Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 15

message: Secfan edits rv. Just silly edits about a band. "Naughty" :) Hipocrite likes Lightbringers stuff, but I've rv as the 1st item on this page under "New Business". 
Last Agreed Edit was as of "12:56, 4 March 2006 BlueboarImacomp 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "19:24, 4 March 2006 Imacomp (→Holocaust - Galen Lodge cited correctly)" Anyone want to dispute this edit? (Hipocrite added it to main text, I cited it as per 19:24, after checking site and saw authenticated by UGLE Arms/Link on its Home page) Imacomp 19:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Agreed Edit was as of "12:56, 4 March 2006 Blueboar" 

message: As contributed by Hipocrite and myself. Imacomp 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand why you are noting when things were agreed upon (I think it is a little overkill, but I understand it) ... and I have no objections to any of the material you have been adding, so I guess I can add my "agreement".  But I do need to point out that there are several regular editors to this Article who have not been present to discuss these edits nor party to any "agreements".  Thus, they may revert or edit things as they wish should they disagree with your additions.  Also, I do have a small objection to making "agreements" elsewhere than here on the talk page.  Just for the record. Blueboar 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’ve sojourned here today in order to clear some ground. I have been pedantic and I have marked well, in order to show where we are up to. I hope you agree (I think you have) that all the edits have been +ve, and none unilateral. I cannot see why anybody would want to crunch the gears into reverse again, after making progress with some consensus. "Also, I do have a small objection to making "agreements" elsewhere than here on the talk page." I do not know what you mean by that, but if I have offended you I am sorry. Let’s all level off, be more transparent, and let this article stand square. My best wishes Blueboar are with you. Imacomp 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the wishes... my small objection is due to your stating that you reached an "agreement" with Hipocrite.  Perhaps I misread your statement (I like agreement)... I simply wanted to make the make it clear that I think things should be discussed on the talk page.  No offence taken, and no problems with what you have been contributing.  Pass on... Blueboar 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Re ALR (large?) edits to 22:33, 4 March 2006 ALR I agree, with the caveat that asking for another citation is overkill. The Scottish/Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence decent of swearing an oath on the Bible is just common sense. A “Civil” Obligation cannot be taken in regular Freemasonry, for another obvious reason. However if some Historian or Jurist can find a reference to cite, well then OK, do it. Imacomp 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However common sense isn't an appropriate reference or source for encyclopedic discussion.  It's an interesting proposition however I would suggest that the content of the obligation moves in a different direction.  As such it's either superflous or inaccurate, and I don't feel that the statement adds value anyway but held back from deleting it.ALR 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Agreed Edit was as of "19:24, 4 March 2006 Imacomp" 

message: Edited by ALR and agreed by me. Please explain your changes/edits below, and try to agree (or not) on an edit-by-edit basis? Lots more to do guys... Imacomp 11:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some growing impression of  ownership appearing here.  You've managed to roll back the ritual and symbolism aspets you got so worked up about when you were using the SnF nym but where do you feel this authority to agree everything comes from?  Don't assume that everything put in yesterday is acceptable.  Given that I got home last night after assisting at an installation (and investment as ADC), I really couldn't be bothered addressing everything that needs addressed.ALR 12:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I could reflect back most of what you say above, back at you. (re ownership, etc.). Back to attacks are we? How productive (not). Also I'm not the permo-blocked SnF, so get over it. The last "agreed" edit is yours, so what exactly have you got to moan about, if you "couldn't be bothered addressing everything that needs addressed"? Imacomp 12:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldnt be bothered last night.  The statement above implies a basline, it's not.  Anyway, the above was not an attack, but an observation.  The point is what gives you any more right to agree to any edits, they are still liable to be challenged, with varying degrees of informed authority, by anyone who chooses the edit the article.  You can agree all you like, but there is still a lot of potential for improvement, not least the holocaust fetish that was injected and takes up a disproportinate amount of the article.ALR 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  To quote you ALR “You've managed to roll back … aspets you got so worked up about”. "the holocaust fetish that was injected and takes up a disproportinate amount of the article." Why not give the Holocaust 1 min of your time and stand with the sign of reverence? :( I'm of to bash a golf ball. Imacomp 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of which has any relevance to the discussion at hand.  Just before you got blocked using the SnF nym[] you made a determined effort to remove anything except explicit Christian references in the religion sections.  You removed a chunk of that again last night, but I'm not going to engage in another edit war about it.  I think it should be in there, if there is a general consensus that it needn't be then that's fair enough.  Last time round there wasn't and you were acting unilaterally, this time there might be, but suggesting that there is a consensus is presumptious.  And my personal views on the holocaust don't change my view that your enthusiasm to devote a disproportinate quantity of the article to one short period in the hostory of anti-Masonry, the subject of another article anyway, is inappropriate. Incidentally I've moved this back to where it was so that the impact of your misquote and removal of context is lessened.ALR 13:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: all editors have equal authority to agree (or not). It's not my fault if only two people do stuff here at any one time. The more that agree, the better. Any "agreed" edit is subject to be re-edited and agreed (or not). Unilateral major edits are less able to be sustained. That is Wiki. Imacomp 12:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See TAG @ top of the article: "This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read talk page discussion before making substantial changes". Imacomp 12:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Agreed Edit was as of "11:39, 5 March 2006 ALR" 

message: :: I’m happy to support this edit from MSJapan, a reasonable and level headed editor. :) Imacomp 09:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit as of "05:03, 6 March 2006 MSJapan" 

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1711652,00.htmlALR 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does colaborate the statement that UGLE agrees that Co-Masons practice "good" Masonry, even if they are unrecognized. So I guess is at least somewhat interesting (at least I found it so).  I wonder if they have a male version of the Eastern Star to prepare the pot luck supper?  (c8  Blueboar 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They "use" each other's husbands? I'm only mildly intrigued by that though. (I may be quoting out of context?) Imacomp 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "peculiar system" quote is in there, BTW, and the article differentiates quite nicely between regularity and recognition as UGLE sees it.  Most notably, it's a non-Masonic source.  Maybe we can grab some small things from it? MSJapan 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OES doesn't exist in England, although it is in Scotland.  Some arcane interpretation of the rules I guess.  One thing is that many members of HFAF are married to Masons anyway.  A friends wife is in almost all the appendant bodies.ALR 16:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intereasting article wrt feminine Masonry 

message: I notice that in the second paragraph of the section about Lodges there is a statement that Masons meet "as a lodge" rather than "in a lodge".  As a universal statement, I would have to disagree.  My Grand Jurisdiction (Texas) defines a lodge not only as a certain number of Masons gathered together to work, but also as "a place where Masons meet for work." Ken 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick hack, not sure if it helps.  Although a close look at Anderson indicates use of Lodge to mean the building as well.  It's a discussion we had recently at one of my research lodges and the discussion was pretty dynamic, to say the least.ALR 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Edit Suggestion 

message: Nice one Blueboar, I missed that one. 02:01, 7 March 2006 Blueboar discussed and bi-laterally agreed. Imacomp 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Blueboar 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  02:01, 7 March 2006 Blueboar 

message: The biographical article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. This person is not notable either, nor are his dusty deluded rantings. (A Christian "Saint". Doh! You are avin a laf, wibble wibble) Imacomp 16:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I did say it leaves a lot to be desired. :) But it's better than inaccurate and inappropriate material being left in here. ALR 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, the link should become more specific: William_Morgan_(anti-Mason).  --84.158.47.118 19:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgan 

message: The reason I asked for a citation on the point about legislative origins in UK law was for something that explicitly associates FMs acceptance of the candidates preferred VSL with the legislative system.  The citation provided is contemporary and doesn't actually answer the question.  As it stands the statement is pure speculation and nothing more, indeed I would suggest that it's wrong given that the acceptance of a range of potential VSLs dates from the de-christianisation under the authority of the Duke of Sussex.  The citation provided doesn't substantiate the assertion and it would be more reaosnable to remove the assertion, unless something explicitly associates the two points.ALR 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use a bit a common sense. Otherwise reflect that you have used lots more sepculation above. Imacomp 13:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a contemporary reference doesn't support a historical assertion.  Common sense can cut both ways.  You previously claimed to have a PhD, using your previous nym, so surely you appreciate that you need to establish some degree of causality when using an assrtive statement like that.  It doesn't add anything of utility to the section and I'd suggest that it's historically inaccurate given the absence of evidence.ALR 13:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have not claimed to have a PhD using a "previous nym". Pity the Lodge with a robotic pedant, for they will be hampered in work as if a Cowan was with them. Imacomp 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several step-by-step basic citations for those of the Order of Pedants without common sense. Imacomp 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of which actually support the assertion.  Similar to does not mean is derived from.  I still don't see the point as relavent or appropriate.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and either evidence or argument needs to be presented.  As it stands the statement does nothing.  Incidentally the Pennsylvania link doesn't work.ALR 14:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Your quite sure, I fixed it. Doh!. Incidentally the demonstrated fact that some Masons are Wankers does not demonstrate that we all are. Imacomp 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It works now, shame it doesn't actually add anything; it makes no explicit reference to the assertion.ALR 14:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well it is not a "legislative reference" anyway. Tell it to UGLE. Checkmate. Imacomp 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Reverted an edit. The "improvement" talks about one thing, and cited another, whilst taking out the main supporting citation? Nice one (not) ALR to go back to were you started, then move backwards. Lets move on. Imacomp 15:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note your reversion of my improvement to the text and since it appears that you're not interested in any kind of dialogue about how to enrich the information content of the article I'm just going to delete it.  It contains no information value and as such has no place in the article.ALR 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  How productive. I'll add it back then.... just for da Cowans... Imacomp 15:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your statements "UGLE aserts that this is related to legal practice in the UK", and citations, I see NO such assertion by UGLE.  I see your originally research and supposition that there is a direct link.--Vidkun 15:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've done no "originally research". How is what you see important? This is a wiki article, not an eye test. Imacomp 15:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine you want to start with MORE insults and personal attacks?  You have NOT shown any assertion made by UGLE in any of your citations.  You merely show various legislative and historical statements, NONE of which are from UGLE.  You show NO causal link.--15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  How can I insult the entity with no name? Imacomp 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I see you're just going to start indiscriminately start deleting my stuff, persumably as some form of revenge' because I'm daring to question the utility of your contributions, and indeed your veracity as an editor.  This is, after all, a wiki and these things happen.  It's just amusing that you think it actually adds anything to the article to do so.  The name calling is impressive as well.  No matter.ALR 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Erm it is called editing. Put in citations and re-insert, if it is "yours" - or not. Imacomp 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, the material which I contributed a few days ago and hadn't found time to reference.  I'm doing some owrk on information ownership and atributability at the moment so it's easy to start associating across the media.  It just comes across as tit-for-tat and petty retribution.  Now it would be unreasonable to suggest that such behaviour might be expected based on previous history, so I won't do that.ALR 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Tautology. I got an “Ology” Mum! Do you award PhDs in that? Imacomp 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No idea, what's your in anyway?  Bearing in mind it says [here] you've got one. ALR 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  "No idea, what's your in anyway?" Doh! You no reada da English or write good? Or Memory going? Link shows what? Der, dat no me... er dat a permo-blocked guy who says He's a Phd and Freemason. Does "ALR 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm dyslexic.  Thank's for pointing out the typo, a lot of the time I see them, but not always.ALR 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  "I'm dyslexic." Me to. Imacomp 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  So you'll appreciate how useful it is for someone to highlight the issues.  I am grateful...... no reely, I am.ALR 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well I get on very well using "Word". I've RSA 1 in typing, as well. Imacomp 17:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation in legislative reference 

message: User:Imacomp, please stop using your edit summaries to conduct personal attacks.--Vidkun 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Goose and Gander? Pot and Black? You are rather selective, are you not? Have you read all the section above? Imacomp 15:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i did, and it seems like, as with previous editors, if someone starts disagreeing with you, you start using personal attacks in your edit summaries, with statements that border on saying that if UGLE didn't say it, it ain't so, for ALL of Masonry.--Vidkun 15:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: UK Oaths, etc. So reference and statement are good, since UGLE is notable, and cited as such with supporting other references. Explicitly the reference states UGLE, not all Freemasonry says it. QED. Imacomp 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no personal attacks in edit summaries 

message: No discussion? You know what happens if the posted rules are not followed. Oh look it did. Peace and Brotherly Love. :) Imacomp 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh "St Morgan" help us? I think not. Imacomp 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: UGLE aludes to this. Imacomp 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the level of trouble here almost requires extraordinary scrutiny, as do many of the other related articles, to make sure that everything is accurate. MSJapan 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia strives for verifiability not truth.  If we were to hold up every article to extraordinary scrutiny we would be left with  next to nothing.  Seraphim 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing in what you quoted back says anything about a candidate being given his choice of religious text for his Obligation.  I will be pedantic when you make claims that are not supported by your references.  By pointing out the UGLE statement "similar to those taken in court or upon entering the armed services" and then referencing legal guidelines, you have not shown a direct link between the two.  That makes your statement a supposition, an assumption, and original research.  You draw a conclusion that is not supported by your references.  Please show us where UGLE makes the assertion that allowing a candidate to use the VSL he chooses is related to legal practice in the UK.  You are, in effect, quoting something UGLE has not said.--Vidkun 14:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does UGLE assert this? 

message: See, believe it or not, Crips.  The article lacks citations, but there are many places where multiple POVs and claims are presented and refuted or supported appropriately.  I think this is the approach we need to take on all of the Freemasonry articles. MSJapan 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? First off the lack of citations makes it completly irrelevant since it's impossible for us to know what is verifiable, and secondly the article is so sanitized it's appalling. Plus the only example of conflicting viewpoints being presented is "The Crips were founded by Raymond Washington and Stanley Williams. Williams argued that this was after the two became fed up with random violence in their neighborhood. Law enforcement officials dispute this, pointing to the extremely large number of violent crimes involving the gang members, even in early years." Seraphim 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real NPOV 

message: I have closely observed your behaviour on the Freemasonry related pages and have determined you are probably the single largest source of bad feelings. Your conduct is reprehensible and consists largely of manipulation of Wikipedia rules and spirit and inciting other Masons to do likewise. You routinely delete material without discussion claiming others didn't discuss it first, while do the exact oppposite when it is material you desire to be included. Your behaviour today on the External Links is true to type for you. You massivley deleted a dozen external links with no summary, discussion, or explanation, and then when I tried to re-insert them you and your followers claimed it must be discussed first! You claimed to be "uncertain" of why there were no references to forget me not flower contradictory links and when I added them you and your followers deleted them!. The sooner you and your masonic followers are permanently banned from the Freemasonry pages the better!!!!Keystrokes 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA PLEASE!  I would hardly call several Admins (who as far as I know are not Masons) "followers" of anyone.  As for "masonic followers"... well I am a Mason, although I do not follow anyone...  I found your edits to be highly POV and asked you to discuss them prior to posting... you refused.  I needed no prompting from MSJapan, or anyone else, to revert them until you did. Blueboar 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a Freemason, ergo you are ipso facto POV with an agenda, ergo you should not be permitted to edit pages related to Freemasonry. These are all the facts that pertain to you. Oh and the reference to followers was clearly a reference to YOU and other MASONS and not Admins. Try another lie.Keystrokes 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... I see... just because I belong to a fraternity, I should be banned from an article about it.  How NPOV is that?  If you would make a legitimate argument about why something in the article should be changed, I for one will listen.  I may not agree, but I will give you a fair hearing.  So far, I have heard nothing but POV ranting. Blueboar 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the point he was making was not because you belong to a Fraternity but because you belong to the Fraternity of Freemasons, with all that entails, vis a vis, Freemasonry's known behaviour in regard to being totally intolerant to criticism.Healthy eating 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is supposed to be balanced and NPOV, by discluding masonic editors, you get it one sided against Freemasonry. Ardenn 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  That goes for calling them socks as well. Imacomp 23:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sock accusations are coming from both sides. Seraphim 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's a sock... burn her! (ok... I am getting a little punchy... don't take it too seriously). Blueboar 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I os rarely get a chance to do a multifaceted inside joke, but here goes: We burn witches, not socks, but we need to figure out which witch is which first. MSJapan 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But haven't Masonic Editors, such as MSJapan et al made lengthy arguements on Admin dispute pages that a given non-masonic editor should be banned simply because the editor said he was opposed to Freemasonry? Yet when someone else makes the exact same arguement about having a blanket banning of known Mason editors for their POV agenda you give the reverse arguement! It is obvious that non-masonic accredited independent historians knowledgeable about this subject should be the only ones editing pages related to Freemasonry. Even Masonic writers admit the history put forth by Freemasons on the supposed history of Freemasonry is practically 100% invention! It's time to move on, lets not let the inmates run the asylum any longer.40 Days of Lent 09:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User: MSJapan]]

message: There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of the content of Masonic secrets in the article. 
::In actuality the dispute is a tactic by Masonic editors to blanket delete a section they intensly dislike, a tactic they have used previously on numerous occasions. Blanket delete to 'talk' page then ignore the talk. After a few days declare the talk complete and delete from talk page to the archive. Of course when it is their material they want included the material is allowed to remain on the main page until discussion 'is complete'. Of course discussion never takes place and section on talk page related to evidence of the dispute is quickly moved to archive as in tactic #1 and the material is deemed 'permanent' on Freemasonry page requiring lengthly 'discussion' in order to remove it. The Masonic  Manipulation of Wikipedia runaround. Freemason Editors should be blanket banned from editiing any pages related to Wikipedia because of their past group behaviour, the oaths they have taken to each other, and their permanent Anti-Wikipedia POV Agenda.Keystrokes 16:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Dispute

message: In the article you say that the Nazis killed the Freemasons just because they were freemasons;you make it seem like there was no reason.However,Hitler believed that they were a resistane group trying to subvert the Nazis.
-Anonymous
Actually you use IP address 71.124.142.31 Doh! Imacomp 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust and Freemasons

message: Dear editors of this article, can I warn you that there is a content dispute going on here and that reverts of "vandalism" will be looked on with suspicion (unless its plain out-and-out vandalism; if you aren't sure, it isn't). The way to deal with sockpuppets is not to out-revert them William M. Connolley 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only real content dispute that anyone seems to be able to ascertain is whether or not the entire Anti-Masonry article goes here.  However, a new vote has never been asked for; instead, one user has taken it upon himself to add in what he feels is correct.  Considering the excellent work that has been done on Anti as a separate article, I don't think a new vote would suddenly agree to a merge.  Now, if there is another dispute, I would certainly like somebody to say what that is.  Even on the links, there were only three refutations on what I removed out of probably 15, based on claims of "Masonic lies", mostly, because the disputer had a idea in mind before he ever read the article.  I am more than happy to go through and make a copyvio version of the forget-me-not situation from Bernheim and others and put it on talk so everyone can see what is really being said by the sources, and compare it to what is said now.  Lastly, I am sure that the section was lost in an rv war with an LB sock, because it used to be there; I rewrote it myself.  So, if that's the content issue, and we can keep the vandals out of here for a bit, I can write something up for here. MSJapan 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also notice that the critical links are FreemasonryWatch, Ephesians, and other anti-Masonic sites, and that the Bernheim links did not go back in.  So I'm guessing the dispute is not the forget-me-not, but rather "I want my anti-Masonic links on Wikipedia"  How much more of an agenda do you need to broadcast to have as your tag "How do you lead Masons away from Lodge?".  This roughly equivalent to putting "A guide to persecuting Jews" as a site on the Judaism article, or "Instructions on how to roast Cathars" on the Cathars article.  This is not a content dispute, it is a POV/agenda dispute.  LB has shown that he will not be dissuaded from his crusade, no matter how many facts disprove his ideas (not that they are his ideas, either, for that matter). The links as they stand are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article (WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POINT and WP:EL) come to mind here.  Every "critical" link is anti-Masonic and placed by LB not critical in that it has a well-thought-out argument, but critical in that it is against Masonry.  Every "non-critical" link is any other link that doesn't say to burn and convert Masons on sight.  So, I really wonder if this really is a content issue.  It seems not. MSJapan 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hello. Are you missing me? :) Imacomp 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Note conducting a "Whitch Hunt" to prove I'm a sock is just daft. Imacomp 12:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how else can we tell if you're a witch or not? :) (He turned me into a neut!)Blueboar 23:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  How about donating a few Virgins to Lodge funds? (Whitch is a ritual word from which and witch) :)Imacomp 23:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rr warning to everyone 

message: I've done a revert from SeraphimXI to Blueboar - because discussion was in history and not here, and was obscure anyway. Imacomp 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see next section Seraphim 01:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Going under the heading of "Be Bold", I attempted to add a summary for each of the various links in the "see also" section.  My intent was to give a NPOV summary of each site so that a reader could better deside if he/she wanted to view it.  I intended to add summaries to BOTH the pro and the anti sites.  However, Seraphim reverted me before I was done.  I guess we should change to "Be Timid".  Anyway... I agree that it should be discussed first. Blueboar 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary of a site has to be simply stating what the site is.  Text like "Highly recommended for those who want to see what the extreme end of Anti-masonry says." and "A serious look at Anti-masonic views" are your opinion of what the site is, it's not a summary of the site as described in WP:EL. Seraphim 00:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... valid point.  Reading it now, it does sound a bit POV.  Would you say that the summaries should be limited to something as blunt as "Catholic Anti-masonic site" or "Masonic conspiracy site", or can it be more discriptive? Is something like "A compendium of essays and articles on various Anti-masonic subjects" OK? (As you can see... I am still thinking of how to word the anti sites... Which, given my personal affiliations, needs to be done right to maintain NPOV.  I promise I will use similar language for the pro sites when I get to them.) Blueboar 01:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wording needs to be crafted to represent no opinion.  The "catholic anti-masonic site" or "masonic conspiracy site" are good, also your more descriptive version is valid also.  All you have to do is state what the site is, pretend you were looking at your commentary as it was in the article, if someone could justify adding a  tag in there it's problary not accurate. Seraphim 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... just making sure where you drew the line, so you don't go reverting me whole hog.  I will do them one at a time so you can comment or edit what I write without a blanket revert.  (I will make the changes tomorrow... it's getting late here in NY) Blueboar 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah i'll edit instead of revert.  Just keep it from becoming commentary/analysis and it will be fine. Seraphim 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we are clear... I gather that you would object if I said: "A load of horse dung.  This site was created by inbread cretins, who should be locked in an asylum because of their paranoid rantings."? It would be much more entertaining for the reader.  Blueboar 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah :) No pulling an SnF and calling everyone Loonies also :p Seraphim 02:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even if I put it on one of the pro-masonic sites? (no fun at all!) Good night... More editing in the morning Blueboar 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue, however, is that to make a true statement is by nature POV regarding these sites.  There is simply no way to paint Ephesians as NPOV - their purpose is a bit too clear.  I'm going to clean out links again and repost for discussion, particulularly because "critical" and "uncritical" are being grossly misused. MSJapan 10:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK... Since we are re-evaluating which of these sites should stay and which should go (see below), I am going to hold off on adding summaries. Blueboar 13:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also links - site summaries 

message: FreemasonryWatch - Far too fantastical.  It's not encyclopedic, and all the content is copvio anyhow.  Added by banned editor, for strike 3.
Conspiracyarchive.com link - Also not encyclopedic, and aded by banned editor.
Catholic Encyclopedia - Why this and not Britannica or World Book?  Because it's almost 100 years out of date.  Also, it's not really of any use to anyone who is not a practicing Catholic.
:POV editing noted. JASpencer 13:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for DeHoyos in the citations ... didn't find it, so I added it to the see also list.  I too was surprised that it wasn't used as a citation somewhere.  It has a lot of useful information. Blueboar 13:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And the relevance to this is?JASpencer 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well horse's arseJASpencer, it is a link discussion, with supporting citations. Why, is the cold light of day too harsh? Imacomp 18:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You can go back in the archive 6 months or a year and find lots more critical links that MSJapan and other Masonic Editors have systematically and repeatedly deleted. The version of the Freemasonry page six months ago was much more npov but again the same cast of characters has removed all the parts they didn't like and inserted "material" they have largely cut and pasted from Masonic websites. Around and around and around we go.40 Days of Lent 10:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, its 40 Days of Lent or should we call you Lightbringer? Lets take a straw-poll on your identity? Imacomp 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A request for CheckUser have allready been made (yesterday, in fact) - hopefully we'll get a responce soon. If not, we might alert the various admins who have helped out in the past. WegianWarrior 11:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More links gone....