User talk:MSJapan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

About Template:Atomic Betty and Template:Out Of Jimmy's Head

The point about creating this template was not about making stubs, it was only for people to know better Atomic Betty, and her compadres. And the point about creating this template was not about making stubs, it was about improving an article of a Cartoon Network show to the level of all of the others. Please don't erase them.

Best wishes, User:Diogo Ribeiro. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Content

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 3 Doors Down. The recent news section of the page is a valid part of the article. Your edit was reverted. Thank you. --Candy156sweet 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it that articles such as George Bush, Hilary Clinton, et al have recent news attached to their articles. Would you dispose of those facts from their articles? Those are not trivial facts about the band. They happen to be major articles on the band. I think that you should post to the discussion board as to what you're doing, and don't just blank a page. You're not the decision maker of what stays, what's important, and what goes. Just a suggestion. Have a good one... --Candy156sweet 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the articles listed as sources were not from tabloids, they are from major newspaper publications and they are factual. None of the facts listed were defamatory or hurtful in anyway. There is no reason to delete them. --Candy156sweet 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are within the policy. --Candy156sweet 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest, and you should really look at the history of this article. I did not create the recent news section. I merely added content that referred to the subject of the article. Please do not add facts to third party consultants that are wholly untrue. I hope that you'll add that to your message concerning the dispute over the article's content. Thanks in advance and enjoy the weekend. --Candy156sweet 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Puffy AmiYumi

A co-worker of mine apparently linked my Puffy blog to the Puffy AmiYumi article a little while back. I now see you undid that edit, citing the EL. However, the EL does list under "What that should be linked", "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." My blog has both reviews and other "meaningful, relevant content" about Puffy AmiYumi.

I realize the EL contradicts itself on that point later, but how do you reconcile one type of fan site being included in the external links and not another? (puffyamiyumiworld.com is still up there, simply because it's not in a blog format?)--Badasscat 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

However

Not confused. Once upon a time in the dark ages the rule was that "however" should only be used in the form: independent clause/semicolon/however/independent clause. I see by a google check that this rule is no longer applied by most. -Jmh123 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead links and appropriate links

The Tofu Records link I deleted from the Puffy AmiYumi article has not been active for several months because the company no longer exists. It’s no longer an official external link.

The website “Puffy AmiYumi World” contains several times the content of the wiki article and falls within the criteria of “sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail” and sites that provide “other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For the second time -- please stop deliberately reposting dead links on the Puffy AmiYumi article. As already explained to you once the company “Tofu Records” no longer supports the link and hasn’t for several months. It is NOT the policy of Wikipedia to continue to post links that are dead and will remain so.

Also, the term “fansite” is irrelevant. The relevance of external links is judged based on their content and “Puffy AmiYumi World” adds significant information on the article’s subject matter that is too extensive to post in it.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll remove them both; WP policy is very clear on what an external link is and what it may not be. MSJapan 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement on the Tofu Records dead link.

If you have content-based criteria for not including the Puffy AmiYumi World link please discuss it with a more detailed explanation. Please discontinue removing a nearly five month old link with comments like “fansite.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A few days to consider your points

Thank you for your response and your dedication to Wikipedia. I will comment more fully in a few days. I have many examples of similar links on other musical groups, actors and celebrity articles but I have some concern that your response might be to delete all those links as well. Since that would result (in my opinion) in an unfortunate reduction in the information available to Wikipedia users, I’ll consider this point carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What's new?

I remember you contacted me about my userpage. Well, I took your advice and after occasionally editing here and there, I seem to be caught in WP's grip. My best article is Life is a Test. VoL†ro/\/Force 04:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And again

MSJapan,

Thanks for the time you’ve spent in your response. I respectfully disagree on several points.

First and foremost an external link should contain meaningful, relevant content that adds significant information to an article. Here is some of the content that the site in question contains:

Over 150 separate pages for every song by these artists. Content includes lyrics (including original English translations), song credits, a short song sample, info on the song’s releases, quotes by the singers, songwriters and producers and links to their biographies, info on other media the song was featured in and info on accompanying music videos.

Other content includes a discussion forum about the artists, trivia games about the artists, biographies of their songwriters and producers (most of whom don’t have a Wiki entry), detailed info on the books about the artists, detailed info on each DVD released by the artists, links to thirteen interviews with the artists, 2 original interviews with the artists’ songwriters, detailed info on the movies the artists have been in, detailed info on the TV shows the artists have appeared on and a large number of links to other websites related to the artists.

This is an enormous amount of meaningful, relevant content beyond what the article can contain that is worthy of a link, not a dismissal as “a site of very little value.”

Secondly, there are no advertisements on the site, unless you are refering to links where readers can buy the artists’ merchandise – which can be found on most musical artists official sites so is obviously not a valid criteria to exclude this type of link. --Shizen 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated you for admin

MSJ, I have put your name up for consideration as an admin. Please go to the page and indicate your acceptance. Blueboar 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Masonic conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. SarekOfVulcan 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question...

I've posed the same question to Siva1979, but I'm having trouble differentiating whether your concern is over a POV editing position or a concentration on a topic, and I can't reply if I'm unsure of the issue. I've asked Siva to elaborate through a question, but you might want to do the same, as I'd like to respond to the right problem. I will say, though, that I have never been accused of POV editing by anyone save Lightbringer, and I don't think an area of specialty prevents me from working outside of that area. Out of the 6000+ edits I have, Freemasonry is maybe a twelfth, which includes vandalism reversion. MSJapan 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan. I've just added an optional question. I support the way you dealt w/ Lightbringer's situation. I am neutral toward issues mentioned by other users. However, i'll base my decision on your response to my question. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

I have responded on your RFA Page! Pat^{Politics rule!} 05:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. In retrospect, my comment was a very obtuse and harsh way to make my point. I've fleshed out my response there. Cheers! east.718 at 10:11, 10/27/2007

Speedy deletion

As per the guideline on deleting your user talk page, I have declined to speedily delete this page. If you have a specific reason you can re-add the tag {{db-userreq|rationale=Reason}}. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

As you have withdrawn your RFA candidacy, I consider the request you have made on my talk page to be moot and will not be answering it. However, if you still require an answer, just let me know. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheer up

G'day mate, or whichever greeting is usual for you! Don't let the RfA negatives oppose you - I have always found you to be an excellent editor and I would have strongly supported you if I had been aware of the motion. Naysayers are easy to find - the negatives of this world are spiritual black holes. Do not let them suck you into their orbit. You are much appreciated. docboat 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA suggestion

If you return and attempt another RFA I suggest you first get a wider editorial experience to show that you are not concentrated onto a single topic which many consider controversial. This would cause me, and probably other users, to be less worried about the likelihood that you would misuse the admin tools. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

No, I won't be pursuing another RfA. It makes absolutely no sense that the subjects one edits on are an indicator of likelihood of misuse or abuse. There's plenty of admins who fulfilled the requirements of article spread and such and were still desysopped, banned, or blocked for abuse later - there's simply no correlation. Another apparent consensus was that no one appreciated or even took into consideration my efforts in other wider areas, so I will simply cease to participate in those areas, and that things that happened years ago are still valid concerns despite a few thousand edits since then. As a matter of fact, no one even considered that maybe the reason I had so many edits to Freemasonry was because no one else was taking care of the page at the time. I was also not pleased with the vagaries of people's votes; I shouldn't have had to go talkpage to talkpage trying to get people to change their minds by explaining things because they didn't take enough time to take the process seriously by really going through contribs or ask questions to get the answers they wanted. MSJapan 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, going from talkpage to talkpage and having arguments with people over their oppose votes is generally a sure-fire way to get people's backs up and cause your RFA to fail; thank you for replying to me in any case. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting/reinstating Your user page

Hi MSJ... I think we have a bit of miscommunication between admins going on... Last week you requested that your user page be deleted, and in accordance with that request, it was. However, it is my understanding that you have had second thoughts about leaving the project (which pleases me no end) and have requested to User:William M. Connolley that it be reinstated - (see here). William acted upon this request, however a few hours later it was re-deleted by User:Pedro. My guess is that William probably reinstated the last version of the page... which contained your original delete request... which Pedro then acted upon in good faith, not knowing that it was now obsolete and you actually wished to return. I have informed Pedro of this... highlighting your most recent request. Would you confirm here that it is indeed your desire to have your user page reinstated? Blueboar 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... never mind... I see they reinstated you as I wrote the above. Welcome back! Blueboar 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks to Ryan for acting whilst I was offline. The situation was as Blueboar bescribed, I saw the speedy request, checked the history but didn't check the deletion log (which I wouldn't normally in a situation like this). Glad it's all fixed up, and welcome back. Pedro :  Chat  14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

good to see you!

Joy

docboat hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Zeitgeist (video)

• A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Masonic bodies

Thanks for your comment and apologies for this late answer: I work mainly on the french WP and seldom come on the english speaking one.

I'm not sure those two list could be merged easily, because List of Grand Lodges is, according to its introduction "a chronological list of "regular" or "mainstream" Grand Lodges (i.e., those recognized by and descending from the United Grand Lodge of England).", almost exclusively devoted to the US freemasonry. So, in brief, with such a definition, List of Grand Lodges should rather be renamed List of US mainstream caucasian Grand Lodges or something like that.

List of Masonic bodies is a copy of the french WP list and is aimed at becoming:

1. worldwide
2. not limited to "regular", "mainstream" or anything
3. including masonic bodies such as those which are called "co-masonic" or "Prince Hall" in the US.

I think both lists could be usefull.

Sincerely.

--Christophe Dioux 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This idea of spliting it could be all right. I don't know. Depends so much on the english Wikipedian guidelines that I wouldn't dare say. On the other hand, one long list is easier to maintain against vandalism than several ones. And if you have only one list, you don't have to deal with those boring regularity issues: you just list everything in the alphabetic order and let the reader make his own opinion on the controversed topics. But although thats the way we do on the french freemasonry project, I don't know if it is the best way to do here.

I think the best could be to ask the freemasonry project. I have seen you work on it. Could you ask there for me? (Cause I guess your english and habit of :en WP are much greater than mine. ;-)

--Christophe Dioux 21:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Not to mention that if you try to split between "regular" and "comasonic, etc." for european Grand Lodges, you'll have many problems, because the US criteria (such as "regular if founded by the UGLE and still recognized by it") will not work so easily there, for instance in Italy, not to speak of Poland or Russia. Spliting it by continent, if it is necesssary to split it, would be less problematic, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Dioux (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title to "General list of masonic Grand Lodges" to avoid confusion with other bodies such as Supreme Councils and so on. Merging this new list with the old List of Grand Lodges can not be done, imho, without changing the lead section of the second one. IMHO, keeping the membership numbers is important in such a general list because of the existence of very small Grand Lodges: We do not have to decide which worth to be listed or not (except if lack of reliable sources), but the reader must have figures to make his own opinion. Sincerely. --Christophe Dioux 08:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. S. & F. --Christophe Dioux 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Melo/Pombal

Thanks for the heads up. I've put in a second reference. Reading between the lines it appears that the confusion is because Pombal was a member of a foreign lodge and the Grand Orient had not been set up then. JASpencer (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my AfD request. will381796 (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Stepping away

MSJ, just to let you know that I'm going to bail out of the Freemasonry subject at the moment. I don't like the direction being taken and the propensity for throwing accusations of bad faith around at every turn. It's just not worth the effort.

ALR (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hojjatie

Yeah, That's what I thought. I have removed him before as well. Still, no need to be rude... if he can establish notability, and if he can provide a citation (both of which I doubt are possible) then we can reconsider. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Duplantis

You mentioned he is hardly mentioned in the book. But yet there are several chapters about him mainly due to his personal life which is why i feel the article should stay. I feel strongly about this article and am willing to do work to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Scouting WP invite

Also, check out Scout Association of Japan :) Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A two word response to those Shinto Cannabis Links would be great

How is this normally done on wikipedia? You were very wrong about Shinto in a very easily corrected way. I would really like to know that you are making some sort of attempt to respect me as a fellow person. I am definitely doing whatever I can to respect you, right? I'm new, not disrespectful. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here they are again in case you deleted them too quick:

http://www.zmag.org/japanwatch/9907-hemp.html

http://www.taima.org/stories/hanashi001.htm

God Bless. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, upon rereading my earlier comments I think I sound harsh and definitely want to reiterate that I have massive respect for you and have already learned a lot from your comments. I wish you were a little nicer to me, but your a volunteer pressed for time. Thanks again for doing your job, the world needs people like you. Also, I re-edited my earlier comment here that was offensive to be a tiny bit nicer. I really am makinge every attempt I can to be nice. I might not be anything else, but I am nice. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

- and your right, the first title did not do justice to wikipedia's standards AT ALL - very sorry. I think you'll find that I'm very agreeable towards authority, I'm just new and learning how to communicate effectively to wikipedians. Which is also why I re-edit my comments like this sometimes, sorry about your watch page going off as I fix my communication errors. This is like my 4th re-edit of this right? I really want to win you over as I feel the problem I have created apparently is one of bad communiation on my part, I was especially disturbed by your spam comment as I never for once thought I was doing anything like that.

God Bless--TaylorOliphant (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it took me 9? edits to actually like that last paragraph I wrote here. MSJapan, I see why you could judge me harshly, but know that I try and put myself in your shoes. I'm getting better at addressing you right? God knows I'm practicing enough.--TaylorOliphant (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Did it bother you that I tried to correct your knowledge of Shinto? I feel that was a huge mistake on my part and only did it because I thought you might see how uninformed the public is and then realize that I have something to offer after all. I did not intend any negetivity at all and I am very sorry. Thanks, God Bless, --TaylorOliphant (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Grottologo.jpg

I have no idea where I got it from. You can just replace it with one of a bunch available on the web--just search for MOVPER and grab one from a regional site--the design is always the same, just colours and minor details are different. Lexicon (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SRIA Page

Hi, I am fairly new to contributing on Wikipedia although I use a wiki at work. I am more than happy that the list of Supreme Magi attending the world conference is considered a trivial list. But wondered if you could enlighten me as to why the list of Supreme Magi of the SRIA was removed? --Gjauger (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks --Gjauger (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PdF

PDF files are not images, but articles. They are to be nominated under AfD. I have nominated many in the past and they have been deleted through AfD. IfD is for images. A pdf is an information article. Please restore the afd. Undeath (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Past experience with pdf's has lead me to believe that editors are divided on where to put them. Some say they belong in AfD and some say they belong in IfD. Undeath (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Botelho

Nope, I don't know of any further developments. Sorry. matt91486 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Masonry articles

I'll take your word about waiting months so far. For what it's worth, I would myself be interested in trying to develop them, but creation of the new project directory and the various templates to go with the new task forces, etc., that are being created has been taking up almost all of my time. I'm about done with adding all the projects to the new directory, and should, I hope, be finished in the next week or so, which will give me some time for article work. Also, unfortunately, I noticed that at least a few of those articles have pages in other languages I can't myself read, but which are still there. It would probably be not the best idea for the English language, which has more articles than any other, to delete articles that other languages with many fewer articles have, as the chances of them being recreated are very good based on the other language articles. I can and will try to find sources myself shortly, but can't at this point say definitely what might be gained by the attempt. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the various AfD's will result in "No Consensus". The main argument by those wishing to keep is that notability can be established, and the articles can be improved... OK... let's give them a month or two more and see if anyone actually does so. If no one does, there will be a stronger argument for deletion at a second nomination. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry Article

That shows how much you "know" about the history of Freemasonry. The whole Wikipedia article needs overhawling, but someone else can do that thankless task.Wfgh66 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: S.O. S.-k AfD

Because the author had previously removed a speedy notice. Because hoaxes aren't eligable for speedy deletion anyway, and the article does assert some notability, even if it is false. PC78 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That Turkish Article - Turk Soykirimi‎

Thanks for catching that. I went ahead and deleted it under the CSD criteria you posted. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry Article

really look at the other requirements..hmmmm... see anyhting missing oh maybe its the fact that only 2 of them have citations wait isnt that what you just warned me about. PIGEON33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigeon33 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

you are an ignorant bastard LMFAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigeon33 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry CFDs

Hello MSJapan -- Listen, I know you're doing this in good faith, but it really is not a good idea to depopulate categories that you're taking to CFD for deletion, as it deprives other editors of the opportunity to evaluate how the categories were being used. It would be very helpful to the rest of us if you would restore all of the articles that you've removed; in fact, if your assessment is correct, it will help you make your case. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why you did it, that's why I acknowledged that it was done "in good faith". Even so, it still creates a serious problem for CFD discussions, however unintentional. No matter how good your judgement may be, doing this unilaterally amounts to a complete pre-emption of the CFD process. Think how absurd it would be for someone to blank the text of an article, and then take it to AFD. This is actually worse, because the text of a blanked article can easily be restored with a click of the "undo" button.

In case you think this is just my personal pet peeve or something, check out this comment by another editor who is, more often than not, completely at odds with me in CFDs. But on this we are in agreement. Cgingold (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Davinicicode (AKA Lightbringer) is at it again. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand...

Hello. Have you confused me with some one? I have never heard of the book you mention - '99 Degrees'? Much of what you have wriiten on my talk page makes no sense to me. I didreinstate the WM article, but only because I couldn't see why it shouldn't be there. The pic of the WM is anonymous...I couldn't care if it stays or goes. It's only because I think you've mistaken me for some one that I'm not reporting you for incivility. Jack1956 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Brother, any time you're ready to apologise I'm ready to accept it. I have never pushed a book, let alone one I've never heard of. Can you point out to me where I'm supposed to have done this? Jack1956 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Was that an apology? You were more than half-wrong - you put quite a rant on my talk page about that book! I couldn't care less about the WM article and image. I didn't write the article - I just stuck the image on to illustrate it. If the consensus is that both should be removed then so be it. I come here as an academic and educationist - not an historian - to help write an enyclopedia. I am not here out of any sense of vanity or personal glory, and I resent the accusation. Wikipedia is light relaxation for me. I am also a Freemason (30th degree), and I won't be warned off from contributing to Masonic articles. Jack1956 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cathar blacklisted link

Hi: Can you tell me why the link is blacklisted? I tried to find through an archive search any discussion about it. At first blush it seems like a useful link if at times poorly referenced. Thanks --Joel Mc (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, it was helpful and I learned something new. --Joel Mc (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious new-user name

Know anything about this guy: MSJaapan (talk · contribs)? The name seems more than a little coincidental, especially since the user page is a duplicate of yours. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

the account has been indef-blocked

Yeah, after I notified you I decided to just go ahead and report it at WP:UAA, and it was blocked tout suite. The edits it made were simply ridiculous wikilinking of random words in seemingly random articles, so I assume its purpose was building up its edit count. --Calton | Talk 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why such Beef against my home page?

Dude, what is the deal with not liking my home page the way it is? I just want to konw - curious.

--XH 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu

A comment is waiting for you

A comment is waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hermetism as per your comment. Your further input would be appreciated. KV(Talk) 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoyal Royal Arch

As the HRA exists in many different masoniuc jurisdications it is clearly wrong to put it under just the York Rite jurisdication. Leaving in YR gives the impression that it belongs to YR when it is a international order distinct in its own right and worthy of its own article. I am not pushing a UK POV article, but right now I only have a few minutes a day to edit and build the article so it has to start somewhere. Why not instead of trying to make a point that you are right, work instead to add some York right details or other jurisdication details to the HRA article explaining how it is its own order with different views on it around the globe. After all the HRA deserves a much more fuller article than just being a section of another. Boooooom (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The HRA article has been split from york rite for a very good reason and again I will explain. While HRA is part of the york rite in the US in many other jurisdications it is not, so I do not understand how it can remain lumped in the york right article. A casual reader might presume HRA is specific to YR. They way I have done it now is to create a seperate article to it and then linked back to it in YR anf in the freemasonry article.

• • • Importantly, the HRA was initially formed outside of York rite and alongside English Craft masonry, so IF YOU follow your argument then any attempt to merge it should be into the general freemasonry article instead of you trying to push it back into one jurisdication, HRA does not belong to any rite, jurisdication or country, it is as you identified distinct in every jurisdicatiom, province and country. You have not convinced me that it should be merged back into another page, let alone back into YR. Why not instead of arguing to merge it back spend the time more construcively expanding the article like I am doing, a little bit each day? Boooooom (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Masonic Theories

i believe you misunderstood the points i was attempting to make on the masons. i only wished to state that there are many proven theories about this group that are verifiable beyond conspiracy. The referenc i added did show that many historical american politicians were members of this fraternal organization. perhpas it would be better to create a separate article on proven masonic theories. what are your thoughts on the subject?

I'm not trying to vandalize, only to present a counterargument to those skeptical of many well proven theories.

I'll give you the point on the archiatecture but otherwise our points are not mutually exclusive. My reference shows that many historical american politicians were and are freemasons. there is currently a bullet in that article stating that under the pretext of conspiracy. could i move that fact into perhaps a seperate article on proven information on the freemasons or perhaps the list of famous freemasons.

You make good points, however, i think that i am justified in my pursuit. The article List of Freemasons while naming Franklin, does not mention Robert Livingston (1746-1813) confirmed a freemason here http://politicalgraveyard.com/geo/NY/masons.L.html which is coincidentally already ref #100 on that article. Also the article does not name John Hancock, confirmed on a different page of the same site here http://politicalgraveyard.com/geo/MA/masons.html. I think that 2 out of the 5 Committee of Five and 3 of the total signers, including John Hancock is significant enough for an stub or start perhaps not on the conspiracy but the influence of the freemasons on the declaration. Such an article could also include speculation on Thomas Jefferson's possible freemasonry as well as John Adams Jr's. (his son was an open freemason) (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation issues

I believe that, because this is the English Wikipedia, English capitalisation rules will be always preferred here. Seeing as Japanese uses no form of capitalisation, there can't be a "proper" capitalisation of Japanese words. The generally accepted method of capitalisation in a proper noun and proper title context (not to be confused with formatting for typical prose) is the same as in English, capitalising all major words (excepting articles, particles, etc.) and not following any stylistic standards set by artists or companies (i.e. no TITLES IN ALL CAPS or MiXeD capitals without significant reasoning). I believe a read-through of WP:MOS-JP, WP:MUSTARD, or other policies will yield the same results. You may alternatively contact administrators with experience in the field and inquire about past precedents, in which a proper English format has been used without exception.

Additionally, it would be helpful to discuss such major changes throughout an entire topic (Miyavi and related articles in this situation) on the main talk page, before going through and changing everything, and once again doing so even after it has been reverted. If such behaivour continues, it could put breaching of the 3-revert-rule into the already sloppy situation. I will not go through with correcting you once again until the issue has been discussed, but other editors may not take so lightly to your independent irrationality.

On a last note, in relation to the Skin article, the removal of interwiki links in the lineup section has no rationale, so unless you have a compelling reason for deleting those links, I will have to change those once again. The capitalisation of the word "vocals" is a bit senseless as well; is there a reason why this single, standard noun needs capitalised? --Jacob ^Talk 03:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think that some caution should be taken when capitalising Japanese words, of course (particles being the obvious one). The two examples of guides for romaji capitalisation are not nearly an accepted international standard, just guidelines used by a handful of conscious writers. The capitalisation of these titles are to make a clean style to Wikipedia, as you should not (with minor exceptions) find any odd capitalisation, giving in to artistically stylised typography. The absence of any addressing of the capitalisation issues on WP:MOS-JP shouldn't allow for a random selection of outside guidelines and standards, but instead follow a hierarchical pattern; if MOS-JP doesn't address it, go to MOS. Alternatively, find another guideline that pertains to the topic, so for a Japanese musician, when the manual for Japan fails, go to the manual for music (generally accepted to be WP:MUSTARD, a silly abbreviation, but easy to remember) and if that isn't enough to sway, the WP:MOS-CAPS should provide a decent secondary proof. You do have a good idea, to bring it up on the MOS-JP talk page, no matter what side of the issue is being argued, the policy could benefit from a direct discussion of the topic.

As far as the links go for the lineup section, it makes it easier for non-native speakers, who may not know the terminology 100% of the time, and it also creates a web of pages that contain similar content. Using the "What links here" feature can be a useful tool for some specialised situations. --Jacob ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Freemasonry2

Hi MSJapan. You reverted my effort to categorize "tl|Freemasonry2", with the comment "incorrect categorization". That suggests that you have knowledge about those matters. Why then, did you not supply a better category? – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: IP spam

Yeah, I think I got it all. Huggle is showing that all of his edits have been reverted. btw, thanks for checking. Most people don't do that, so thanks. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

pepermint cane

Go ahead. Dlohcierekim 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Actually, it is being added to ueser pages by me and at least one other as a substitute for more objectionable content and a hopefully non-bitey alternative to deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CE/AD

You'd better show me where it says "we don't do CE" because everything I've seen came to no conclusion. Otherwise I'm reverting. --JaGa (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your quote proves my point - you claimed in your comment that "we don't do AD per MOS" which is untrue - MoS has no preference. If you look back, the article originally used AD, and someone changed it to CE later - so which is right and which is wrong? Why didn't you revert that? I notice you also reverted an America spelling to a British one even though, again, MoS has no preference. I suggest you look over WP:OWN. --JaGa (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can respect that, since consensus had been reached. I like the British spelling better anyways. I think the implications of the "we don't do AD per MOS" statement rubbed me the wrong way from the start, but I see now I misunderstood your meaning. Let's strike a compromise; it's silly to bother with AD or CE for a year as late as 1390; in 1390 BC, the Latin alphabet hadn't even been invented yet, and considering the context of the paragraph, I doubt anyone is going to get confused. Furthermore, a quick survey of other articles (Battle of Hastings, for instance) showed no usage of the era-indicators for years around that time. So I'm taking the CE out altogether. As a show of good will, I'm also fixing that broken link to the "Regius Manuscript". --JaGa (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I almost picked that one. You know, since I made those changes (on an ill-fated whim, I'll admit - it seemed presumptuous to have religious-related articles using CE, just as it would be presumptuous to force an article about Windsor Castle to use color instead of colour - and I know the Masons accept anyone who believes in a higher power, not just Christians, but still I consider it a basically Christian organization) I have been frequently attacked and thoroughly reverted. You've been the only one who was decent through this whole farce, even though I wasn't terribly nice to you at first, and I thank you for that. --JaGa (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Harold Van Buren Voorhis

I appreciate the assistance formatting this article but do not understand the rationale of deleting all the references? Also not sure why only some of his writings are selected? On what basis? Also membership, affiliation with other Masonic and Non-Masonic groups? Some Wiki discussions mention a Masonry Project or the like. Perhaps I should view their protocol so that any additional material I add to this man's Wiki article is useful. Your edit is substantially shorter but because of the volume or Voorhis writing leaves many published works available in libraries out. As a new contributor I look forward to better understanding how to do a quality job for the wiki community. I just want to eliminate the "No Reference" tag by establishing acceptable references. Dalcrow (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert of edits

I would like to know why you took my mention of the Yaarab Temple off of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine page. It is a local Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine bulding. Even the Moorish Revival page lits it as a building constructed in that style. CryptidBoy (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

I actually found a listing for it in the National Register of Historical Places.http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ga/Fulton/state2.html Just search Fox. It's there. If my article is innacurate, why don't you write the article. CryptidBoy (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

deleting on talk pages

I don't think we have any valid reason to delete the thread. Even though he is resurecting an issue that is over two years old, he is not vandalizing the page or misbehaving in any way. We just have to deal with the complaint in a calm and polite way. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Stay Calm and Civilized

It is not a place to inflict you extremist ideas, and watch your language as you write to my page. (cantikadam (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Mother Supreme Council of the World

I have requested that the above article be renamed and moved to: Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA). This seems to be a far more common name. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Equal Vision Records

Google is a terrible indicator of notability. Just because the label's wikipage is #3 in the search doesn't make it grey (The third search result for Atlantic Records is Wikipedia, too, ditto The Beatles). Equal Vision's notability comes from releasing records by notable and charting artists like Saves the Day, Sick of It All and (especially) Coheed and Cambria. Also that sourced charting album helps with notability with the musician up for deletion as well. But i'm still neutral on the decision. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

About William Daemon Hillin

Hey I noticed that you'd PROD'ed William Daemon Hillin. Looks like an IP has removed the PROD, but it isn't clear to me if it's intended as a valid contesting of it or not. Just thought you might want to know it got removed. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP also removed the full AfD tag... I have added it back, and will keep an eye out on my watch list. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Userpage issue...

As far as I can tell it's not something you done wrong, but an artifact of how the software renders userboxes. One workaround would be to put a headline between the userboxes and the committed identity box, another to have some text between the two (if you have something you want to say off course). Or, you could place your userboxes in a table, simular to the babel-box, like I've done on my subpage of userboes. Placing the committed identity box first among the userboxes don't seem to work, seeing as how it is then obscured by the babel-box... Hope this helps some :) WegianWarrior (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy Morgan Evans

Hello, Regarding your editorial reversal of the this individual's listing: I don't have the ref books available, but I do have access to the family oral historians. I've seen this individual's Freemasony serimonial sword, and family oral history describes him as "thrity third degree". A couple of his siblings are still living, and testify to his membership and rank, as well as his two daughters, who were also briefly introduced to Freemasons as children. However, they have no written documentation. If you find documented records (or don't), please let me know. Thanks. Best Regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, oral histories can be inaccurate for various reasons. Therefore, they do not comply with Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. I can't find any hits online for any Masonic listings for him either. I'm also not in a position to verify or deny his membership.

Masonic documentation does exist at every level - there should be certificates for his third degree, his 32nd in Scottish Rite, anything he did in York Rite (a "ceremonial sword" is usually from York Rite Templary), and if he was a 33rd, there should be a certificate for that.

What you therefore need to do is some detective work: you need to find out in what state he was made a Mason, and then contact the Grand Lodge (which will have a webpage you can get the contact info from). Records don't get "lost" either; if there is no record, then he wasn't a Mason, period. If he wasn't a Mason in the first place, there was no way he was a 33rd. Start with that, and assuming you find anything, let me know, and I'll help you out with where to go next. MSJapan (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy Morgan Evans received his 32nd degree in 1945, and his 33rd in the sixties. He was a York right (Royal Arch Masons Chapter 52) member in Bonham, Texas. The documents for that chapter may not be online, but a hard copy of his 32nd and his chapter's death condolences are available here in the Dallas, Texas area. I'll scan them for you in case you're collecting such documents. Thanks for your interest and contributions. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at Evans 32 degree documentation now, issued in Wichita Falls, Texas by the Dallas, Texas Consistory on 27 May 1945. Evan's 33rd degree was documented almost two decades later. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Smart

For what it's worth, page 235 here, which is I think a generally acceptable academic source, says in passing Smart was a Mason. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. The problem becomes how much weight to give this particular source, and the source upon which it is based. I also note Blueboar has said he's going to research the data as well. I can try to find what sources might be available here as well. I tend to agree that there should be records. I guess the question then might be whether the extant records are for all Masonic bodies, or whether there is a chance that Smart might have been a member of some body whose records might have disappeared, or been at some later date declared invalid and/or merged with some other body, or whatever. And I'm not doubting your statement that the name doesn't appear in the records. But I honestly do not know what to do in a situation like this. My guess would be to make a statement somewhere that he seems to have been a Mason, although the extant records of the period do not support that statement. I will try to see if there are any other sources out there which can substantiate the claims one way or another. God knows records can be lost, sometimes purposefully, but the absence of records where records generally exist can be relevant as well. John Carter (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't apologize for Ottava Rima's ham handedness for him of course, he's going to have to do that himself.

It does mean that someone is going to have to go and systematically check through everything. Guess who? :-(

Well, anyway, I've left a longer message in reply on my talk page (and I tend to keep all replies in one place, and will reply on my own talk in future). Take a look and see if you can help me out?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might be interested in joining in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Ottava Rima. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is an email I received from London's Freemasonry museum/library:

"Thank you for your recent email. There is no documentary evidence to prove that Christopher Smart was a freemason. The two Grand Lodges did not begin to compile membership registers until after 1768, and Smart’s alleged Masonic membership is accredited to a song printed on page 64 of a 1765 pamphlet entitled A defence of freemasonry, as practiced in the regular lodges. We have a copy of this text in the Library collection at classmark B 10 SAD. We also have three texts which touch on the subject of Smart’s Masonic membership, and I enclose details of their catalogue records below for your consideration. The online catalogue can be found at http://www.freemasonry.london.museum/catalogue.php:

British poets and secret societies. Beckenham, 1986. Call number B 735 ROB. Mulvey-Roberts, Marie.

Christopher Smart, M.A. [manuscript] / [William J. Williams]. - 1921. Call number BE 68 (SMA) WIL. Williams, William James

Christopher Smart, M.A. [manuscript] / [C.R.B.] [i.e. William James Williams]. - 1924. Call number BE 68 (SMA) WIL fol. Williams, William James"

There are multiple editions of the poem. It was published in a journal a few months later, and has since been duplicated in various collections. I have the British poets and secret societies work if you would like to know what it says. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I asked you to stop your violation of WP:V and you failed to. I had no choice but to list your constant pursuit of such a violation against one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma

MSJ - I know what the point you are trying to make regarding the Craft Degrees and the Scottish Rite (as practice in America at this time). However, the AASR, as a system of degrees, is not limited to how the SJ and NMJ do them here in the US, nor are they the same in those two jurisdictions as they were when Pike wrote M&D. The Scottish Rite in the US is a separate body, and it is because of political issues that they claim no authority to confer the first three degrees. But Pike himself says in the preface to the book "THE following work has been prepared by authority of the Supreme Council of the Thirty-third Degree, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, by the Grand Commander, and is now published by its direction. It contains the Lectures of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in that jurisdiction, and is specially intended to be read and studied by the Brethren of that obedience, in connection with the Rituals of the Degrees." The lectures contained in that book include the lectures of the first three degrees, which are part of the Scottish Rite; in fact, he comments on the differences between the Scottish Rite First Degree and the York Rite first degree here. I think it is incorrect to say imply that the book only talks about the 4-32 as Scottish Rite Degrees, because, as you should well know, there are still Lodges in the US (New Orleans, specifically) using the first three Scottish Rite Degrees. As we state on the page about the Scottish Rite: The thirty-three degrees of the Scottish Rite are conferred by several controlling bodies, which reaffirms the fact that the Scottish Rite has 33, not 30, degrees. The AASR in the US may not work the first three degrees, but they do have rituals for them, and that is what Pike discussed in M&D.--Vidkun (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)