User talk:MSJapan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Clarification requested

You said in the discussion of the "Freemasonry" article: "Morris shows a real historical bias that isn't supported by docs regarding precedence of GLs in the US." Could you contact me privately, bmorris@scottishrite.org, with details of how you think I should correct subsequent editions of my CIG to FM? Many thanks! S&F, S. Brent Morris

Assertion re Obligations in Freemasonry AfD

You said "most of the voters who voted keep in the second AfD were later confirmed socks". Please back up this assertion. Which AfD? 13 Jan 2007 or 9 April 2007? Specifically, which users were confirmed as socks? GlassFET 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ami-chan no Hatsukoi

Hitoshi Doi confirms that the kanji are the same. Thanks, Google! --Masamage ♫ 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on a second reading that looks snarky. It wasn't supposed to be; sorry. ^^; It was good to double-check. --Masamage ♫ 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a great help. :) (A lot of the episode summaries are problematic; I haven't had time to get to them, though some others have been hard at work.) --Masamage ♫ 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The latest LB sock

Block bumped up to 3 months... thanks for the good work. Blueboar 13:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

problems with the new template

The new Freemasonry2 template has some formatting problems... 1) for some reason it captures any text that comes after it is inserted and 2) thus ends up spreading all the way across the page... see York Rite as an example. Blueboar 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference?

Hi MSJapan. I think this is impolite. I improved the table of contents template, fixed the spacing and gave the comment a simplification and improvement in tone. I don't think your edit comment was correct. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 05:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit. Hmm, does sound a bit dangerous. There is no harm in one editor adding a name and another adding a citation from the ref section. I can't keep up with the citation system in that article - there are a few of them. The one I proposed is something like the one that SHOULD ;-) should be used. Shall we ask someone for a third opinion? Have a good one. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply this, my fellow wikimedian, it is uncivil. I have recently restored edits that were easily referenced, why not offer to help editors with this - or show by example. ... or ask them!? Too often, someone or other is met with reverts and growling at these articles. People add all sorts of things to all sorts of articles, sometimes vandalism, often potential contributions. The 'given standards' apply everywhere; it has not been explained why this is an exceptional case. I like citations too,  ;-) ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kristi Yamaoka AfDs

You've tried four times now over the last 15 months o have this article deleted. Enough is enough please. If 15 months after the first AfD you've been incapable of demonstrating lack of notability, it isn't going to happen. Continued attempts over and over again to have this deleted serves no purpose. Please, stop. Thank you, --Durin 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stroke order article

I started to rewrite this article, and I need help to correct my proposition Stroke order/Temp (with cleaned up Introduction, summaries of the current sections, but with "Pigeon's English"). If you have time to help, that's welcome. In any case, I agree : The introduction is misleading and need a frank clean up.

For the direction of each stroke, it's not strictly the "stroke order", but try to write strokes in the bad directions... I think the "stroke order" should explain "how write CJK characters", and so, explain briefly the stroke direction may be need.

--Yug (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Greece made comments

The standard scottish ritual is indeed the ritual which is used by the GL of Scotland(it is not as famous as the York rite or the Scottish rite).Beyond the blue lodge, this ritual has bodies like the york rite.But standard scottish ritual differs is many ways from the york rite,concerning the ceremony.It is a very deep ritual,very nice, simple but not casual.Even the tyler is different in a small detail.Anyway,concerning the emulation I don't have many details but I can get some if you want by the next week!In greece there are 2 GL.!The NationalGLGreece and the GLGreece.My GL (NGLG)follows the emulation,the other GL (GLG)follows the scottish rite.My lodge follows the standard scottish rittual as an exception!That is why i know about emulation,but not much.Maybe you have heard about our peculiar little green book(see:the standard scottish ritual).Anyway I will give you further info as soon as possible!

--Iordanis blue 10:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan you were partially right!Emullation ritual exists but it's not a actual ritual like the york or the scottish or the standard scottish!The emulation workings in Greece nevertheless is called the emullation ritual.I'm sorry but you know everyone tells whatever he wants and a general confusion exists above the craft of ours!I told you i was going to answer you in a week but finally it took me two weeks because i was working in a project about the Steward House in scottland and the King George I (quite interesting indeed!)assigned to me by my Mother Lodge.Greetings till next time! ps.I want to contribute to the project.please tell me what to do!

--Iordanis blue 15:25, 05 July 2007 (UTC)

About Blueboar comment (in 5th of July 2007) in the "signs grips and words" section. He asked whether the sentences about the recognition in use prior the mid-1600s sould be removed as non-sequitor,or not. My opinion is that we must refer to our roots and the origins of Freemasonery,because we are not just a club founded in 1717...we come from operative masonery.And in these Lodges of operative Masons maybe the whole concept was different from the modern Lodges, but the central idea was the same.They gathered to build better castles...we gather to build a better world.The modern Freemasonery and the operative Masonery are DIRECTLY connected meanings!It is not our fault that in 1717 when the Premier Grand Lodge of England was founded,English Freemasons destroyed the Medieval Scottish building manuscripts so that they would seem to be the first Freemasons in the history...they got to be kidding!

--Iordanis blue 16:35, 05 July 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan sorry to bother you all the time ! I desided to make a list of Greek Freemasons that are wellknown in Greece(politicians,etc.) and some of them are known to EU and worldwide.I want to ask you something.If I use lists from public pages is it needed to ask permission from the webmaster?what exactly is proper to do?

--Iordanis Blue 16:35, 08 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of All England at York

Do you know anything about this body?... According to their website, they seem to claim jurisdiction throughout England (which UGLE would dispute). They seem to be a "new creation" (started in 2005) claiming old roots and title. I note from their website that they recognize Grand Lodge de France... which UGLE does not... and they seem a bit overly defensive in trying to "prove" themselves older than UGLE. Regular? Irregular? Schismatic? Have also asked ALR who may know more about them. Blueboar 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ALR says they are a schism off of RGLE... work to delete? Blueboar 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati External Links

I think the subsection called "Groups identifying themselves as Illuminati" was a valid subsection of Illuminati and should be returned, especially since some of the groups are specifically mentioned in the article. I noticed that the O.T.O. has a long list of groups referenced in its article. I am sure there are others.

I realize that one of groups was apparently a blog site, but the Orden Illuminati and The Illuminati Order are actual groups that have been around for years. They are established claimants.

The reason given for the section's removal was: "The 'groups' links are nothing but advertising, and there's nothing notable about any of them." The last part is just your opinion with which I obviously disagree, but the first...is not all of this "advertising"? That is, is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "make generally known" a vast array of information? Neither of the sites referenced above are pay sites or openly selling anything.

I reviewed WP:EL. The first item under "What should be linked" says, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." This is an article about an organization. When one tries to view a Wikipedia article of the Bavarian Illuminati or The Illuminati Order, one is redirected to Illuminati. Since the two groups mentioned above do not have their own Wikipedia article, I think it makes sense to include them (and any other valid groups) in the External Links of this article.

JustMe1776 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

<< So which one is accurate? Which one is "right"? >>

Proving the authenticity any particular group is not the purpose of the article. The article begins by saying, "The Illuminati is the name used for several groups, real and fictitious." It continues by discussing some of them them, including the section "Illuminati after 1790."

<< One of those sites is in German... >>

No, it is in Spanish and English. Do not let the German font in the header throw you off. The English version in down the right side of its home page, and an entire section of the site is in English.

Speaking of other languages, one of the citations in the Reference section is in German. If this is a problem, perhaps is should be removed.

<< ...wouldn't it be better to have information in the article than turning the article into a list of links? >>

Yes. I am new to editing Wikipedia. I see your point and agree. I read up on Wikipedia:Embedded citations and used them instead.

Thank you for your time. This has been a valuable learning experience.

JustMe1776 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm

Just checking... is this a legit version of the Grotto or not? Blueboar 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the name again... I thought Grotto was "Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm" while this is "Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm"... I have found that subtle name changes are often an indication of being bogus. The stub says it is the Pittsburgh chapter of the Grotto... but it also says it has a tie with Prince Hall Masonry ... so maybe this is a "black" version of MOVPER or something? Just to make sure we are dealing with a real grotto group. Blueboar 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know what you find out. Blueboar 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... prod is good. If someone objects and we need to go through a formal AFD let me know. Blueboar 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

We should be honored... the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of All England has graced us with his presence (SPLITTER!). He seems to be focused on the History of Freemasonry article at the moment. Just thought I would given you the heads up. Blueboar 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uriginal

Please read my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal and you can find the article not nonsense. よろしく。--Michael Friedrich 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The MFD

I don't define unconstructive as lazy, and people have lives outside of Wikipedia. I define unconstructive as adding cruft information into articles and like behavior, not userbox pimping. --DodgerOfZion 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me why exactly you were trying to tear me down in the MFD? Also yes they are cluttered but why should we delete a subpage that is clearly not causing harm? MAJ5 ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tact

Hi MSJ, hope everything else is well. Your approach, in my opinion, would only delight disruptive and combative editors, I find it unproductive and, frankly, pompous arrogance. I hope that you might take a different tack in future, I have been unable to discern any cause for your ungentlemanly manner toward myself, or any other editor. Any genuinely 'blockable' editor, you may have met in the past, is not cause to bite all and sundry. Try to adapt the ethic of another community, you may belong to, here. Please consider this, I'm sure it will serve you well in 'Wikipedia:' and 'User talk:' space, whom ever you meet. I'll get out of your way now. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue I raised above, I haven't contributed to that discussion. I had read it and read it again, it could be an example of biting two new users. My previous discussions with you have been unproductive, but I am left enough - with your bold statements and actions - to make some reasonable assumptions. Was it a standard note or yours? I'm assuming it the former, so I haven't looked. Anyway, I suppose I will just avoid your articles and deletion discussions in the future; congratulations on that, however policy suggests I should also avoid giving you an award. You deserve one for the 'subtractions'. Drop me a note if I happen to blunder into another of your interests. I hope you can find a way to improve the project, try adding to main space a bit more. And so Sir, I bid you (with a tone of finality), Good Day! ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That has little bearing on the substance of my complaints, or previous requests for explanations or retractions. Please do not contact me again. Thanks. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

Heads up:

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero#Origins and youth

"His paternal grandfather, Juan Rodríguez Lozano, was a Freemason and ".... Grye 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

LB is back again

Put in his usual holocaust denial at Freemasonry, and a typical comment on the talk page. I ran the ISP and it matches. Blueboar 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Centennial Group

Hi MSJapan. I understand that you had helped to check on the above article. I have spend some time to edit it and hopefully it meets the mark. I'm still a newbie to Wikipedia hence your comments would be appreciated deeply. Sg wiki editor 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Centennial Group

Hi MSJapan, you have given me a warning for having flagged this site for deletion. Considering the seniority of you in WIKI I would accept it, but would like ot understand what i have been flagged for. WIKI is not to be used for directories. 1. To be listed as a "major company" in Singapore, woudl you agree that its net worth should be of a significant amount, and it impacts many lives.
2. Small time company making miserable dollars are using WIKI to have their links plastered everywhere on WIKI, so that google can pick it up and boost their ranking, is a shameless way of getting better ranking on SEO, do you condone such actions?
3. I own [1] take a look at his ALEXA ranking and mine compared over 3 years.. I started in June last year and you decide if I am trying to vandalise or trying to tidy up this place like yourself.
4. take a look at the users. He created at least 2 to 3 accounts for himself to edit the site!
IS THIS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WIKI EPITOMIZES? smartvirtualoffice 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It is only categorised as "Companies of Singapore". Take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP. 2&3. I'm not sure why you keep on squabbling about Alexa or Google ranking. 4. The passwords of two previous accounts - petertan_singapore and singapore_editor were forgotten. On a glance, the first account was used to write up the article while the second account only did minor edits in terms of grammatical error. It was not created as a sock puppet or used for any activities that violate Wikipedia policies. Sg wiki editor 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Learning to help WIKI

Hi MGJapan, Genki Desu.... I would like to learn how to help you police this site the right way.. care to show the light... smartvirtualoffice

Pacific Centennial Group

Thanks for your reply, MS. Two reasons which you mentioned - the age of business and the state of business. For the first reason, I feel that it has no merit as businesses, whether young or old, do have encyclopedic value. For example (of age) - Between a 20 years old company and a 2 years old company, should we discriminate the younger one even though it may achieve much more significant presence in the industry it is involved in? Since it's highly subjective and I just feel that age may not be a sufficient reason to weigh notability. For the second reason, it is also highly subjective and complicated. Such a reason for deletion means that if anything that has "died" should be "removed", many articles in Wikipedia falls into this category.

BTW, the company was established in June 2003 and after 3 years and 10 months, it was sold. Just short of 2 months away. And in nowhere within WP:N has indicated that age makes a difference. Instead, I believe that many articles have their own merits and their historical values. Back to being notable, the reason of notability is to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't become a directory or listing of information has nobody cares for. That's why it stated - "worthy to be notice". As stated, I am able to produce the email which I received from National Library Board of Singapore on 11 June 2007, whom wish to preserve our website. However, I'm just wary of certain over-aggressive users who might exploit the situation for their own agenda. Still, if you do need the email for verification, do let me know.

Sorry to take up so much of your time because of these unnecessary flames. I appreciate your kind comments, and will strive hard to ensure that future articles is of quality. Sg wiki editor 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Companies

I agree that Pacific Centennial wasn't a worthwhile addition to a list, but if editing of a list isn't restricted, neither you nor I can keep that from happening. Deleting the entire list seems to be an extreme measure. If the material is duplicated elsewhere, seems like a redirect is the answer. Mandsford 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm extremely sorry about this. In the list - Companies of Singapore, I didn't realized that the list is for MAJOR PUBLIC-LISTED companies. I agree that Pacific Centennial Group is like other millions of small-medium businesses everywhere, with thousands opening up everyday. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory (we got Yellow Pages for that). To me, Wikipedia is just like Google but only with information that is verified correct. Users come in to search for information and expects that it has been properly researched.

Anyway as for being a small company, it is stated in Wikipedia: Notability [2] -

Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Hence, being notable is highly subjective. Pacific Centennial Group is a small company with lesser available information. Still, it has achieved certain prominence within the industry. Thanks for your comments.Sg wiki editor 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sale, Greater Manchester article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your copy-edit. I wonder if you could also have a look at Jackie Chan‎, which is also an FAC. Thanks. Epbr123 10:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Burnaby Masonic Reference

It’s just a little booklet I got from the Grand Lodge. I couldn’t find an individual author or an ICBN #, but it is available on their website [[3]] if you want to look. The lodge seems to be the author of the booklet, but it credits the section I used as “Gleaned from John T. Marshall, History of the Grand Lodge of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1971”

Alternatively, we could cite:

• Robie L. Reid, Historical Notes and Biographical Sketches 1848 - 1935 "Bio of Robert Burnaby" at Grand Lodge BC & Yukon website
• Madge Wolfenden, "Robert Burnaby" at Dictionary of Canadian Biography online, 2000

Stevecudmore 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead

Go ahead and delete my page. I already started a new account and you don't know what it is so I don't care. It won't do any good. You would actually benefit me, because I don't know how to delete it myself. I not only want you to delete my page, I strongly encourage it.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Somehow the faked signature didn't trick me. User and talk pages redirected. Try to contribute this time. MSJapan 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Socks

You should use proper channels, i.e. WP:SSP, if you suspect sockpuppetry. It's NOT sockpuppetry to stop using one account and start using a new one, only to continue to use both... GlassFET 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S., proper use of SSP and the associated sockpuppet tags leaves a better documentation trail than making redirects based on assumption... GlassFET 18:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right. Still, following process is the best way to leave a paper trail and use it to quickly shut down new socks. AN/I is good, but SSP is better. My opinion only, of course, do as you will. GlassFET 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's best to create the SSP, tag the socks, then post on AN/I. While the backlog is discouraging, obvious ongoing sockpuppetry does get attention as long as you bring it up on AN/I with a link to the SSP. And having the SSP to point to when the inevitable new sock pops up really speeds up the process... GlassFET 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For example, the Emnx socks took 3 SSPs and 2 checkusers, but it seems to have given up due to the rapidity of being shut down. If the socks get to play for a week or two before they are blocked, it simply encourages them to keep it up... GlassFET 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Given your recent comments at AN/I, you should be aware of this. Eusebeus 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You can endorse other views if you feel they are accurate; you can also add your own view (semi-involved, most likely), if you feel that you have had an involvement or interaction that is different or which you feel substantiates the evidence adduced. Eusebeus 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycling Wikiproject

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Names and sigs

As far as I know there is no rule to stop a sig that has nothing to do with the username. There was even an admin candidate who had a very different name and sig recently. And there's no hard and fast rules about what the sig has to be, people try all sorts of experiments! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That guideline is only about the username, not the sig. WP:Signature states "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents". So it is not absolute, and you should just take it up with them on their talk page. And it certainly wasn't a case for WP:UFAA which is only about the username, not the sig. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Golden Dawn groups

There's a history to the whole thing. The "new" Golden Dawn groups were once all together in their own article. One particular group was edit warring over it, moving their group to the top and adding derogatory information to the sections on the other groups. Somebody split them up and eventually the warring stopped. Another reason, self-published sources can only be used in an article on the subject. When they are combined, technically, such self-published sources can't be used, but what actually happens is that the one group uses self-published derogatory information about the other groups. Now they can't. If the article is deleted and it is merged into the main article, the edit wars will start all over again. From what I read on the talk pages, the person who created most of the articles was not a member of any of them, so there doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest, for what it's worth... IPSOS (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the ones with articles are all viable working orders. There are many more that most likely fit your description, but they were either never created or have already been deleted. IPSOS (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Madras Bulls prod

I thought I'd let you know that Madras Bulls has previously survived prod[4]. You might try AfD instead. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

letting go

Ok, ok... but it would have been fun to find out how my edit fits the definition of vandalism. I am always willing to learn, after all.  :>) Blueboar 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok... you removed sourced and relevant information that presents an integral component of the article in encyclopedic light. It is removal of content that results in compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. :>) Watchtower Sentinel 19:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

re; More on Watchtower.... copied from my talkpage

You know, I went back through his contribs (before today's debacle), and I find him making similar arguments over an MfD CambridgeBayWeather started on a page of WS's: "ignorance of policy", "stretching policy for his own ends", an instance of canvassing, and that's only on the first page of contribs. He got hung up on User:Hamsacharya dan for a bit, to the point where he was named in an SSP. The diffs aren't important for purposes of my argument here (though I'll certainly go get them), but I'm thinking that this Joseph Smith issue is simply an instance of a pattern of behavior, which is pretty sad as the account is only a few months old (14 March 2007, first four edits were reverts). Seems socky to me, but that's another issue; it's the pattern of behavior that concerns me, and it's not the behavior of our usual suspects, so it's not one of them. MSJapan 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps this is something to bring up on the WP:ANI thread, the repetitive behaviour when an edit is (part) reverted. I would then let other admins draw their own conclusions. I also note that Watchtower Sentinel has not edited for a couple of hours, so I am content to see if (s)he continues to provide their own rope. LessHeard vanU 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping cool and helping me do the same. FYI... In case you wonder where I am next week... I'm on a much needed real life Vacation. The bad side - No Wikipedia (no internet).... the good side - no idiots to deal with. Mind the store while I'm away. Blueboar 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do NOT leave ANY comments on my page, or alter it in ANY way.Lestervee 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tau

Why did you revert the two edits I made on the Tau (Warhammer 40,000) page? The first one was to fix a formatting error (there were two opening brakets, and only one closing), and the second linked to a page for the human mercenrys (Gue'vesa?) that was started due to a mention on the Tau talk page.

If you think these edits are in error, tat's fine, but please give a reason. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for getting back. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Soul Drinkers

I'd left the edit to Soul Drinkers up, as I was unsure wheter this was information from the new book about them that Black Library released this year. I'd left a message for the editor to provide a reference. I haven't added it back though, as I was alittle dubous myself. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati

GlassFET took the MJ12 link out, but I've removed it before as well - it was a US government project, and therefore in no way meets the definition of Illuminati. MSJapan 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. Thanks anyway. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Knights of the North

I deleted and salted Knights of the North earlier today, per your request on the admin intervention board. I also salted Knights Of The North as an alternate title. Has this article been showing up anywhere else? I can go ahead and protect those variants also. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry/holocaust

Thanks... I was surprised to see all of that in the article... and I figured my edit would draw attention to the section if it was not legit. The only reason why I didn't just delete the entire paragraph was that since I was away on vacation (and thus out of touch with the article) I had to suppose that it could have been result of some legit compromise. Now that I have had a bit of time to look through the history and diffs, and check the edits of those participating, I see that we are dealing with a LB sock. Looks like you had a busy week.

I'm back from vacation now... so will be able to follow what is going on more closely. Blueboar 00:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"fire education"

You know, I saw that comment about the "burining girl" over on VP as I was scrolling down, and I felt compelled to tell you how disturbingly funny it was. If I can find a flaming barnstar, you certainly deserve it! MSJapan 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I aim to please. To please and horrify. And there are few greater pleasures than pulling off an outrageous stunt for a perfectly valid reason. *grin* Re barnstar: Since you asked, I'm sure there is one - especially as an all-purpose one seems to have been introduced - but I'd rather at least delay it until I've written that actual article. If a Surreal Barnstar seems more appropriate, please delay that until I've brought Finnish profanity to at least "B" - status. I like to feel that I've earned them. :P --Kizor 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

It is best to go careful about what is done at checkuser. This is a reccomendation as a friend. I see you moved a case to declined. As far as I know, that is generally done by checkusers. You cannot decline a rfcu case unless you have checkuser status. Please again go careful with this. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way! Thanks for volunteering at RFCU! It is a dirty job but somebodies gotta do it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Its no big thing! I knew you were acting in god faith! But RFCU is a dangerous area to make a mistake! It would be like an officer walking into an evidence room out and blowing his nose on some evidence! It is no big deal though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

I'd recommend that you review the procedures before you proceed. Clerks can not delcine requests, they can remove non-compliant requests to the NC section. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category

Hi MSJ, you asked about the 50000 category and asked me to remove it from my user page. I don't want to be a pest about a category, but can you explain what harm it does? Or is it duplicated somewhere that I'm unaware of? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Hey there. Not a big deal, as you are a new clerk, but clerks are never supposed to use any templates marked as UBCO on the procedures page. You can use  Delisted, to move a request down to non-compliant, but don't add the  Declined template ever. It confuses people who have never used RFCU before, to thinking that you may be a CU. GrooveDog (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Albert Pike

Thanks for the heads up, I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye open. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Masonic Links

I have modified the image to include a small version as well as the large, keep in mind that the small version does not illustrate the text that the large version does. Many of Brethren with vision issues find the large image better to see the text. S&F Gordon MacNay, webmaster for www.corinthianlodge.com & www.georgian-south.org

Note left on user's page. MSJapan 02:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

The code letters you provided on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skatewalk are somewhat mutually exclusive, but aside from that, you need to provide diffs to show the 3RR and the pattern of behavior. MSJapan 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:26 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Check again. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:12 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Prod

You aren't too clear on how PROD works, my friend. It's pretty odd to try and uphold a prod "on principle" -- undeletion of expired prods (no matter how old) is automatic on request, so there is no principle to uphold. Also, having an admin review the PROD is the key part of the process at the end of five days. Just AfD it, for heaven's sake. Best wishes Xoloz 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious me -- for an Eagle Scout, and fellow Harvardian -- your arguments are fairly poor. I last read the PROD guidelines when they were written, so I have no idea what minutiae might have snuck in there, but the intent of the system was that any objection would cause an AfD. The continuing practice of automatic undeletion on request at DRV makes this clear. Would you like me to delete the thing, then automatically undelete it one second later per my own request? Obviously, that would be nutty. If the guideline's text has been altered to say otherwise, it should be changed back or ignored. Finally, the idea that an admin would be compelled to delete something without exercising his own judgment as to whether it should be deleted is also rather absurd -- admins delete PRODs, and before we do, we are expected to examine them, as we are expected to do when we delete anything, ever. However well you know the text of the guideline, you clearly haven't thought out the purpose of the system.

If you consider it too great an inconvenience to send the article to AfD, let someone else do it, or let the article remain. AfDing something takes a little less than a minute on a slow modem, so I don't think the cost to you is very great, if you truly believe the content should go. Xoloz 05:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags of that sort have no authority. The sourcing tag was incorrectly placed; the article has sources, the question is whether they are sufficient. The notability tag is the expression of the opinion of the person who placed it, nothing more or less.

Make no mistake -- the article is not good, and stands a very good chance of being deleted at AfD. However, AfDs can attract attention; sometimes marvelous rewrites happen within those five days. The article was sufficiently sourced to meet basic WP:V problems. In my judgments, the sources -- though not very good -- provided enough evidence to indicate that the article deserved a chance at AfD. It is quite possible that those few press mentions expanded into greater coverage: a full AfD will give supporters final notice, and time to adduce the additional sourcing. Give good-faith content every chance, I say -- "when in doubt, don't delete" is the cornerstone of WP's deletion policy for a reason.

PROD is meant to be an easy, laid-back, wiki-friendly process -- I know, because I saw my friend User:Radiant! design it. The deletions happen without fuss, and the undeletions do too. If anyone has the slightest good-faith concern, AfD is the way to go. I do have good faith concern. Trust me, as a guy who does automatic PROD undeletions every day at DRV, that article is much better than some of the things that get called up to AfD. AfDs are good things, you know; Wikipedia only has PROD because the rate of article creation became too large. PROD handles the flotsam; and, by design, only the flotsam. This is why your view of PROD -- One must delete after five days! Process demands it! -- struck me as so bizarre. I absolutely guarantee you that the system was not designed or implemented with such a concept in mind. I'd stake my life on it, as Radiant! -- the father of PROD -- is among the least process-wonky people I know. I mean that in the best sense, despite being myself more of a process-oriented person than the average admin, I think. Still, I would never dream of asking admins to treat PROD as if they were robots, and delete PRODDed items without evaluating them. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is the relevant guideline (emphasis mine):

Procedure for administrators

• If you are an administrator deciding whether or not to delete a PRODed article:
  1. Check that the tag has been in place continuously for at least 5 days and no objections have been raised on the talk page.
  2. If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator, not just expired prod. This is because once the article is deleted, the reason for the prod is no longer visible to non-admins. If you are using an automated script, check that it does not leave an inadequate message.
  • If you decide not to delete it, consider editing the article to deal with the concerns that were raised, or nominating the article for deletion on AfD.

On the second point, the italicized consider, I did so consider, and I rejected both those alternatives. Since the article does not offend WP:V, I personally have no problem giving editors a month or two more to provide better sources. Even as it stands, the article isn't awful, just trivial. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Masonic Cleanup

Thanks so much for the help with the Lewis Masonic cleanup. I don't know much about the subject, so I'm thankful for the assistance. Lenore Schwartz 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been here that long, but I'll support that decision for throwing the article out. Lenore Schwartz 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy of Triangles

I have been looking into the conspiracy thing... almost the exact same proposal was put forward in Jan of 06, with the same arguments ... and soundly rejected. Which basicly tells me that you are right and I should not waste more time on it. I suppose it is sort of like watching a train wreck... morbidly fastinating. On Triangles... I agree. No way we are going to get any independant sources on this... so go ahead and AFD it again... I will support. About the best we could do (as a brotherly sop to those who are involved in the org) would be to include it in the list of Masonic Youth orgs without a wikilink. Blueboar 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Grand Lodges

I can't seem to find sources for the founding date of some GLs... so I am giving up on the idea of demonstrating the developement and "lineage" of mainstream Freemasonry through this list. The article will never be complete. I will support if you want to AfD it. Blueboar 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I Looked on the websites and at seals... most of the missing ones don't include the founding date anywhere. If you want to take over the page and look for the info, I don't mind. The concept of a "by date" list is still valid... I just can't execute it. Your call. Blueboar 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:RFCU

My evidence is on a deleted page. Did you read the SSP? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to know ...

You have been reported for 3RR by User:Muntuwandi. See here. Thought you might want to know. Regards.PelleSmith 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This was your third 3RR violation so a long block is indicated but it has been some months since you were last blocked and I can see that you have attempted to reach an agreement on the article talk page. I have therefore settled on 48 hours. I am willing to unblock you if you undertake not to edit Religion until after your block was due to expire. If you agree to this please use the {{unblock}} template or leave a note under this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a technicality - I clearly explained the problem after the second revert, Muntu persisted, I reverted the source that was cited badly and left the other, and then I checked the sources to find out what they were really about. It turned out the sources were bad (as I also explained in detail on talk), so I reverted again to take out the source I hadn't taken out originally. I actually haven't been blocked as of yet, but the proposition is fair - I don't even have a need to edit the article at all as long as the content being added is accurate. In fact, I haven't touched it since Muntuwandi stopped trying to add that material to it, and I didn't even notice the gaming. MSJapan 15:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason the block didn't take. I'm not going to redo it because you have agreed to leave the article alone but 3RR is not technical - you were revert warring and reverted 4 times within 24 hours. The point of the exercise is to draw a line that you mustn't cross. You crossed it. Please take more care next time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Gundor Twintle Fluffy

Recently, Gundor Twintle Fluffy was accused of sockpuppetry. Gundor is one of my coleagues. You can believe me or not. But I have information about him that you may be interested in. You can block me and not believe me, or you can believe me. If you don't, you'll have wrongfully accused certain users and that will cause trouble. Whether you believe me or not, and in case you decide to block me, Dark Lord Dylan is innocent. If you want the whole story, contact me.--Kondrayus 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for direction

I found that you are a clerk for checkuser requests. I would like to file one that involves Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) and Ksy92003 (talk · contribs). I believe that there is some potential overlap - maybe not full on socks, but perhaps meatpuppets. There is an occasional disagreement between the two, but they both have behaved very similarly in discussions with me. Because of the request for "evidence", I'm just not sure how to proceed. This is a widespread issue that relates to everyting from article content, to behavior, to RFCs on Chris, and just a slew of issues. Would you be willing to help me present the checkuser request? It will probably take a bit of discussion on our part as I need to catch you up to speed on what's going on. The two of them are at my throats and it's pretty hot in here so to speak. I've marked this page for watching, so if it's easy to keep the discussion here - i'll gladly just follow the changes. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am a clerk, and I'll certainly help you out. First things first: put simply, evidence is what you are showing the CU to give him/her a reason to do the CU in the first place. Therefore, everything you mentioned should be included, but briefly, meaning you add a link or a diff, say something regarding it, and move on to the next piece. If the CU wants to take a closer look at any given piece, the CU will do so, so you don't need to delve into minutiae. Also, if you think this will be long and involved, start the RFCU on a user subpage, and don't file it until it's complete. To begin with, start itemizing things, and go from there. Let me know when you need help. MSJapan 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It will be long and involved, but it *shouldn't* be and I think that's my major problem. Standard practice for this whole fiasco is for one reason or another - i'm the one forced to go to ANI or DR and put out all the effort and it is taxing to say the least. Anyway, thanks for your help - we'll see what happens. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have abandoned this for now. I just don't have the time to adhere to more "wiki procedure" when all my attempts in the first place are being down right ignored. I am in the process of intentionally following WP:IAR to keep this situation contained. It's going to get me banned a lot, but i am so exhausted by all the failed discussions with these people i don't know what to do. These guys just can't have a focused and polite discussion without being offensive or rude. One of the users has been warned 5 times in the past week or so about his personal attacks and yet, i'm still having to tip toe around him, and nobody wants to suspend him.. None of this really matters, i'm just sick of this childishness to being dealt with and i'm venting. Thanks for your offer to help, sorry to waste your time.. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because you are lying. If anyone behaves childishly here, it's you. And everyone else knows it. You edit war, you take templates hostage, you make false accusations and reports, you don't take responsibility for your actions.►Chris Nelson 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have this happen MSJapan, if you want to get involved, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson and Template:Infobox NFLactive (links, talk) (with special attention to the archive). Beyond that, I have no intention of carrying on a conversation here unless you need something from me. Thanks for your time. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read the RFC, there's clearly an escalation problem here, and it seems to be on both sides. Also, neither of you is presenting a middle-of-the-road option, which might solve the problem; instead, you both are taking a "my way or no way" approach. The bottom line to all of this would be that you both need to engage in civil discussion to solve the problem, instead of PA and accusations. However, fundamentally, you're trying to improve articles at cross-purposes. Why not take the opportunity to leave things alone for a few days, come back, assume a clean slate and actually discuss the issues methodically and rationally, and actually listen to what each of you has to say? MSJapan 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I've suggested many middle of the road suggestions on all of the topics and even took a self-imposed wikiban to all mainspace articles. I would love to engage in friendly discussion, but it's next to impossible when i get called mentally unstable (multiple times) and he gets nothing but endless warnings. I removed myself - the problem didn't go away. As an interesting side note, the other user involved and I have seemed to make quite a breakthrough - all it took was a little friendly discussion. Take a look on my talk page to see how it transpired. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with WP:SOCK

Hello MSJapan, I noticed that you made a comment on the Theresa Knott talk page, and figured you might know something about the problem of Sock Puppetry.

I believe that a page I created (Erin Burnett) is being vandalized by one or more Sock Puppets, who are very intent on causing harm to the person.

I made a list of the edits and the IP address locations. You'll note, the same information is being put back in place by anonymous users from multiple locations. If you go to the bottom of my discussion page *[5], you'll see the list I've made is under the title 'WP:SOCK/WP:CHECKUSER Request'.

Anyway, I already have a WP:CHECKUSER request in place, but I was hoping to get some feedback from an experience person. Thank you. - ICarriere 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient vs. Antient

We seem to be having a project wide revert war over whether to use "Ancient" (with a "c") or "Antient" (with a "t"). We need to hammer this out and reach a consensus, and we should do so in one central location. Since this impacts several articles, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Ancients vs. Antients... consensus? to be that central location. Please discuss at that thread. Thank you, Blueboar 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User page

If what you told me is the case, then I'll leave my page blank. VoL†ro/\/Force 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Freemasonry

There is not one specific source for the assertion that Freemasonry is tolerant of religious and political differences. I rely generally on the following historical facts, which are well-established.

The Masonic Ritual authorizes the use of any "holy writing" of any religion when a candidate is obligated to the fraternity, and thereby tolerates all religious affiliations. Sectarian religious or political discussion is not permitted during open lodge out of respect for each member's own personal beliefs. In addition Freemasons use the designation Great Architect of the Universe when referring to the Supreme Being, in order to avoid any sectarian connotation.

It is a well-established fact that a large minority (if not majority) of the congressman who enacted the United States Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty and freedom of expression) were Freemasons. Finally, the appendant bodies of the Scottish Rite and the Shriners will not permit membership unless the applicant swears to uphold the separation of church and state (at least in the United States; in the United Kingdom, the state religion is the Anglican Church and British Freemasons are not expected to disavow its affiliation with the state).

In addition the earliest Freemasons (e.g. Robert Moray) were students of John Locke and professed his doctrines of religious and political tolerance. This is supported by a long tradition of advocacy by Freemasons of religious and political freedoms in countries governed by totalitarian or authoritarian regims, which is why Freemasonry is usually outlawed or persecuted in those countries. Lottamiata 07:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Inferences are permissible

The manner in which you raised your concern caused me to think you might have your own bias in regard to the assertion I made with respect to Masonic values. To argue that an inference from fact may not be asserted without further authority (otherwise the inference would not itself be factual) would make it virtually impossible to write much of what is contained in Wikipedia. If I stated in an article: "the sun rises in the morning," will you then delete that assertion because I have not cited a source of authority for what is obviously true? Some facts are so well known that inferences are permissible without a specific citation to authority. All of the facts I have stated to support my assertion that Freemasons value religious tolerance are beyond dispute. Therefore, the inference I made regarding Masonic values is logically permissible.Lottamiata 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But thanks for the well-placed concern over editorial content. :) I appreciate it.Lottamiata 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for trying to help out

Your tone could stand to be less biting, FYI. Italia^vivi 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the user's request is still there, save that it's now been plugged into a different section. Italia^vivi 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Just as an FYI. Bigglove modified a completed RFCU to submit the request to be run on himself.[6] User:Italiavivi was just trying to cleanup the submittal so that the completed RFCU was kept separate from the new RFCU created by Bigglove. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues with your RFCU clerking

I have a few concerns with the way you have handled Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Isarig. Firstly, I would like to point out that nowhere are non-clerks prohibited from listing cases - clerks are asked to help with listing cases but have no monopoly over this function. Your decision to remove this case from WP:RFCU seems to be overstepping the bounds of clerk authority [7]. Nowhere at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Procedures#Non-compliant_requests are clerks requested to remove cases they do not believe meet the CheckUser policy - such removals are expressly reserved for situations where certain procedural elements are not present - diffs, code letters etc. It seems to me that it was for a checkuser to decide whether or not in their interpretation of that policy the request should be performed. You made a judgment on the merits - which expressly should not be done. In addition, this response to a good faith edit seems extremely hostile and bitey. Finally, I am amazed that having delisted his request, you have made no effort to contact User:Bigglove and explain in what way you find that request difficient. His recent edit to the page show that he is utterly confused as to what he has done wrong. I am hoping that this incident has been aberration on your part - I remind you that clerks are there to assist both checkusers and other editors and hold no special status. WjBscribe 07:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept that you were acting as you thought best, but I still think the matter could have been handled better. The request in this form is correctly formatted and contains all procedurally required information. It would have been fine to just remove the transclusion of it from the "completed" section and archive the second Isarig request (and yes, I archived that request). A checkuser could then have addressed this third request in regards to Isarig. The discretion of clerks to delist cases is a very narrow one. The "non-compliant" section was brought in at the request of checkuser UninvitedCompany in March. Concerns were raised that this could lead to clerks usurping the role of checkusers and making decisions as to the merits of case. In response to this, it was agreed that delisting would happen only where procedural elements were lacking (e.g. diffs, code letters) but that clerks should not delist cases because they perceived them as being without merit. You delisted the case due to your opinion that it does not meet the CheckUser policy - that's a judgment of the merits of the case, not a procedural point, and therefore was a call that should have been defered to a checkuser. The two edits that Italiavivi made in relation to the request were helpful - he formatted the case correctly and listed it - I cannot see how any message on his talkpage could justify so blunt a message being left for him. Your opinion of someone's action elsewhere shouldn't be a factor when you clerk the request - if your views of them are such that you cannot do so impartial, I recommend you recuse yourself form clerking that case. If you have problems with Italiavivi's conduct - raise it in the appropriate place, but please don't let that influence you when you are acting as a clerk. I understand that your misunderstanding that only clerks could list cases stems from an earlier incident but I think in light of it, a more conciliatory approach would be appropriate. The existence of clerks is flagged up so people know where to go for help and to explain why others may make changes to their request - nothing more. WjBscribe 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tiptoety

Yeah, sorry if I came off as a little brusque. As Scientizzle pointed out at the RfA, it appears obvious that Tiptoety merely forgot (or didn't know about) transcluding the subpage. As Scientizzle also said, notifying Tiptoety would have been a good idea, but nevermind, you were being bold and that's generally the right thing. —AldeBaer 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Rite

I reverted it because the time magazine citation i found regarding FDR states merely that he was a 32nd degree mason. I noticed after you made the change, that somebody came along and changed my citation to a fact tag. Ive seen these kinds of verifiable facts regarding powerful people and secret organizations nitpicked out of existence many, many times. If you can to find a smooth way to integrate that specific fact into the passage, please do. "Scotch Rite Mason" sounds awfully sexy, but this isnt an article about freemasonry specifically. i think the fact as it stands is enough, and is important enough that it shouldnt be compromised with errata. --PopeFauveXXIII 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

i see that you've rv'd the passage. Im going to watch the article. if mr. anonIP comes along and messes with it again, im going to change it back to my wording and i think it should stand in that case. --PopeFauveXXIII 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Visual Kei

There is a call for comments at the Visual kei article, I see you have worked on the article before, and wondered if you would like to participate in the discussion. Denaar 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My RFCU

I'm not certain what you're looking for...the edit log for the Alpha Phi Omega page should have all the diffs...are you wanting me to cite the specific ones? If so, I'm not sure how to do that...please reply on my talk page :) Justinm1978 17:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion to change of Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine by 216.164.29.35 (me)

OK, I get that you're not supposed to use "anecdotal" information, but the Shriners Hospitals for Children entry even states "Children accepted for treatment become part of the Shriners Hospital system until their 18th birthday, and sometimes their 21st". Was the entire revision neccessary, or couldn't you just remove the "This is usually in the interest of further observation of the results of an experimental procedure." line?

As for the anecdotal nature of that line, you yourself said that it's documented somewhere, shouldn't that be found and cited? I personally can't even find a reference to allowing a patient treatment when they're over 18. So if you're gonna revert, you might as well get both pages.

I put the address is in the comment of the change you reverted, just in case anyone had a question/comment about my change. Please reply by way of said address, as I probably won't be back to this page otherwise.

- pegasus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.29.35 (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal squad numbers from UEFA

The numebrs for Gibbs, Randall and Rodgers are all taken from this which is an official UEFA briefing for the competition of the players the club has registered and given to the press, so I think it can be taken as an authoritative source. Up until now I have reverted such changes, and I was less keen on the website version as it had errors and could have included last season's nos. for all I knew, but this version looks pretty kosher to me. Qwghlm 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your recent removal of my wikibreak template

Hi,

I noticed that you have removed the wikibreak template from my userpage. Originally, I was going to take a break. Anyways, that's ok, I do not have a problem with you taking off my wikibreak template for that reason. BTW, a user who goes by Bakasuprman is in the same boat as I am. He has enabled a similar wikibreak template on his userpage here as of July 25, 2007, but has been editing ever since here. Is there something you could do about this? Regards. Wiki Raja 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)