Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
These two articles are clearly about the same organisation. Which should be the redirect? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The article should be Prince Hall National Grand Lodge It is consistent with the sources as posted on the Prince Hall Freemasonry. There is a lingering Bitter contention from those whose lineage of the faction which left the National Grand Lodge and they see themselves editing the post by redirecting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user
- Well, we have a content forking problem, as the articles no longer resemble each other. The older one takes precedence, unless the newer article has the correct proper name. I'll drop a line on ANI for best course of action. MSJapan (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was told at ANI that this was a content problem, but I'm not sure how to fix it offhand - there was an article moved and deleted. I don't know where to go with this one. MSJapan (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest Merging both articles back into the broader Prince Hall Freemasonry article... use the material from both articles to create a stronger (more informative) section about the schism and the resulting two branches. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was told at ANI that this was a content problem, but I'm not sure how to fix it offhand - there was an article moved and deleted. I don't know where to go with this one. MSJapan (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Merging into Prince Hall would cause a great deal of offence to both the PH and the National parties, and possibly drag more editors into an ongoing edit war which currently has only two protagonists. National Grand Lodge is the shortest term used on their website, and is my favourite. Deleting unsourced and partisan material will probably make the articles look very similar.
- As mentioned, the articles are currently a battleground between two partisan editors. We, as a project, need to take ownership of this problem. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, then let's do this: We need to post on both articles that editing needs to stop for the present - whatever state it's in, even if it's "wrong" is where it will stay. We then need to create a neutral subpage here under the project talk, because hosting the discussion on one or the other page will also cause incitement. We then need to get the parties in there, making sure they know we're here as experienced Masonic editors, with no bias one way or the other. We will have them explain the issue as they each see it, explain the relevant WP policies that are involved, and mediate some sort of agreement. 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- One recent duplicate (National Grand Lodge of 1847) has been deleted, and the other recent duplicate (Prince Hall National Grand Lodge) has been re-directed to the original, and an admin alerted so that this does not recur. This should resolve the matter. If an editor believes the article should be renamed, they need to go through all of the precise steps in WP:RM. Aceumus is warned that if he continues his article duplications and disruptive editing, he will be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello this is BSidepro. I am the original author of Prince Hall National Grand Lodge which was redirected as National Grand Lodge. Snowycats and Fiddlersmouth it is highly constructive that the original title of Prince Hall National Grand Lodge remain. On the Prince Hall Freemasonry wikipage, the link to, when discussing the article refers to my page as Prince Hall National Grand Lodge. I, in my actions was only replacing the original title. This page has been the target of various cases of vandalism and I owuld like to preserve the integrity of the Page.
- It is possible that informal dispute resolution might be effective here. The first priority, to my eyes, would be to establish if it is in fact the case that the two different PH lodges are both individually notable, and whether there is enough substantive content for them to exist as separate, stand-alone articles. WP:DRN might be one of the better places to go to get some editors who might be uninvolved involved in a productive way. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I for one want a reasoning behind the differences other than "I think they can't be called that" - the wikilinks update through redirect anyway, so the title is the last thing I'm concerned about right now. I want to avoid any further forking and actual content issues first. So let's go from the point of showing what it is before we worry about what to call it. I have started a section on the NGL talk page and set down some ground rules. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that the editor responsible for most of the recent forking has been banned. There remains the problem that both of the above articles seem to have been started by BSidepro, and I await his explanation with interest. Meanwhile, since we only need one article on the subject (formally National Grand Lodge, Prince Hall Origin, National Compact, USA) I think a debate on its title would be useful. I think we're where we want to be, but extending the title in the interests of clarity is clearly an option. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- It might be useful to seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora on this matter. I know that there are a rather large number of largely African-American churches, like the AME and AMEZ churches, which while Christian tend to get more coverage in sources related to African-Americans than in sources relating to Christianity, and the same sort of thing may be true here. John Carter (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that the editor responsible for most of the recent forking has been banned. There remains the problem that both of the above articles seem to have been started by BSidepro, and I await his explanation with interest. Meanwhile, since we only need one article on the subject (formally National Grand Lodge, Prince Hall Origin, National Compact, USA) I think a debate on its title would be useful. I think we're where we want to be, but extending the title in the interests of clarity is clearly an option. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll ask, but I'm skeptical. t's more complicated than that, because this sort of issue won't get coverage anywhere except in PH proceedings, and most Masonic groups don't carry proceedings outside their jurisdiction because they'd need a whole building to hold them all. Many controversies within Masonic obediences tend to be written based on the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the issue from their side, and that's pretty obvious from the editing here. It's the same thing that happens with the UGLE vs. GOdF issue - everyone talks about it, but they assume the reader knows the basics. Unfortunately, it makes it very hard to write about for an encyclopedia because of that. I tried to contact the Prince Hall Masonic Research group, but the email bounced. MSJapan (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
In regards to the article title... Just wondering... would this be a case where the full Official Name (ie: National Grand Lodge, Prince Hall Origin, National Compact, USA is actually the best way to go? Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a good way to go. Aceumus has created a blurry trial of renames, redirects, and deleted entries. Blueboar's suggestion covers all the bases, and redirects should keep all reasonable editors happy. We may still have a problem with Quill&Sword, who is behaving like a sockpuppet of Aceumus. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Fiddlersmouth, I am in no way in relation to Acemus. I am a researcher with a considerable amount of information and documentation concerning the National Grand Lodge and the new group that is now called Prince Hall Origin. I have considerable writings and articles on the subject which can be found on my blog, The Quill and The Sword.
I believe that I can make a contribution to the discussion on the National Grand Lodge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quill&Sword (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I also see that you all have attempted to contact the Prince Hall Research Society, which is called the Phylaxis Society, of which I am a life member and the Director of Masonic sites, you can view my credentials here: http://www.thephylaxis.org/phylaxis/officers.php
Scroll down to Masonic Sites and you will see the name John L. Hairston, that is my name, and if you go to my blog, The Quill and The Sword, you will find that I am the Editor of the Blog.
I am no sockpuppet, I am a Prince Hall Mason, historian, researcher and writer, who knows that Mr. Belcher is attempting to create a page with information that is not accurate and attempt to connect that group to the Prince Hall Affiliated history. Again, I am offering to provide documentation, proceedings and correspondences that will prove that the National Grand Lodge of 1847, is not the present Prince Hall Origin group and that the 1847 National Grand Lodge was dissolved in 1879.Quill&Sword (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Quill&Sword Self-authored blogs are not considered valid references here. Pardon me if I find your sudden appearance after Aceumus was banned slightly suspicious. Your attitude to WP seems to be identical. You can make a contribution only by providing valid references. Please spend a little time learning how Wikipedia works. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Fiddlersmouth, I think you may misunderstand the nature of the blog. The articles are packed with valid documentation and references. Rather than trying to discredit contributors, without knowing their background, you should actually read one of the articles there, and see that my articles are supported by actual documentation cited and listed for the reader to see for themselves. If I make a contribution, I can provide documentation. I am a well credential Masonic writer and historian and the blog is well respected in the Masonic world as being a credible source for information on Freemasonry. If I could be added to the debate, I would bring verifiable and clear evidence that would support whatever I contribute to the article in question. I think a noticeable difference between myself and whoever you are speaking on, is that I am willing to provide my Masonic credentials and real identity. I encourage you to read a couple articles and see how they are written, and you will find that my contributions will be no different. I will leave a couple links to articles that I have written on the subject on hand, and you can see that I am able to meet any requirement needed to contribute:
First Article: http://quillandsword357.blogspot.com/2015/05/memo-to-christopher-l-belcher-your_4.html
Second Article: http://quillandsword357.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-lesson-in-belcherism-another-failed.html
In addition, my "sudden" appearance is because my Blog was actually cited in this very work, and I came to the page to see how my work was cited and for what cause. I saw the information, and decided to come and provide factual information accompanied by documentation.
Regards,Quill&Sword (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's as may be, and we can definitely use the help, but as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, a blog is a blog is a blog, and we don't cite blogs. We additionally also do not want editors citing their own work in articles. Now, this may be a special case, but I believe we will need to discuss this at the reliable sources noticeboard before we actually embark on any work on the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
MSJapan, I wouldn't cite the blog, I would cite the MANY pieces of documentation that I used to support WHAT IS IN THE BLOG. I write and research, I understand the protocol. I have articles published in Masonic Magazines. I think you guys should ease up a bit and relax. I don't know if you guys are Masons or not, but I doubt any of you are Prince Hall Masons. I am a card-carrying, in good-standing, regular and duly made Prince Hall masons of the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington, my Lodge is Harmony Lodge #2 in Seattle, Washington. I am the Excellent King of a Royal Arch chapter I had hands on in starting in Seattle. I am a Royal and Select Master (Willie J. Anderson Council #3) and a Knights Templar (Great Northwest Commandery #1). Trust me fellas, I am quite proficient to provide adequate and verifiable information on the subject of Freemasonry, and more specifically the National Grand Lodge and Prince Hall origin. I want to make sure that factual information gets published on the subject. I am not whoever you guys are talking about. If I was just a vandal, then I wouldn't be back here giving verifiable credentials that can be checked if necessary. I am a well established and well know Mason.Quill&Sword (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Quill&Sword. If you are indeed editing in good faith (and I will assume that you are) then your help with the article is quite welcome. However... before you can help us effectively, I think you need to review some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I suggest you start with the following four: WP:Verifiability, [[WP:Reliable sources], WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar, I have read the offered links, and understand the requirements. What you must understand, is that the topic of the National Grand Lodge or Prince Hall Masonry must be understood in context, which means that reading a Proceedings, without understanding the circumstances, would cause error in the interpretation by the reader. For example, Bsidepro wrote, under the heading SCHISM:
"In 1849, seven Lodges under the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania (Union Lodge No. 4, Sheba Lodge No. 7, Fidelity Lodge No. 8, Harmony Lodge No. 10, Prudence Lodge No. 11, Christian Lodge No. 12, Paxton Lodge No. 16) met at the Lodge Hall at Seventh Street in Philadelphia and voted to not recognize the authority of the National Grand Lodge.[12] These Lodges along with the Grand Master of the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, Jacob Jenkins, were expelled by the National Grand Lodge. In the same year the United Grand Lodge of New York was expelled by the National Grand Lodge for not recognizing the authority of the National Grand Lodge.[1] These two Grand Lodges led a movement which was styled “Independent” Masonry and drafted a pact in direct opposition to the National Grand Lodge.[4]"
The statement is misleading masonically, and defames the credibility of the MWPHGL of Pennsylvania that now exists as the only legitimate Prince Hall Grand Lodge in that State. Without understanding the relationship between the National Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodges, the authority of Grand Lodges and Grand Masters, and the dates involved, you would be led to believe that the Grand Lodge in Pennsylvania was expelled, when they were not. The voted to leave the National Grand Lodge. With the plain statement, "These Lodges along with the Grand Master...were expelled by the National Grand Lodge" is inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the facts. What he didn't put in the statement is the fact that the National Grand Lodge issued an expulsion statement AFTER the Grand Lodge, under legal vote, left. His statement of expulsion is misleading in this wise. If you quit your job today, what good is a letter issued by your boss firing you a month later? NONE. The Grand Master of the State is the HIGHEST OFFICE in Freemasonry and he has all the power of the Grand Lodge when it is not in Session (refer to ANY book on Masonic Jurisprudence, and read the section on Grand Master and Grand Lodge). You need to understand that When the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge make a decision, there is nothing that can override that.
He wrote that the United Grand Lodge was expelled from the National Grand Lodge, but the United Grand Lodge of New York was never a part of the National Compact, so said by their own proceedings. Bsidepro, did not post the proceedings of New York, because he knew that it would state that they never joined the Compact and that the attempted expulsion of the Grand Lodge was an attempt to discredit the Grand Lodge for not choosing to join the Compact. It is a known fact that the Constitution, which governs the actions of a Masonic body, of the National Grand Lodge states that to join the National Compact and come under the National Grand Lodge, a Grand Lodge must first form, then apply for admission into the National Compact and receive a Charter from the National Grand Lodge; THIS WAS THE LAW!
There is no record of application of the United Grand Lodge to join the National Compact and there is no record that the National Grand Lodge issued a Charter to the United Grand Lodge of New York. How can you expel a Grand Lodge that was never under your authority?
All of this can be proved with the documentation. But you have to have latitude to make sure you understand the context of what is being read or you will be misled if you don't understand masonic jurisprudence or protocol. So, while I can appreciate the requirement, it is necessary to understand that Bsidepro has information on the article NOW that is inaccurate, according to the verifiable evidence.Quill&Sword (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is now WAY off topic. This discussion belongs on the talk page of the relevant article, not in the discussion about what to call it. Please feel free to correct the article (if you have the references). Remember, the cycle is edit-revert-discuss. As stated several times above, we have rules for editing that keep us all sane. Long, whiny, self-righteous posts where they don't belong don't help anybody. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Fiddlersmouth, why are you so disrespectful behind the keyboard and screen? I am here to give contribution, and all I get from you is feminism. Just let me know where the post goes without all of your Grand mothering.Quill&Sword (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Feminism? We ask you to observe a few simple rules and all you do is whine. Now we have a clearly sexist comment directed at a UGLE past master. You are about to cross a line, brother. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to reiterate my earliest comment, which is that if we cannot create this article without there being a massive problem, we simply won't do it. Everybody needs to calm down and stop making assumptions about other people. So it's de-escalation time. I can say for certain that comments are being misinterpreted on both sides here. I don't care who's right and who isn't, but that will be the end of that.
- I will be blunt - the article will be in line with verifiable fact, and reliable sources. Per NPOV, it will incorporate points of view that some may not find flattering if those points of view are verifiable (not true, but verifiable). Lastly, we will all treat each other with the same level of respect that we would if we were communicating face-to-face. If we cannot do those things, than there will simply have to be no article, because a) the article won't pass processes here, and b), I'm not going to post intervention requests on the noticeboards every other week.
Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota) to be moved to Clearwater Masonic Lodge–Grand Army of the Republic Hall. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Wondering if this should be moved to Freemasonry in Croatia... not sure if this GL is really notable enough for a stand alone article. I have started a thread to discuss it at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, move it. I already had to take the entry out of the FM template. 98% of the history given has nothing to do with this GL, but is generally useful. MSJapan (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
HighBeam
I've got HighBeam access, and I already see some useful stuff. I'm going to dig for things, but if you have a pet article, let me know and I'll see what I can find. MSJapan (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This article has always had some issues... I think it needs more attention from a wider audience. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Acacia
Some recent edits have been made to the "Symbolism and ritual" section of the Acacia article concerning Freemasonry. Could someone with some knowledge to check whether the material and source are reliable? Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks to all.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Master Mason and AWB
User:MSJapan has recently had to revert good faith edits made using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. The offending line of code corrects "Master degree" to "master's degree". I suggest that using the full name of the Master Mason degree will duck this problem, and avoid protracted disputes with well meaning bot wielders. I also suggest italicising the title in the "Excellent Master degree". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have had to un-correct a few of these "corrections" myself. It does get annoying. Fiddler's solution of writing "Master Mason" seems like a good one. For other degrees ending in the word "Master", I would simply rewrite the sentence... instead of "the Excellent Master degree", write it as "the degree of Excellent Master". Blueboar (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently, we also have the option of {{not a typo|Master degree}} Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Article check...
Can someone take a look at Rite of the Twelve Degrees? It just popped up on my radar, and it looks like it's misinformed. AFAICT, it's the US York Rite progression with an additional degree that's now done by AMD, and I don't see how this supposed body could even confer these degrees legally, and the article seems to indicate it did not. So I can't figure out how one has a Rite with no degrees. It makes even less sense when it was apparently practiced in several countries in Europe as well as in the US, when the degrees are different in those countries, and I don't even remember offhand if Cryptic degrees exist as such outside the US. MSJapan (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find word one about this, so I'm CSDing it. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to get rid of the CSD template, but it just doesn't make any sense. I can't get a GHit on the phrase anywhere but the WP article, and the information is just linking to SGC in England, Duncan, etc., which again, means that the degrees aren't being conferred by an appendant body using this name. I really wonder if somebody's mucked up Swedish Rite somehow, but that's not it either. MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
MSJapan drew my attention to this. I believe it is a website that's getting ideas above it's station. It's certainly not a Rite, or even a Masonic Body, by its own admission. By all means peruse the evidence yourselves, but can we weigh in and get this thing deleted? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Even more so, it's a free website, and despite having a lot of words, it doesn't even really say anything that makes sense. MSJapan (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Research Lodge listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Research Lodge to be moved to Research lodge. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Masonic Lodge listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Masonic Lodge to be moved to Masonic lodge. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Masonic Lodge Officers listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Masonic Lodge Officers to be moved to Masonic lodge officers. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Masonic Lodge or Masonic lodge? Re-opening move discussion
The article Masonic Lodge was recently moved to Masonic lodge (ie the word "lodge" was de-capitalized)... for the discussion see: Talk:Masonic lodge#Requested move 30 November 2015.
I have decided to re-open the discussion, on the grounds that no notice was posted here on the project page. Had the members of the project been notified, I suspect that the consensus might have been different. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Listifying categories - lots of new "List of X who were Freemasons" articles
In an good faith attempt to limit the number of sub-categories under Category:Freemasons, several of the sub-categories that once existed have been listified... creating new list articles such as List of Presidents of the United States who were Freemasons, List of monarchs who were Freemasons, and List of state governors of the United States who were Freemasons. At the moment, all of the people listed in these newly created lists are known Freemasons, included in our List of Freemasons lists... but by having all these new sub-lists, I think we need to watch them for vandalism and conspiracy additions. One problem with going from category to list is that the new lists are not sourced.
I am thinking that we should turn all these the new lists into redirects, pointing to our more complete (and fully sourced) List of Freemasons articles. Comments? Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- This does rather remove the point of the individual lists, which is bound to attract conflict with whoever thought this was a good idea in the first place. I suggest starting with the fringiest list, and testing the water with that. If (as I suspect) the merge is opposed successfully, then walking away gracefully is a good option. It's more stuff to watch, but also an opportunity to evaluate the contribution of the Great and Good to the craft, and confound the expectations of the conspiracy theorists. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK... I have started by nominating List of state governors of the United States who were Freemasons for deletion. It's not even worth a merger... no one (not even the most ardent conspiracy theorists) talks about which Governors were Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies, I didn't realise how pathetic these articles are. You have my full support. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK... I have started by nominating List of state governors of the United States who were Freemasons for deletion. It's not even worth a merger... no one (not even the most ardent conspiracy theorists) talks about which Governors were Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
New article on Golden age of fraternalism
I just created the article Golden age of fraternalism and I feel that it could be worked on under this project. I'm not a proficient Wikipedian, so the article itself could probably use more attention. I was a little amazed that the subject hadn't been attended to before. Any help would be appreciated.PhilD86 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Masonic Lodge Officers listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Masonic Lodge Officers to be moved to Masonic lodge officers. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
United States Capitol cornerstone laying - GA-Review solicitation
Would anyone like to GA-review my article United States Capitol cornerstone laying? LavaBaron (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Nob Hill Masonic Center listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nob Hill Masonic Center to be moved to The Masonic. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Grand Lodge listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Grand Lodge to be moved to Grand lodge. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry to be moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) to be moved to Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Who's Who book
I have recently grabbed an old, 1970's, edition of the Marquis Who's Who in Religion. For those of you not familiar with those works, they tend to be collections of shortish biographies of people who are, somehow, chosen for inclusion. As I remember, people being considered for conclusion are sent a letter with a form which they are requested to fill out listing, basically, their resume. And, yes, this is based on my own memory. I was sent such a letter from them in the 1980s regarding inclusion in one of their "Arts" volumes, although I never could figure out what the hell I might have done in that area to make them think I deserved inclusion. Anyway, several of the biographies contain short descriptions of clubs or groups the individuals are members of. This includes several which just have the word "Mason" in that section, although some others add "32nd degree" or "Shriner" or similar. I was wondering whether the rest of you would think that this source, generally presumably from the subject him or herself, is sufficient for indicating an individual is a Mason, and, I suppose, what if anything to do with those cases who might be Shriners or similar but might have only added "Mason" to their short bio.
- P.S. There are some individuals who are also listed as chaplains of various lodges. Would I be justified in assuming that a chaplain of Masons probably has to be a Mason themselves? John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- As I understand what you have written, people in Who's Who that claim to be masons are included as masons without further checks? Alarm bells ringing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- More accurately the individuals offer a resume, including group memberships, like Kiwanis, Rotarians, Republicans, Democrats, Boy Scouts, etc., and, yes, Masons. The same applies for their degrees, work history, etc. I think the question here would be whether the self-description is "controversial," as it is primarily controversial topics which are preferred to have really independent sources. So, I guess, would an individual who is describing himself as a Mason in a source based on his own statements be considered a reliable source for his being a Mason? John Carter (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- The question behind my unease is "Why would somebody claim to be a Freemason when they are not?" The answer is usually that they have invented their own bogus form of the craft to enrich themselves, to gain power over others, or because they are plain batshit crazy. I guess the proportion of these is less than 0.1%, but the risk of giving credence to a confidence trickster makes me uncomfortable, and may have legal implications. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly. I should note also that some of my earlier comments were inaccurate. First, despite my being contacted for a book I did not think myself remotely qualified for, the compilers of the book say in the beginning of the book that the names selected are based on contact with several "experts" in the fields (I'm guessing things like regional denominational administrators, non-profits, etc.) and the recommendations of those experts for who is to be included. (That changes my earlier question to being, basically, who in town thought I was some sort of artist. I can't think of anyone who might have done that, and I guess that can raise questions as to how good those "experts" are.) It seems to me perhaps unlikely that many individuals creating their own new systems are going to be held in much esteem by such experts. Also, at least a few of the entries in the specific volume in question are published based on the material gathered by the editors, and used when they did not get a response from the party in question. Some of those are, actually, basically at least as substantial if not more substantial than those based on individual submissions, some of which are short in the extreme. A few examples are some of the bios of Catholic bishops, which list only their current position, even though one has to have held several other positions before being eligible for that one. I guess it was my assumption, based on my having received the form requesting me to offer material for submission, that the articles are not reviewed, and that, based on the entries published without subject input, that assumption may be in error. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Our own article, Marquis Who's Who, does not fill me with confidence. Just by writing to you, you are almost certainly one of the experts they have consulted. Let's just leave this one. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- It might be usable for an attributed statement of self-identification... supporting: "Mr. X has self-identified as being a Freemason" as opposed to "Mr. X is a Freemason". But I think it best used as background material... if someone's Who's Who entry say he is a Freemason, he probably is, but we should search for a more reliable, independent source for confirmation, and cite that instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Our own article, Marquis Who's Who, does not fill me with confidence. Just by writing to you, you are almost certainly one of the experts they have consulted. Let's just leave this one. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly. I should note also that some of my earlier comments were inaccurate. First, despite my being contacted for a book I did not think myself remotely qualified for, the compilers of the book say in the beginning of the book that the names selected are based on contact with several "experts" in the fields (I'm guessing things like regional denominational administrators, non-profits, etc.) and the recommendations of those experts for who is to be included. (That changes my earlier question to being, basically, who in town thought I was some sort of artist. I can't think of anyone who might have done that, and I guess that can raise questions as to how good those "experts" are.) It seems to me perhaps unlikely that many individuals creating their own new systems are going to be held in much esteem by such experts. Also, at least a few of the entries in the specific volume in question are published based on the material gathered by the editors, and used when they did not get a response from the party in question. Some of those are, actually, basically at least as substantial if not more substantial than those based on individual submissions, some of which are short in the extreme. A few examples are some of the bios of Catholic bishops, which list only their current position, even though one has to have held several other positions before being eligible for that one. I guess it was my assumption, based on my having received the form requesting me to offer material for submission, that the articles are not reviewed, and that, based on the entries published without subject input, that assumption may be in error. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- The question behind my unease is "Why would somebody claim to be a Freemason when they are not?" The answer is usually that they have invented their own bogus form of the craft to enrich themselves, to gain power over others, or because they are plain batshit crazy. I guess the proportion of these is less than 0.1%, but the risk of giving credence to a confidence trickster makes me uncomfortable, and may have legal implications. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- More accurately the individuals offer a resume, including group memberships, like Kiwanis, Rotarians, Republicans, Democrats, Boy Scouts, etc., and, yes, Masons. The same applies for their degrees, work history, etc. I think the question here would be whether the self-description is "controversial," as it is primarily controversial topics which are preferred to have really independent sources. So, I guess, would an individual who is describing himself as a Mason in a source based on his own statements be considered a reliable source for his being a Mason? John Carter (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- As I understand what you have written, people in Who's Who that claim to be masons are included as masons without further checks? Alarm bells ringing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) to be moved to Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Given that all of the Presidents who were Freemasons are also listed in our broader List of Freemasons article, do we really need an article that just lists the 14 (or 15) Presidents who were? I think it might be beneficial to keep the title as a redirect (to aid those who might be curious)... but I am concerned that a stand alone list, just listing the presidents could become a conspiracy theory vandalism magnet. Please respond at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States who were Freemasons#Redirect? Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if knowledgeable editors could take a look at that category and the issues I outlined on its talk page. The way articles currently are being categorized, it seems any English Freemason post-1717 is automatically considered to be "of the United Grand Lodge of England" even without sources confirming that association. There are also issues regarding the quality of the sources used to populate the category, and to me it seems that content on freemasonry is added to biographies based on those low-quality sources, without context, for the sole purpose of populating the category, for example here, here, here. Huon (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- This goes further... please take a look at Template:UGLE... just about everything connected to Freemasonry is being associated with UGLE. I tried taking out the stuff that does not directly relate, but was reverted (and I don't want to get into an edit war.) Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Category:Masonic Lodges has been nominated for discussion
Category:Masonic Lodges, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Grand Lodge of Tennessee--article request
Hello. Is anyone in this WP interested in creating an article about the Grand Lodge of Tennessee founded in 1841 please? Here's an initial RS if interested. Please ping me when you reply. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The return of Lightbringer?
A new user ticks of several of the boxes for the old, long time single purpose vandal Lightbringer (not to be confused with the current user Lightbringer) which we haven't seen for the last decade.
- Focuses on Masonic rituals and conspiracies (so far)
- Tries to link to Freemasonerywatch
- Username rings a bell too, but I can't put my finger on what
User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked) - the 'original' vandal. User:Lastman8-12 - suspected new sockpuppet and his contributions. See also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). If it's not Lightbringer, it's another vandal in the same mould. I figured that y'all should know. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- And now the personal attacks and accusations have started... WegianWarrior (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
PHA OES
Hey, folks. I just noticed that Prince Hall Order of the Eastern Star is not the most readable article in the bunch. Does anyone have time to do some cleanup on it? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Review request: Italian Symbolic Rite
Hello, someone could help reviewing this draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Symbolic_Rite I know it is not well known out of Italy, but it has been a fundamental part of constitution and unification of official italian freemasonry Grand Orient of Italy after the turmoil of Risorgimento, the italian version https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rito_simbolico_italiano has been created more than 10 years ago. I added a reference to an article of Treccani Encyclopedia, the most prominent and institutional italian encyclopedia.
Thank you very much Webmasto (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Order of the Amaranth listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Order of the Amaranth to be moved to Order of the Amaranth (Freemasonry). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Clean-up of Fringe Orders
I first noticed this on Rite of Memphis-Misraim, but it seems like a number of non-notable fringe/clandestine orders have been inserted on Wikipedia pages, probably to give them a sense of credibility. Usually these orders have no hits outside of Wikipedia and perhaps their own webpages. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the group and ask that as you edit Masonic articles, keep an eye out for these orders. They often have names that might suggest they are legitimate, so make sure to do a little research. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Crescent Masonic Lodge
Does anyone know what a "Crescent" Masonic Lodge is please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, User:Zigzig20s. It sounds like the name of a lodge. Lodges often have names like "Temple Lodge" or "Crescent Lodge" or "Compass Lodge" or something to that effect. It doesn't indicate a type of lodge, it's probably just a name. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Great Eastern Hotel, London listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Great Eastern Hotel, London to be moved to Andaz London Liverpool Street. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Brigadier General Albert Pike listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Brigadier General Albert Pike to be moved to Statue of Albert Pike. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Regular Masonic jurisdiction listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Regular Masonic jurisdiction to be moved to Regular Freemasonry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Template:Freemasonry listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Freemasonry to be moved to Template:Freemasonry sidebar. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Template:Infobox Grand Lodge listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Infobox Grand Lodge to be moved to Template:Infobox lodge. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Regular Masonic jurisdiction listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Regular Masonic jurisdiction to be moved to Regular Freemasonry. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rose of Minden Lodge No.918: Question resolved
Would it be possible for someone with a bit of SME to take a glance at this article and see if it does provide value to the project as a page in its own right or should it be "Merged" as suggested in the discussion? I tip my hat, bow to all your experience and accept comments, whether negative or positive with humility. Thanks in advance RoyCrockford (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks kindly for your assistance - Result ′′′Merge′′′ RoyCrockford (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
List of lodges at Iowa Masonic Library and Museum
While fixing typos, I noticed that Jpbowen and Vivi t3ch have appended a long list of lodges to Iowa Masonic Library and Museum. It clearly represents a lot of good-faith effort, but I don't think it belongs there. Not knowing the history of notability discussions on this subject, I thought it might be best to start a thread here before deleting it, moving it to draft or project space, or splitting it to a standalone list. Nick Number (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Man, I wish I knew about this before, I think this is a great collaborative effort to be able to work on together. I wanted the Grand Lodge of Iowa to have it's own properly seperated page, but the idea was revoked and put back into the Iowa Masonic Library and Museum page until there was more info. They are separate subjects I feel like, but until they are seperated I've been at least been putting the information I have in the list. I've done the whole list of lodges so far (and I still have over 300 more entries to drop in). If anyone wants to talk more about it (or more info in general), I have a talk section made up for it: Talk:Iowa Masonic Library and Museum down at the bottom there is a section for my listing of subordinate lodges. If it helps, I've started with Iowa for a listing because I've been a member myself for a few years. I hope that one day to be able to have all 50 states Grand Lodges listed in such fashion on Wikipedia. My first endeavor to do so on Ancestry.com really wasn't the best, so that's why I'm transferring it all over here, bit by bit. Lastly I do have a listing on my personal page of the projects I'm working on.
- I think for now the listing of lodges should stay where it is, until the Grand Lodge of Iowa page is made up separately without the redirect.
- --Vivi t3ch (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of input from anyone in the project, I've removed the list of lodges, as it's clearly inappropriate for the library's article. Hopefully someone will be along at some point to determine where best to make use of the material. Nick Number (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
List of Masonic Abbreviations listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of Masonic Abbreviations to be moved to List of Masonic abbreviations. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Consensus Building
I have just generated this to build consensus. It seems an editor is keen on linking Freemasonry to a Nigerian cult with a negative reputation without imperative source to substantiate how they are connected. This cult is called the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity with bad reputation as can be observed here, here & here & my frustration is the editor is yet to provide cogent reliable sources to substantiate their claim of the interplay of both organizations. Hence I decided to bring it here for general advice & so you all can partake in the consensus building. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have had a look, and it doesn't look that unrealistic that the order has taken inspiration from Freemasonry. You don't need to be a member to use Freemasonry as an inspiration, and there are books written on Freemasonry by non-members that could have been used.--Berig (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
List of lodges at Iowa Masonic Library and Museum (revisited)
As previously addressed in September 2020, a very long list of subordinate lodges has been appended to Iowa Masonic Library and Museum by Vivi t3ch. I again ask that someone from the project find a better home for this – probably somewhere other than mainspace – as it's disproportionately long and detailed for an encyclopedia article about the library and museum. There is a thread open regarding this on its talk page. Nick Number (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have cut it… per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Blueboar (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Blueboar: Many thanks. Nick Number (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree it is not the best place for it. Would it be better to make it as a separate page entirely and link it to the Grand Lodge of Iowa section? Or would it be possible to flesh out the Grand Lodge of Iowa section to its own page? It is helpful info I want to have in the right spot. Also thanks for mentioning me so I know of this discussion Vivi t3ch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- As useful as it might be, there really isn’t any location on Wikipedia that would be the right fit for an extensive list of local lodges like this. See our policy on “What Wikipedia is not”… especially the section WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
- Does the Library have this list on it’s website? If so, what you CAN do is include a “See Also” link to that list. Sorry to disappoint. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The Grand Lodge website only lists the currently active lodges. Now with the info you gave, there was mention of having a list page. Do you think this would be appropriate, and link that in? Vivi t3ch (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the Library is thinking of creating a list of Iowa lodges (active and historic) and hosting it on its webpage? If so, yes… we could link to that as a “see also” link. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The listing is only the active lodges, and it's not as good as other grand lodges. I had the proper links on the listing I had done up. What do u mean exactly by the see also link? Vivi t3ch (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)