User talk:Jahbulon-13

Jahbulon-13, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi Jahbulon-13!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Smith Suggestion[edit]

None of the sources you provided could establish that Cyril Smith was a mason - at best they stated he was employed by "Cambridge Boys Hostel" which in turn was established by Freemasons. I would suggest you read up on WP:RS before you continue editing Wikipedia, as well as the other guidelines and policies. Have a nice day, WegianWarrior (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read and understand WP:RS before continuing to add claims about membership in ANY organisation - and please find sources that states it directly. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it cool to say serious criticism of the Freemason religion, or mention of any its disreputable adherents, is not permitted on Wikipedia?Jahbulon-13 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonery is not a religion, but anything you put in a Wikipedia article - criticism or otherwise - needs to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It is as simple as that, really. The aforementioned WP:RS is a good place to start. Cited sources should also support the claim being made - having read through every source you put up, none of them stated that C Smith was a mason; at best they hinted at some connection between him and the Freemasons, at worst they didn't mention any connection at all.WegianWarrior (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wegian

Thanks for your message, which I am unable to read properly. You have not heard "never a truer word spoken in jest?" How else do you respond to the politicians who say how much they miss Nelson Mandela, when you know full well they called him a terrorist and were trading with South Africa? If you can't take the piss out of them, how do you tell the truth? There's a good cartoon in the latest PE about him and Winnie, maybe I can see it to you . . .. That seems to be how Private Eye, our National Enquirer, gets its messages over.

Wiki must be neutral, sure, but when you call us "anti-Mason" that's not neutral. Personally, I find it upsetting, being the sensitive type . . ..

Personal experience must not cited, that's true, one's own experiences give us good ideas about what can and cannot be referenced, cited, and shown, if not to be true, then worthy of consideration?

Your comment on Cyril Smith that a citation is needed, seems about right to me :) As to the religious, or otherwise, status of Freemasonry, ha ha ha.

Warning. If you persist in your attacks on Freemasons, you risk being blocked. This edit to a section you started is unacceptable, even on a talk page. I've removed the entire section. Your recently speedily deleted userpage is yet another example of your bias and your attacks. Wikipedia is not a place for editors to express such biases.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Royal National Lifeboat Institution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Talk page. It is a fact that Martin Short makes that allegation, that people have a right to know that he does make such an allegation, and that you are trying to stop them from knowing something that is nearly a tautology (i.e., that Martin Short published that allegation in 1989).Jahbulon-13 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please stop - I have noticed that you are engaging in several WP:Edit wars at multiple articles (including, but not limited to:

Edit warring is considered disruptive behavior... and should you continue, it is likely that you will end up having your editing privileges revoked. If another editor removes some bit of information that you have added to an article, do not Edit war to return it... instead go to the relevant talk page and discuss the issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation is not correct. I have merely quoted a widely available publication, properly sourced.Jahbulon-13 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Royal National Lifeboat Institution. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:The Essex Freemason.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:The Essex Freemason.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Super Mario Man 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Internet seems to show the best and worst of human kind, you being one of the best. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let's talk a little bit[edit]

Hello. My Name is Eric. I am a Freemason from North Carolina. I have spent a good deal of time on List of Freemasons. Let's talk about WHY some of your edit's got deleted. Let's look at
* Dr Gerry McCann, father of the late [[Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann|Madeleine McCann]]<ref>http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.fr/2009/06/gerry-mccann-and-freemasons-revisited.html</ref><ref>http://fakedabduction.com/</ref><ref>http://truthformadeleine.com/2012/01/gerrys-tunnel-vision/</ref><ref>http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.fr/2011/07/gordon-brown-madeleine-mccann-and-mason.html</ref>
OK, the first problem is that there is no article about Gerry McCann. There is one about the case involving his daughter's disappearance, but not one about him personally. If there is no article about the person, then they should not be on the list at all.
Second, we’re trying to get away from titles before names such as Dr. It would have been better to say Gerry McCann, Medical Doctor and father of…
Then there is the problem with your cites. OK, two of them are blogs hosted on blogspot. You’re not going to convince ANYONE on Wikipedia that a blog is a good source and you’re never going to convince anyone that anything hosted on Blogspot is not a blog. The other cite, FakedAbduction.com, doesn’t look like a reliable source. It looks like the National Enquirer or something similar.
Finally, while putting links inside <ref>…</ref> is OK, it is preferable to use the {{Cite}} template.
Honestly, if you want to add someone to the list put a post on Talk:List of Freemasons and ask for the person to be added with your sources. If they are good sources we will happily add them. Have a good day. Eric Cable | Talk 18:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eric

Thank you for your message.

Let me see: it does include a brief biography of your Bro. Gerry McCann, found at Gerry_McCann#McCanns.2C_Tapas_Seven. So would using that as the link get over that problem?

Non use of titles: fantastic policy:} I never could convince Tracey that now she's taken up the Ministry, her name in this country is Mrs. Rev. Tracey Day, while Mrs., Miss., and even Ms. are all abbreviations for mistress.

Bro. Gerry McCann is probably better described as a cardiologist? His critics may say all sorts of things about him, but stupid is a lie (you and) I should not tolerate. Cardiology is popular amongst the UK Brotherhood, even the British Heart Foundation's charity (second hand) shops.

It really depends how many blogs and the nature of those blogs, doesn't it? Even so, [1] is not what one normally means by blog, more a web page hosted on a blogging site? We do, of course, have other evidence, but you can reject just about everything as weak, opinionated, unreliable, etc? I know McCann is a Freemason because someone told me, and the circumstances rule out dishonesty, but that's not going to impress anyone.

I don't understand your comment about National Enquirer, as our equivalent, Eye aka Private Eye on Wiki is generally considered relaible, as well as funny, but Americans don't understand humour ;)

I need help setting and then using {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) and <ref>.

I thought your Bro. Gerry was removed because I tried to file him under C rather than Mc.

In general, Wikipedia seems to be infected with a Masonic mafia determined to use every trick to block access to anything seriously critical of Freemasonry, including Martin Short, whom your Herbert G. Gardiner clearly does not believe is a disreputable lunatic who must always be ignored.

Perhaps this is because the Freemason religion is incapable of dealing with the serious criticism put forward by its genuine critics, often described with the "anti-Freemason" Masonic canard?

Masonic Mafia? Eh, there are a couple people who it can seem like they consider themselves to be the Grand Master of Wikipedia, but I think I know the ones you are referring to, and they mean well. A lot of us have spent a lot of time working on the quality of List of Freemasons and while we welcome additions that are well cited, we also try to maintain the integrity of the list.

By National Enquirer I mean that cite seems to be just mean spirited. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and therefore sources should be more or less neutral, or at least peer-reviewed.

Like I said anything that even resembles a blog is going to be a hard sell, not just with the Masonic Wiki community, but he Wiki community in general.

I understand your frustration because you have first-hand knowledge of something. There have been a number of occasions in my Wiki career where I have saids "I know it's true because I was there!" but unfortunately, that's not good enough.

Go to Citation and read through it. Create yourself a sandbox page and experiment. It's not that hard once you get the hang of it. Like I said above, if you post in Talk:List of Freemasons with a request to a a certain person including a link to a cite, we will be happy to make the change.

Cheers, Eric Cable | Talk 15:42, 17 December 2013

As I tried to point out in my edit summaries, and on your talkpage, your additions were removed because your references do not state what you're trying to say; if you're trying to show that Gerry McCann and Cyril Smith were/are Masons, it's useful if the pages you link to say so... And then there is the whole issue with using reliable sources, but Eric have covered that ground pretty well.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough as to why I kept removing your additions, but I hope you understand it's nothing personal. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

A bit of friendly advice Comment[edit]

I appreciate your efforts to improve and expand Wikipedia, but please try to follow core policies and guidelines when you do so. I strongly recommend reading WP:RS and also WP:BLP before you continue to add, otherwise I'm afraid you'll find that most of your hard works will be removed by other editors. I have - against my instincts (I don't like unreferenced names on that list) but to show good faith - left McCann on the list, with a "Citation needed" tag next to it. (edit made at 23:13, 18 December 2013‎ by User:WegianWarrior)

RNLI and Freemasonry - off topic question[edit]

J - This is a bit off topic for the current discussion at the RNLI article, so I will ask it here. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct and the Masons do control the RNLI... Could you explain to me why the Masons would want to do so. What's in it for them? Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, but I should rather not speculate about such matters. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No answer? Fair enough... but if if you can't explain why the Masons might want to control the RNLI, you are not going to convince anyone to accept the idea that the Masons actually do control the RNLI. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of that. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Your comments at Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution are full of attempts to convince people of that. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up! Eric Cable | Talk 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]