Talk:Jahbulon/Archive 3

message: Unencyclopedic articles do not survive two AfDs. Give it up or nom it again. —Hanuman Das 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true... the article has changed since the last AfD. Besides, an unencyclopedic tag does not mean someone thinks that the article should be put on AfD. It means what it says... someone does not think the article (as it is now) is encyclopedic. The tag is to alert people to this fact so that they can work on the article to solve the problem.  We are still in discussion.  It might be that someone will come up with a suggested change or an addition that will change my mind.  The tag stays until the article is changed.  Blueboar 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a poll and taken it to 2 RfCs, Religion and Philosophy and Language and Linguistics. One or two editors can't hold an article hostage with a tag just because they want to discredit it. —Hanuman Das 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic 

message: *Yes, article is perfectly encyclopedic and has survived two AfDs. —Hanuman Das 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: ::Hanuman Das, this isn't something you can settle with a poll.  The tag says what it means... 
 
::An editor (in this case, me) has expressed a concern that the topic of this article may be unencyclopedic.
::Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and try to resolve the objections on the discussion page.''
::As long as an editor (any editor) feels that the article is unencyclopedic, the tag has to stay.  And since I know I am not the only editor to feel this way, I insist that it stay.  You could try working with me at resolving the issue instead of just summarily removing the tag.  Blueboar 04:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. If there is a majority that thinks that single editor is being unreasonable, they can give him a reality check and DAS BOOT with the tag. —Hanuman Das 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, that is not the described use on the talk page of the official template. I invite all editors to take a look at how that template is intended to be used, Template_talk:Unencyclopedic. —Hanuman Das 04:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, since I know I am not the only editor who feels that this article is unencyclopedic, I don't think I am being at all unreasonable.  So, instead of arguing over a tag... why not engage me in discussion about the issues I have been raising (see above)? Blueboar 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after reading over the talk page of the template in question, it appears that it was intended simply as a courtesy notice before filing an AfD. It wasn't intended for the use you are putting it to, and I shall simply remove it. Please use a more appropriate tag to express your concerns. —Hanuman Das 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The difference being that Flat Earth meets the threasholds for inclusion that are listed at WP:FRINGE, while this article does not.  Unlike Flat Earth, none of the theories as to Jahbulon's possible meaning have been discussed in newspapers or accademic journals.  People keep saying that there is a controversy... but there isn't.  All we have are several conflicting theories as to what a (made up) word might mean.  If someone could come up with a source that did meat this threshold, I would be much more willing to stand down on this. Blueboar 15:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: To summarise, 3 for the proposition, 1 explicitely against and two explicit absentions is not a clear decision either way.  I'd be tempted to re-add the tag but I'm conscious that it'll prbably end up in an edit war.ALR 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Firstly, I would discourage the use of a straw poll here (or anywhere)-we're looking for consensus, not how many think this/how many think that. As such, I decline to "vote". Given that, however, I would speak to two points here:
*If strong consensus does indeed form that a dispute tag is unwarranted or that the dispute it refers to is settled or unfounded, the tag could be removed, even if a couple people still disagree. My opinion, of course, does not a consensus make, but it would be perfectly justified in such a situation to remove the tag even over a small minority's objections.
*There are some weasel wording problems (I corrected one), such as "claims in a footnote" (changed to "states in a footnote"), "seems to have started" (stuff like this either needs to be sourced as having started there or simply unsaid), and the like. However, these are minor and largely stylistic issues that can certainly be resolved. The article itself is well-sourced, presents both sides of the argument, and is, generally speaking, encyclopedic in its handling of the situation. The subject, similarly, is encyclopedic-notability is not subjective. If this has caused significant and verifiable controversy, it is notable, especially when that controversy is as well-sourced as it is here. Seraphimblade 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Seraphimblade: A comment... you say the controversy is well-sourced... but to me that is one of my problems... it ISN'T well sourced that there is a controversy about all this.  This article does not cite a single independant source discussing this so called controversy.  There isn't an argument... just differing etymologies (about a made up word at that).  Blueboar 05:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the controversy is now well sourced, in an article by a Ph.D. who also happens to be a Mason. Now, the tags you used imply that your problem has to do with original research and unsupported facts. So where are the specific citation needed tags? Which parts of the article do you challange? —Hanuman Das 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me to the article are you talking about? Blueboar 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the one that he added to the References section without actually referencing it in the text.  It's a paper presented to a research Lodge which points to the Church of England paper on compatibility and identifies the various points made by the CofE, hardly conclusive and it doesn't identify what the authors PhD is in.  could be completely unrelated.ALR 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the references section. Being a Masonic response to church vs. Masonry controversy, and specificly mentioning the use of the word as part of the controversy, it seems silly to deny the controversy or that the word is involved, don't you think? —Hanuman Das 16:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a response.  It's a paper presented to a research lodge, a purely Masonic audience and the opinion of the author.ALR 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And published by a Lodge of Research. Are you saying the Lodges of Research are given to publishing responses to extreme fringe theories as if they really existed? That'd make an interesting topic for an article comparing Masonic to Fortean research :-) —Hanuman Das 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Research Lodge spublish all papers presented to them in their annual transactions, regardless of the merits or otherwise.  It's a condition of the submission.  Quatuor Coronati publish AQC which includes all papers presented plus a number of others submitted to the Lodge.ALR 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On point 2, I don't believe the material is intended to be etymological, but rather that the word is an intentionally constructed word and the reasons behind its construction. I agree that this should be made clear in that section, so that it is not confused as etymological but clearly noted as an interpretive exegetic device. —Hanuman Das 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where's the controversy?  If it's simply an interpretive exegetic device, then there's no way to claim any one person's idea is authoritative, which means you simply can't say "This is what it means", because it becomes an impossible statement. Thusly, the whole point of the article disappears. MSJapan 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather naive view. Many controversies are about interpretations of fact. Wars are fought over interpretations of treaties for example. If the contoversy exists, and it clearly does, then it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not demand truth, merely verifiability. The fact that there is a controversy is verifiable and cited. At least some of the details are verifiable and cited. If you believe the article should be deleted, then nominate if for deletion and specify precisely which policy you think it violates and why. Don't endlessly "debate" it on the article talk page. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the article needs to stay separate, since there is independent usage in a non-Masonic organization, namely  Ordo Templi Orientis. 999, who is on wikibreak, responded to my query about this by email and stated that he intends to make sure that someone with access to Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. adds information about its usage in that organization. That means that the word is not exclusively referred to in Church vs. Mason contexts, so merging into either topic would not be at all correct. —Hanuman Das 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's straightforward enough to deal with, confirmed usage in OTO can be dealt with here, the purported usage in FM can be mentioned but discussed in context in a more appropriate article.ALR 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but the OTO usage is derived from the Masonic, through Crowley's clandestine initiations. Such intimately related topics should not be separated. —Hanuman Das 19:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear what was, and was not, derived from the many associations Crowley had when he created the OTO rituals.  It's also not known how representative the ritual undertaken in his, as you rightly point out, clandestine initiations may have been.  Of course if you can provide an explicit reference which identifies  how reliable his initiations were and what he took from Masonry compared to elsewhere then I'd be fascinated to see it.ALR 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that such could be done, though I don't have the materials myself.  Of course, a direct comparison between the OTO Holy Royal Arch of Enoch and other Royal Arch materials has, as far as I know, not been done. But I suggest you obtain a copy of Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. as I am sure that you would be able to make much more use of it than I. Let's at least wait until 999 gets back from Wikibreak in January to see whether the material warrants keeping the article together. —Hanuman Das 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would, as you point out elsewhere, constitute Original Research.  However since the HR is not a fourth degree and OTO has even more beyond the RAoE it wouldn't be a reasonable comparison.ALR 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A further thought.  Crowley was not permitted to join the HRA, since the craft Lodge which he joined was irregular.  So again, unless there is some form of conclusive evidence then the linkage is specious.ALR 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It had to be qualified as a statement, because Knight's writing was not objective, and again, it was an RS issue that couldn't be resolved any other way. MSJapan 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: Now here's an interesting report on a use of the word! I wonder if someone who has the book can verify and add this. It would certainly spice up the article! —Hanuman Das 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short's information is wrong, so it doesn't really matter what he says - Pike didn't say it or write it, Short is repeating Taxil - and the author of the blog has no idea what he's talking about either, because OTO officially severed its ties (tenuous as they were) with Freemasonry a logn time ago. MSJapan 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the little poem or song about the Masons. —Hanuman Das 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the one that the author explicitly attributes to OTO then?ALR 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and posts in full, violating copyright.--Vidkun 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of stanzas out of a several hundred page book in the context of this article is certainly fair use. Frater Xyzzy 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the author of THAT book might not have had permission to use it (OTO still exists, and has fought various copyright issues based on their rituals), and we can't tell one way or another if he did, so, as derivative of SUSPECT source, it's not fair use.--Vidkun 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been no court ruling on whether that book violates copyright, for the simple fact that OTO is understandably hesitant to sue its own primary publisher. Without a court order, quoting from the book is perfectly valid. Frater Xyzzy 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It also doesn't actually add anything to the arguments.  All it indicates is that OTO might use the term, although one could infer that clearly Masonry doesn't.  However that would be OR.ALR 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: FraterXyzzy, I'm assuming that you have a copy of the reference for OTO usage, since you corrected my assumption that the degrees ran in sequence.  You mention that in the mystical lecture there are a number of explanations for Jahbulon, it would be useful to illustrate their usage in OTO so can you provide that clarification.  Presumably if the lecture is in full then you can provide that?ALR 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the ref handy right now (packed away as I am about to move), but I do know the sequence of degrees (see Ordo Templi Orientis article, for example). It'll probably be a couple weeks before I can dig the book out. Frater Xyzzy 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question wrt OTO 

message: (After a minor flurry of reverting) ... Seraphim, you state in an edit summary that three of the sources mentioned in "further reading" should be acceptable.  I have no problem with that, but would you please clarify your reasoning.  Thanks. Blueboar 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader." if someone actually typed in Jahbulon on the searchbox to the left, the three items that I left up would more then likely be of interest to the reader. I know I somehow have to find that Church of England report, since it's not avaliable to me :/.  Seraphim 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Blueboar 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: I've just had a more detailed look at the reference to the Web of Hiram website and I have some concerns about it:
*The site doesn't credit the ritual that it cites, just saying that it was once used in Scotland.  Now that could mean one of a couple of things, up until very recently the majority of rituals in Scotland were local and privately produced, so we have no way of knowing how representative it is.
*The page cited doesn't actually mention the word Jahbulon, it just talks about what appears to be a trigram and attributes similar meanings to that of Tydeman.  I would suggest that inferring that it's on about Jahbulon from the explanation and using that to support a similar explanation is difficult.  Particularly when the section essentially says we dont know what it means, here are two alternatives.
Thoughts?ALR 19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, as ALR notes, Knight and Lomas' "Masonic Testament" is culled together from very old, sometimes unworked and usually private ritual.  Therefore, it was never ratified by a governing body, meaning that the interpretations are strictly those of the authors, and may have no status outside the Lodge or Chapter for which it was created.  Therefore, I agree that we cannot generalize based on this, nor should be really be using any works of Knight and Lomas for citation, because they are very much in keeping with a speculative and alternative history for which there has been little evidential support. MSJapan 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Web of Hiram reference

message: Those of you who know me, will not be surprised to hear me say that I am sceptical of the following statement: 
*"It was this interpretation that was reported to have disturbed Albert Pike, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite when he first heard the name, who called it a "mongrel word" partly composed of an "appellation of the Devil". (with the citation: Pike, The Holy Triad, 1873, from p. 35, Darkness Visible, Walton Hannah)
Basically, Pike has been mis-quoted by so many Anti-Masons, so many times, that I have to ask... has anyone verified whether Hannah has quoted Pike correctly?  I have no objection to including the statement if it can be verified that Pike actually said it, but I am inclined not to accept Hannah's word on the subject.  For the moment, I will settle for inclusion with attribution... ie I changing the wording to say
*"According to Walton Hannah, in his book Darkness Visible, it was this interpretation...." Blueboar 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just going to check that today, but I was unable to get to the library.  Pike did write a book of that title, though, and he has some very interesting pieces about Royal Arch which I will attempt to locate by the end of next week. MSJapan 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pike 

message: I've replaced the UGLE quote with one from Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter, as with my concerns expressed above I'm not sure that the UGLE quote served any purpose other than to imply a defensive position.  The UGLE position is base don the issues outlined in Christianity and Freemasonry not the issues here, so it's inappropriate, it also applies to the three degree of Craft Masonry since they have no authority over any other appendant body.  It may be marginally useful to have SGRAC view on the RA ritual, since they are the governing body and their view of the ritual is legitimate.  Unfortunately I couldn't get a deep link from the site, but I have identified the page that the position comes from.ALR 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UGLE Quote cf SGRAC quote

message: Just a question... we all know that the use of the word Jahbulon in the Royal Arch degree is often cited by Christian Anti-Masons as a reason why Masonry as a whole is incompatable with Christianity.  And yet no one ever seems to carry this argument to its logical conclusion... that (at least in the US) the Royal Arch degree is part of the York Rite ... which is specificly Christian in character.  The York Rite culminates in the Knight Templar degree, during which one must take an oath, in the name of Christ, to defend the Christian Faith.  Every Masonic Knight Templar is a Royal Arch Mason (it is a prerequisite for joining).  Doesn't this invalidate the claims of those who feel that Masonry is incompatable with Christianity?  After all, if we are to accept the argument that something that occurs in the Royal Arch Degree can be applied to all of Masonry, shouldn't we also accept that something that happens in the Knight Templar Degree applies to Royal Arch Masonry?  I'm not sure if this has ever been mentioned in a reliable source, so I am not sure if it could be put into the article... but it is an interesting question never the less. Blueboar 15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we don't accept the argument. :)  I'm not sure how it works outside my jurisdiction, obviously, but I'm going to go out on a limb and wsay that in the US, the KT degrees are very different from anything else in York Rite - the preceding degrees are not Christian-themed at all, but build on the Drama.  Only in KT is an affirmation of Christian faith required on the application, and obviously one is not required to take the Rite to its so-called "completion".  I think yorkrite.com might have degree descriptions, BTW. MSJapan 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Outside the US whilst the HRA is independent, indeed all the appendant bodies have their own organisations, membership, or being an installed third principal, is a prerequisite for most of the explicitly Christian orders.  From recall it isn't required for SocRos where one is required to proclaim the Trinitarian Christian faith.  KT and Red Cross of Constantine require membership, HRA KT Priests requires one to be an installed Principal (and to be a Mark Mason as well.  I can't remember about A&AR but that is explicitly Christian in character as well and most members are also HRA.ALR 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Arch as part of York Rite 

message: None of the claims regarding the use of the word Jahbulon have ever been officially responded to by the Freemasons. No independently verifiable transcript has been produced indicating the use of the word/name in any ritual. The independence of the original claimants has never been verified. As such all claims should be treated as such, as allegations. The allegations have been taken up by various parties, for their own reasons, and are in the public domain - but it cannot be proved (scientifically, not in the legal sense) that the word is used or even exists. Please adhere to WP:NPOV when editing this article, and please cite/reference every claim.LessHeard vanU 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean by "None of the claims regarding the use of the word Jahbulon have ever been officially responded to by the Freemasons"... if you mean that no Grand Body, speaking on behalf of Freemasons has ever officially said "Yes, we use the word" you are correct (as far as I know). If, on the other hand, you mean that they have never commented on the claims that Jahbulon is some sort of Masonic god... then they have indeed officially responded:  On this page of the official website of the Grand Lodge of England they state it quite clearly: "There is no separate Masonic God."  Blueboar 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, there is no response to the claim that the word Jahbulon is used - whether in any of the forms suggested. The response that the Masons do have a seperate Masonic God would only make sense here if there was the acknowledgement that such an entity was/has been known by the name Jahbulon. There isn't.
Whilst I was and am very keen to keep the article, I am even more keen on the application of NPOV.LessHeard vanU 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: However the Masonic God suggestion is as a result of various issues already discussed at Christianity and Freemasonry and not merely because of use of dodgy sources to suggest there is a special name for one.ALR 08:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment after result of 3rd AfD 

message: I rewrote the article, but it was mostly reorganization.  As a note regarding the further reading, Ankerberg is cited in refs already, and Harris' book is fundamentalist rhetoric and not a reputable source of information. MSJapan 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Why is all of this Royal Arch info here? It is &/or should be at York Rite. It looks to be filler content of a stub. if not merge, then at least cite the main article. Or not, could just delete it... Grye 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is an attempt to explain the link between York Rite and Freemasonry in general, and specifically why it is incorrect to connect something that shows up in a York Rite ritual to all of Freemasonry.  In other words, it is an attempt to "prove" that Jahbulon is not a "Masonic God", even if one wants to interpret it as the name of God used in the Royal Arch degree.  Given that so many people misinterpret the relationship between the various appendant bodies and Craft Freemasonry (the whole "higher degree" thing), I think some form of explanation is in order... but I can definitely agree that this is a poor way to do it. Blueboar 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut out a part, and linked to the main article (though I don't think it is necessary).  That might solve the problem, and if not, just revert it. MSJapan 19:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me. Blueboar 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I came to this article to learn about the concept of Jahbulon as well as the controversy.  I wish there was more on the theological concept and esoteric meaning from scholars less hostile towards freemasonry and the OTO, also graphics. I did a minor edit, correcting the spelling of two words.Berkeleysappho 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 1 

message: I explained a long time ago that Ankerberg fails WP:RS, especially because it's four pages out of a book.  Similarly, what use is one page in a journal article that's not even mentioned in the article?  Picking and choosing which part of a book or article serves your purposes is highly suspicious, and poor research methodology.  I'm not even going to point out the issues with using a Google cache page to shore up an argument.  Thus, all these things were removed.  Christianity and Freemasonry as main makes no sense, as we do not deal with this there in any more detail, if at all, as far as I can remember, and that article is much more broad than this - the connection is almost non-existent. MSJapan 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Selectively removing other editor's sources using various lame excuses doesn't seem right either. Also, I have no idea what you are refering to about a Google cache. Neither of the sources I restored involved Google cache. Jefferson Anderson 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I looked again, and what i thought was new was in fact a  paragraph you moved (and shouldn't have), so I'll have to go and fix that.  If the original is no longer available, too bad. The only reason to use Google cache is because a page is gone, and that really punches a hole in reliability of sourcing.  Also, how can you claim to "restore sources" that aren't cited in the article, especially when you toss them into references in the wrong format?  And from that, how can you expect anyone not to object and revert it?  Have you even read those, or did you just think it was a good idea at the time? MSJapan 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jefferson 

message: MSJapan and ALR, I find your method of reverting first and then discussing to be disruptive. Please find a less contentious way of collaborating. Jefferson Anderson 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey!  You sound just like Frater!  Imagine that...  Thanks for the sock accusation in the edit summary, too. MSJapan 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd advise you to be careful. Accusing people of being "anti-Masonic" or claiming that they are "openly hostile to Masonry (while apparently being a member of OTO)" as you do here could be considered personal attacks and disruptive to Wikipedia. I am not anti-Masonic, nor am I a member of a group opposed to Masonry. I just think that if you are going to use a reference that debunks another reference, both need to be listed as references, not only the one that debunks the other. Also, revert wars are not productive, but you seem to have singled me out and are reverting every improvement I make. Please reconsider your actions. Jefferson Anderson 18:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was about Frater Xyzzy, not you, unless you're telling me you are. MSJapan 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm just heading off your typical uncivil accusations before you make them. I've brought the matter of you hounding my friend Frater Xyzzy up on WP:AN/I. He's also requested that I get him an advocate to pursue the matter of you and your uncivil attacks. I'm simply waiting to find out if it is permissable for me to open an advocacy request, but since you seem to be escalating your unpleasantness, I'll go ahead and do that now. As they say, sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. Jefferson Anderson 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I'm going to let the admins review the situation at this point. I've now been accused by ALR of meatpuppetry, but I don't see how three Masons triple-teaming to WP:OWN articles is not a form of meatpuppetry in itself. It has happened on a couple of articles and seems to be the same three editors: you, ALR and MSJapan. I'm also kinda confused why somebody in Japan and somebody in Great Britain always seem to be awake and editing at the same time to be able to back each other up. (Maybe I'm mistaken about MSJapan being in Japan, but I seem to have a vague recollection of seeing him say that he was once). No, this issue is too complex for me to expect you guys to conduct reasonable discussions. You back each other up over trivial objections to sources as well as keeping your spin on the article rather than a straight description of the facts. I'm bowing out for now: I'll let Xyzzy get an advocate to advocate for him, and wait for the admins to take a look at how you are excluding other editors from editing certain articles. Jefferson Anderson 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is "excluding other editors from editing certain articles"... anyone is free to edit.  However, when an editor knows the edit is likely to be contentious, common wiki-edicate is to discuss the edit before hand.  In the case of an editor who does not know that the edit is likely to be contentious, the editor should be bold and edit... but if the edit is reverted that editor knows that there is an issue about the edit, the editor should go to the talk page and discuss it.  I am not saying that discussion will result in consensus... but it should be discussed.  In this case, you didn't... you simply edited away when it was obvious that MSJapan and ALR had issues with your edit. Blueboar 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing