Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 6

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 12 Oct 2005 and 20 Oct 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_7. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

message: You should...
# remove 4.1: Degrees because of Degree (Freemasonry)
# remove 6.: History of Freemasonry because of History of Freemasonry
84.61.3.191 14:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes more sense here.  Otherwise the article is going to be a ten line list with "See X" for every heading. MSJapan 02:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You can't do that? -- Spinboy 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dammit, Spinboy!  I'm an editor, not a technician! :)  TBH, I looked at the process, and it requires some code insertion I'm not sure I could do properly. MSJapan 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long article 

message: I agree with DreamGuy's reversion here -- those sections were highly speculative, not well-cited, and added too much to a too-long article.--SarekOfVulcan 17:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree with this reversion.  I felt that the templar section had some merit although not presented in an accurate manor.  I tried some revision to it, but I feel that a consensious should arise on it before we go ahead with a section like that.  It might be benificial to have an origins of freemasonry sections were the main theories (i.e. no space aliens and bigfoot theories) are put forth in a short manor.  This section should focus on the pre-1717 history of freemasonry.  The USA section was extremely speculative and needed to be removed.  All the statements in that section were gross overstatements, theory or untruths.  chtirrell 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of Templar/US sections 

message: I reverted the removal of this section before, but on reflection, I think that Lightbringer's move of the text to the existing Taxil Hoax page is correct.--SarekOfVulcan 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxil Hoax 

message: Since the anti-Freemasonry material has been moved, can someone add a link to that article at the top of section 8, and condense the various sections into a summary?  That should allow us to get rid of the "too long" boilerplate. MSJapan 05:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I condensed it myself. MSJapan 06:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 8 (Anti-Freemasonry) summary needed 

message: I can't see where this fits in the article, so I have excised it to save it for possible future reinsertion.  It's not criticism, but neither is it history or symbolism, and it's not a membership  item.  I also dropped the headline by two levels to avoid confusion on the page here.  MSJapan 06:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for liberty 

message: What the heck is "Restored links approved by consensus after block. Individuals who deleted this attempted to get poster banned and were rebuked by Wiki Arbitrators for abuse" supposed to mean? There was no consensus to have those links there... I did not attempt to get anyone banned. Nobody was rebuked for Wiki Arbitrators for abuse... Lightbringer is just out and out lying at this point trying to force his hatred for Freemasons into the article. Victrix 11:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review talk page archives. The history of this page and the previous 'anti-masonry' page was fully discussed previously and a concensus discussion was reached to combine the two. Not only did the Pro-Mason editors who filed false and vexacious complaints against 'critical' editors violate the spirit of this consensus decision, but their attempt to circumvent the freeze page order by wikipedia arbitrators by creating a mauled version of the criical section showed there general disregard for Wikipedia. It is quite clear where the intolerance and trouble on these Freemasonry pages are originating from.Lightbringer 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * I would like to point out that the first-person comment above (in the phrase "I did not attempt to get anyone banned") appears to refer to an arbitration case brought by User: MSJapan. As it appears to answer a charge leveled at MSJapan, and answer in the first person, it makes me wonder if User: Victrix may in fact be the same person as MSJapan. Would either MSJapan or Victrix care to comment on this apparent oddity? Eaglizard 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought I already responded to this, but my reply is not here, so here we go again. HUH?!?! Where on earth did you come up with that? Lightbringer claimed that "Restored links approved by consensus after block. Individuals who deleted this attempted to get poster banned" -- I deleted the links because they were inappropriate links, and I never tried to get Lightbringer banned (though I don;t disagree it is long overdue). That's what my comment meant. I don;t know how somebody can read that line to claim that I was saying I took part in whatever banning attempt MSJapan tried, because I explicitly said I hadn't. You need to read more carefully and not make outrageously bizarre accusations. Furthermore, it also appears that your sole purpose here is to try to claim that people who stop POV-pushing are just as bad and that they need to stop editing as well. That's complete nonsense. Enforcing Wikipedia policy and removing POV-pushing links and content does not make somebody a POV pusher of the opposite side. Your attempt to come here and portray yourself as neutral while accusing everyone of being POV-pushers is ridiculous, and you've done nothing that could help this article progress in the future, all you;ve done is attempted to polarize things further. I would respectfully submit that you get the heck off this page unless you actually want to try to help. We have concensus, we know what we are doing with the page, we are following policies here... your accusations and holier than thou attitude is just getting in the way. Victrix 04:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for responding here, and please feel free to use as much inflammatory language as you deem necessary. Your vitriol is baffling, but not unexpected. All personal attacks will be ignored (and I would in fact unilaterally delete per WP:NPA, but this no longer seems to be consensual). I'm only interested in discussing the article, and edits thereto. In brief response, however, I would like to note that I didn't accuse User: Victrix or User:MSJapan of any wrongdoing (please see my clarification on the workshop page). In retrospect, the word 'oddity' was an unfortunate choice, but Victrix, if you are indeed a unique individual, I've merely confused your comments with someone else's (in spite of the signature). This doesn't reflect on your behavior. In fact, I've no interest in commenting on your behavior at all. Eaglizard 06:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and yes, the person making inflammatory accusations and then more inflammatory comments complains about me making supposedly inflammatory comments... Yeah... it's clear you have no purpose to being on this page at all except to stir up trouble. You already admit you won't edit the page, and you've demonstrated both your inbility to read for comprehension and a disdain for the people working within the policies to improve the page, so what purpose do you have here? None at all that I can see. Victrix 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deceptive edit comments