teacher tell me once that we couldn't do that, but a Google search confirms that you're right. I guess it was just a matter of personal taste for her. :P Thanks! --Masamage 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a "personality dispute"

I'll MfD the page, but your reaction is precisely why I tagged the page. The casual viewer has absolutely no idea what's going on there, and makes an incorrect assumption. Jefferson Anderson is a user who, in three months, got involved in two Arbcom disputes, continually edited against consensus, and was all in all a problematic user for quite a number of articles and people. His accusations are totally baseless, and I see no reason to let him use his user page to accuse other editors (including myself) of improper conduct, when he is the one acting improperly. Also, how do you enter into dispute resolution with a user who has left Wikipedia (and has, BTW, done so with two AMA cases open that he started in the first place)? MSJapan 16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be a slamdunk for MFD then. Speedy deletion cases should be completely without discretion on the part of the deleter, and as an uninvolved party I couldn't know what you've just told me. I'm not even saying that the page doesn't need to be deleted, but that any one person isn't smart AND neutral enough to make that determination. Good luck. -- nae'blis 16:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Deceased Professional Wrestlers

When I looked at the "List of deceased professional wrestlers" earlier this afternoon, it was empty to begin with. I did not "ruin" any work as you blindly assumed. A simple look through the version history would have told you as much.

Also, I did not re-create the page titled, "List of deceased professional wrestlers". That was also something you accused me of. Perhaps I am not the one who needs to do his homework. - wfresch

Problems with your behavior

I just wanted to tell you that I have some serious issues with your past behaviours, primarily your habitual mistruths. For example, the repeated false claim that the Oaths in Obligations in Freemasonry did not match the text at sacred-texts.com, your multiply repeated claims that I was a "banned" user when in fact I had simply been temporarily blocked, your shopping around for an admin to block me, making the false claim that I had been previously blocked for "disruptive editing" when in fact I had not. I don't like being lied about, and I'm letting you know this as I am thinking about opening a user conduct RfC to address these issues. Why not look over your past AN/I posts and comments to admins and see if they are entirely accurate. I am happy to accept an admission of exageration and an apology for the same... Frater Xyzzy 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and file the RFC if you want. MSJapan 17:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to point out that you keep trying to disrupt process by attacking editors, not their contributions, Frater X.--Vidkun 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's how you'd like to reframe it, but that in itself is a personal attack. I have not made a single attack against another editor. Discussing another editor's behavior and potential conflicts of interest can not in any way be construed as personal attacks. These discussions are necessary for the smooth operation of Wikipedia. Frater Xyzzy 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that you, like other editors, have made it a point to continue to target people, not their contributions. The fact that I am a Mason does not in any way detract from my ability to contribute to the encyclopedia, nor does it mean I cannot participate in a process intended to stop disruptive actions, namely the MfD for your friend's attack page.--Vidkun 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Needing to buy new regalia

Just been elected to J :)

ALR 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just checking.

The Freemason's Riding Club - stub article for motorcycling masons. Delete? Blueboar 21:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials

here ALR 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ta

Response to your comments re: Freemasonry

There is a reason women are not allowed to be Freemasons. No, I'm not talking about the female separated organization that's affiliated. There is a reason why women can't walk in and say 'I'd like to be a Freemason, like you.' Now, the reason for that is simply because we are women. There's no big magickal secret here. The fact that the Freemasons do NOT allow women makes me feel a bit like the Freemasons, since they differentiate based on gender, is a misogynist organization. I constantly hear men saying to me that they can't be feminists. No, a man can be a feminist. However, a woman, who has the same mental capacity and aptitude as a man, cannot be a Freemason. It is divided into two groups. One for women and one for men. That does not promote Unity and it certainly isn't egalitarian. To me it's just more evidence of a patriarchal institution that seeks to control. In this case spirituality and reinforcing the binary between men and women, which is a symptom of patriarchy. If you can give me a really good reason why a woman can't be a Freemason besides the same old comments such as 'Well, it's a fraternity,' or 'there IS a women's division,' I'd be more than happy to hear them. However, you are separating us and saying women are not allowed because we are women. Why do that? --[ [ User: OneWomanArmy923| <font color="purple"><b>OneWomanArmy</b></font>] ] I was born in the summer of Love when we took a trip and stepped on the Moon. 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchal institutions such as the Freemasons operate to maintain male dominance. If you deny the existence of Patriarchy, which as a Freemason, you theoretically must, then you won't understand why women only spaces aren't nearly the same thing as men only space since the entire world is "a man's world" and therefore HIS space." We could go theory after theory of brilliant feminist discourse but as a man you benefit and are priveleged and cannot even begin to conceive of the world without men in charge of it. Therefore, I think this discussion is over.--OneWomanArmy923 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Manuscripts and masons

after having pulled you up for inaccurate dates I have realised that it was the 2nd volume of canonbury papers, not the 3rd. Having just reread the article Prescott is of the view that the 'regius mss' represents an attempt by journeymen masons to stop the slide towards a hierarchical structure within masonry and that it probably dates from after 1425 when an act of parliament (allright, a statute, not an act) forbade assemblies of masons. There are also lines in the regius that are cribbed from other sources giving further evidence to the later date because of the dates of the sources used in the mss. As for my comments regarding stonemasons and the history of SF freemasonry you seem to want it both ways, refering to stonemasons manuscripts when that suits your purposes and then saying that information regarding stonemasons is only of relevance to articles on stonemasonry. The regius and cooke mss are important in the history of Freemasonry and in terms of labour history, architectural history, social and literary history even, but first and foremost within the history of stonemasons. Having filmed my stepbrother, who is a stonemason, working on a church in Bridgewater (which has stonemasons tools as symbols in the stained glass windows) it seems to me that there is far more obvious continuity in the craft of the stonemason than in the workings and rituals of the speculative craft. Modern masons may use power saws and drills, but they still have to learn the art of geometry, they still do apprenticiships etc etc. my point is very simple, you have created an article on medieval manuscripts and yet apparently ignored the content of those manuscripts except where it serves the purposes of creating a foundation myth for the organisation that you belong to. Andrew Prescott's article 'The Spirit of Association...' (on the Sheffield Uni website) cites an instance in 19th century Exeter when a meeting of stonemasons was broken up by the local constables, the masons were taking part in rituals that were remarkably similar to Freemasonry, the question being did these masons copy freemasonry, (which would mean that Rev. Anderson et al had copied stonemasons in 1717 and then stoenmasons had recopied freemasons), or, as is perhaps more likely, did both organisations spring from the same source? The Tolpuddle Martyrs used rituals that had generic similarities to freemasonry as also did some miners, effectively there seems to be two freemasonries at play: the organisation that developed after 1717 (or ...the organisations) and a more underground structure that of secret fraternities who contributed to the development of proto-trades unions. My purpose in contributing to wiki is not to start edit wars with you or anyone else but to advance knowledge as Francis Bacon put it, so rather than continuing the occasionally snidey comments that both you and I seem to indulge in, could we call a truce and discuss edits or revisions in a slightly less beligerent manner because its nothing personal, I would like to contribute to the masonic mss section but I am slightly loathe to do so because I dont want to start some online argument with you-and although I'm not a member of your organisation can I extend my fraternal blessings to you for your undoubtedly fine work Bamboodragon 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Couldn't resist, you've been around far too long to not have it displayed proudly on your userpage. I also need to steal your wiki:fm project badge thingy from your main user page! Never seen that one floating about.  :) Jachin 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (moved to awards page) MSJapan 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Check your facts

If you remove or add text, do not mark an edit as minor. Also, I'm not sure why you removed Grye's comments off the talk page, but there was no reason to do so. Talk pages are precisely for talking about citations and other article-relevant items. MSJapan 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it was not a minor edit. I was restoring my contribution which was unceremoniously removed. Removing gryes signatures and personal opinion from article space was a work in progress. The comments with signatures were (all) in the article not the talk page. I corrected that. I am requesting that you check this and retract your accusation. Fred 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I just rechecked the history and you have done exactly what you have accused me of.
  • (cur) (last) 22:50, 26 March 2007 MSJapan (Talk | contribs) (rvv to Grye) This removed my comment from the talk page. I am requesting an apology for both matters now. Fred 02:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. I removed a users signature and comment from an article, not a talk page. I have not refactored anything - others have. I consider this a minor edit, but I will read the page you suggested (again). I have not contradicted policy in any edit to the list, or the talk page, that I am aware of. I hope you will withdraw your comments. Fred 04:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
A reply to this comment would be appreciated. Thanks, Fred 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, respectfully: I was going to reply here, but I put it on Talk:List of Freemasons instead. Maybe all concerned might check it out, & see if we can have Peace & Harmony prevail again? ;~D Grye 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I looked at the diff, and it's very much on the talk page - right here. I have no idea what else you expect me to say about this that I haven't already said. MSJapan 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above was an addition to the talk page of a removal from the article here. The other editor has contravened WP:NPA on repeated occasions and has attempted obscure the history of his questionable edits. My request remains. Fred 02:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Fred... just a note: any perceived violations of WP:NPA on the part of others is nor has been any more than yours, i.e.

  1. "The other editor has contravened WP:NPA on repeated occasions"
  2. "The other editor... has attempted obscure the history of his questionable edits"
  3. "This is an article, not a sandbox. Please do your experiments somewhere else"

I just don't see where everyone else has injured you so, nor how you haven't been an actor on that stage.

Further, as explained here, they weren't signatures. they were citations of when the referenced material was accessed, by who. so... That'd make the first wrong yours. Any apologies forthcomming? Grye 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Not sure what to do with this...

You could contact a checkuser to ask about an unofficial result, or post the issue at WP:AN/I. Beyond that, there's always the IP check section. But I wouldn't worry too much about submitting that case or not -- the worst they can do is decline it, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Rosicrucian See Alsos

I disagree with you about all those See Also Links on the Rosicrucian article. That site is an important node for an army of articles all over Wikipedia as the Rosicrucian connection stretches everywhere. It was extremeky useful having all the links in one place rather than having to laboriously scroll up and down through the article as we have to do now. I'd like to reinstate them. ThePeg 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree the article needs a massive rewrite but I have reinstated the See Also Links. Having said that, some of them I have removed, focussing instead on specifically Rosicrucian and Esoteric. I agree with you that things like Reincarnation & Silver Cord etc should go & I've deleted most of them. However I think some of the other links tell us more about some of the subjects only touched on in the article. So if its ok with you can we keep the specifically Rosicrucian & relatedly Esoteric ones but leave out the New Agey stuff? I also think its important to keep links to the different modern Rosicrucian movements as some of them are interesting and factually anyway, they are important to know about. ThePeg 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. Did you not read this message above? I've done what I said I would do, reinstated the relevant links but deleted the New Age/unrelated ones. Articles need links to expand them. As for the notion that I was editing regardless of what anyone else had to say, well, isn't that what you did? I think some of the links should be there, you don't think any of them should be. Well I compromised and hope we can find one. If you think the article needs rewriting then rewrite it. Removing the links isn't going to make that happen. But the Rosicrucians are such a huge and mysterious subject that no-one is going to agree on what is said. No-one is the world's authority on them. Even scholarly accounts admit they are largely speculation. ThePeg 08:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just posted this in answer to your last:

I think that this is a rather childish argument. All I did was reinstate some links minus some of the sillier ones having thought about what you said. Its not the end of the world. If you don't like it delete them again and then we can have a debate and decide what to do. We both agree that the article needs rewriting - and I DIDN'T write the original by the way - so why don't we rewrite it? Are you well-versed in all the different ambiguities of meaning of the Rosicrucians? ThePeg 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

CHIP

I ask that you identify the National Director you claim exists, and that the MOCHIP program answers to. My state program operates on a state level only. I am directly involved as a Regional Coordinator for the MOCHIP program and the is NO, National Director. You are clearly confusing this with something else. Perhaps you are thinking of the NCMEC. Either way, the MOCHIP program in not accountable to anyone. I wish we had a National hierarchy of some sort, but at this time there is not. Jokerst44 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WRONG - http://www.ctchip.org/links.php MASONIC CHIP Support Committee: In February 2004 the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, formally recognized the need to support a methodical generation of identifying items for parents to keep on hand as a safeguard, and then in the event of a missing child, turned over to law enforcement agencies as an aid in recovery and identification. By a vote of 54 out of 58 Grand Masters present, a standing committee was formed known as the MASONIC CHIP SUPPORT COMMITTEE (MCSC). http://www.masonichip.org/ Masonic Child Identification Support Committee of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America. How is it you don't know about this? How is it your state's CHIP program doesn't know about this? Oh, wait, it does, but you allege it doesn't exist.--Vidkun 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Before you become a smart ass about this...answer the question. Who said I was unaware of the Grand Masters Conference. Do you know what the Grand Masters Conference does? One thing it does NOT do it govern the MOCHIP program. The GMC simply endorses the idea and concept, they are not the governing body. That is a fact. Don't be ignorant toward me, there is no need for that. I want to know who this National Director is you are talking about. If you mis-spoke, then just admit it and "no harm, no foul". But don't try to prove something that does not exist. Go to this website Masonichipand actually read the Mission Statement and what the National Committe does. Note there is NO and I repeat NO, oversight from this organization. You simply mis-interpreted their role. Jokerst44 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't want to fight with a fellow Freemason. Peace. Jokerst44 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MSJapan/Archive_4&oldid=1088851033"