User talk:JASpencer/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:JASpencer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Religious Question (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Pedro II
- Vital Maria Gonçalves de Oliveira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Capuchin
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metropolitan Cathedral of Medellín, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The article World Congress of Families has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable entity that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to press releases and other fringe material, trivial mentions, and other things that cannot demonstrate notability.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of World Congress of Families for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Congress of Families is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Congress of Families until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antipope John XVI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfather (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
France - anti-clericalism - Freemasonry
I would rather work with you than against you on this... but before we go further, please re-read the critique of the old version of the section that I wrote two years ago (on the article talk page)... it will help you to understand what I am likely to object to and why. I am sure that if we work together, we can come up with a section that will be acceptable to both of us, but simply re-pasting in the old version with a few small tweaks isn't going to cut it for me. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- The idea that you can have an article about anticlericalism and freemasonry without mentioning France is rather bizarre, and the idea that the French are more dogmatic in their anticlericalism than almost any large jurisdiction is widely accepted. I don't see why you can't see this. You used to. JASpencer (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the article should discuss the situation in France... my issue is with how we mention it, and what we say while mentioning it. Again, review the comments I made two years ago... the specific text you keep trying to return to the article is filled with synthesis and coat-racking. That is a problem... but it is a problem that can be resolved by the two of us working together to rewrite the section (or even better the entire article). We need to come up with different text... text that does not have the problems I have outlined. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Feast of the Guardian Angels for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feast of the Guardian Angels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feast of the Guardian Angels until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello JASpencer/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Ichthus: January 2012
 |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
No personal attack ...
Hello, JA. Thanks for this message. I never for one moment thought that it was a personal attack. Anyone sensitive enough to be really offended by my remark is probably unlikely to survive Wikipedia for long. I suppose that my remark might be regarded as a little uncivil, and maybe it would have been better, as I said, to express the point differently, but there was no way I could have expected such an absurd over-reaction. Oh well, ... JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Conspiracy of the Equals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Rentier
- Ernesto Nathan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to ATAC
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Balls Picture
Now, there's a section heading...
Good spot on this - although afaik CC BY-SA 2.0 images (as this one is) are OK aren't they? No worries - I'm happy with either image to be honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Reviewer
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:
- Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
- Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
- Administrate article feedback.
Please remember that this user right:
- Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
- Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
- You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- General Roman Calendar of 1962 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Domitilla
- Saints Nereus and Achilleus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Pope Damasus
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Citation requests...
There are already over 100 citations in the Freemasonry article. Anything that is easily verifiable does not need to be cited, and there are no direct quotes involved. Citations have been provided elsewhere, as you have been informed on the NPOV noticeboard under the discussion you started, and also no the Continental Freemasonry talkpage; if you don't want to add them in, you have no right to complain about the lack of them. MSJapan (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- And I moved it back because it has not been verified. As neither you nor Blueboar have provided explicit verification of the term "Irregular Freemasonry" being used in this context (and not to refer to those outside the UGLE subset), I think it's time to give up the ghost on this. JASpencer (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
McAlpine
I think you were right to roll back the talk page. Maybe it would be better still if all those edits could be expunged from the record. Could you contact Oversight at WP:RFO? I have already been at them once today over earlier posts by the same user on the article itself. -- Alarics (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whoops, just seen your addition to my comment of earlier today at BLP Noticeboard. That didn't work for me - nobody took any notice of it and it was only after I contacted Oversight that something was done. Need to stress though that this time we are talking about the talk page, not the article itself. -- Alarics (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Confraternity of penitents (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to St. Marcellus
- Freemasonry and women (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Royal Arch
- Grande Oriente do Brasil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lodges
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
CLIPSAS
I've e-mailed you a copy of the full revision history of the article. You could easily ask any admin to temporarily restore any selected version of the article and either add it to personal userspace, if you believe that it would be acted upon quickly and shortly thereafter moved to main project space, or e-mail you a copy of the content of that revision. In general, the latter is probably preferable. I indicated in the e-mail that it might be best to have the deleting admin restore the content you want, but considering that page was deleted as a copyvio in 2010 I'm not sure if that individual is still around. I will myself be a bit less active over the next few weeks, but I am certainly willing to help in the restoration of an acceptable version of that article. Feel free to either indicate on my talk page or in return e-mail which you would prefer. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)/Archive %(counter)d
Phoenix Lodge
I addressed this item in the Talk page several years ago. We cannot verify the list, as the Lodge does not have a website where that information is public (and generally it is not public information). The list is unmaintainable, because it will change every year. Those individuals are also non-notable, and fall under WP:NOTDIR as a "loose association of individuals" as well as being a BIO issue for non-notable people as something those people may not wish to have publicized. MSJapan (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Alexander Vasiliev (Catholic priest) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Vasiliev (Catholic priest) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Vasiliev (Catholic priest) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Your request for undeletion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Karl Denninger. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Everest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Western Mail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
POV Cite Warning
If you have a concern about an article or its edits or whatever it is best discussed at the article's talk page. Please don't insert irrelevant comments or position statements into someone else's conversation. While public, and arising out of MSJapan's edit summary, my question to him had nothing to do with his position, or yours, on the article in question.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 02:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Err it was about a blanket undoing of my edit, so it did concern me. I would have (poriginally) replied on your page but you seem to hide your comments. I know it's allowed but it's seen as unhelpful. By the way, the comment above could be interepreted as curt and intempreate, although i'm sure it wasn't your intention. JASpencer (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I was unclear. There was no reply to make, because my question to MSJapan had nothing to to with what you wanted to reply to. The best place to return to your topic was the article's talk page, not MSJapan's or mine.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)- You didn't seem to get my original point (you were undoing my edit, it therefore concerned me). JASpencer (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I was unclear. There was no reply to make, because my question to MSJapan had nothing to to with what you wanted to reply to. The best place to return to your topic was the article's talk page, not MSJapan's or mine.
The article Solomon's Lodge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No indication of notability' most masonic lodges are not in and of themselves notable; notability must be shown by reference to verifiable third party sources
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- JA, I am not sure why MSJapan posted the article at AFD. I was trying to follow your guidance in doing a PROD instead. Please be assured - I did not know you were the creator when I posted the PROD template.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 00:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- JA, I am not sure why MSJapan posted the article at AFD. I was trying to follow your guidance in doing a PROD instead. Please be assured - I did not know you were the creator when I posted the PROD template.
Redirects...
do not have to be discussed. This is not a merge request, and I did not merge the material into the main article; it was already there. It is things like this that make me think you purposely stalk my contribs to turn routine things into problems. It's a legitimate search term and should not be prodded. MSJapan (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- This redirect should be discussed. You would probably benefit from some coaching to help with your judgement and other editing issues. JASpencer (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then how about you do so by explaining to me exactly why this redirect in particular needs to be discussed? WP:REDIR (meaning policy) requires no such thing. As I stated before, it was an exact copy of what was in the main article on the novel already, not a cut and paste move. So where exactly is the contention? I'm not seeing it. MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Solomon's Lodge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solomon's Lodge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon's Lodge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Integrism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Integrism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Masonic ritual murders
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Masonic ritual murders, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Masonic funeral listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Masonic funeral. Since you had some involvement with the Masonic funeral redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Notability
I am in the process of gathering together lists of articles which can be found in various encyclopedic sources relative to religion in general, starting first with material relating to Christianity, because of the huge number of sources on the various different faith traditions involved. I have also seen some reference books more clearly devoted to "Secret societies" and suchlike, including the Freemasons prominently. I tend to think that they would almost certainly help establish notability of at least the subjects which are topics of individual articles in them. Beyond that, I really do think that there is sufficient cause to request that the Arbitration Committee look into the behavior of several of the editors regarding this topic. In fact, it may well be past due. Give me a few days to get together a list of those articles in reference books. I am also going to check to see if I can find any particular sources establishing notability today myself. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi JAS... I am not sure if you have ever actually seen a "Masonic funeral" ... but if not, you can see a re-enactment of the one they gave George Washington (here)... modern versions are less verbose, but the broad format (and much of the language) is essentially the same. Hope it helps. Blueboar (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Masonic ritual murders
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Masonic ritual murders. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Masonic conspiracy theories#Other. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Masonic conspiracy theories#Other – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. MSJapan (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Masonic funeral service listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Masonic funeral service. Since you had some involvement with the Masonic funeral service redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MSJapan (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Poulson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Mullin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 3, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @812 · 18:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seigneur of Saint Ouen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seigneur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
FWIW
I don't think your interpretation of the second diff you've presented to ArbCom is accurate; I don't see how it can be construed as an appeal to Sarek "as a Freemason", and given that Sarek quite properly refused Blueboar's request, it's hardly evidence against him. My (possibly erroneous) recollection, having observed this whole sorry saga for several years, is that Sarek and Doncram had already been at loggerheads for some time before Doncram hit NRHP-listed Masonic halls, and (as a non-Mason with no particular interest in the subject), I don't think it's a major factor in this particular case.
At risk of giving offence, my first impression on comparing your evidence with your diffs was something to the effect of "Wow, this guy sees the Stonecutters behind every bush." It became clear from looking at your other recent contributions that that was a gross mischaracterization, but I think your statement may have unexpected negative effects on other editors uninvolved with the Freemasonry situation. John Carter's statement about it being ripe for ArbCom may well be correct, but I think it's at best very peripheral to the current case and I doubt trying to litigate them together would be productive. Choess (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Point taken and it took me a few days to get up to this, as I shared the same issue you did - this is peripheral and I was slso worried that I would appear a bit (or a lot) of a kook. To be honest it's the timing on Doncram that really worried me, these diffs weren't months and years ago, as well as the fact that Blueboar actually thought it propert to go to Blueboar rather than any of the many other admins he dealt with (as well as to offer to take a beating for the sake of appearamce).
- As far as Sarek refusing, that's not correct - at least on his or Blueboar's talk page and the difference is important. Sarek's early history of editing on this topic was just as partisan as other editors, although I do accept that this improved markedly over time. Sarek didn't comment, and a certain uncharacteristic moderation in Blueboar's tone in the last couple of weeks seems to suggest some influence on him. My feeling is that there is an element of email coaching from Sarek, which in themself would be admirable but I'm concerned about whether this would go further. Whatever Sarek's actions - even if there were none - Sarek never actually said. This put him in an invidious position and he had two other editors commenting on it but would never directly answer the request.
- JASpencer (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it might not be unreasonable for there to exist some sort of e-mail contact regarding this subject in general, given the rather small number of editors involved and the fairly obvious problems of POV pushing and stonewalling. Unfortunately, that at least theoretically raises the issue of possible collusion as well. At this point, like I said, I very much think that the time has come to take this matter to arbitration. Unfortunately for you, as the primary "outsider" involved, I have a feeling that you as an individual probably know the history involved best, and are probably the person who if a case were opened would probably have the greatest burden of evidence. Also, unfortunately, as I think recent events indicate, there is a very strong chance that aspersions would be cast on you as well. Like I've said elsewhere, I think the time is ripe for ArbCom intervention, but if that is to happen I also think that you would probably be the person it would put the greatest burden on. So, do you want to face the burden of having to produce a lot of evidence regarding the conduct involved in a rather short time, and do you think you could present a convincing argument with it, which I hope would be substantiated by myself and others, or do you think it would be too much of a burden and/or a waste of time? Also, please check your e-mail. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The simple fact is that most of the other outsiders have been driven away, either from the project altogether or to other parts of the project. I certainly don't have the time to put the evidence together. I also suspect that there will be a lot of mud flying my way, some justified and a lot of it not and while I'm a big boy and will get over - it's not designed to be pleasant (as you've seen). I also tend to find that some admins can say one thing and mean quite another. (That last remark is not aimed at either of the admins who replied on this thread). JASpencer (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed that many, like me, have been driven away by the frustration with what they see as the incredible stupidity and blatant POV pushing of the more fanatical Freemasons, not naming names of course. However, if they are still here at all, I have every reason to believe that if they see the ArbCom opened, they may very well comment there. Also, I don't think that I would ask you to present the case alone. I can and would try, in the admittedly limited time available to me in the next few days, help get together some evidence as well. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, you could create a page in userspace where you want can get together some of the evidence you have, and I could add some of my own, and maybe others as well. I beleve that there is precedent for that, particularly in cases which have evidence dating back some time. There would almost certainly be a call for deletion of such a page in rather short order by some of the fanatical fringe, but, I think the precedent is if the case is actually requesting the opening of an arbitration case within a comparatively short time, like a month or so, such pages are generally allowed to remain.
- P.S. I would also like to add, for the record, that I would do what I could to assist you in any efforts to raise the concern before ArbCom. They have at times in the past, like with Scientology, read almost entire talk page histories. I remember RogerDavies saying the evidence in the Scientology arb ran to over 700 printed pages, counting archived pages. But, maybe, and this is just a maybe, if you are going to be involved in another arb shortly, maybe it might be best to wait until after that arb is finished to start collecting evidence, to give yourself more time. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that something like this needs a RFC or some other form of dispute resolution first.JASpencer (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- An RfC would definitely be a good idea. Not knowing how heavily involved in the current Arbitration you might be, I hesitate to myself decide where and when to raise it, or over what specific material. I do however think that there is more than enough such disputed material to make it fairly easy to find some subject which might benefit from an RfC. If you wish to indicate to me, or perhaps discuss a topic on a talk page which might serve as a prelude to an RfC, I would do my best to check for and possibly produce what evidence I can find in independent reliable sources which might help others come to a conclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that something like this needs a RFC or some other form of dispute resolution first.JASpencer (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I would also like to add, for the record, that I would do what I could to assist you in any efforts to raise the concern before ArbCom. They have at times in the past, like with Scientology, read almost entire talk page histories. I remember RogerDavies saying the evidence in the Scientology arb ran to over 700 printed pages, counting archived pages. But, maybe, and this is just a maybe, if you are going to be involved in another arb shortly, maybe it might be best to wait until after that arb is finished to start collecting evidence, to give yourself more time. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed that many, like me, have been driven away by the frustration with what they see as the incredible stupidity and blatant POV pushing of the more fanatical Freemasons, not naming names of course. However, if they are still here at all, I have every reason to believe that if they see the ArbCom opened, they may very well comment there. Also, I don't think that I would ask you to present the case alone. I can and would try, in the admittedly limited time available to me in the next few days, help get together some evidence as well. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, you could create a page in userspace where you want can get together some of the evidence you have, and I could add some of my own, and maybe others as well. I beleve that there is precedent for that, particularly in cases which have evidence dating back some time. There would almost certainly be a call for deletion of such a page in rather short order by some of the fanatical fringe, but, I think the precedent is if the case is actually requesting the opening of an arbitration case within a comparatively short time, like a month or so, such pages are generally allowed to remain.
- The simple fact is that most of the other outsiders have been driven away, either from the project altogether or to other parts of the project. I certainly don't have the time to put the evidence together. I also suspect that there will be a lot of mud flying my way, some justified and a lot of it not and while I'm a big boy and will get over - it's not designed to be pleasant (as you've seen). I also tend to find that some admins can say one thing and mean quite another. (That last remark is not aimed at either of the admins who replied on this thread). JASpencer (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it might not be unreasonable for there to exist some sort of e-mail contact regarding this subject in general, given the rather small number of editors involved and the fairly obvious problems of POV pushing and stonewalling. Unfortunately, that at least theoretically raises the issue of possible collusion as well. At this point, like I said, I very much think that the time has come to take this matter to arbitration. Unfortunately for you, as the primary "outsider" involved, I have a feeling that you as an individual probably know the history involved best, and are probably the person who if a case were opened would probably have the greatest burden of evidence. Also, unfortunately, as I think recent events indicate, there is a very strong chance that aspersions would be cast on you as well. Like I've said elsewhere, I think the time is ripe for ArbCom intervention, but if that is to happen I also think that you would probably be the person it would put the greatest burden on. So, do you want to face the burden of having to produce a lot of evidence regarding the conduct involved in a rather short time, and do you think you could present a convincing argument with it, which I hope would be substantiated by myself and others, or do you think it would be too much of a burden and/or a waste of time? Also, please check your e-mail. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity...
Why do you think that anything a so-called "Masonic editor" does on Wikipedia is necessarily (and constantly) biased by said membership? More particularly, given that you are most assuredly not a member and thus supposedly would not be privy to any "secret conspiracy", on what factual evidence are you basing that assumption, or is it simply a matter of opinion, meaning that because you think something's going on, something has to be going on? MSJapan (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- When did I say everything your friend does is biased? I think that he is a far, far less disruptive editor than you or Blueboar. However his treatment of non UGLE branches of his hobby is biased. I was simply pointing out the abuse of process that would be treated far less leniantly if an admin who was a member of the People's Front of Judea was abusing Wikipedia process to belittle the presence of the Popular People's Front of Judea. JASpencer (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- This ended up being more "wall of text"-y than anticipated. First of all, you bring it up this bias issue at every opportunity. Let's consider for a moment, however, an important distinction. We have WP:EXPERT, which has some useful items in it that I won't recount in full, but basically says experts are useful. I'll get back to that in a second.
- First, distinctions are important. In the case of your political groups, they are political; they want an advantage over the other for whatever reason. However, none of the "Masonic editors" (your term) care about the existence or not of these other groups: one group doesn't affect another directly, the memberships don't interact, an there's no active recruitment of one to the other. So there's no advantage to be had. This isn't a civil war, where the guys in one color kill the guys in the other; nobody "wins" at the end. The expert in the topic is aware of this. The concerns about these groups in AfDs have nothing to do with winning or losing, and there's no promotion involved, either. It's all about a) size, or b) unverified claims of jurisdiction. These are rules that apply to notability of all organizations on Wikipedia.
- I think you do not realize that these groups exist in their own microcosm. I could legitimately (meaning with government non-profit status and incorporation papers) set up a "Grand Lodge" in my shed and claim worldwide jurisdiction. There's no "secret handshake" to go buy regalia on the Internet, either, so I could get myself some nice stuff to go with it, and ta-da! I'm a Grand Lodge! It's really that easy. I could even reduce some of my own burden by getting other people to join and foot my organizational costs. Note that that very formation of a Grand Lodge in that manner is contrary to the Constitutions of both UGLE and Prince Hall, the oldest Grand Lodges in the world in their respective areas.
- That requirement is there specifically to avoid people getting ripped off, and this is why they are debunked. Many are not philanthropic, have overt political or religious motives, and do nothing for their communities - in short, they aren't really Masonic except in name, and they have no legitimated line of connection to the groups everyone associates with Masonry. Many of them are really doing no more than selling degrees. I'd also note that Sarek isn't putting forth his opinion, he's indicating the published opinions of long-established third parties.
- The "liberal" issue is one of violation of Landmarks, and that's it. Again, no one really cares, but it has been shown that many of these groups splinter and fall apart within a few years (RGLE, Grand Orient of the US, and for a related non-Masonic example, try to figure out who's who in modern Rosicrucianism). So many of them, again, aren't really notable; they just appear that way on the surface.
- Therefore, I would say that what you think is "bias" is in fact an "expert statement." Sarek (and many of the rest of "us", for that matter) simply knows more about the entire matter. Neither Sarek nor any of the rest of us gain anything personally by making the statement, and whether you believe it or not, it is the general sentiment.
- Speaking of belief or otherwise, I'm still not sure what your informational basis is to claim in writing that a member of an organization is biased against another organization in general when you are a member of neither of them. It's also a bit suspect that, making no secret of not liking said organization in general, you clamor for the right of anything you can find associated with it to exist on Wikipedia, regardless of "existence is not notability." I will venture the very supportable opinion that because of that, your underlying motives appear to be questionable to others. I would therefore say that maybe you need to think about the dichotomy of your stated positions and how that affects your interactions with others, rather than taking the position of "perpetually wronged martyr." This whole situation is not a one-way thing, whether you choose to agree with that statement or not. There are editors newer than you or I who have voiced to you their disapproval with your behavior. Did you think that maybe the "editors who have been driven off" might have been so not because of "us", but because of your behavior?
- I'll pick a recent example. You created two redirects as redirects (meaning not from a short article merged or otherwise) to another article. The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, never has been, and there are no non-trivial sources that would enable a mention to be made in future. Therefore, from a policy perspective, the redirect doesn't make sense, because it's not pointing to the information one would expect. Those sorts of RfDs come up all the time. So, at the RfD, you changed the target to something else that also had little or nothing to do with the redirect topic. That's like searching for "eggs benedict" and getting sent to The San Diego Chicken. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that you wanted to keep those redirects at all costs, even though there was no justifiable reason to create them in the first place. That's called being pointy, and that is by no means the only example of this. How is that conducive to improving the encyclopedia?
- Actually, another item might be that you jumped into an ArbCom case in which you had a minimum of interaction (if any) in the topic area, just to point an accusation at one person. How is that conducive to improving the encyclopedia, or in fact being collegial at all?
- In short, expertise is not bias, and this whole situation is not as one-sided as you think. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the logic of WP:EXPERT is that only insiders should edit articles that touch on Freemasonry? JASpencer (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that expertise should not be construed as bias when it is not falling into the "warning" areas in EXPERT without proof of such, and that is exactly what you're doing. So far, Blueboar and Sarek are colluding via email because you think so, the "Masonic editors" are conspiring against Liberal Freemasonry because you think so, such-and-such Masonic thing is notable because you think so, a Masonic source is reliable because you think so, and so on. My point is that the expert perspective is different than the general populace, and you are not being cognizant of that; you are instead saying that the expert consensus is biased, based only on your opinion, and you are ignoring it entirely. For that reason, you are dismissing a lot of arguments out of hand as an "agenda" or the like, which is easy to do, but doesn't really help anybody. Perhaps an open-minded dialogue to find out why multiple other people all think the same thing, despite it being contrary to your opinion, might be a better course of action. MSJapan (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the logic of WP:EXPERT is that only insiders should edit articles that touch on Freemasonry? JASpencer (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- If Sarek and Blueboar have been in email correspondence before, why should they not be so again? This is not some wild eyed conspiracy, just a presumption that Sarek continues to do what he's done before.
- As far as Liberal Freemasonry went why did you and Blueboar spend so much time trying to keep the calculaed insult "irregular" as an alternate name, if there was no bias?
- And expert concensus? You're not really an expert are you? You're just someone who is very, very attached to a certain position. Not the same thing.
- JASpencer (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- (outdent) Nevertheless, there is no proof, and without proof, it does read as a conspiracy statement. No one on WP is required to divulge whether they have or have not been in email contact with another user.
- The issue of "irregularity" is difficult - we've tried several times to come up with an alternative (we tried "liberal" and "continental", if you recall, and I think we tried "adogmatic" as well, but no one really liked those for various reasons), and it is factual that according to a certain group which is undeniably much larger and definitely more mainstream in the public eye, says that the other groups are considered irregular. It's actually informationally important, because going to an irregular group will cause a suspension of membership, the same way that schismatics are excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. The schismatic group isn't such to themselves, but they are in relation to a major world denomination, and I think the same idea applies in relation to Masonic groups as well. For that reason, it's probably POV if we don't indicate the position, because we are then ignoring a major viewpoint entirely. Whether it is negative or not is up to the reader, but it is still a factual statement that defines the place of the group in a larger context. We can revisit irregularity as a discussion topic on the Project, but I'm not sure it's avoidable as a statement, and I'm not sure we can find a non-neutral word, because "irregular" is the word that is universally used to define such groups.
- As for "expert", it applies here because people in any organization are much more aware of things related to it (in both broad and fine terms) than those outside of it. The average person: a) doesn't know and doesn't have easy access to materials that define an organization (bylaws, for example, which in the US would need to be procured from the Articles of Incorporation on file at the relevant State House), b) won't understand contextual meanings, c) can't define the responsibilities of an officer of the organization, d) has no access to materials relating to jurisprudence of the organization, and so on and so forth. There is a lot of specialized knowledge that one gains from being a member of any group, and that specialized knowledge (which is not tied to a person) defines the expert. In many other areas, this knowledge defines how WP:FRINGE is applied, like in global warming or medicine. Those who know more about complex topics should fall into the expert category by virtue of their greater knowledge.
- As far as being tied to a "position", no one is tied to a viewpoint which is not supported by facts and sources. GLNF, for example, is now no longer recognized as regular. That doesn't mean it's "bad" (which would be an opinion and therefore a position, and one which is not taken at any point), just that it has been deemed by others not to meet certain requirements of regularity at present. So a statement of irregularity is a fact, not an opinion of the editors. We don't define it; it is defined for us by others, and we simply use that information. MSJapan (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- On the conspiracy point that is tosh. I just presumed that Sarek didn't act like a jerk by cutting Blueboar off, not that Sarek had bought into Blueboar's half baked scheme to misuse his admin status.
- Sarek needs to recuse himself from Masonic topics (at least those that go past the mainspace and article discussion pages or involve admin tools), and Doncram fell foul of Sarek's COI. If Sarek doesn't recuse himself (and I'm fairly sure he doesn't see his behaviour as a problem here) then he should be told to by someone in authority. I've been guilty of not stating that plainly.
- As for irregular - it was an invalid alternate description that you and Blueboar fought for almost a month to keep. Forget the "fact" that the UGLE considers them irregular, it also considers a lot of other types irregular and you had never found a single plain use of the description. Yet still you fought to keep what Blueboar quite plainly admitted "the term IS from the POV of the Anglo-US mainstream bodies"
- JASpencer (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just butting in here, I seem to remember MSJapan saying on an article talk page that Masons were under a vow of secrecy regarding such matters which they would not discuss without violating an oath, and, as such, could not discuss some matters on wikipedia. Sarek, possibly among others, indicated that anyone who might hold such beliefs would be acting somewhat contrary to WP:POV. But, personally, on that basis, as MSJapan was himself the individual who made that statement, and put in forward in such a way that it indicated he probably held himself to that standard, then I think it would probably serve as a clear indicator that at least he might have serious POV problems regarding this topic as per WP:POV. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. Having no clear first-hand information regarding JASpencer's comments about Sarek and Doncram above other than what is stated, I certainly think it would be reasonable to produce any evidence of possible POV problems with Sarek, or anyone else, at the ArbCom. I don't think it necessarily rises to the level of WP:COI, which as I remember it more or less deals with individuals who have a financial stake in the content under discussion, but it might well present some POV difficulties that perhaps should be addressed. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just butting in here, I seem to remember MSJapan saying on an article talk page that Masons were under a vow of secrecy regarding such matters which they would not discuss without violating an oath, and, as such, could not discuss some matters on wikipedia. Sarek, possibly among others, indicated that anyone who might hold such beliefs would be acting somewhat contrary to WP:POV. But, personally, on that basis, as MSJapan was himself the individual who made that statement, and put in forward in such a way that it indicated he probably held himself to that standard, then I think it would probably serve as a clear indicator that at least he might have serious POV problems regarding this topic as per WP:POV. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon's Lodge, Charleston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charleston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Late evidence
As indicated on the arbcom pages, as you are not a party you must ask permission from X! or Lord Roem before submitting late evidence. Please do so a.s.a.p. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music for the Requiem Mass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lux Aeterna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The article Gavin Brown Clark has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. SarahStierch (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crofters Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent Liberals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, JASpencer, and thank you for your contributions!
An article you worked on The Temperance movement in Australia, appears to be directly copied from http://www.pilates.0rg.pl/?pilates=Temperance_movement. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on The Temperance movement in Australia if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)