User talk:JASpencer/Archive1: Difference between revisions

William C. Hetzel

A tag has been placed on William C. Hetzel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I found these individuals through the software testers currently living biographies (not through your name), so I wasn't singling you out by nominating these 2 for SD. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave Gelperin

A tag has been placed on Dave Gelperin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than simply leaving a template I decided to give an explanation because you are a rather active editor. This article is very short and contains no meaningful context. Some of it is rather advertising in nature (i.e. claiming the document is pivotal, weasel wording stating that it "remains a consistent source" (to who, and what's your reference/citation/source for this)), and there is no actual reference material. Further, I don't think the article would, as it stands qualify to establish the notability of the individual. I really hope I don't offend you! Thanks, and have a great day. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Esra Dalfidan

Dear JASpencer, I Strongly object to your proposed article's removal. Reason given is lack of notability. The article is about a very promising young professional artist, who's won vocalist awards in the Netherlands, has just released her first CD, and been several times on radio and TV. She is just starting, but continuing in a singing tradition of famous singers like Aziza Mustafa Zadeh and Maria Joao, who both have Wiki articles. They are cross cultural singers making music that appeals cross-culturally, which is something I and many others consider a very important element in today's western civilized world. I mean, how do you define notability? by the number of Google hits? I hope you reconsider your proposal. Jfreijser (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Garden Fresh Gourmet

Why the heck did you delete it all ready I did not have time to defend my case!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewiseeye3400 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See Also the Abuse page for more abusive postings.

Buttiglione in Mexico

Dear JASpencer, I noticed that you erased in its entirety an entry I made to the Rocco Buttiglione page regarding his role in the Mexican 2000 presidential elections. I am not sure if you are a specialist in Mexican elections or recent history (judging by your excellent contributions to Wiki, I assume you are more into religious history), but Buttiglione's role here was significant and has been recognized in books and articles. I was actually surprised that it had not yet appeared in Wiki. Please let me know why you deleted those comments, as they seem to contradict some of the Wiki protocol, such as the stated official policy (at least for the English sites) of "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." Thank you, Ariasking

Hi, as I can't find your user page I'll put the reasoning on Talk:Rocco Buttiglione. JASpencer 19:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Wiki BLP guidelines, and cannot find a reasonable argument to delte Buttiglione's role in the Mexican election. The one that vaguely comes close is the need to source, which can be done with no problem. The BLP states however that sourcing is required for potentially libelous or negative material. However, this caveat does not apply in this case. If you had something else in mind from the BLP, please let me know so I can implement it accordingly.

I can't see how interfering in a foreign election can be seen as anything other than negative. The policy is clear, the highest standards are required for sourcing information about living people. This information doesn't have a single citation. Reinsert by all means, but make sure that it's cited. JASpencer 21:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

pr==Welcome==

Hello, JASpencer. Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or you can check the help files as most questions are answered there (the formatting you've used suggests you may already have). Regards, Notheruser 21:57 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words JASpencer

English Parish Histories (EPH)

We want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia with our own content, not just a collection of links to other's content. That means that instead of having a huge list of links to off-site content (which can change/disappear and which we cannot edit) we want our own articles on the topics. So EPH could become a top level article, eplaining the topic in general while each link should point to our article which would probably be the appropriate place to put the external link in a designated link section, although could be made for retaining the external links in this form [[our parish history page]] [external link] -at least until our articles are all finished. This could become a large project. Hope this helps. Rmhermen 13:27, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Islamic Invasion of India

Removed to the abuse page

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Your edits

Removed to the abuse page

Word deletions

When you were adding the East-West Schism category to a number of articles that weird deletion thing was happening again. Individual words, like death, dominant, etc, were deleted and replaced with spaces. Maybe it's a search & replace gone wrong? Whatever the cause, it's a pain to clean up. BTW, thanks for adding the lastname, firstname alphabetization on the category. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was merely categorising, and not changing any words in the articles. JASpencer

I accept that it was unintentional. But if you check the 'diff' after on the edits, you'll find that words were getting omitted at the same time as you were categorizing. I can't explain how it could happen. But if you could check your work and either find what is causing the problem, or at least fixing it when it happens, then that would be a big help. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to use the library computers to edit articles any more. The problems occured then. JASpencer

I've looked further and it seems to be a net nanny of some type on the public library computers that I'm using while away from work. I'll simply abstain from using those computers to edit Wikipedia.JASpencer

British Property bubble

Are you a property bull, as much of your "comments" felt very bullish, most if not all people feel that the bubble is about to pop soon. - 159753

No. I've actually Sold to Rent. Can't get much more bearish than that. JASpencer

Jesuit Alumni Page

Hello, thanks for the edit... I am just a bit sensitive that not all students of Jesuit institutions are Roman Catholics... there are a few on the list who aren't... can you think of a better category?--Timsj 17:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your question on Humanae vitae talk page

Dear JAS, I've seen your question on the Humanae vitae talk page: "What's all that about" referring to Flamekeeper's rant. So if you haven't found out yourself: The thing is, he's a monomaniac that goes all over the place posting the same text everywhere, calling for a posthumous trial of Ludwig Kaas and Popes Pius XI and Pius XII for their alleged violation of the principle he cites from Humanae vitae in the case of the German Enabling act of 1933. This "robot posting" is already annoying on entries related to the Third Reich, it is completely non-sensical to post it on "Humanae vitae". Str1977 23:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh a nutter. Thanks JASpencer 12:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear JAS, yes, you're right. And the situation is heating up. Could be so kind as to take a look into it. Battleground is mainly the Pius XII talk page, but he is all over the place, also on the "theology of Benedict XVI" page. Could you please answer the query I set up there. Thanks. Str1977 23:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any expertise that can help ? Famekeeper 09:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Flamekeeper I'm no psychiatrist but I'm sure if you ask around someone can suggest a good one. JASpencer 16:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear JAS, as you have met him before you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. Str1977 20:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've signed. By the way the link is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper JASpencer 13:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Beit Jala

Why should Beit Jala belong to the Category Bethlehem? It is just a neighbouring town. Dbach 09:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was uncategorised and I sought to put it into a category. JASpencer 17:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Category for Sacraments...suggestion

Could we rename the category "Seven Sacraments" simply "Sacraments"? Some traditions have more than seven, some fewer. KHM03 13:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's intended for use within the RCC category, so I'd prefer the seven sacraments. JASpencer 16:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fine...we can always make a "Sacrament" category for ecumenical stuff. Thanks...KHM03 16:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thank you. JASpencer 16:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basilicas

---

Re your page on North American Basilicas. You might add the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Brooklyn, New York, if only as a link. I'm pretty sure an article is going to be added about it; at least mention will be made of it in the "Sunset Park" article. I don't know how to edit a category page. --FourthAve 14:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On further search, I discover there are duplicate category pages for Basilicas. yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Basilica_Churches and this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Basilicas Aggh. --FourthAve 14:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no duplication intended. Basilica churches are for churches built in the basilica style - Basilicas is for the old fashioned (non-Christian) Roman basilicas and any other basilica based article.

Feel free to add the basilica to a category. I would do it but I think you'll probably get more out of it if you learn what's needed. Wikipedia:Categorization

JASpencer 17:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The article on the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help (Brooklyn, New York) now exists. Someone else added the NA Basilica tag and it magically appears on your list. In the OLPH article, I left a wiki-ized bit for a future article for the "Cathedral Basilica of St. James (Brooklyn, New York)", along with an external link to it on the Diocesan pages.--FourthAve 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Internal references to German Wiki articles

Since you were so nice to respond to me, I give you an interesting question.

How does one internally link an article from another-language Wiki into an English language one? This is the example. Look at my external link at the bottom of this page:

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dubuque

And the link I unsuccessfully tried to link internally,

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzbistum_Dubuque

I did it as an external link.

It was fun to learn that 'Archdiocese' translates to 'Erzbistum' in German.

Can it be done, internally, i.e., as a normal [open double brackets] blabla | blabla [close double brackets] bit?--FourthAve 04:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I see it's all sorted on your talk page. Good. JASpencer 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism and Masonry

Just looking for another opinion here, you seem to have been involved in this discussion before - I think I have found pretty much explicit info (see the discussion at Talk:Catholicism and Masonry) indicating that KofC members cannot join Masonic fraternities: SarekofVulcan disagrees, and keeps reverting edits. Could you take a look and give an opinion?DonaNobisPacem 08:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia

First of all, a million thanks for creating the redirects for the "A"s. Most of the blue links there were created by user Hectorthebat who simply copy/pasted them from CE so they need wikifying and NPOV-ing. Wanna give it a try? Second - you created the Yellow Knives article as a simple redirection to itself. I presume it was haste, since you don't strike me as the vandal type. Care to do the article again? If not, I'll do it somewhere in the next days, no biggie. Dunemaire 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the spirit. :) Dunemaire 23:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. By the way is there any allocation of tasks for the Catholic Encyclopedia? --JASpencer 10:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, none that I know of.Dunemaire 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Eminenti Apostolatus Specula

Greatings JASpencer,

I noticed that you have been involved in the above referenced page. Would you please add a translation for “aliisque de iustis ac rationabilibus causis Nobis notis” ... for those of us who do not speak latin. Otherwise, no quibbles. Thanks. Blueboar 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Err. I'm looking into it.

Mel Gibson

Here's an old clip of Mel Gibson that I thought might be a good entry to the Mel Gibson page.

http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-851

Links to Catholic encyclopedia

I've seen you've added a lot of links to this online encycloppedia, as well as creating a lot of redirects to articles that have these links. It looks unusual to me, is it really necessary to create a link to another encyclopedia for every one here? A sample of links I checked out seemed to have the same information in the wiki article as in the target,so it seems a little redundent to me. Plus, some articles are getting more than one link, and not in the normal external links section, which is worring as it looks indiscriminate. It also a little iffy, that many links so quickly to the same location, when the target has adverts "Get it here for only $29.95" at the top of every page. Comments? MartinRe 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the Catholic Encyclopedia per se? You're comments aren't exactly clear here.JASpencer 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not objecting to the Catholic Encyclopedia per se. I just don't see why so many links need to be created when the article it's linked from contains the same information as the target, which seems to be against [WP:EL]. Combine that with the fact that the target is advertising itself makes it look a spamming attack somewhat. MartinRe 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll put the Catholic Encyclopedia tag where there seems to be a copy from the CE.

On the allegation that I was trying to do this for gains from advertising revenue, I have no link to New Advent - monetary or otherwise. The "Get it here for only $29.95" does seem like an objection to the Encyclopedia per se.JASpencer 23:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I made no allegation about gain, monetary or otherwise. Just pointing out that the characteristics (multiple links, same target, target selling something, links sometimes not adding anything to original article) are similar to those listed in Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer, even if the intention wasn't there. I also doubts of the validity of an encyclopedia citing another encyclopedia MartinRe 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The multiple links are a by-product of helping in the Wikipedia Catholic Encylcopedia project, no more, no less. JASpencer 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense to me now. Thanks. MartinRe 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked on the Project page for guidance, and it says It may also help to add an External link to the original article, especially if it was heavily revised in the process of wikification. I suggest if you have any problems on CE external links, that you take it up on its discussion page. You may think that I'm being a bit liberal on this, but as far as I see I'm following the guidance. JASpencer 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(unindented for readibility) From reading the project summary myself, I'd agree with having an external reference to the original article where the CE is the primary creation point and/or reference. However, I don't think inserting CE links into existing, well fleshed out, articles is a good idea. For example, God has multiple insertions in the same article which don't flow at all with the rest of the text (which is what triggered my initial concern). Put another way, the EB 1911 is also used in the same way as the CE here, but I wouldn't expect someone to add a link to the EB in an existing article just because the EB also covered it. I would only expect a reference to be added if someone researched the EB and added content based on it, but I wouldn't expect a stand alone reference, which is simply a "see also" link. In summary, I think adding references is good, but adding multiple "see also" links isn't. See what I mean? MartinRe 00:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please could you raise the point on the talk page of the project so that we can get some sort of concensus among the users. I do have an answer in that particular point, but I don't want to encourage a closed discussion of this point. JASpencer 18:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Have done so, hope my point is a little clearer on that page. MartinRe 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy House of Loreto

I notice you began the article. Thanks. It has been on my list for quite some time.--Rockero 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. JASpencer 12:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Freemason NPOV stuff

Can I just say how awesome you are :p Thanks so much for joining the fight over there, your alot better at stuff like this then me :)

Seraphim, this isn't a fight. This is a group of editors who feel very protective towards an institution that takes up a large part of their free time. It is natural for them to want to protect it. Please don't treat it as a "fight" but a patient debate at which both sides try to get to the truth. JASpencer 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant it in a figurative way :) Like "fighting the good fight". Seraphim 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. If that's the case then thanks. JASpencer 09:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got a citation error in Kadosh...

For Kadosh, what you are citing as "Pike's words" are actually his explanation of the claim made against the degree, and he goes on to refute the claim. He's saying "it became known" in reference to the Cerneauist Scotch Rite book, in the sense of "people were told that", not "it is a fact that". Also, the only thing that bothers me re: "The Builder" is that the title "Right Illustrious" (R.I.) doesn't exist in mainstream AASR, so it might also be indicative of a Cerneauist reference. However, for want of any way to verify or disprove it ATM, it can stay.

TBH, Morals and Dogma is not the best source to use for anything; what's Pike's and what's not his is sometimes very hard to differentiate, but in this case he says almost right after your quote: "It will be easy, as we read, to separate the false from the true, the audacious conjectures from the simple facts." So at the very least, I'd ask you to reread the entire section and then see if the material applies to the point being expressed. MSJapan 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll deal with this in Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry. However with freemasonic ritual it's amazingly slippery (secrecy, changes, local differences) so one has to rely on secondary sources - preferably Masonic - and Pike is a Masonic source.JASpencer 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FM Old Charges

Noted that you asked for a citation related to Atheism the other day.

http://www.grandlodge-england.org/pdf/cr-update1-140905.pdf is the current Book of Constitutions for UGLE.

From page 147 is a copy of the Old Charges which make clear a number of the membership issues.ALR 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. It's just the way that the Lodges do or don't deal with the various Grand Orients who most definately do let in atheists. JASpencer 17:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In the main I don't think there are any dealings with any self styled Masonry which does not require a belief in a Supreme Being. At least not anything I've ever heard of under UGLE. The regularity issue related to initiating women seems to get treated very differently.ALR 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to make of them as they will. Read this article for a different perspective on the "landmarks".[1]Voltairesghost (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Freemasonry edits

You've removed some stuff which was either already cited or readily citable. I realize there was a deadline set, but there have been a number of issues on other articles thatr have bneeded to be dealt with as well. I've responded to the site requests, so can you please rollback the edit and add the citations? Some of the info qualifies as common knowledge, too, IMHO, as it appears on almost every GL page (such as not accepting atheists). MSJapan 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rolled back as requested. We'll continue this on the article's talk page. JASpencer 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Macau

It is a Roman Catholic church diocese stub, but I couldn't find the template. Please add it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Catholic_diocese_stubs?-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably needs deleting. JASpencer 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability

Oppose it doesn't seem to work on my explorer. JASpencer 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? What doesn't work? Can you post a screen capture? —David Levy 22:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaints

You recently wrote an article at Complaints which I believe you meant to post somewhere else. The content of the article was:

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

• Imacomp (talk · contribs) is inserting a {{totallydisputed}} tag while refusing to give any specific reasons, saying that it's his editorial prerogative to do so. I believe that he is more interested in the tag remaining than in dealing with any specific problems in the article. ~~~~~

The article has been deleted as non-encyclopedic. Please let me know if you require assistance in the situation you've described therein. JDoorjam Talk 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I do apologise. I was putting this in readiness in case the situation got out of hand. Thank you for your offer of help, I may need to call on it. JASpencer 15:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to be aware that I've asked for a second Check user on Imacomp and intend asking for the ban on SnF being enforced when it comes up.ALR 18:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Considering the harm Imacomp's doing to his purported cause you may want to check him against Lightbringer, just in case. JASpencer 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not LB, the behaviour is SnF all over. Even down to exactly the same edits.ALR 18:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was joking. Sort of. But could SnF himself not be a sockpuppet of lightbringer? After all what does LB want, and what is SnF doing? JASpencer 18:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Same MO, different motivations. LB wants unverifiable (and sometimes incorrect) Anti-Masonic information added to the article. He also has a bad habit of accusing everyone of being a Mason and therefore involved in a Satanic conspiracy. I also don't believe LB is RC at all - I know a lot of them, and none are quite that violently anti-Masonic. SnF, OTOH, comes from a Masonic background where there is still public persecution involved, and from his POV, for no real reason. So he would prefer that such unverified material is kept out. I'm sure he has gotten frustrated, because no matter what happens, the socks come back and make a mess. When passive resistance becomes active resistance is entirely up to the individual, and I think everybody has their own limits, after which point they decide they've had it and take things to the next level. So SnF has instead turned to a hardline interpretation of the old (I think) UGLE Masonic charges, basically to prevent nonsense by covering it with more nonsense. I understand and agree with his motivation, as much of the assault on the article falls apart under any sort of scrutiny in accordance with policies, but I don't really agree with his methodology. Like LB, there might be one valid point in there, but getting to it amongst everything else is not that easy.

For example, if Imacomp had simply said there was an issue and worked through it, it would be solved - if there's unverified material, it should be removed or cited. However, that becomes difficult when there's tags on everything Same with LB and the Anti article - of course the summary in FM is no good; it's completely out of date with the content of the current article, and that is because dealing with vandals always takes priority over rewrites. Repeatedly rving external links and adding "critics disagree" (a tautology if ever I saw one) everywhere is also not the way to solve the problem.

However, I believe Imacomp can be reasoned with; LB cannot, as has been shown time and time again. With LB, it comes down to Masonry = an anti-Christian Satanic world conspiracy etc., that he is out to destroy and discredit, and as long as he is going to pick and choose his citations and interpretations and ignore facts in pursuit of that goal, a compromise will never be reached. MSJapan 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

LB may or may not be an RC, but one of his presumed socks took off [[Category:Roman Catholic]] from my user page. If he wasn't RC he would not have bothered.

Imacomp at the moment can't be reasoned with. Maybe in the long run he'll calm down, but so could LB. They're both redeemable, but neither have been redeemed yet. I think it would be fair to say that there is not a single instance where Imacomp has come to a compromise or entered in any meaningful dialogue with an anti-Masonic link. JASpencer 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between and/or among Snf, MSJapan, Arden, Blueboar, WeganWarrior other than hypocrisy. Snf is open about what he is, the others try and falsely present some moticum of reasonableness, which they are not. Basically they are prepared to let you pitter patter around on the anti-masonry page because they are of the mind that there is no traffic on that page, ergo your 'sublime' efforts are unseen. If on the other hand you were to apply your ample wit to the main field of engagement, the Freemasonry page, were there are actual real people reading it to form their opinion of Freemasonry, you will find there tolerance of you, JASpencer, will vanish and you will be on the receiving end of exactly the same treatment and accusations that others who have gone before you have. All critics of Masonry are 'Antis' in the eyes of Masonry and all, in the end, receive the same Masonic 'Justice'. Time to grow up and face the music on the Freemasonry page brother...40 Days of Lent 09:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

40 days, if you are Basil Rathbone your tune has changed. Never mind. We have no alternative but to be sweetly reasonable with them. The wikipedia project is not designed to push any point of view, and it's not our duty to push this.

I am sad about a couple of the Masonic editor's reversion under Imacomp's influence, but Imacomp will soon burn himself out and the masonic editors' desire to show the best side of their institution will soon over-ride their desire to be indulgent to their (12 year old) brother. They must realise how Imacomp appears, and they can't be too happy about it - in fact I know a couple aren't. Personally I want to create some good articles, but if your agenda is to make Freemasonry appear intolerant, secretive and untruthful - why not let him run? JASpencer 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think Imacomp is an influence on Masonic Editors such as MSJapan - he isn't. There is nothing unique or special about the range of actions taken by Masons in support of each other and taken towards their common goal. The actions of Masons on the internet is the same whether here, or on lists, bulletin boards, websites, or even in the field of publishing written material. They do not want or accept criticism. They will not accept criticism. Freemasonry is a cult. Do you understand? Why will you not accept the word of others who have gone down this path with Masons before? You have the skillset to engage them effectively on Wikipedia, don't get caught up in personalities because with Freemasonry there is none - there is just Freemasonry, and Freemasonry is today what it has always been.

A daemonibus docetur, de daemonibus docet, et ad daemones ducit. It is taught by the demons, it teaches about the demons, and it leads to the demons. - St. Albertus Magnus40 Days of Lent 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are personalities in Freemasonry. It must be said that Freemasonry does seem to supress the best in some people's personalities, but don't dehumanise these people, that's where holocausts start. JASpencer 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Abuse

See Abuse page.

ALR

You should look at the jahbulon talk page sometime. Seraphim 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Imacomp 23:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

re Pike and sympathy

You posted the following on my talk page... You said that you were removing until discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholicism_and_Freemasonry#Pike_and_sympathy

If your not entering into the discussion then surely you are happy with it?

JASpencer 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... I have been entering into discussion... LOTS OF IT. See that section of the talk page and several others below it. My problems with quoting Pike are all over the talk page. I am not sure I know what you are complaining about. Blueboar 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, you deleted it saying "let's discuss it" and never answered my questions. I'm glad you are now answering as it looked like Blanking. JASpencer 22:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I 2nd that Blueboar. Imacomp 02:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer report on WP:RFI

As you asked for an update, I've archived it. As you've already noticed the checkuser request found you clear (though that was pretty obvious anyway, and I archived before seeing it). Happy NPOV'ing! Petros471 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JASpencer 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New Catholic Encyclopedia

Did not realize that there were 2 editions... so I do have to admit that it IS possible that there was an article on Freemasonry in the 1967 edition that was cut from the 2002 edition. And you are correct that if this is the case, it is interesting... perhaps it mirrors a shift in the Church's attitude towards the craft that should be mentioned in the Catholicism and Freemasonry article? In any case... I will attempt to find a copy of the 67 edition and cite check that. I will let you know the results no matter what the outcome. I still think that we should cite the original and not the copy. On that I have not changed my mind. Blueboar 02:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes in Citations and footnotes

FYI - I have asked all the editors to the various Freemasonry related articles to comment on this issue. I think we need to reach a concensus on when and were a citation needs to have a quotation added. Please note that I can see situations where a quotation might be useful, and do not object to having one in those situations. I just don't think one is needed as often as you do. If we reach an editors consensus, we can do away with future debates on this issue. Blueboar 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

JAS... do you mind if I cut the accusations of sock puppetry between you and Imacomp (and the cryptic Hugo stuff) that I moved into the "other stuff" area on the Catholicism and Freemasonry page? I am trying to hold a serious consensus poll there and both the accusations and the Hugo stuff just confuse the issue. I don't want to remove anything from a talk page unless the people who wrote it agree. I am going to post the same question to Imacomp. Blueboar 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, it makes sense. By the way can I again apologise for getting hot under the collar. Although I think that your proposed idea is going totally against Wikipedia standards for verifiability and would be several steps backwards, I do think that you are well intentioned and that the sinister idea that "masons hate citations" doesn't apply to you. JASpencer 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's very left-handed of you. :) I have to say, in all fairness, that it's not a question of not liking citations, but it's more that there seem to be double standards applied at times (Virchow, for example). Frankly, reliance on one source, especially when it is not an established source, is a bad idea, and I think you're getting the idea that if a Mason objects, it's based on a desire for showing Masonry in a good light, when it's really the similar idea that if something is to be said, it needs to be factual and correct. To put it in a similar context, I've heard it said that Catholics worship idols or that they worship the Virgin Mary and not Jesus. These are certainly claims that are made, but I don't think you'd let them stand as is because they are simply inaccurate, and can be easily proven as such with some basic looking around. The situation is really no different here. Put yourself in other people's shoes: think about what you would think if these were instead articles on anti-clericalism that were trotting out every negative comment or allegation ever made about the Church and every negative event the Church was supposedly "connected with" because the orchestrator was a Catholic. You might get a different perspective on things. MSJapan 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly thank you for coming on to my Talk Page. I do appreciate it, and my somewhat sharp comments that at times will follow should be read in the light of a genuine appreciation that you are big enough to start a dialogue that to my shame I wasn't.

I know that you don't dislike citations per se, but there does seem to be an attitude among a couple of editors that citations and quotations are somewhat troublesome (grotesque was a word that was used recently). I know that you don't see that but as long as people such as you and Blueboar condone that behaviour from Masonic editors you are approving that attitude.

As far as double standards goes, I agree. Virchow's Freemasonry was verifiable twice over and was fought tooth and nail on the Virchow page, while asking for quotations from obscure texts that support Masonic views has been seen as unnecesary. At times citation requests have been removed with the instruction "follow the link". Other citations have been removed or pruned of their quotations. But I don't think that these are the double standards you mean. Virchow's Masonry was verifiable, although whether it met with WP:NOR is another, far murkier, question (far murkier does not always mean that on reflection I may have been wrong - but on this occassion it does).

As to "I think you're getting the idea that if a Mason objects, it's based on a desire for showing Masonry in a good light" am I always wrong? I do believe that some of the Masonic editors are better than others, but the weakness is that when one has spoken the others feel obliged (in both senses) to follow. This can have some comic effects, such as when Imacomp deleted the Protestant origins - which was an attempt to add in some of the sounder moderate Masonic history - that the Vatican and the Catholic powers got worried about a secret society that originated and was controlled from London - the most powerful Protestant city - rather than for any inherent heresy. I'm not going to go to the stake to defend that theory - although it has merit - especially when Freemasons object to it.

On the other hand there have been sources being blanked have been justified after one of the more hot headed Masonic editors decided that almost every edit of mine was to be reversed on principle. With the exception of ALR none of you seem to have the guts to slap down Imacomp. He could be a reasonably competent editor if he showed a bit of humility and respect, so you're not doing him any service by playing to his childishness. I don't mind that much, it's just a bit more work, but he makes your club look closed and intollerant.

On being factual and correct I do agree with you, but the standard by which these virtues are judged here are "Verifiability not truth", see WP:V. Truth, especially on religious matters, while being objective (I'm a Catholic after all) is something that honest men can find it easy to differ. Verifiability on the other hand is an easier standard to agree. Thus with Virchow, it is verifiable that American Masonic historians recognised him as a German Freemason. They may be mistaken, or their detractors may not have access to some irregular Lodge's records, but the fact about Virchow being recognised as a Freemason is a click away (well, two clicks). It may need careful wording but to oppose it's inclusion because you haven't heard the fact before is going to arouse suspicion. Always imagine "what would I think of that argument if JASpencer put it forward?"

As to Catholics worshiping idols - if you have a prominent Catholic claiming that they do this then cite it and quote it. If you have a critic claiming that we do this then cite and quote that, with the proviso that you make clear it is a critic. I have let claims stand about the Knights of Columbus for example that were blatantly false, although the wording did have to change. In the end I'm confident that the Catholic critique of Freemasonry is sound (if at times overheated) and so can stand a thousand fact checks. I don't think that I can be accused of being shy of citations and quotations - I even defended Imacomp on this point (and got the sharp end of Lightbringer's tongue for asking for a higher standard than he thought - rightly - citations inserted by Masonic had).

And so we move on to being in another's shoes. Yes, I understand that Freemasonry is dear to you and is central to your outlook. And it's natural that you don't like criticism of it. However if you edit a page dealing with Catholic attitudes to Freemasonry then you are going to get some very unflattering views, and sometimes with ample provocation from Freemasonry itself. These views are on the record, they're not inserted after the event by some editor with a grudge and the initials LB. A lot of nasty things are said about my Church, and it is a large human institution with a long history and ideals of perfection - there are a lot of justifiable criticisms. I don't love the Church any less (despite an occassional wish to throttle a couple of Her bishops). And that is my view of my Church - blemished, run by sinners, but the barque of Christ and the door of Salvation. I suppose this fleshiness is a Catholic thing. I know it doesn't give you the lightbulb moment you were hoping for, but I do expect Masonic editors to take their lumps as much as I expect Catholic editors to.

I want to thank you again for your comments. God bless you. JASpencer 20:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

JAS... I am glad to read the comments you made to MSJ above. They reaffirm my belief that you are approaching your editing from a fair (if admittedly POV) viewpoint. The two of us may get into heated debate over what should be included (or, as now, HOW they should be included)... but we can at least argue in good faith, knowing that neither of us is really pushing an unreasonable objective. And with this in mind...

I posted the following onto the talk pages of most of the regular editors to the various Freemasonry related articles (and yes, I have included the NON-Freemasons such as Seraphim and DonnaNobisPacem. If you feel that there is anyone I left out, please notify them. Without comment by others on the quotation issue, I doubt either of us will "back down" on our concept of how to do things... And I really don't want the two of us to get into a revert war. This is what I posted:

• ..."As you may know, JASpencer and I are having a minor argument over how to present quotations that support statements made in the various Freemasonry related articles. JAS preffers to include them in the citations, as footnotes, while I feel they should be included in the main text. Would you be so kind as to check out my sample section at Catholicism and Freemasonry/example and compare it to the same section at the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. I would be interested in your oppinion (as well as those of all the editors of these articles) as to which style you prefer. Feel free to pass this on to any one you feel would give an honest oppinion. (sent to all regular editors of the Freemasonry related pages) Blueboar 18:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"

Oh... I hope you had a pleasant Easter. "The Lord has Risen!" ... god bless. Blueboar 19:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unclear request on RFC Policy

On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies, you posted "Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry - Removing quotation requests if inconvenient. 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)". This makes no sense to me- even after reading a bit of the talk page I'm not sure whether you were referring to Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry#The need for quotations in footnotes and citations? or not. Could you clarify your request? --maru (talk) contribs 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Talk Page has grown a bit since I put in the RFC. I suppose the section "The need for quotations in footnotes and citations?" is as good a place as any to put in an outside view, and I appreciate the fact that you have done so. Please be careful when you tread into these pages. JASpencer 17:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vatican Documents and Copyrights

Do you know if a Vatican Declariation can be freely published anywhere? Can we freely publish Declariations made by the Holy See on Wikipedia? If so, is there a statement about copyrights from the Vatican we can use. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 14:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]

Can you help at the Opus Dei RfC?

There is a request for comments at the Opus Dei Talk Page. I fear some anti-Opus Dei guys want to turn things upside down in the name neutrality. The previous editors continue to argue in terms of Wikipedia:NPOV, but the new guys seem to have their own ideas on how Wikipedia should be written. They are anti-authority; they resent the dictatorship of Jimbo Wales. Can you help and give some comments? Thanks! Walter Ching 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Walter, thank you for the invitation. I will look over the RfC, but can't promise that I will be able to comment on it as I've taken little interest in the article. JASpencer 20:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder to go vote by June 7 for the Catholic Collaboration of the Week. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.

Vote in progress to move Counter-Reformation to Catholic Reformation

This move makes sense because Counter-Reformation implies that that the movement was against reform. Rather as a reform movement within the Catholic Church, it is most precisely known as the Catholic Reformation. This is now the more favored term in academic theological circles.

Please stop by talk:Counter-Reformation for the vote. Thanks, --Vaquero100 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

You showed support for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Remember that voting to support an article implies a commitment to contribute to the article. This week Catholic social teaching was selected to be improved. We hope you can contribute!

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment

Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mira 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles-François Baillargeon

I removed the redirect you had on Charles-François Baillargeon and replaced it with a stub article. If that is not the correct procedure, please let me know. Thanks! Stormbay 18:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Relegating"

JASpencer, thank you for your note on my talk page. I apologize if I have given offense. My understanding of the Traditionalist Catholic article is that it discusses the desire of some Catholics to return to the pre-Conciliar liturgical practices. While I agree with you that the central narrative of the Catholic Church in our times is the decline in adherants in the first world (and the conversion of Latin Americans in large number to Evangelical churches) in large part stemming from the degradation of the traditional Church, it would be a real stretch to say that most Catholics are pining for the Tridentine mass. In most cities there is just one or several Churches offering the Tridentine liturgy and they are not bursting at the seems. While Catholic 45 and younger have a strong attraction to the tradition of the Church and aspects of the earlier traditional forms, most are not demanding a complete reversal of the reforms. So, while a significant number of Catholics, myself included, identify themselves as traditional (which I understand to mean obedient to the magisterium and the liturgical laws) those who are Traditionalist (which I understand to mean practicing the Tridentine liturgy) are significantly fewer and fairly distant from "the central narrative" of the Church today. I would be glad to talk about this more, if you like. Vaquero100 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your note on my talk page, JASpencer. I agree with everything that you said. Clearly the after-effects of the Council are a major concern for the Church, as it is a major concern for me, personally. However, as much as Traditionalists consider themselves as the embodiment of these concerns and even the embodiment of the solution, this is precisely what makes them very fringe in the Church and out of line with the Magisterium. The problems of the Church in the modern world are far to complex and vast to be solved by the 1962 or any other missal. Historians of the Church in the twentieth century agree that a crisis was brewing in Post WWII intellectual, political and cultural circles as early as the late 1940's and even the 1930's. The crisis was coming whether the Council was held or not. The Council did its best to stem the coming crisis before it was too late.

Evidence for the coming crisis includes the fact that new vocations to religious life among women were already beginning to decline as early as 1960. This decline began precisely as the demographics of the baby boom generation would suggest an explosion of new vocations cannot be explained by the "effects of Vatican II." In fact, the unprecedented social changes brought about by the War years including women pursuing higher education and joining the work force in mass numbers were destined to bring about much of what eventually did happen in the 1960's. College level co-education was a movement set into motion in the late 40's on campuses private and public all across the nation. The Ivies got all the attention in the late 60's and early 70's because they were among the last hold outs, but the movement was well in motion BEFORE the Council. The sexual revolution was coming. The feminist crisis was coming too. Even in "I Love Lucy" in the placid 1950's nearly every episode dealt with the frustration of housewives whose functional (though not moral and spiritual) indespensibility was being replaced by modern conveniences from washing machines to TV dinners. The constant chipping away at gender roles began in film in the 1930's and 1940's with an impressive array of films by the likes of Katherine Hepburn and other leading women who played competant lawyers and other dominant roles.

Other shifts were happening at the cultural and philosophical levels. The cumulative felt need to abandon the cruel past and begin afresh as well as the practical need to reconstruct Europe combined in an era of new construction materials and techniques and a shift in international design tastes, already expressed in the pre-War design concepts of Bahaus and le Corbusier. The resulting modern or "international style" made the Nineteenth century devotional images and architecture look tacky and irrelevant by the tastes of the time. In fact, the whole of the Church's artistic and architectual patrimony came to look stuffy and tired, a lot like renovating half your house and leaving the other half worn and 30 years out of date. In the 1950's Catholics and other Christians were living in a world that made their Sunday worship from the vestments to the hymnody to the Latin to the architecture look more and more like an curious and odd relic of history rather a living tradition.

In philosophy the incredible damage done by Derrida only began in 1967, but he was building upon and was simply the logical consequence of the Existentialists of the 40's and 50's, who were indebted to Heideggar in the 1930's, who "built upon Neitzche in the 1880's who ultimately was a consequence of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason published a year earlier in 1781. The foundations of Western Civilization and Catholic culture had been crumbling for centuries by the time of the Second Vatican Council. Furthermore, the Church's strategy of protecting Catholics from such intellectual onslaughts by the enforcement of the index was beginning to fail as affordable public universities in America and Europe were expanded to reach the majority of the middles classes.

Concurrently, as the emerging power of secularism was beginning to be unleashed (1960 JFK promises to NOT let his faith shape his presidential decisions) the Church saw in its historic enemies (Protestants, the Orthodox, and adherents of other religions) potential allies in facing the coming onslaught. This proved to be true when after standing alone in the fight against abortion since 1973, Evangelicals and the Republican Party in the US began to join the effort in the early 80's.

While the 1950's are commonly remembered as placid in today's popular culture, just beneath the surface were explosive currents which the Catholic intellectual community correctly understood as profoundly threatening. Finding a way to communicate with fidelity the ancient teachings in an idiom accessible to modernity was crucial if it was to weather the storm. The Council was not about making changes for the sake of change (although many developments "on the ground" following the Council were for the sake of mere novelty), rather the Council documents were primarily an apologia written to the modern world to explain the Church's ongoing role at the center of humanity. Many of the liturgical changes were made precisely to make the message of the Gospel even more accessible to the modern person than the ideas of the deconstructionists and the like.

Personally, I am a traditional Catholic. I do deeply desire a more profound recovery of the riches of the great ancient Tradition. But I am a traditional Catholic not because I think the SVC was a complete failure. Given the depths of the 60's cultural crisis, a 1950's style Catholicism might have collapsed completely. The reforms probably saved the Church through without comp I am a traditional Catholic because I believe the Holy Spirit is moving the Church at this time to cherish the Tradition and bring it to a new generation which is hungry for eternal truth expressed as alien to the modern world. The dissatisfaction with the modern world is now the Church's ally just as the attraction of the modern world 40 years ago was the Church's enemy.

I am not so naive to think that reverting (to us a wikiword) to the Catholicism of the 1950's is the answer because I dont think SVC was the problem. The problem was a cultural crisis on the scale of the French Revolution, the Reformation or the fall of Rome. I believe the Council was a prophetic movement of the Holy Spirit that probably saved the Catholic Church from a complete annihilation. A 1950's style Church would have been utterly unable to communicate with the 1960's generation at all. In fact, at least at the time, the parts of the Church which were least adaptable in that period have actually been worse than decimated. The entrenched and rigid French Canadian Church which had been the strongest element of the Church in North America was leveled to such a degree that scant evidence of a future even today. Conversely, the nation with the most practicing faithful in the world, the United States, was precisely the nation in which the reforms took their firmest roots.

As the Holy Spirit moved the Church in the middle of the last century to prepare for a coming urgent crisis, so I believe the Holy Spirit is moving the Church presently to weather the longer effects of secularism by returning to many or even most of its ancient expressions to offer as a refreshment to contemporary weariness with modern emptiness.

As a traditional Catholic I can praise God for his work in the Church in the age of the Council, and for his work in the present age and his work in all ages, because the expression of the faith is not the faith. He will always lead us to expressions of the faith necessary for the moment just as he always has. There is no magic in a fiddleback chasuble vs. any other kind of chasuble (in fact there have been myriad styles of such vestments, new styles in every age) except that the Holy Spirit will lead us to the proper expression for out age. He will lead us, as only He knows how, to find the way to communicate to soft spots in the hardened hearts in every generation.

So, yes, I love and welcome the Tradition of the Church, but no I am not a traditionalist. Rather, a traditional Catholic who sees the Spirit at work in every age. This does not make me a relativist either. The content of the faith and morals of the Church are immutable. I will fight for them just like I will fight for the Church's immutable nature and its immutalbe name (as I have become known for on WP).

The traditionalist on the other hand confuses the immutable Tradition with its very mutable expression over time. What is essential about Latin when the Church has from the beginning prayed in Greek, Slovonic, Aramaic as well as other languages?

So, the traditional Catholic and the Traditionalist are similar on the surface (at the moment) but are profoundly different in their theological understanding of the ongoing revelation or development in the Church. The traditionalist sees the Church as static and fundamentally uncreative. The traditional Catholic sees the human capacity for ingenuity as a potential means for good or evil. It's use for evil on the part of some demands its use for the good on the part of others. This is the ongoing playing out of good and evil in history. I believe the SVC was a profoundly creative response motivated by the Spirit to counteract a massive impending evil dynamic in history. Now at another juncture in history, the Spirit is preparing the Church to creatively counteract new and present evils. So lets not confuse the two.

My apologies for the incredibly long message. I appreciate this conversation because it is helping me to synthesize and formulate how I presently understand this topic. Vaquero100 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry

You've done a lot of research into Freemasonry over the past few months: leaving the Church's opinion out of it for the moment, what's your opinion? Just curious.--SarekOfVulcan 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but will try to answer as best I can. I think that Freemasonry is religiously indifferent and so hostile to any form of religious dogma, and so unwise for anyone who values their religion (and not simply some belief in God and good living). I believe it was a source of much (not all) of the de-Christianisation of Catholic societies such as Italy, Mexico and France - much of it before the breach with UGLE. The influence of Freemasony admittedly seems to be dying out in Continental Europe today as ex-Marxists seem to be taking the lead in the secularist crusade. I hope that answers your question. JASpencer 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it answers it. I disagree with the "indifference" being hostile to religion, but I respect that you've come to that conclusion.--SarekOfVulcan 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Liebermann, Bruno Franz Leopold

This has been deleted as an empty article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste de La Brosse

I started a new article on Jean-Baptiste de La Brosse the other day. He happened to be an early Canadian missionary who had an impact for his time. Would one insert this name at Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Missionaries or is that a list defined by certain parameters within the project underway? As you would see from my edit history, I do quite a lot of stuff from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography — DoCB Initiative. Obviously, there are articles that have priest/missionary/bishop/archbishop subjects. I try to link anything I start as thoroughly as I can. However, I don't presume to "jump into" someone's project without understanding how they operate. I have posted some other things on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism site but I'm not sure that people are reading and actioning stuff as happens on an individual talk page. Thanks for your time! Stormbay 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer; maybe later. I am more interested in finding out whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism is interested in being alerted to articles that appear to me to have interest to them. Cheers! (also, who best to alert.) Stormbay 22:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Collaboration

You showed support for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Remember that voting to support an article implies a commitment to contribute to the article. This week Pope John Paul II was selected to be improved. We hope you can contribute!

--Briancua 12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

all appologies

JAS - thanks for the kind appology on my talk page. I really was not offended as much as frustrated. We all come at the same material from different POVs, and sometimes it is hard to understand why another editor does not see things that I think are obvious. I not only accept you appology (although it was not needed), I return a similar appology if I have said anything that offended you.Blueboar 11:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanchard

The quotes re: the tiara, etc., are in the discussion that is now at the top of the Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry page. I think all the info is there, though the ISBN may be needed, which is readily accessible via Amazon. MSJapan 12:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Silence does not mean anything except "I am away"

JAS, Just so you know, I will be off for about a week (I have to go to out of state to bury my father, who passed away last Sept. This was the first chance the entire family could gather to take care of that little detail)... I don't want you to think that since I am not replying to whatever comments or changes you post I am giving tacit agreement. I'll see what kind of mischief you have gotten into when I get back and will rant and rave about how awful they are at that time. Have fun storming the castle! Blueboar 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Biblical scholar articles

Please stop making them as you are currently doing. Each and every one of the subjects must have a "claim to fame" stated, or they do not belong on Wikipedia. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 13:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

HI mate look if you don't want your articles deleted you need to add a little for info to make it notable otherwise you are wasting your time. good luckJames Janderson 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

hi cool man, you don't even have to write a great long article just add his birth dates, nationality, and why what he did was notable but try to avoid direct copywright. that should stop other users from deleting them. ok mate James Janderson 13:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

hi just a little bit more needed see Giovanni Antoniano. Nationality and dates of life are very important.James Janderson 14:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

see Aymeric of Piacenza

Profession

Might I ask what your profession is? I'm increasingly impressed by your approach to data representation, and I'm curious as to whether you deal in the discipline. Thanks ALR 15:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

An intruigingly opaque response, I won't probe any further. Thankyou for taking the time anyway.ALR 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. The question itself was pretty clear, as far as I can work out. In any case, putting the statement with respect to data representation in context, which I'm surprised I'm having to do: In WP we are present items of data to the reader to convey information, those data can be communicated and structured in different ways, the end result being subtleties in the message being inferred by the reader. I'm intruiged and impressed by the discipline which you manage to apply to disaggregation and segragation of data in presenting it to the reader.

I'll concede that it's not a style that I'm comfortable with, were I to present something to a client in the style I'd feel as if it lacked something, since I prefer presenting richer content. Despite that I have some admiration for people who can distance themselves from the content in that way.

What brought it to mind is that some work I'm doing at the moment on collaboration strategies.ALR 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why lots of sources don't equal validity....

Much in the same way as it seems you are trying to say Jahbulon is bigger than it appears because of the sources available, on a similar note, I notice nothing regarding Catholics worshipping idols appears in the Catholicism articles. Google "Catholics worship idols", and look at all the sources, pro and anti. By your own statements, you would seem to be saying that this is also something that needs to be addressed, because it's obviously a huge issue.

Now, I had personally never heard of this from anyone ever until it came up in a discussion relatively recently. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a big issue, nor is it a valid one. Then again, it is all over the Internet. In short, Catholics and idols is precisely the same situation as Masons and Jahbulon, and I have a feeling the outcome is exactly the same: all the claimants who think Catholics worship idols don't really understand what it means to be Catholic, just as the claimants regarding Jahbulon don't know what it means to be a Royal Arch Mason, or a Mason at all. The parallels bear consideration. MSJapan 19:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the issue needs to be dealt with as the clashes about Iconoclasm reshaped the history of the church in both the east and the West. The use of statues and relics are also a clear dividing line between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestanism, Judaism and Islam. And there are plenty of articles on this. JASpencer 19:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But what's on the Internet isn't about Iconoclasm, and it's not a theological discussion, it's simply repeated allegations and refutations of idol worship among Catholics with no real sourcing. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and neither does the Jabulon nonsense.

But what you're talking about is Idolatry in Christianity. Not a great article, but a necesary subject. JASpencer 20:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD removal

JAS... I have no objection to your removing the AFD box on the Jahbulon article... I just wonder if it was correct to do so by wiki rules. We have not yet recieved an official response to my withdrawal of the AFD nomination. Just wanted to point that out. As far as I am concerned deleting it is fine. Blueboar 20:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to put it back... we can do so if we are yelled at.  :>) Blueboar 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coetus Internationalis Patrum, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Catholicism and Freemasonry updated

I added in all the stuff I could from the "article-ready" section of the to-do list, but I didn't know where to put the last two. Can you check everything over and make sure it's where it should be? MSJapan 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Simon

You might also want to be aware that this is not the first issue with him, but you might not remember the others. He has often engaged in circular arguments that have gone nowhere, and has refused to take citations as legitimate (at which point said items violate NOR, in his view). Before you go any further with this, I suggest you view his contribution history. MSJapan 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a few things about me that MSJapan has misrepresented. My name is not Simon. My username is Simonapro. Second of all I created the article Quaesitum est (among other things I do here). My arguements are straight and to the point about the use of WP:CITE style to prevent WP:NOR violations. I often ask for cites using the { { fact } } tags. (Simonapro 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Hi. I like your enthusiasm for creating new articles but Why create the articles if you don't categorize them e.g Category:French writers etc.? They are of very little use to anybody if you don't do this. I am sure I have told you this before. Surely you want your articles to be useful to people. I mean they are limited enough as they are and don't really state why they are notable - no places of birth no dates ? Please begin to add a little more info to put it into its context and PLEASE categorize rather than stating just Catholic Encyclopedia. Your work could become useful if you could just to this. At least then a reader can connect it to French writers or some other category rather than just being a Catholic sub stubErnst Stavro Blofeld 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

HI mate. Sorry if I sounded a little harsh before but from what I have seen from your latest articles they are much improved. Your article stubs now link to others and the reader can grab a historical, religious and indeed national concept of what it is about. Well done try to keep it up! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Marcel Lefebvre

Dear Mr Spencer,

While some of your edits to this article are great, many many are not. For instance, today you removed several sentences about the reform of the Holy Ghost Fathers seminaries (and referred to this on the Talk page). You state there "It has the ring of truth about it but I can find nothing on the internet on this so I can't cite it." Virtually ALL of the edits which I made to this page several months ago come from THE biography about Lefebvre by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. You seem to think that a webpage is a better source of material than a book. In this case you are wrong. You have added all sorts of references to particular webpages (many of which are not very good sources), instead of using the major source which is cited at the bottom of the article. Please stop your edits until you get a hold of some books about the subject. Noel S McFerran 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying tounderstand your approach at Marcel Lefebvre

I was looking over this page and I want to understand what you thinking here and where it came from. There is so much instruction creep here at WP I am sure you are familar with pages talking of all this that I have never seen. You stated:

If these assertions don't have citations in two days I will start deleting them. If anyone wants me to hold off a particular assertion then please let me know. I'll hold off if it's in an offline book, but only to give some time, not for ever.

If I understand you correctly, you would still remove these statements if someone stated that the information came from a particular book and listed the book ISBN. Is that correct? What are you meaning when you ask for a "citation"? Can you show me what you think is the bare minimum information need in an acceptable citation. Do you believe any of these statements to be unverifiable? Do you believe any of these statements are incorrect or controversial? And last but not least can you point me to where you got all these ideas from. I really must admit I am very confused by the way you are applying WP:V, but I can only imagine it is due to other instruction creep somewhere. It is clear to me you are trying to do what you think is the right thing. It is not clear to me why you believe this to be the right thing. Any help making it more clear would be greatly appreciated. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about misrepresenting your actions. I was thinking more about the ultimate position you hold rather than the particular way things unfolded in this case. Regarding my position of a book slapped at the bottom of the article. I think material is such an article should be improved rather than removed. By looking through the history is should be pretty easy to figure out. Which editor added the reference? Looking at that particular edits by that editor, do they contain the sort of detailed information which must have been taken from an actual source? These edits can be converted to footnotes. albeit without page numbers. Edits made by other editors after this reference was added must be treated as unsourced. I would not be supportive of people adding new information without page numbers once the article has already been converted to citation style. I do feel we need to allow something along the lines of "grandfathering" older sourced material. Do you have any questions about my position? I am trying to explain myself clearly, but I don't know of I am succeeding. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking last night about your misunderstanding of my position. I wonder if you also misunderstand my intentions here. I imagine that I would agree with many of your removals. Some of the things on your list may end up being things I advocate removing. I do think you are a bit overzealous however and I am trying to determine the point at which my opinion diverges from yours. I have never worked at bringing citations into an article but it is the main thing anticipate doing at WP in the future. Because of my inexperience not all of my ideas in regard to this process are very firm. Really I am trying to understand your ideas as well as the ideas of those who oppose you and make my own mind as to where I stand. I am not intending to try and take you down point by point. I really think the work you are doing is great. I have overly focused on the three things we disagree with here rather than making you aware of my support of your work in improving the citation of sources. There is just more to talk about in the areas where we disagree :) --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some hopeful news

I have found a local copy of the biograpy in english! Unfortunately it is not at a library were I can have check out privledges. Luckily according to their online catalog, it is indexed. So I should be able to do this quickly. I do not know if they have any public access computers there either. So I am printing out a copy of the article and going to do my best to work this out after I get off work. If you have anything else you would like me to verify, or anything currently not in the article you would like me to look up please let me know ASAP. I do not plan on making a second trip. I have never been to this library so hopefully it works out and they let people off the street in, but we will see. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to be of help, hopefully there are no problems getting access. It is at a local Jesuit University and it appears to be in a general area. Usually you can act like a student and get access to most everything that isn't on a computer. I will let you know what I find out tonight, but I have plans the next two evenings so I may not get to actually update the article till the weekend.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got good news and bad news. I was able to get my hands on the book, however it was not in english. Luckily french is my third best language. Unfortunately finding information in my third best language takes much longer to do than in english. I was able to confirm most of the information, strangely the date on #1 is incorrect. I did run short of time and will have to go back next week (with a french-english dictionary) to work on the rest. I will not be able to update the article till at least Thursday evening.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I should have some more to add this coming week. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Update on Scottish Rite

Hi JAS... I just wanted to update you on the progress of my research into whether the Catholic Encyclopedia was correct in stating that the Knight Kadosh degree contains a part where they "trample" on the papal tiara... unfortunately, the result is "no confirmation" either way.

I have discovered that you were correct in thinking that Inner Sanctuary is the name of Pike's revised ritual, but I have been unable to obtain an actual copy of it to see what it contains. I have also been able to confirm that the current (as of 2004) ritual does not contain tiara trampling etc. Unfortunately, this confimation came to me through a verbal conversation, and thus is not citable. Given my inability to definitively discover the facts ... I now must concede that it is at least possible that the revised Pike ritual contained the elements objected to by the Church.

At the moment, the statements in the Christianity and Freemasonry article are techincally accurate, in that Magnum Opus does not contain trampling... but if you feel the need to re-write the section to reflect my lack of confirmation on subsequent Pike revisions, I will not object. If you are willing to put the info about the 2004 revision in without citation, I can assure you that my source is trustworthy. However, I do understand if you demand a citable source before adding such statements. Blueboar 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something! Magnum Opus is the original Pike ritual, which I do have a copy of. Would we be violating OR if we made the following logical path: that if the tiara does not appear in the original (Magnum Opus), and it does not appear in a later revision (2004, assuming it does not differ substantially from the original), that it would be fair to state that the CE is working from the Cerneau Knight Kadosh (where it does appear, and has been stated in numerous sources as appearing there) and not the Pike? MSJapan 18:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply on here.

Blueboar, thank you very much for your research. It is interesting that the Inner Sanctuary is actually ritual. All I was sure was that it was that the CE article quoted from this and not the Magnum Opus. I think that it is 90% safe to say that it doesn't happen any more, at least not in the A&ARSJ (although I bet that there's a Latin Orient or two that does).

MSJ, I don't think that the CE was quoting from a Cernau ritual - partly because it's different from Cerneau version (for example Larry Holly quotes from this) and partly because it specifically cites Pike's Inner Sanctuary. I think all we can say at the moment is that the CE cites Pike (correctly or not - we don't know).

As an unencyclopedic aside, I'll sit down at some time to work out the dates - I think that he wrote the Magnum Opus before he wrote his condemnations of Cerneau and the Inner Sanctuary after.

JASpencer 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

De-prod

Hi. I see you deproded Brandon Darrow and Jack Mercer. Fair enough but I wish you'd put an original research tag or made the merge rather than just suggest it, when really it shouldn't be controversial. These two articles were created by a user whose sole edits consist of inserting stupid mistakes in biographical articles or creating these fake bios of characters. In any case, I've made both of these redirects and deleted the content. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arnav Tripathy

I am returning this article to deletion status. Since there has been a contest to my original note, I will put it under AfD rather than PROD.

Note that the article says he is a prominent High School mathematician. He placed 6 at MathCounts, a national mathematics competition, and a gold medal at another international mathematics competition. Both of these (and it should be noted, unreferenced) claims make him a top math student.

A mathematician is one who adds original research or knowledge to the study of mathematics. This kid just does his calculus problems really fast. While it might mean a lot to him, he has done nothing notable. He is not a mathematician, even if the article claims it. He's just a really bright math student. Such persons are not notable re: WP:BIO. --Jayron32 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Atkin

Fair enough. She is one of Canada's top 30 power women. But the article still reads like a vanity article and needs some serious work. But I will no longer contest it. --Jayron32 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Calvin Williams

I fail to understand what sort of point you were making by deprodding this article. It's not a matter of needing a citation -- I am familiar with the subject area and double-checked with references. It's a matter of this article not having any basis in fact and needing to be removed from the encyclopedia. At this point, that means AfD. Erechtheus 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to review WP:PROD. This was an uncontroversial deletion, as evidenced by the survival of the template until you came by and decided to apply something that I think you got from WP:SPEEDY about A7. Erechtheus 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutt

Hi. You're the only established user arguing for a keep on this article, but I suspect it's a hoax. Would you mind double-checking? Thanks, William Pietri 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ulla Sandbaek

Dear JASpencer,

As you should be able to see from the edits to this page, I am the so-called phantom poster (who subsequently identified herself, twice) who had to change the page several times to bring it into the reality-based world. 1st of all, the term "population control" was used - this is a perjorative thrown around by specific organizations with a specific political agenda to discredit efforts to bring family planning services to the developing world. Then, of course, it was put back, shampoo, rinse, repeat.

This was rather disturbing given that the article on the Sandbaek report itself has a wikipedia page and anyone could have simply looked there, or followed the links to the source materials, to see what the report was really about - which most emphatically is not "population control."

2nd, I noticed the resources for the information initially in the entry included C-Fam, a front group for the Vatican. They are notorious for putting out information on this topic that is very slanted, if not blatantly false. There is no reason to rely on a heavily political lobby group when the actual report is available.

Third, to highlight abortion rather than the other issues addressed in the report - its findings, the shocking disregard for maternal health in developing countries and development programs alike, the impact of the lack of reproductive health services on family development, community cohesion, and society overall... People familiar with these issues are quite accustomed to the way political groups try to discredit comprehensive reports and programmes on reproductive health by focusing on one controversial aspect. Unfortunately, the effect of the entry the way it was written would be to lead someone to think - "oh, Ulla Sandbaek - she's the one who wrote that report about abortion" or "she's the one who made the EU give money for abortion."

Now, if you think this is just one person's opinion, I challenge you to look at the report and determine what percentage of space - how much attention it gives - to the issue of abortion versus the rest of its content. You will see that it is relatively minimal. A correct "short take" on the report would focus on its main points, not a relatively minor point that was found to be controversial by a handful of actors (it certainly was not controversial to most of the EU governments, almost all of whom support legalised abortion).

Wikipedia is a valuable resource and its pages should not be co-opted (however unwittingly) to fit any group's particular agenda.

If you think there is interest in having a short summary of the report based on its actual contents on that page, I'd be happy to oblige. Or, if the controversy is an important point, specify that it was controversial for just a few actors (the Vatican, Malta, and perhaps a few others, and list the many for whom it was not controversial). Otherwise, just stay out of it by steering people to the wikipedia page on the report itself and let people figure it out for themselves.

I hope this explains the matter clearly.

If you wish to explain the matter clearly you should (1) stop deleting factual information, (2) stop refering to Catholic groups as "front groups for the Vatican and (3) stop waffling so much. JASpencer 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Michael Lee Amesbury and Paul Andrews (British politician)

I have removed your merge tags from these articles. The debate about whether Councillors are noteable has already happened and no consensus was reached (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manchester_councillors). Thanks Thegraham 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging Councillors

Could I ask Mr Spencer to cease and desist from attempting to merge Manchester councillors' entries onto the wards they represent. These people are largely self-important politicians and giving them further publicity on a page which is reserved for information about the area itself is inappropriate and unfair. I will oppose.

--Hardylane 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I am reverting the changes. You should have used the merge tags (like you began with) and then waited for responses to them. Thegraham 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I also ask why you are only moving/merging Labour Councillors? -- Thegraham 14:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Katie Price/Jordan

Can I ask why you dewikilinked Katie Price in Stretford and Urmston? They were one and the same and it is a relevant link. PS I do support getting rid of individual substubs on councillors, and wonder if there is a way of getting a centralized discussion going on this. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I was actually the user who nominated the Manchester councillors for deletion, under my previous username; and I now realise where I went wrong. If a large number of articles are nominated for deletion, very few people bother to read them all, and no-one is going to vote delete for an article they have not read to check. Whereas, if it's done through a centralised discussion, it's possible to get consensus on the principle. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

DRV

I have undeleted the history you asked for. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Brazil - superpower

You can help me to improve the article? João Felipe C.S 19:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Sure thing. Superpower in corruption and violence .

Your edit to Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Unclassified

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Unclassified (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yr LoPbN edit

Thank you for experimenting with the page List of people by name: Thoma on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
No ext lks belong on LoPbN pages except hidden in comments. Nor does information beyond vital stats, nationality, and a minimal indication of the area of the person's cause of notability (usually in one word; 4 words is a rare exception). Also (as follows from this), rdrs from potential bio titles to LoPbN pages would be abusive toward users, even if they did not create indirect self-lks from LoPbN pages to themselves.
--Jerzy•t 00:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration. Current nominations:

Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing Prod from Darla Sawler

Hi there - just curious to know why a mention in Guinness Book of World Records would be sufficient for a person to be considered notable. Incidentally, I put it on PROD instead listing at as hoax (which may have been more correct), but now it will need to go to AfD for deletion. The talk page by itself is a violation of WP:BIO. Risker 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Josef Speckbacher

This was a non-notable biography as per the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 07:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Nicholas Gilman

Your recent edit to Nicholas Gilman (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacem In Terris

Replied Blueboar 19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tory bloggers

Hey just wanted to take this out of the discussion on deletion of Tim Montgomerie and ask you to cool it - I don't expect to have to fend off personal attacks on my edits when I express an opinion, ok? --SandyDancer 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Home

The history of this page was deleted by User:King of Hearts as lacking context. I asked him if he would consider restoring it and he declined. Due to the circumstances, I don't believe it can simply be speedy undeleted. However, you're welcome to either contest the deletion under 'Decisions to be reviewed', or - probably the simplest solution - write a new article that actually explains what Conservative Home is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Catholicism

I was in the midst for fomulating a point-by-point rebuttal to the revert, but thankfully I updated my watchlist before getting too far into it. Obviously I'm a newcomer to the page (but not Wikipedia), so I was not aware that the page was contested -- in fact, I just assumed that it was a page that wasn't maintained. I probably should've made made more incremental edits. Anyhow, glad to see that many of the edits are being accepted. I still don't like the terminology "the Catholic Church bans so-and-so" -- I just don't think it's an accurate statement, or at least it doesn't sound accurate. The Church is not like a state government where it can "ban automatic weapons, etc." enforced by law. It only claims to say what is or what is not acceptable to God -- the person then has freewill to obey or disobey. I will be away from the computer the rest of the week but will take another look when I return. LotR 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Euronationalism

I've restored the talk page, but with the article I think the same applies as with Conservative Home, only more so - it was deleted by an AfD, and should not be recreated, at least not in its form at the time. Of course, if you've found sources that discuss the term (not just mention it) and consequently could write an article that passed WP:NEO, you can create a new article with those sources and ask for the history to be undeleted then. Otherwise you would need the 'decisions to be reviewed' section to challenge the original deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Amadia and Acra

I proposed this article for deletion because it did not provide any evidence of notability (and no, I don't believe dioceses are inherently notable, any more than schools are). I also note that there's quite a lengthy article on the Catholic Encyclopedia about this topic. Had I been inclined to do so, and had you been a new user rather than the experienced one you obviously are, I would have added some of the material there to at least bring this article up to the point where it was more than a speedy candidate. Please don't think that I'm trying to get on your case here - I'm not - it's just that I see so many poor stubs on New Pages patrol that never go past being stubs, and I really believe that editors, especially those with some experience, ought to take the time to make sure their article has some relevancy. Cheers, Denni ^talk 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, although I disagree on dioceses not being notable. However speedy deletion really should not be used for borderline notability cases. JASpencer 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Marie-Dominique Chenu

Dear JAS, do you intend to add something to the above article? If not, I will ask the admins to turn it into a red link again, so that no one is deluded into following this empty link. I have deleted the redirect added by you, as it was a double redirect and there can be no justification for redirecting this to the disambig article "Chenu". Please reply. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jean-François Hubert

Jean-François Hubert appears to be an empty link that you created to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Quebec. Do you intend to create the article? I had linked him to a new article and, on checking it I arrived at the Archdiocese of Quebec which i had already linked. Please advise and i will adjust my links. Cheers! Stormbay 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Diocesan Infobox

To the WikiProject Catholicism members

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Jahbulon

There's yet another AfD on this article. Thought you might be interested. —Hanuman Das 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for helping out on the Virtual Tax article. the reason I placed it in wiki is... well I was acctually surprised to not see it anywhere even after it had been talked about and proposed quite a bit of times.

Thanks for your help =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maverick423 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Award

Awarded to JASpencer by SandyDancer for intelligent debate and for being a civilising influence.

I haven't been enjoying Wikipedia much recently but your contributions remind me that intelligent debate and civility do exist here. Thanks. --SandyDancer 16:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic-expand

{{catholic-expand}} This tag is not useful when it is added to articles that are already based in part on Catholic Encylopedia, such as Feast of Fools. --Wetman 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles would not benefit from 100 year old Catholic polemics. Just because a CE encyclopedia article exists doesn't mean editors should be encouraged to add it to Wikipedia. It's unclear what your motivations are, either well meaning, or spreading Catholic bias. There is considerable controversy and disagreement with adding material from old Encyclopedias. Why not the EB1911? The Jewish Encyclopedia? There are many old encyclopedias, why do you think just the Catholic one should be used? It is better to link directly to the article as an external link, and not tell people they should expand the article using it as a source. -- Stbalbach 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am replying to your note on the Gutenberg page. I assume you place the tag only when you know of something relevant, not merely suspect there might be from the name of the article. (I am fully aware that the CE contains much more than polemics) If you see where an article would benefit, then please put in the additional material, or propose it on the talk page if you are not certain. Most articles have already incorporated sufficient material from the older sources, and are looking for new. So if you have something specific to suggest that was overlooked, please suggest it specifically, and it will be greatly appreciated. (By the way, if you do insert such material, I hope you will give a citation, not the over general "may contain some..." Even PD material needs to be properly acknowledged.) Also, I think it would be more fitting to put the tag on the article talk page, not the article--those interested will see it there just as well--if your purpose is to add the CE article to the bibliography, then do that directly--otherwise the tag will be removed when any appropriate material has been added. DGG 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

JASpencer, three people have asked you to stop blindly adding this tag to articles that don't need it, and yet you continue to add it, reverting other editors removal of it, with no response or explanation about your actions. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Catholic-expand

Template:Catholic-expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Stbalbach 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic expand

The articles project link you put on the deletion talk page does not work Johnbod 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

btw, you might want to check your user-page history for a couple of minutes ago Johnbod 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to the Christian Encyclopedia are SPAM & against WP Policy

It looks like you added a few hundered links to the Christian Encyclopedia. As far as I know that is against Wikipedia policy. If you want to work on that encyclopdia you should go there. Jeff Carr 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom. I didn't know if it was appropriate to notify you on the top of your page. I see now that you are already aware of the TfD and have responded. Happy wikipedianing. Jeff Carr 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your name has come up in a discussion on the administator's incident noticeboard (see this snapshot if the discussion has already been archived). There are way too many irresponsbile administrators to simply confront you about the issue and let you know they see a problem with your edits. Frankly it seems like a discussion that should take place on the discussion page of the articles or on the project page.. This, of course goes against Wikipedia's Assume good faith policy as these are clearly good faith edits whatever disagreement others may have about them (i.e., it's not an incident). I just wanted to let you know so that you can be aware that they seem to have a problem with the links you're adding. It's not a clear case to me at all. Happy editing. -- (Cplot sockpuppets) 207.168.161.13 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Order

Hi JASpencer,

in the article about Christian Order the following sentence from the 5th paragraph, that is still in your original version, seems somewhat unclear to me: As its focus shifted to internal church matters the church picked up a number of contributors from within Traditional Catholicism and at the same time gained an international reputation. Shouldn't the word "church" (bolded by me) actually be "magazine"? --Túrelio 16:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As you seem to be on Wikibreak, I changed it by myself. --Túrelio 07:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Abraham in the Catholic liturgy

Hi JASpencer.
As per your request, I have tidied up the page concerning Abraham in Catholic liturgy -- or, at least, I've made it somewhat more understandable. Just thought you'd like to know!
Warm regards, Juxtatype 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Moriz Lieber

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Moriz Lieber, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. 172.164.76.203 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Secularism

Do you believe Wikipedia is a secular or religious Encyclopedia? -- Stbalbach 21:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia is (or strives to be) a neutral encyclopedia. That is, it is an encyclopedia that covers both secularist and religious topics being fair to both secularist and religious viewpoints. This is not just a matter of avoiding dismissing Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God because he disagrees with Richard Dawkins, but it is also about not dismissing viewpoints and sources that don't agree with a late twentieth century secularist systematic bias. JASpencer 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, all view points are allowed and encouraged at Wikipedia, so long as they are framed in a NPOV manner. NPOV is by definition secular, thus, Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and not a religious one. Religious encyclopedias present a single POV (in this case a sectarian one). Which is why the phrase (your phrase) "late twentieth century secularist systematic bias" seems contradictory. Secularism is NPOV, NPOV is secularism. To suggest that Wikipedia is biased towards secularism is like saying Wikipedia is biased towards NPOV - which is exactly what we want. Since religious encyclopedias are POV, to have a bias to a POV resource, is not what we want.

An expert (or well researched) author can extract good information from the Catholic Encyclopedia and import it into Wikipedia, it is a resource with value, and it should be made available in the External Links or resources section. However in mine ( and most peoples) experience, most Wikipedians are non-experts, and their ability to import information that is properly vetted to ensure it is up to date and accurate, and converted from an original POV resource, into a NPOV resource, is often very difficult and tricky. Which is why we don't want to encourage it being done across tons of articles unless there is a really good specific reason to do so on a per-article basis. This sentiment is echoed by most people in the TfD, not just me, most of whom are old-timers and been around Wikipedia a long time from experience of dealing with these older resources and the people who import them without proper care. It is a sore point for a lot of people for that reason, we've all spent more hours of our lives fixing other peoples well meaning but poor importations. Not because anyone is against Catholics or anything like that, it is the same problem for other non-Catholic, but POV encyclopedias as well. -- Stbalbach 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I radically disagree with your definition of secularism. Secularism is a point of view in and of itself. It is the view, to put it mildly, that one's religious views have no place in the public sphere, and when asserted should be treated with less respect than a materialist viewpoint. For example the amount of bad history that was written trying to explain the economic roots of the Protestant reformation as if the theological views were window dressing. Simply because you are a secularist does not make you neutral.

On the point about text dumps from the Catholic Encyclopedia I do have some sympathy, which is why I put the expansion tag together. It is a way of alerting an editor to the existence of the article. Yes the CE is outdated and unapologetically pushes its point of view. But this does not make it unsuitable to include material from there. It is a valuable resource on Catholic thinking - especially Catholic thinking pre-1960. To discourage material from these sources, reeks of a bias - which is more dangerous when you are unaware of this bias.

JASpencer 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

radically disagree .. secularism [means] .. one's religious views have no place in the public sphere

That does indeed sound radical! I see it as neutral term simply meaning "non-religious". Like, a "secular education" is non-religious - it doesn't exclude religions, religions do have a place in secular societies (maybe not as much as wanted but then that is politics). Wikipedia is a non-religious (secular) encyclopedia. It can contain religious POV's but presents them in a non-religious NPOV framework (secular). It kind of sounds like you are against secularism and don't see the term as a neutral descriptor?

To discourage material from these sources, reeks of a bias

If we don't encourage the use of other PD encyclopedias, are we biased against them - are we discouraging their use? This is one of the arguments against the tag, it opens a pandora's box, if you have one, it becomes biased not to have others also. Since there are 100s of encyclopedias it becomes quickly impractical to litter talk page space, and further opens the question of encouraging the use of so much old material. And what about copyright material.. are we being biased against more modern sources by not mentioning them also? One way this is handled is at the Project level. We have project space that lists recommended resources. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources for example, which actually lists the Catholic Encyclopedia. Do you think that is a better way to go about it? -- Stbalbach 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply tomorrow. JASpencer 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point below about secularism not being religious neutral is well done. It may be (in fact I'm sure it is) an unconscious - systematic - bias. However that means that it needs to be guarded against.

Other points. Recomended sources are fine, but linking to a corresponding article is on a far more granular level. It's like the difference between footnote and an external link at the bottom of the article. On mentioning other sources, that really is a non argument - far better to mention them. JASpencer 15:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Secularism is just the opposite of religious, both of which are neutral descriptors. Some people may politicize the terms and use them in a contextually pejorative manner. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a little pointer. Neutrality is a subjective concept that does not equivocate to itself when used in different contexts. While secularism is popularly labelled religiously netural, it is in practice devoid of religious POV, which effectively makes it non-NPOV. True neutrality is about taking all POVs into account, without siding with any. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments removed to here. JASpencer 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

User:Angusmclellan/TPT is WP:POINT? Was the point edit summary that gave it away? Actually it's not; it doesn't disrupt anything. Adding it would be a positive step.

As Stephen said, I added the PASE to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources several hours before that. I've been using it to de-{{1911}} articles today. I've never used PIR/PBW/pmbZ, but only because I haven't written any articles on those topics. As for the general point, I disagree. Pointing editors towards the CE will not improve Wikipedia. For those articles where it would useful, it needs care and attention to take the CE as the basis of an expansion. Far more than most encyclopedias, opinion is presented as fact, and no critical faculty was employed in many cases. Yes, it can be used, but it's WP:BEANS to point people towards it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

please comment on content, not other contributors

Regarging your comments in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 18#Template:Catholic-link, accusing myself and other editors of having an anti-Catholic bias or a personal disliking toward you is a violation of WP:AGF and very possibly WP:NPA. Please, stick to the actual issue at hand instead of yet again stirring up accusation after accusation against your fellow editors. — coelacan talk — 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

on NPA. It wouldn't excuse me doing this, of course, but please be a bit more careful when insinuating. On the dislike: "people like you who are responsible for many negative feelings about Catholicism", hmmm, that sounds like dislike.

The anti-Catholic bias that is mostly a complaint that there is a systemic bias, which is assuming good faith. If the bias was malicious then it would be concious and so less dangerous. The (continuing) ignorance on why a "late twentieth century secularist bias" would sound alarming to anyone who was not a secularist is one indication of the problem. JASpencer 23:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't care what your interactions with other editors have been outside of this TfD. Just stop bringing your accusations into the TfD itself. It's very disruptive, and you're swinging your sword indiscriminantly. I don't appreciate the slander against me that I have an "objection to any Catholic content". — coelacan talk — 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to "it's flatly misleading to make a blanket suggestion that the CE can be used in most articles as anything like a reliable source." OK I should have said most rather than any Catholic content. The other point was that I was responding to an accusation about my intentions, so whether that person had expressed dislike was material. JASpencer 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, but questioning the editorial policies of a single encyclopedia is hardly an attack upon most Catholic content. Unless I'm overlooking some important part of the Nicene Creed, "we believe in one holy Catholic Encyclopedia, by which all Wikipedia articles were made", then any conflation of this editorical scepticism with anti-Catholicism is something of a straw man. — coelacan talk — 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there are two points here. Firstly there is the idea that the Catholic point of view, or the history of the Catholic presence, should not be represented in certain articles. Now this may be (in fact most time is) unconcious rather than malicious, but it is a textbook example of systemic bias. Probably more worrying is the automatic presumption that later equals better. This is not necesarily the case at all. Later will often mean less interested (for example how many Nineteenth Cantury missionaries would make the Encyclopedia Britinnica today) or that the views and biases of the types of people who write Encycyclopedias have changed. This is very much a case of Presentism and is probably the most worrying bias to surface in the debate. JASpencer 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And my tiny violin is no personal attack. Read WP:NPA. — coelacan talk — 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It really does not matter, but in WP:NPA "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack." And I repeat it does not matter. JASpencer 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the violin is a non-issue, then I won't continue addressing that, if that's okay. It is only my hope that we won't unnecessarily play victimization cards in this TfD. And at this moment, I'm confident that that isn't going to happen again, so thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns. Peace, — coelacan talk — 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculating that someone may have a systemic bias against a certain belief system is not playing any victimisation card. It is a genuine concern. I'm really not communicating it effectively as it seems to be utterly ignored whenever raised. JASpencer 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Placidus Fixlmillner

I have expanded the Placidus Fixlmillner article you created last year, using the 1913 public domain Catholic Encyclopaedia entry. I think it could ( and probably should) be edited slightly.Flowerpotman 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for letting me know. JASpencer 09:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Good work on your edit. Flowerpotman 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should know...

A well meaning (and neutral I think) editor has undertaken to copyedit the Catholicism and Freemasonry page... I just thought you should know in case he changes something you feel strongly about. Also, as you wrote much of it, you can best explain what you were trying to say if he has questions. Blueboar 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Stbalbach 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4. It is a borderline case, most admins seem to interpreted "substantially similar" as "nearly identical" rather than "similar in substance", and I suspect that it won't be speedily deleted. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if you're going to throw around terms like deletionism and sophistry, I'd suggest you take it to DRV rather than my talk page. >Radiant< 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Deletionism wasn't meant as an insult or a throwaway comment, it was a factual statement that you had previously voted for deletion. As for sophistry, well perhaps that was a bit harsh. JASpencer 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For your information, Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Sailer

Super job on fixing up the references. Well done! :-) - Alison^✍ 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

copied wikipedia articles on wikibooks...

Left a note on your talk page there, but then noticed you haven't been active since October. Please let me know what you want to do... importing is no big chore, but we need to know the source article :P. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_;;books 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Church architecture

'Alterations', I don't think will do. There was an undoubted development of particular styles using particular materials. Whether it was a development of which eveyrone would approve, I rather doubt, but tyhat is true in all cases. 'Advances' I could defend, but you may be right in ojbecting to it. An army can advance in into an enemy ambush, so it is not necessarily POV. However, I hope you will accept the compromise. Roger Arguile 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CE footnotes

It's fine to add a footnote when appropriate, but it seems like your adding footnotes randomly to sentences, based more on it being in the lead section and from the Catholic Encyclopedia, than the sentence in question needing a footnote, or having it actually match-up with the CE article. Have you actually read the CE article, and then gone back to the WP article and found a match? I removed an earlier footnote where there was no match between the two, it is poor quality work that will confuse readers. If your not sure, why not just add an external links section and link to the CE that way? -- Stbalbach 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the preference for footnotes rather than external links? I add links to external links when there is already a section. I've added some new info on the Grande Chartreuse article. I was intending to verify the foundation date. JASpencer 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnote when there is a reason too. I forget which article, but you added a footnote to a sentence/fact which when I checked the CE article it was not mentioned there. The Grande Chartreuse is a good addition (not clear who "they" is, the French govt or the order). -- Stbalbach 14:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejected tag on WP:CHURCH/WP:CONG

There is a move to label this proposed guideline, to which you contributed,as "rejected." Please add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. Edison 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Civil Allegiance

Yes, much more appropriate. LessHeard vanU 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacob van Hoogstraten

Does your redirect make sense? Please compare Jacob van Hoogstraaten. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To make life easier on you, your redirect is this: Jacob van Hoogstraten -- Kendrick7^talk 20:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to click back on the link where it says it was redirected from, then edit. But don't worry, I'll take care of it. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Canada Missionaries

I haven't noticed much activity on this page. Is it of any benefit to dab/verify persons on that page or is it occurring somewhere else. Just wondering....Cheers! --Stormbay 03:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism category

If I'm not mistaken, it appears you created the category. I thought you might want to weign in on the discussion regarding its proposed deletion. SubLibris 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gerschenkron effect and Alexander Gerschenkron

I could use your help with improving Gerschenkron effect and Alexander Gerschenkron if you have time. I don't know this subject, but I got involved because a new user is developing an article under the misspelling Gershchenkron effect. He seems enthusiastic, but his English is poor, and I have no idea if his assertions are correct (ignoring his spelling and grammar). Gershchenkron effect will have to be deleted at some point, but I'm not sure when or how to pull the plug on this new editor's article. I'm not very experienced myself. Any help greatly appreciated. --SueHay 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Federation of Conservative Students

I am curious as to why you reverted the new reference I inserted re Douggie. Although the original rference article makes for an interesting link to the present Tory organisation, by all accounts, it was only a trivil mention as far as Smith was concerned. I thought the Times article a 'better' reference of Smith and probably the "hitting of the headlines" which the original ref mentioned, and which could be C&P to any eventual article to be created on Smith. Your comments please? You may reply to me here. 219.78.82.238 12:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) aka User:Ohconfucius

I added the old reference back and kept the new reference as well. There was also the issue of his name, which is Douglas and not Dougie (a small point I know) and the old reference provided the proper name. So both references have been kept. Articles on some of the players in the FCS - particularly those like Smith who have become influential - are overdue. JASpencer 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks. Actually, in the 1980s and it would appear through to 2003, he was known as "Duggie" (as pronounced), commonly spelt Dougie or Douggie. Although he may have dropped that handle officially since the 2003 article was published. Ohconfucius 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia cite template

I noticed you created {{CathEncy}}. {{Catholic-cite}} uses the same parameters, and it also handles wikisource. Since you've put CathEncy on a lot of articles, I was thinking just copying the code over. What do you think? Gimmetrow 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'd forgotten about Catholic-cite. JASpencer 09:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

British property market

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article British property market, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First time buyer

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article First time buyer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Catholic Insight

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Catholic Insight, by Javit, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Catholic Insight is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Catholic Insight, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Catholic Insight itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Anderton, Roger

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anderton, Roger, by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anderton, Roger is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anderton, Roger, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Anderton, Roger itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, by Bremskraft (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hans-Hermann Hoppe seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hans-Hermann Hoppe, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Roman Catholic Diocese of Sehna

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Roman Catholic Diocese of Sehna, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Roman Catholic Diocese of Sehna is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Roman Catholic Diocese of Sehna, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Criticism, Higher

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Criticism, Higher, by Schutz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Criticism, Higher is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Criticism, Higher, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Criticism, Historical

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Criticism, Historical, by Schutz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Criticism, Historical is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Criticism, Historical, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Judith Symes

Hi JA. Was wondering if there is any more information on available on Judith Symes to make her more notable? As it is, the article doesn't meed any of the necessary criteria for notability and thus inclusion on Wiki. As it stands it would go to Afd without much opposition. Galloglass 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD categories

Just so's you know, changing the AfD template from reading (say) "Remove this template when closing this AfD|m" to read "cat=m" at the end actually uncategorises the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK: Orthodox Church of France

On 2 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orthodox Church of France, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

It was nominated by Jackturner3 (talk · contribs). --PFHLai 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dexter Norville

Hi - you removed the PROD on the basis that he was notable for winning the BBC Young Musician of the Year. Sadly, that's not true. He may have won a local competition of the same name (in Guildford, by the look of it) but he's not included as even a finalist at the BBC list here. Another clue is that the BBC competition is run in even-numbered years, and so there was no competition in 2001! Does this change your view on his notability? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, but I still think that a Prod was unsuitable as notability was asserted in the article. Challenging notability criteria should be done before a deletion, particularly a PROD or a speedy deletion. JASpencer 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you. The article had been tagged with notability concerns since June by another editor, with no improvements. I don't see that the minimal assertions of notability pass WP:N so I prodded it. An assertion of notability doesn't prevent a prod, it only prevents a speedy. There was enough assertion of notability for it not to be speediable. Anyway, as you've contested the prod, I'll take it have taken it to AfD. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bencherlite. Assertions of notability is not an issue for WP:PROD (unlike WP:CSD A7). I think you were wrong to remove the prod notice from Rebound relief - it is an entry from someone trying to push a viewpoint on espn discussion boards. Try [2] to see that it is an invention. Now it will have to go to AfD. prod was meant to avoid wasting time there and get this kind of crud out of Wikipedia. --Rumping 02:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Parmigianino

The "References" section is for works that (unsurprisingly) have been used as references in writing the article. Any further works that should be mentioned, but were not used to write the article, should be placed in a "Further Reading" section, but in the case of most artists, the CE is not an appropriate addition here. It is very old and often out of date (as we have discussed before) and the entries are not very long. There will always be better biographies available online. Please don't add more of these indiscriminately. Johnbod 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglo vs Latin freemasonry

Hi JAS... long time since we last chatted. I am searching for a citation re: "Most (but by no means all) of the historical events that fuel the Church's criticims of Freemasonry are centered on the actions of the "Latin" lodges" (I am fairly sure this is discussed in one of the histories I have)... But I have a question for you. Can you think of historical events that the Church criticizes Anglo style freemasonry for? All of the stuff listed in the article (with the exception of the bit on german Kulturkamph) relate to "Latin" lodge freemasonry. I took out the line about the Church not diferentiating... does it?Blueboar 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, long time no speak. Although I don't miss the bickering on this and related articles I appreciated the civilised tone that you, ALR and others tried to bring.

On your specific question. There were the Josephite reforms and the Masonic associations of the Know Nothings - both of which were strongly anti-Catholic. You have the American church-state seperation that the church disliked tremendously, Jeffersonianism if you like, which the Church would often put as specifically Masonic. I would also not make too much of French Freemasonry in the 1780s and 1790s as being a particularly "Latin" phenomena, that fork came later. JASpencer 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... that sounds about right (at least from the Church's POV.) Perhaps my paragraph should be moved down to the section on the Latin Lodges... since really I am addressing those incidents more than the early stuff. I'll work on rewording as well as finding citations. I simply think it is important to note the differences between Continental and Anglo style Freemasonry when it comes to those criticims that are based on the political situation in Europe (and to some extent Latin America) from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s. The Church has a legitimate beef against Continental Freemasonry... and we need to explain why. Blueboar 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a school of thought among the more moderate freemasons (ie not Imacomp) that the main beef that Catholicism has with Freemasonry is due to the anticlerical policies especially in Italy but also in many other traditionally Catholic countries. But if one looks at what has been written since 1980 - for example the German or American bishops conference reports or the various rulings from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - has been talking about the incompatibility with dogmatic Christianity. It is not talking as much about plotting against the Church. From memory the American report specifically talked about the less anticlerical stance of American freemasonry.

Think about it this way. Christ says "there is no way to the father except through Me". The Catholic church (although admittedly not all Catholics these days) believes that this is true. Either freemasonry is serious about its spiritual claims, and so offers a non-exclusively Christian route to God. Or freemasonry is not serious about its spiritual claims and so offers a parody.

JASpencer 21:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You make an assumption here... and that assumption is that Freemasonry makes spiritual claims. It doesn't. It never has. Freemasonry explicitly leaves such things up to each member's individual religion. That's why Freemsonry says that "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion." Blueboar 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not saying spiritual claims on its members - but that Freemasonry had claimed a spiritual dimension at all. If Freemasonry doesn't do that then why insist that members believe in God or that continental Freemasonry is irregular. JASpencer 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I am confused... how is requiring a belief in God a spiritual dimention, or a claim "offering a non-exclusively Christian route to God"? ... Nothing in Freemasonry talks about a "route to God"... we explicitly leave that sort of discussion to religious institutions such as the Church. No, belief in God is simply a membership requirement... That is the sum total of the religious discussion. The historical reasoning behind the requirement is that without a belief in God, the promises a Mason makes while taking his obligation would not be considered binding. It is for the same reason that courts of law have witnesses place a hand upon the Bible (or other holy book) and swear to tell the truth before testifying. It is a reminder that God is witnessing what you say, so you should tell the truth. I don't see anyone arguing that the court system has a spiritual dimention or makes spiritual claims. Blueboar 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Important issues at Catholicism and Freemasonry

Hi, JAS... as a major contributor to the above article (especially as it relates to the Catholic side of the issue), you need to know what is going on. As you know, I have been concerned about the amount of Original Research and lack of NPOV in that article for quite a while. After thinking about it, I called for some guidance and help at both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The reply was even more than I anticipated. Several editors are saying that the article should be completely deleted. That goes beyond my intent. I have a proposal for you... if you are willing, I think we could rebuild the article from scratch, under the guidance of a neutral mediator who can settle our disputes (and I think you would agree that if the two of us did rewrite the article, we would probably just end up rehashing many of the arguments we had before). Would you be willing to try this? Blueboar 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

POV forking

Re: your comments on my talk page about Latin Freemasonry not being a POV fork. The problem is that I see it as being exactly that. That may not have been your intent, but that is how I see it. What else am I to think?... You create the article right after I seek outside opinions as to whether the Catholicism and Freemasonry article has POV and OR problems, and the answer comes back from numerous editors that it does... and in fact they call it a "nightmare" and say it has such serious problems that the article should be either deleted or stubified (expressing this opinion on both the article talk page and at the talk page of WP:NOR). Instead of engaging in the discussion, what do you do? You copy a huge batch of the material to another article. That sure looks like a POV fork to me. It looks like you were simply trying to preserve the material in question in different form. If I have misinterpreted your motives, I appologize, but I still feel that the article is nothing more than a POV fork... whether it was intentional or not. To assume good faith, I will stop calling it a "blatant" POV fork... but I am not going to stop calling it a POV fork. Sorry Blueboar 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop linking your Latin Freemasonry article at Freemasonry. It is premature to do so. Latin Freemasonry is still essentially a POV fork of Catholicism and Freemasonry, it is still a debatable article. It may get deleted, it may get merged, it may expand into a viable article. That is going to depend on several issues, the first of which is cleaning up the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. I don't think it should be linked until those issues get settled. If and when it does become a viable article, then I might see linking to it. Until then, no. Please stop rushing into things. Blueboar 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll hold back on this for now, but I find it increasingly odd (almost artificial) that this is not seen as an article worthy topic. JASpencer 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was not a worthy topic. I simply have strong reservations about the article as it exists now, and want to settle the issues at Catholicism and Freemasonry first, as they directly impact that article. When that is done, we can see what can be made of Latin Freemasonry. Blueboar 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why is the merge tag still on the articles? JASpencer 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Because, as the article stands right now, it is still essentially a POV fork and is under consideration for merger. If and when someone writes an article on the topic of irregular/Continental style Freemasonry that isn't a POV fork, or improves the existing article to the point where is no longer is a POV fork, I will happily agree that it should not be merged and remove the tag. Blueboar 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry

You seem to have a good deal of knowledge regarding the subject. Like I said on the talk page you just responded to, I honestly think a page listing all the various Masonic orders and what they think of each other, perhaps at Amity (Freemasonry) or somewhere similar, would allow the individual "branches" to be referred to by whatever name they wish, and still be able to indicate whether they are "regular" or "irregular" or whatever. If you do have such information, I honestly think that if you created such an article, with at least the beginnings of the list, and just linked to it, all this controversy regarding "descriptions" would be ended. Just a thought, anyway. John Carter 21:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's only one part of the story, as Liberal Freemasonry is not simply about who you recognise (as far as I can tell the French and Belgians are at war with the others) but also about a greater involvement in (progressive) politics and a claim that Andersons Constitution does not involve believing in a Supreme Being. So it's a whole philosophy, distinct and reasonably influential (although the influence seems to be in sharp decline, thank God). JASpencer 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Category:Prince Hall Freemasons

Before you spend too much time filling up the category... note that the broader is being deleted. I have left a message with the closing Admin asking if the Prince Hall cat should be speedied under the same rational, or if I need to do a seperate nomination. -- Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail?

I noticed you don't have a valid e-mail address. It might be useful if people were to want to contact you. Just for your information. -- John Carter (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still keeping my email off. I don't really want an admin taking a peek at it. -- JASpencer (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You could always open up a spare account at Gmail, and tell it to forward all Wikipedia email to your standard account.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Les Amis Philanthropes

A tag has been placed on Les Amis Philanthropes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Liekmudkipz (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Abbatia Lubensis abbey

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Abbatia Lubensis abbey, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Lubiąż. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Prince Hall Freemasons

I have closed the CfD discussion as "delete" but have made a note in my sandbox of the 15 names currently in the category (to save this information being lost when the category is deleted), in case you (or anyone else) wants to start a new list. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Diocese of Oppido Mamertina

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Diocese of Oppido Mamertina, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Oppido Mamertina. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Saint Nazarius (Roman Martyrology)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saint Nazarius (Roman Martyrology), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10728b.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Saint Nazarius (Abbot)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saint Nazarius (Abbot), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10727b.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

AMD Spider

I noticed that you put a deletion proposal on AMD Spider. When I saw how bad the article is, I decided to create a new version. What do you think of this idea? If you think that that would work, I'll replace the current page. Please note that there is a commented out {{Compu-hardware-stub}} tag on the page (I'll uncomment it when I move the content). Let me know what you think. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bennie Abrahams

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bennie Abrahams, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Bennie Abrahams.

No malice intended in proposing for deletion :)

I just don't see the point of the article, hes dead, he doesn't have anything to do with the reason for his sons infamy (funding scandal) and everything worth mentioning is already included in the David Abrahams article.

Zaq12wsx (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Grigor Dimitrov

Hey chap, if you think Grigor Dimitrov meets the criteria for deletion, how do you think about Vasek Pospisil, Jonathan Eysseric and Jerome Inzerillo? I hope you haven't judged to nominate the article because you have never heard of and cannot locate Bulgaria on the map? :-D No bad feelings, --Spiritia (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, archive your talk page, it's rather long. Do you know that any time someone edits this page, a brand new copy is saved in the database, presently 165 Kb each. --Spiritia (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was not a great nomination. Sorry. JASpencer (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, a colleague of mine from BG WP added references and removed the template. We do respect the notability criteria, I myself have translated them to Bulgarian for local consumption. --Spiritia (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your addition to List of Freemasons

JAS, this link, which is to a translated research paper, states that de Melo's membership is likely based on his social habits but not proven through documentation, so I figured I would ask your opinion as the adder as to whether you felt the addition should remain or be removed per RS. MSJapan (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for some help...

Hi, I am attempting to build an article on the Sphinx Head Society at Cornell University and the article has been flagged for deletion. As someone that has made substantial contributions to the secret societies, I was hoping that you could offer some support to our addition. Thank you very much. Cornell1890 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

West Runton War Memorial

You have jumped the Gun a Bit with yor Tag. As i happens I was disturbed by a power failure just as i had created this page and so had not been able to start th Text!! WHICH I HAVE NOW!!! please remove your TagStavros1 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic dioceses

Yes, please do. All the Catholic Encyclopedia articles are dated to 1913, but it is much better to have a dated article then none at all. I still have quite a bit of work to do to organise them and make lists, I'll try to finish sorting out Germany and France and Italy tonight if I have the time. Thank you so much! Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I see why you asked me. Two things. 1, some dioceses are defunct, and therefore will not have wikipedia articles. 2. Of those that aren't defunct some will have poorly categorised articles, and that I am working on so that we can at least find all the catholic diocese articles out there. Give me until tonight and I will sort through your list. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, of course, they are notable, in fact some of these places already have articles, but at a much lesser rate then the modern dioceses. Secondly, you say there is no article for Adelaide. Try this: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide. There is an article, so no need to create a new one. This is why your list needs to be combed through to make sure that you are finding the Catholic diocese articles that are out there. It will save you considerable effort and you won't repeat work others have already done. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I will. Hopefully I'll get all the naming conventions sorted out so your wikipedia searches will be more fruitful. I'm hoping when I'm done that you can find every diocese article in one link article. Should make this searching a bit easier. Anyways, Merry Christmas!Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

James Albert Duffy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article James Albert Duffy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of James Albert Duffy. —BoL @ 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GOI

No problem... BC&Y is usually reliable, so I am not sure why they got it wrong in this case. I am guessing... but perhaps UGLE did recognize GOI in 1972 and then withdrew recognition again at a later date? (knowing how these things tend to go, it would not surprise me)... All I know is that they don't recognize them now. :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the case - UGLE recognition issues are more political than Masonic, and have gone back and forth on a number of GL/GO's, especially in Italy and Greece.--Vidkun (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seanie

I am transfering this to your talk page since you seem disinclined to reply in mine or the article's discussion page where I would have prefered to hold this discussion. If you are in agreement please transfer this section to the article's discussion page so we can continue this discussion there.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.

JASpencer (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

1) If you want please provide an explicit retort on the following

Thanks for the clarification. A couple of points. Verifiability explicitly precludes self published material being used as a "third party source". "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." While I concurr that the articles I linked to are self-published (and how could they be otherwise?) they are not "third party", they are Seanie's own work and other examples of such have been quoted elsewhere in this article without any objection from yourself. Further Wikipedia libel states: "The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability." The material you deleted is NPOV, with all information referenced on reliable published sources (or rather on Seanie's own mag). Filoxenos (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

2) Please explain how the adjectives racist and antihellenic view are offensive under WP:BLP

The guideline does not have any "offensive" clauses but does have a "do not harm" one. The NPV section of that states

Neutral point of view "The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)."

With regards to "negative" that is a PV issue and I doubt Seanie would necessarily see such traits as negative, except perhaps in the sense of publicly acknowledging them. With regards to "relevant" above any racist or antihellenic opinions expressed by a public figure (even an obscure one) can certainly be said to be relevant to his notability which derives from his public status of someone who expresses opinions. Hence said opinions are "relevant to their notability." With regards to NPV indicate if the following is acceptable to you " libertarian, conservative with some racist and antihellenic views." to be sourced in the relevant section by linking to the articles where the later are expounded. If not why?

I am not sure wrt the picture's status. It comes from the same website as the original one which is GFDL. If you know that this particular one is different please say so and keep the original.

Thank you

Filoxenos (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about Wikipedia policy (and formatting) for such a new user. Well done on the fast learning.

I was very careful not to delete any referenced sources. As far as being "racist", I doubt it - from what I can gather he sees it as a rather elastic term used to put opinions you disagree with outside polite discourse without the inconvenience of argument. And why are you so keen on the use of this term? As for being "anti-hellinic" he says quite the opposite, claiming "impassioned Hellenism".

Personally I don't share his preference for Turk over Greek, but I do dislike anything that smells of a witch hunt for daring to step into an ethnic argument.

JASpencer (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link to relevant guidelines. 1. Wrt "racist views" I checked the article on Nick "I got a third" Griffin and he is not directly accused of racism either, although probably only in the sense that an article on blowfish doesn't explictly mention they live in water. Given that, it would be a bit harsh to characterise Seanie as such even though his positions do fullfil the UN definition of racism. 2. The antihellenism lies more in the fact that one considers Greeks to be a degenerated people unworthy of the name which were best applied to "the educated elites of the western worlds" who are the "New Athens". This echoes the Church's teaching of replacement theology and its view of itself as the "New Israel" a name of which the degenerated Jews are unworthy. So Abraham and Plato can be revered even as Seth and Dimitri are held in contempt. Plus he sort of gives the game away when he writes he despises Greeks. Personally I find his description of Greeks fairly accurate as far as such things go, but then I am an antihellenist myself, albeit a Greek one. 3. This is in no way an "ethnic argument" nor is it in any way antihellenic to compare Greeks and Turks who do have many things in common nor to praise or like the turkish people or compare them favourably to Greeks.

In conclusion I propose to be changing i. "Greece" to "Antihellenism" 2. "Annoyed some Greeks" to "Has written that" (there is no verifiable source of the former) 3. After checking Nicki's bio I concurr that "with some antihellenic views" does not belong on the first paragraph so I'll drop it. 4. Removing the notabiliy tag, as explained above in thay his opinions are what he is notable for.

Please indicate whether you agree with the above. Thanks.

Filoxenos (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My main objection was to putting racism and antihellinism in the introduction. So thank you for withdrawing that. On the Greek area if there are Greek people who have objected to Sean Gabb's views then that's fine as long as it meets notability criteria. I suspect, perhap's to Sean's chagrin, that there will not be anyone who disagrees with that. If Sean were better known then these comments may have been picked up (as they were for Daniel Hannan) an objected to. In that case they are notable. So find some people who object to what he said and that section will be fair game (obviously any response should also be noted). JASpencer (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Character City notability

I think your tag is a bit rash. See my comments on the talk page. Reboot (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Herşeye Rağmen (Hepsi song)

I have denied the speedy tag on this article. Firstly db-bio does not apply to singled and secondly the group is self is clearly significant in the pre-teen market in Turkey and CSD is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions. Please feel free to seek an AFD or prod it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shepherds' Crusade, 1251, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--JayHenry (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry/bias issue

I have replied (I got logged out and had to come back to sign the reply ... always a problem when you write long and complicated replies). in any case... ditto for me on the good faith. I know you act in good faith... always. We may disagree strongly at times, and I know for sure that both of us have been quilty of letting our own POVs influence what and how we write... but I also know that there is good faith behind our interactions. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hello. I know we haven't always agreed in the past, but you're the kind of sensible, experienced editor who should probably have the new Wikipedia:Rollback feature, which has always been available to admins. Basically you can revert vandalism (only!) with a single click (and it will revert multiple edits, not just one like undo). If this would be a help to you, please drop me a note and I'll push the necessary buttons. All the best for 2008, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now added. If you ever want it removed just let me know. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Marianus Scotus (Ratisbon)

A tag has been placed on Marianus Scotus (Ratisbon) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Transcendence (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Doom and gloom! It seems that there was already an article on Marianus of Regensburg: Blessed Marianus Scotus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Angus. I've redirected the page. JASpencer (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

James Andrew Corcoran

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James Andrew Corcoran, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04356b.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you...

...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.

In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.

By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.

Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.

This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).

John Carter (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alberto Coto

I've removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Alberto Coto; I felt that "two world records" was a sufficient assertion of notability. However, I do encourage you to put a PROD tag on the article, or perhaps even take it to Articles for deletion. I apologize for substituting my judgment for yours -- it was a close one, it looked relatively non-notable, but the "world record" thing tipped the balance for me. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service on my talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Merida

Seems we keep bumping into each other. Good job on all the historical information. I'm going to turn the article into one of the diocese articles "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Merida-Badajoz" and use your stuff to talk about it's long history. One of the last archdiocese articles in Europe that we are lacking. TYVM. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Catholicism in the UK

Good to hear. Taskforces work in a very similar way to projects; like a project it has its own page to centralise all the workings and articles. The main thing which makes the taskforces useful, is if we have a huge project like Catholicism, then having a sub-project/taskforce for the religion on the British Isles specifically, makes it easier to identify those articles specifically and work to improve them. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tradeking

Hi. With regards to the speedy tag for WP:CSD#G4 on the above article, I see that it has been deleted several times under various speedy criteria, but I can't find any sign of a deletion discussion. If I'm missing it (say under a variant name), please let me know, and I'll happily revisit it. I know that sometimes articles are recreated under slightly different names, which can cause their histories to get muddled. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Collectible Automobile magazine

Well, I must say that it was quite a rude awakening for me to discover my less-than-two-week-old article on a class act magazine like Collectible Automobile so abruptly flushed before I could have a say in the matter. You call this a speedy deletion, but I think this was a hasty deletion.

You claim that my article "appears to be about a company or corporation". How you ever came to that conclusion is beyond me. This was about a magazine, and I think I made that point perfectly clear. I even put the word "magazine" right there in the main heading, so I fail to see how it could be interpreted any other way! How does this have anything to do with companies or corporations?

You also claim that my article did not indicate why the subject is notable, but I think I explained perfectly well the how and why of the magazine's popularity. It was (and still is) so good that readers asked for back issues very early on. I have written articles on, and am working on a book about, station wagon history, and have used Collectible Automobile (among other sources) as a valuable reference tool. If you need immediate proof of its significance, it's as close as Wikipedia's own articles. You can find references to Collectible Automobile articles under Hudson Jet, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Bel Air, Packard Patrician, DeSoto, Dodge LaFemme, and many others.

Therefore, I have no clue as to what I could have done (or failed to do) to warrant this move on your part, but if you had suggestions on how to improve my article, I would have appreciated hearing them before you took action. Josephew (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mynta

As with the contributor above, I am astounded you just put up recent articles marked for deletion without stating any reasons directly linked to elements of the article. You could have put in a reference lacking template, but this is just rude. A sympathetic contributor has now removed your deletion tag and added references, but I could not just leave this be without letting you know how I feel about this. What are your criteria for notability? I would really like to know. I'm not part of this band, heck I'm neither Swedish nor Indian nor a musician. I have no personal gain from starting this article whatsoever. I would've appreciated hearing from you beforehand. Gate-way (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Joe Lobenstein

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Joe Lobenstein, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joe Lobenstein

An editor has nominated Joe Lobenstein, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Lobenstein and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

avolution

Dear JASpencer, I'm just wanting to open a dialog regarding your suggested deletion of the avolution page. For the record, I am independent of avolution and a recent member to WP (so apologies for getting things wrong if I have done protocol-wise). My organisation has recently purchased ABACUS, however, I can't disclose their name as my comments are my opinion etc. I trust you understand. Anyway, some background ... my organisation recently chose ABACUS from various other TOGAF certified tools. As part of our evaluation process I looked at WP and saw various other TOGAF certified tools were present however ABACUS wasn't. Utlimately, that was my motivation for updating the TOGAF page and creating the avolution page. Now, in response to your notability query, ABACUS has been reviewed very favourably by Forrester and AMR research and large organisations like Capita, Serco, AXA and BT are using it along with (according to avolution themselves) 'hundreds or users in over 20 countries'. Which brings me to note that I did check the facts with avolution before posting the page and used some information provided by them during the evaluation process. Not surpringly they have been supportive in this effort. So I suggest we just leave the page there for a while and see who else contributes to it and helps to establish their notability. ABACUS really is a great tool, that just keeps getting more and more impressive the more I use it. Petersleep (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Penny Mordaunt

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Penny Mordaunt, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry

Hi JAS... FYI, I have placed a request on the OR Noticeboard for other editors to drop by the C&F article and comment on the OR issues. The hope is that some neutral third party editors will be able to explain where the problems are and highlight what needs to be fixed. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

Hi Jas, An article which you have marked patrolled is in AFD discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

Inviting your valuable comments to this discussion

- Tinucherian (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy on Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3

You have never heard of sandbox articles? Where do you think the articles on Wikipedia come from? You know we are encouraged to write in sandboxes, not in the mainspace right? Ever wonder how the articles in DYK are so fully formed in the first week of creation? Good heavens. I am a bit irritated that you would try to speedy a sandbox article. Give me a break here...--Filll (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF????? Spencer, I don't think this sandbox article needs to be deleted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have a bunch of sandbox articles yourself. I am sure you would not appreciate anyone speedying your sandbox articles.--Filll (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tag removed; let's all move on and return to our regularly scheduled whatever goes on here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to mention (besides that J Spencer's middle initial is H, I just discovered) that it would be safer and simpler to put sandbox articles in user space (where I do) instead of in article space (as this one was). So I might have flagged it for deletion also. Pete St.John (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Userfying would be appropriate until it's ready to go live. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Put up a proposed deletion. Hopefully the threats, etc, can stop. JASpencer (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe I ran afoul of another unwritten rule here. I did ask when I first joined about a year ago about this and I was told it was ok. But now it is not I guess. So I moved it. So you can delete it. Go ahead and speedy it now since it is moved.--Filll (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as G7 (the deletion criterion, not the chord). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Twinkle screwup?

Regarding this[3], it was absolutely unintentional and I have no idea how it happened. I've started a thread at the admin noticeboard to see if there's a known problem with Twinkle (a commonly-used editing extension, in case you're not familiar). Apologies if it happened due to something dumb on my part. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inimica vis

I'm here to inform you that the page you created has been posted. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custodi di quella fede

This one too! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Swinton circle

I have nominated Swinton circle, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton circle. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Swinton circle + South African Patriot

Your comments on Swinton Circle are appreciated. There seems to be an "agenda" here. The same editor deleted without debate a related entry on South African Patriot magazine following vandaliism and complaints from the same editor. Please can you investigate and perhaps add to the comments on JzG's talk page? Mark Hasker (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• The only agenda is WP:BLP. But thank you for placing me int he Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, it balances nicely all those who have placed me in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, the Vast Global Warming Conspiracy and the Vast Oil Conspiracy. Only two more to complete the set :-) Guy (Help!) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never been accused of being to the left of Guy. Guy was wrong to nominate this, but it was a mistake and not part of some conspiracy. JASpencer (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:CathEncyRf

A tag has been placed on Template:CathEncyRf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Witzel, Georg

A tag has been placed on Witzel, Georg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ninety:one 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that Mark Tabbert is up for speedy deletion. Given that you're an established contributor, I'm going to let is set for a bit, but you might want to beef it up some to make sure those excited about notability don't nix it. William Pietri (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Penny Mordaunt

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Penny Mordaunt, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Philip Tartaglia

A tag has been placed on Philip Tartaglia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Woland (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello JASpencer/Archive1!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Freemasons category

Interesting. What if we explicitly limited it to the dead - would that help allay concerns? And again, we do have the List of Freemasons, most of whom seem to be dead. But I just took a look at that discussion, and the consensus was unfortunately quite in favour of deletion just a few months ago. Biruitorul (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote about Washington

Hi, you asked for a quote on Washington mentioned in the Leonard Neale article. I have given the quote which was requested on the talk page. I hope this is satisfactory. Dwain (talk)

Your Help is Requested

Dear JASpencer:

Since you showed some interest in the Leonard Neale article recently and have had some experience working with Blueboar. Could you help out regarding the issue of the story that you wanted a quote for?

I have read in several published sources that a story that has come down through the generations says that Father Leonard Neale was called out during President Washington's last night and supposedly baptized him. The newest evidence, which just came to light, that this story exists and has been around for awhile goes back to 1893 which is under a century from the death of Washington himself. There seems to be three main sources that have passed down basically the same story. 1. The Jesuits - whom Father Neale belonged to, 2. The slaves from Washington's plantation and their descendants and now 3. At least one line of Washington's own family. I don't claim that the story is true but I do claim that it is interesting and notable and has been around for a longtime and that Father Leonard Neale is one of the main characters.

I have tried to work with Blueboar on this and everything he has asked for from sources, quotes and explanations I have given him. But this does not satisfy him and he comes up with another reason to delete mention of this story. I compromised with him letting him delete other interesting Washington facts from the story and adding that the story is not mentioned by Washington biographers but he is determined to delete mention just the same.

I feel that the story is interesting and deserves a mention in the Leonard Neale article and since I don't claim that the story is fact but only that it exists and names Neale it does not fall under an exceptional claim because all I claim is that the story has existed and Neale is a big part of it.

Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dwain (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dwain, it is an interesting story, but for the sake of timeliness could you summarise the sources here please? JASpencer (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Blueboar decided that a one sentence compromise with little details would be okay. I will however give you a list of sources that I located and two that someone else has located.

1. "Slaves Held Washington Died Baptized Catholic", National Catholic Register, February 27, 1957, page 11. This one states that Leonard Neale baptized Washington and tells how GW used to cross himself at meals and that slave tradition says GW was baptized. Among other information.
2. Information, "Was Washington a Catholic?, Doran Hurley, January-February 1957, Vol. 71, pages 2-6. Information was a magazine and the article is pretty in depth. It says the same things about GW supposed baptism by LN and goes on to show that Washington seemed to have an interest in Catholicism, how he had paintings of the Madonna and St. John in his home and how when he went to Philadelphia he brought his Madonna painting with him to hang in his room. That he on occasion went to Catholic Mass condemned Popes Day and his two great aides and friends during the war were Catholics. Says Jesuit tradition supports the slave tradition.
3. An earlier source was a book entitled The Mother of God from I think 1941. This source was rejected by Blueboar because it was printed by a religious society and later the priest who wrote the book refused to follow orders by the Vatican and was excommunicated.
4. I had another source from a 1950's article from the National Catholic Register that confirms the information that GW had paintings of the Madonna and St. John. A researcher found them listed in a reprint of Washington's Inventory. The information was deemed irrelevent so the source was not needed.
5. The Woodstock Letters; Vol. 22; page 498. An anonymous editor listed two references from a 98 volume set called The Woodstock letters I have yet to see what the information says exactly, however the editor reported that Vol. 22 was from 1893? and said that a descendant of Washington's first cousin said it came down in her family that GW was converted by Leonard Neale. The relation was her grandmother who was GW 1st cousin making her a 1st cousin 3 times removed. Thsi I think is a very interesting source and I am hoping to locate it myself. This proves the story is at least over a hundred years old and was circulating less than 100 years after GW's death.
6. The Woodstock Letters, Vol. 60 from 1931 also states LN is supposed to have baptized Washington.

Again it looks like the brief mention will stay so I'm sorry to have bothered you. Thanks for your interest. Dwain (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Are any of these on line? If not then could you send me the link through the email link on the side? The Woodstock letters is interesting. JASpencer (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JASpencer, I was away and hadn't been online. There are quotes from some of these sources online. And I managed to get the Information Magazine article through my libraries interlibrary loan. I also contacted someone connected to the Catholic Register who sent me copies of the two articles by e-mail. I'll have to see if I can find all the information to give you. Some of it is posted on the Leonard Neale talkpage. When I have time I will try to give you the e-mail for these resources. I have not yet attempted to find the Woodstock books to corroborate the anons. posted sources but they are likely legit. as I did a Google search and corroborated that they exist and that there were 98 volumes like the guy said. I will try to get you the email addresses and links in the next few days. Dwain (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've searched myself for some of these quotes and the best I've got was a (I think) 1985 sermon republished in the Angelus. It certainly points to a tradition that Washington was baptised a Catholic. However if we are quoting the quoter then we should put the intermediate source in any citation.

I look forward to the email.

JASpencer (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Michael Cuddy

A tag has been placed on Michael Cuddy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Tennekis^(rant) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion Peer Review

Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Custos (Under-sacristan)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Custos (Under-sacristan), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sanctamissa.org/EN/sacristy/sacristy-sanctuary-and-altar/sacristan.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Progressives (Scotland)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Progressives (Scotland), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Progressive Party (UK). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Disingenuous...

I wouldn't mind your additions to List of Freemasons if you didn't seem to go out of your way to find only those Masons that can be used to cast a negative light on the Fraternity as a whole, and you're skewing things a bit to make a point.

For example, it is inappropriate for you to say Haas was expelled for "trying to allow ethnic minorities and people with disabilities to become Masons" when in fact what he was doing was trying to repeal old policies in effect in WV which most other jurisdictions don't have anymore. That was clarified not two lines down in the source from where you pulled your comment, so I have a difficult time seeing how you could have made the mistake by accident. MSJapan (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. MSJapan (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The way Haas states it, they were. IIRC, he either issued an edict or it was put to a vote and carried. Either way, that made it legal as far as the by-laws etc. were concerned, and those changes went into effect immediately. I think the timing was that it was the end of his term, so the next GM issued his own edicts overturning the whole thing. However, there were three months in-between (between Quarteries), so it is likely they were implemented small-scale at individual lodges - they were changes that nobody would notice just by looking at a name. So, I'd rather say they were passed and then repealed, because they were, as opposed to splitting hairs about implementation. MSJapan (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Passed and repealed is fine. I was just a bit worried that a no suggestion that they are still in force would be misleading. 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And what "unprovoked vandalism" would that be...

that had you go to ANI and "suddenly discover" it was apparently me (which is your insinuation)? MSJapan (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I track Dwain's user page. Please don't get carried away. JASpencer (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

John Salza AfD

JAS, I am a bit miffed at your insinuation that I put the John Salza article up for deletion because he is a critic of Freemasonry, ie that I have some sort of agenda here. I thought you knew me better than that.

I actually knew nothing about Salza (I had never heard of him) prior to seeing MSJapan's comments about his credentials at the List of Freemasons article. So I decided to take a look at the article on him, to find out more. When I did so, I discoverded a very poor article... one that had serious sourcing issues and did not meet the notability criteria for authors. That was the ONLY reason I nominated it for deletion.

With the sources that Dwain has added, half of the problem is resolved. So we should focus on the other half of the problem... notability. WP:CREATIVE gives the criteria:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
• The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

As it stands, the article does not discuss anything that would indicate that Salza meets any of these criteria. I freely admit that I don't know enough about Salza to know if this is in fact the case... my point is that there is nothing in the article that says he does, and after a quick search I could not find any reliable sources that do either. If you know differently, please put it in the aritcle. As I have stated at the AfD... I will be happy to withdraw the nom if the article is fixed. In other words, my problem is with the article, not with Salza. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Gran Logia Valle de México

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gran Logia Valle de México, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gran Logia Valle de México seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gran Logia Valle de México, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Gran Logia Valle de México

A tag has been placed on Gran Logia Valle de México requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MSJapan (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

your editing...

is really getting out of hand, and I am reasonably sure you are doing these things on purpose. There is nothing that states all Masonic groups are inherently notable, or we should have 4 million articles to cover every lodge in the world, even if its got three people in it. The fact of existence isn't enough when topics don't meet general guidelines of Wikipedia notability, and you should be well aware of that by now.

"Intrinsic notability" is ridiculous as well - the articles I tagged have nothing but a name and a location, and a homepage, and have been like that for over 8 months. Existence is not an assertion of notability, period. Policy states that clearly, so I would appreciate it if you would undo all those edits.

As for Haas, I gave nine days for comment, and you said nothing. Everyone who commented was in agreement, and it's not my problem if there were only three comments. Moreover, there is no policy stating who can or cannot close a merger, so the one out of order here is you for stating otherwise. If you want to do something about it otherwise, take it to ANI and let's get it over with. MSJapan (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it myself - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JASpencer MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Grand Lodges

I want to continue discussion of this topic outside of the ANI... (which isn't really the place to argue the point)

You seem to be arguing that any Grand Lodge or Grand Orient, no matter how small, is notable simply because it is a Grand Lodge. I disagree, and my disagreement has nothing to do with affiliation. For example, I would not call the Grand Lodge of Russia notable, and it is recongnized by UGLE and many "Mainstream" grand lodges. It was started in 1995, and now has 7 lodges under its banner. It has perhaps 100 members total. It has not been discussed by independant third party sources. In short, there is nothing notable about it. If someone were to write an article on it, I would not hesitate to nominate it for deletion.

Affiliation is not a guide to notability... because there are some Masonic bodies that will affiliate with anyone and everyone. The Grand Lodge de France is notorious for this. The majority of the Grand Lodges under their affiliation have less than 100 members. But it sounds impressive to list all those Grand Lodges as being "in amity". Grand Lodge de France is certainly notable itself... but most of the Grand Lodges it recognizes are not.

To my mind, the key criteria for notability, when looking at Grand Lodges and Grand Orients, is size. Ten disgruntled Masons forming their own Grand Lodge is just not notable. Several thousand disgruntled Masons doing so certainly would be. Somewhere in the middle is where we have to draw the line.

Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply in more detail later. Essentially the CSD A7 is inappropriate for these purposes. It's meant for someone talking about his local youth club. Grand Lodges may or may not be notable but they do assert their notability. CSD's should be used where there is no doubt not because someone wants to sidestep bureaucracy because there could be some doubt. JASpencer (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's take your logic and see where it goes... you say A7 is meant for someone talking about his local youth club. OK, suppose he renames his youth club "The Grand Lodge for Kids"... same club, same article... just a new name. Are you saying that there is now suddenly an assertion of notability and the article can no longer be speedied under A7? Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how being a "grand lodge" is enough to assert notability. Can you elaborate? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:TenPoundHammer and User talk:Blueboar. Simply being a Grand Lodge (regardless of size) does NOT make the Grand Lodge notable! Notability must be asserted through coverage in third-party verifiable and reliable sources. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - there are quite a number of other factors that could work as an assertion of notability besides size... age for example. But Wikiwikikid mentions the key factor: coverage in third-party reliable sources. What makes something notable is not what it says about itself, but what others say about it. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on about this, but the issue is the assertion of notability, which is a far harder test to assign article about dissident freemasons into the memory hole than the notability argument is. I'm marginally interested in the notability of individual Latin jurisdictions. I'm much more interested in the abuse of the quick deletion and proposed deletion processes to get rid of troublesome pieces of the Masonic jigsaw. JASpencer (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, this isn't a memory hole censorship effort. I am not, nor have I ever been involved with Masons (either for or against). I have no motive for suggesting the need for notability than for the sake of contributing to an encyclopedia. That you are interested or disinterested in anything does not make it notable or encyclopedic. Sorry... If it's not encyclopedic as determined by a consensus, then it's not "abuse" in any way whatsoever. Wikiwikikid (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about Speedy deletions and Prods. These should be about clear cut cases and I'm saying that the process is being abused to go into not so clear cut cases where a consensus should be developed. What are you talking about? JASpencer (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I see the root of the issue. Why do you think it's a "dissidence" problem or "a troublesome piece of the jigsaw" rather than a source issue? I think you misunderstand something (and I'm pretty sure I know what it is), so I want to know what it is you think. MSJapan (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

MSJ, the root of the issue is your willingness to try and get your way by going through procedures such as CSD in ways that they are not designed for. CSD is not about marginal cases, but about clear cut cases. JASpencer (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And why would I need to "get my way"? I think you assume a deep-seated animosity between UGLE- and GOdF-branch Masons, and that's not the case. The lack of recognition only means we can't go to each other's lodges, and that's it. Now, I can't help that the articles are unsourced and cannot be sourced, and I do check these things before nominating them. In any event, you have yet to address the Grand Lodge notability question. Frankly, I think you've gotten into minutiae on a subject you aren't conversant enough in to speak about at that level, and now you've got yourself stuck in an unsupportable position. So, you'd rather paint this as a personal issue because it lets you avoid trying to justify an unjustifiable line of reasoning.MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. Your confessed trigger hapiness with deletion and your dislike of "irregular" (liberal) freemasonry is obvious on Pvosta's user page. They are "shifty" and a few people getting mad and setting up Grand Lodges, and you will put up for pages deletion on the flimsiest excuses. JASpencer (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets take a look at CSD A7... and the articles that are being tagged for speedy deletion...

A7 reads: An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable.

Now lets look at the article on the Grand Lodge of Denmark which was one of the articles where you objected to MSJ's speedy nom. In its entirety, the article consists of two sentences: The Grand Lodge of Denmark is based in Copenhagen and works in accordance to York Rite modified (Ritus Hauniensis). It is a member of CLIPSAS.

Where in those two sentences does the article indicate why its subject is important or significant? Where does the article "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable"? Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) It says its a Grand Lodge and (2) it's a member of CLIPSAS. Both indicate importance and significance. You seem to be confusing the fact of notability with its assertion. JASpencer (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is having the word "Grand" in your name an indication of importance or significance? Why is being a member of CLIPSAS an indication of importantance or significance? Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We've already pointed out that calling something a GL doesn't make it notable; it only shows a matter of existence (this is your "intrinsic notability" thing again). The CLIPSAS argument, moreover, is circular logic - its only possible notability is "because a bunch of GLs are members of it", and then you turn around and say the GLs are notable because they're members of CLIPSAS. Also note that the other GL articles on WP don't claim notability based on membership in COGMINA, which is a lot bigger than CLIPSAS and has had a documented effect on policies of member GLs, such as PH recognition. MSJapan (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Being a Grand Lodge is notable because you claim to be a national jurisdiction - or at least more than a purely local one. (2) Being a member of CLIPSAS is notable because other groups (including until recently the GOdF) recognised that you were not just three men and an apron. oth are perfectly reasonable. Face it the CSDs were wrong and you're not going to win this one. JASpencer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't work in claims - I can claim national jurisdiction, but there needs to be proof. That proof is the assertion of notability. when one "national" GL has 40 lodges, and the other doesn't show that it has any, claims are irrelevant. Also, CLIPSAS says nothing about the size of its member groups - they could be three men and an apron, and you have no proof showing otherwise. This is why assertion is the key ot GL notability. MSJapan (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And those are AfD arguments, not excuses for abusing the speedy deletion process. JASpencer (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK... I see several errors in your logic. First, you are incorrectly assuming that having the word "Grand" in your title is an indicates national - or more-than-local - jurisdiction. This is not the case. Many Masonic splinter groups adopt the word "Grand" as an assertion that they deny jurisdiction by the national or "more-than-local" body (a prime example of this can be seen in the multitude of Prince Hall "Grand Lodges"). Secondly, as MSJ points out, being a member of CLIPSAS does not guarentee anything. Membership in CLIPSAS is not based on size, nor on more-than-local jurisdiction. It is based purely on being "adogmatic" or "liberal".

But ultimately, the problem with your argument is this... there is a disconnect between what you know (or are assuming) about a group, and what is actually stated in the article. It does not matter if you think a group is notable. it does not matter if the group considers itself notable. In determining an A7, what matters is that the article states something notable.

If an article actually stated something like: "The Grand Lodge of Neverneverland is the statewide supervisory body that goverens all Masonic Lodges in the nation of Neverneverland"... then there would be an assertion of importance or significance in the article. Even if this is unsourced, the article would not be a candidate for speedy deletion under A7...

but... an article that simply states: "The Grand Lodge of Neverneverland is a Masonic Grand Lodge founded in 2008. It is located in Pirate's Cove, Neverneverland. Its Grand Master is M.W. Captain Hook. It is a member of OSMB (Organization of Small Masonic Bodies)"... does not contain any assertion of importance or significance. It would qualify for A7. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOAX is already in place to deal with any hoaxes. I know that MSJ has already stated that he has no time for CLIPSAS (he tried to delete the article), and I presume that you don't either, but it is somewhat more important among the liberal lodges than most of the splinter groups that abound. Besides AfDs would sort this out if all else failed. JASpencer (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MSJapan, according to the practiced tradition of the Craft, each lodge must have at least seven members (there are various smaller types like triangles and circles, but these cannot be used in the determination of whether a GL is formed), and each GL must have at least three lodges. So, at the minimum, a body would need 21 members to be a legal grand body. This is my experience, at least. However, I cannot speak for groups that do not follow Anderson's Constitutions.Voltairesghost (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They aren't hoaxes; hoaxes and non-assertion of notability are not the same thing. Furthermore, "somewhat more important" is quite weasely and vague. Also, to say that, you must have special access to sources that the CLIPSAS article itself doesn't have (and you haven't added). Why won't you just admit that you don't know as much about the intricacies of the topic as you think you do and leave it at that? This endless question dodging is getting us nowhere - you claim an assertion of notability for an organization so it doesn't meet CSD, but you remove prods as well, and have no sources to prove that the group is notable other than "because of the name". You've been asked for your reasoning, and you won't accept that it is highly flawed and contrary to policy. you find it much easier to claim a personal bias, because then you don't have to worry about the instability of your own assertions. MSJapan (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

CSDs are meant to be used sparingly in really well defined areas and not as a tool of convenience. If I was wrong here I wouldn't have admins like DCG and Iridescent (neither of whom are fans of mine) telling you you've used this inappropriately.

As far as removing Prods, are you having a laugh? Editors are supposed to do that if there's any doubt. The New Welcome Lodge, to take one admitedly glaring example, is a clear case of doubt. JASpencer (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about hoaxes (I used "Neverneverland" purely as a hypothetical)... I am talking about what is stated in the article vs what you as the reader are assuming about the topic... substitute "New York" for "Neverneverland" in my examples of what is or is not stated in the article, and how it relates to A7, and my comments will still hold.

Also your assumption that I have "no time" for CLIPSAS (or the other associations in Continental Freemasonry) is incorrect. I consider them brother Masons. They happen to be "irregular Masons" by the rules of my Grand Lodge, which simply means I can not sit in open lodge with them... it does not change my positive reguard for them. That said, my feelings about them have nothing to do with whether they are are notable or not. Nor whether an individual article should be speedy deleted under A7. THAT is determined by what is stated in the article about them, not what I or you or any other editor may think about them. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is any reason to think the article's deletion would be challenged, even for inappropriate reasons for reasons which would not save the article at AfD , it is necessary to use AfD. Speedy is for unquestionable deletions. (And if someone is likely to remove the tag, obviously Prod is useless) If it takes an argument to justify it, it is not unquestionable. AfD has the additional advantage that the article can be prevented from re-creation. This is especially valuable if someone is deliberately creating bad articles, for it will call it to wide attention. anything that might possibly be questioned, belongs at AfD. If there is a dispute within the people involved in the subject about what counts as notable, it is essential to get a wider community decision. (This does not imply any view of mine on any of the articles or on the topic. I !vote to delete a lot of things at AfD. and I do a lot of speedy.)DGG (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK folks... Given what DGG has just said (I don't fully agree with it, but that is a different issue) let's focus on the future. Since I know that there are articles on "Grand Lodges" that, under normal circumstances, I would consider unquestionable candidates for speedy deletion... ... I need to know whether they will in fact be questioned. I need to know if JAS is seriously going to challenge speedy deletes on any article about any organization that calls itself a "Grand Lodge" - simply because it does call itself a Grand Lodge. Is an entire category of articles "off limits"? Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DDG's strike out actually makes a big difference here. It re-opens some of the things I have been talking about. To get further input, I have asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Questions as to Speedy deletion criteria... so far, the comments seem to back my interpretation of the critetia. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too excited, the question was massively slanted (certainly not relating to MSJapan's deletions which were almost always CLIPSAS members and claiming national jurisdiction). And the (two) answers were far more equivocal than you seem to describe. JASpencer (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep focussing on MSJapan, and missing my point... this has nothing to do with MSJapan... or CLIPSAS... I am saying that any article about a Grand Lodge (whether it be affiliated with UGLE or CLIPSAS, or on its own) can be be speedy deleted... if there is nothing in the text of the article to indicate what makes it important. So far, those who are familiar with the guidelines have agreed with me. Perhaps others will not, perhaps others will. We shall see. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the agreement is not as clear cut as you've painted it. I've put this up on the CSD page, Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Asserted_notability_and_masonic_Grand_Lodges. JASpencer (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Adressing notability of a Grand Lodge should follow the same rules as for other articles, which is reliable third party references. I had several articles I wrote on Grand Lodges deleted, but looking back it was a justified deletion (not pleasant when it happened). The problem I see mostly is that reliable publications on Continental freemasonry' or non-UGLE related Lodges are scarce in the Anglo-Saxon world, although they are readily avaialble in French, etc. This makes it harder for providing good references for the English Wikipedia.Pvosta (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes it harder, but nowhere near impossible. If you can translate some quotes from these sources and provide the original and translated text on the article then there will (should) be no objection. JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will think about it. After a while I came to appreciate your comments and demand for providing sources, but it is sometimes hard to see an article disappear.Pvosta (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the present deletion fest of Grand Lodges is crazy but you should put citations in as much as possible, even if they are not in English. You will always have problems with UGLE freemasons who resent the existence of continental jurisdictions. JASpencer (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you provide sources that establish the notability of a particilar Grand Lodge or Grand Orient, you should not have any problems (from UGLE Masons or anyone else). The only "problem" is when an article does not provide such sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification

I added a new discussion on Talk:Papal Documents relating to Freemasonry, so I figured I would notify you to prevent any assumptions on motive being made even though this is something I think you would consider a positive. MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia pages

Are these pages needed any longer?

1. Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Cardinals
2. Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Education
3. Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Historian
4. Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Irish_Monastries
5. Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_cat_Worship
6. Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_topics/U

--MZMcBride (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi - I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up with the deletions. What are some of the articles that were deleted? And what do you mean by "history only undeletions?" It's humorous how the cowards scatter like cockroaches to get articles deleted. But it is also a shame that a few big mouthed zealots are so successful abusing Wikipedia policy and getting articles deleted improperly. I am currently working on an article on a author, to post, in which one of his books was given an Imprimatur. Dwain (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JASpencer. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

When is this going to stop? When you get your way "just because"?

When are you going to stop this ad hominem nonsense? You have absolutely no proof that I have any personal bias whatsoever towards "non-Anglo-Saxon" Freemasonry, but you use it in every single argument you make on any XfD related to the subject. I want to remove a cat, and you argue that I'm biased against the topic. I think the one who is biased here is you, and I am sick and tired of being used as your scapegoat all the time because you can't come up with an evidence-based argument. MSJapan (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

re Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor

I removed the above link from the Jahbulon article, as it is currently a redirect to Freemasonry (as you are aware, being the creator) which is already directly linked earlier in the article. I then reconsidered my action, and reviewed Freemasonry to see which section might be a better link. However, I found no such reference in that article. I would suggest that you include whatever material you are going to before making such a general link, and better to link directly to the relevant section. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already discussion at my talkpage re Masonic ritual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded upon my concerns, if you wish to comment, on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Essay

Might be of interest: User:Charles Matthews/Merging encyclopedias. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A realization

JAS, I want to share an observation with you. These comments are made as good faith criticism in the hopes that perhaps it will lessen the antagonisms that exist between us. Take it or leave it as you wish....

I note that you have a habbit of creating very brief stub articles and then linking to them all over the place. This comes across to others as if you are creating the pages purely for the purpose of having links. I am not saying that this is in fact your motivation (or even that it is wrong)... only that this is the impression that others get. This impression is strengthended by the fact that, far too often, you never get around to actually expanding on the stubs you create (unless they are threatened with deletion).

I think there would be far fewer antagonistic debates about your articles (and fewer AfDs) if you took a different approach. Instead of creating stubs and then rushing off to link them into every article that could concievably relate... try going slower. Expand on the stubs a bit, then link it to other articles.

Just my take on the situation. Best. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that's true. You just need to read some of the comments peppered over any admin he think will listen. It's Imacomp all over again. JASpencer (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am only saying how it appeares. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I don't mean to snap at you. I still disagree. JASpencer (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of House Price Crash

I have nominated House Price Crash, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Price Crash. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Masonic Ritual

I thought some historical background might be appropriate: about the controversy. But... no bother. Let us stay wikipedestrian. Lunarian (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag - O'Connell on, List of Freemasons

To respond to your edit comment, if O'Connell quitting was "due to Catholic condemnations", it was by his volition - the fraternity (by its very Constitutions which caused "condemnations" in the first place) does not expel (or quote-unquote "ask people to leave") for not having particular sets of religious beliefs. The reason would not appear in the records anyway (if it was even noted therein), so it's not a locatable fact on its own unless O'Connell mentioned it somewhere else himself. If the reproduction of the facts given in the source is accurate, it should not be fact tagged. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked whether he left because he became aware of the Catholic position or whether he came under pressure from the Catholic church. Condemnations may meet NPOV for the second, but not the first. JASpencer (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Grand Orient of Austria

D'oh... I should have thought about redirecting/merging to the CLIPSAS article ... good idea. I have been so focussed on the requirements of WP:ORG, that I did not think of alternative soulutions to the problem. Redirecting/merging is much more appropriate than a blunt delete. Are their any other tiny and unexpandable stubs on CLIPSAS (or SIMPA) oriented Grand Bodies that could be redirected/merged? If so, let's do so... rather than go through more AfDs. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Have a look at what I did with the Grand Lodge of Armenia (which was kept). Would that be a model? JASpencer (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting various Masonry articles

Question... I see that you created a redirect for Volume of Sacred Law to Masonic ritual and symbolism. Was this actually a merge, or was there no existing article on VSL? Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There were no existing articles. I've not merged anything. JASpencer (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thanks... it just caught me by surprise that there wasn't an article (at least a stub) on it. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

These things are constantly surprising me. JASpencer (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

GOUSA - back to square one

FYI, given the comments by AniMate (who states that most of our sources at the article, including masonicinfo.com are not reliable and that we should look for others)... I have cut the entire criticisms section (no point in discussing what an unreliable source says). This should resolve our BLP debate... but it re-opens the notability debate. Both of us have stated at one point or another that the GOUSA article could be merged/redirected to the Continental Freemasonry article... can we agree that it should now that we have a completely independant third opinion that essentially says the same thing? Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I'm concerned about your interpretation of reliable sources, and have taken this to the reliable sources noticeboard. AniMate 23:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I just finished leaving a similar note to this on Blueboar's page. I just wanted to say that clearly, there are differences of opinions here. Frustration levels may or may not be high. The key is to keep communication channels open. It might have been more politic to work with Blueboar on his draft, but what's done is done. In order for your work to stand up, you have to find secondary sources. I feel like I've said this twenty times today, but it's just so important. Otherwise, your work eventually will be deleted. I'm sure there are plenty of neutral history texts out there with information about the beginnings of freemasonry in North America. If there aren't any reliable secondary sources for the forming of these newer lodges, I'm also sure that you should be able to find texts from both sides so that a well balanced presentation of the issues can be available to readers. Just my thoughts on what's going on. AniMate 03:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:John Carter

DIdn't you know that John hasn't edited for nearly two months? He was a heavy contributor EVERY day up until then. Then he sudden;y stopped with no explanation as to why he left. I hope he hasn't gone for good. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't think why. And with no explanation whatsoever. Now if we could see that he had been involved in a fracas which prompted him to sleeve out of frustration or stress I could understand but it is very unusual of John to have just stopped. I hope nothing serious has happened to him. I know over the last months of his editing his workload particularly with project tagging was huge and difficulties with groups of editors over Carnatic music was stressing him out and I urged him to have a break on numerous occasions but he always plodded on. Very odd that he suddenly stopped given that he would edit consistenly every day even more consistenly than me. I miss his contributions and input considerably. The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Enthüllungen des Systems der Weltbürger-Politik

What is it, and why should it be redirected to Anti-Masonry? Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This may help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Enth%C3%BCllungen+des+Systems+der+Weltb%C3%BCrger-Politik&fulltext=Search . JASpencer (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope... the search does not help... neither of the two hits mention this Enthullugen thing. Please, just explain what is it and why you think it should be redirected to Anti-Masonry? Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the earliest anti-Masonic conspiracy theory. The Masons and the Jesuits in it together, apparently. JASpencer (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Why should it be redirected? Why not write a short article on it? Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight at Anti-Masonry?

JAS... I want to get your thoughts on something before I ask for outside opinions. I am concerned about the amount of space that we are giving Catholic allegations in the Anti-Masonry article. I am not saying that we should ignore fact that the Church is an ardent critic of the fraternity... I am simply saying that giving so much space to the details of the Church's critisms is inappropriate in that particular article. It gives undue weight to the Church's criticisms as opposed to those of other critics. This is especially true considering that we point to an entire article devoted to discussing the Church's views. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. OK, I will think about some ways to rephrase or rewrite things to effect a more even balance, and will get back to you with some suggestions. I agree that we do not want to correct one problem by creating another (such giving more weight to fringe criticisms than they deserve). I really do think that the topic of Anti-Masonry can be discussed in a neutral manner that is fair to all relavant opinions and views of the issue. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, would you consider archiving part of your talk page. It's so long that it's difficult to navigate. AniMate 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of St. John's Lodge

An article that you have been involved in editing, St. John's Lodge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. John's Lodge. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MSJapan (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lodge meeting listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lodge meeting. Since you had some involvement with Lodge meeting, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that you created a redirect for "Lodge Meeting"... come on, JAS... you are an inteligent person... think before you act. How many organizations have copied Freemasonry in the use the term Lodge for their basic unit? All of them hold "Lodge Meetings". This was obviously a flawed redirect that never should have been created. If you need a link to point this term to the article on Masonic Lodge, you can use a slashed link... as in: "The evil anti-clerical Masons plot against the Church at their [[Masonic Lodge|Lodge meetings]]".

Seriously, look at how many of your redirects have been undone since you started creating them. Some of your redirects are good... but most of them have either pointed to the wrong article, or should never have been created in the first place. This should tell you that you are doing something wrong. Please, slow down and think. Stop creating redirects for everything that could possibly be connected to Freemasonry that you happen come across... or at least discuss it first. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Confederation of the United Grand Lodges of Europe listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Confederation of the United Grand Lodges of Europe. Since you had some involvement with the Confederation of the United Grand Lodges of Europe redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Suntag ☼ 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion

on Pershing Rifles AfD? I'm asking you because we seem to be on the opposite sides of some inclusion issues, and I respect your opinion regarding them, even if I disagree on some of them.--Vidkun (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article has been improved, but there is still, IMO, a general misunderstanding of what is and isn't a reliable source - most of the pages in this edit to the AfD are self published pages by chapters of the organization. A few of them make factually incorrect statements, as well, leading me to question the reliability of the sources.--Vidkun (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How does one withdraw an AfD, especially if I still have concerns about the article (like the fact that it took an AfD to get people to try and improve it, and the continued reliance on self published sources by some of the Keep supporters)?--Vidkun (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Continental Freemasonry

Thought you might want to throw in your thoughts on the latest allegations of NPOV for the Continental Freemasonry article. I believe that the revert of my edits was unwarranted and based purely on personal disagreements due to the nature of the facts that were cited.Voltairesghost (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just giving you a shout to let you know that I am done wasting my time on the Continental Freemasonry articles here. These guys are in serious denial of the truth to a degree that I can only compare to a cult-like fanatacism. The very things that they are trying to constantly acuse me of are being displayed in their blind zealotry. I am not sure why they spend so much time on articles concerning a type of Freemasonry which, in their minds and for all intents and purposes, is in opposition to their beliefs. This is like Microsoft being allowed to constantly edit Apple's wiki articles because they think apple makes themselves look too good in their article and that Microsoft should be the focus of the Apple article. It is vastly inappropriate. These guys are biased by the very nature of their affiliation and there is no way that they will ever convince me or any third party otherwise. In a few short years, the face of American Masonry is going to be very different than it is today. When the shoe is on the other foot, I wonder if they will still be so aggressive against us? Farewell and good luck wrangling the mess on those articles, they are an extremely one-sided POV.--Voltairesghost (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a disproportionate response...

The under construction template states to use a particular essay as guidelines for when to delete. Also note that the template can only be up for a week with no edits. The template was removed by a bot, and the essay states as follows: "The page may be proposed for deletion if, following the expiration of the allotted time, the page has not had any significant edits, and no work has been done to bring the page within the necessary guidelines for inclusion. At this time, anyone may feel free to propose the page for deletion using the deletion process." MSJapan (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire

I just expanded the history of the page. Want to take this to DYK, because it looks like it will definitely stay. Template talk:Did you know. I added 2k worth of content, which should be more than enough prose to have it display as a DYK. I can add more. Also, if you want, I can do the nom, and we could co nom if you would like. Its your creation, and I don't want to do anything that you don't want or take credit for anything that you don't want to give. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I added this. You can add your own preferred wording as an alt-nom if you would like. I wanted to make sure something was listed before it expired so that your hard work would be noticed and maybe someone with more information can come by and add a little more. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire

Thanks for the information, I've taken another look at the page and amended my view in the discussion accordingly. I actually commented after you added the sources but must have been looking at an older version of the page (I sometimes leave my computer on overnight to act an alarm clock) and forgot to refresh. Good job finding the sources and improving the article. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Julia Stent

I just wanted to inform you that I have nominated Julia Stent, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Stent where you may want to help the discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire

On 8 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)

I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Rite of 1962

I think your suggestion to merge the article into Freemasonry in Belgium has some merit. At the moment that article does not discuss any of the various appendant bodies... perhaps it should. Would you expand upon your ideas at the AfD. thanks. (and why does it not surprise me that the Scottish Rite in Belgium is just as fragmented and prone to splintering as craft Masonry! What a country! )Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on "merging encyclopedias"

User:Charles Matthews/WikiProject DNBMerge. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christian Order

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Christian Order, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable obscure British Traditionalist Catholic publication. No sources cited other than its own website.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christian Order

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christian Order, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Order. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article makes no assertion that the topic meets any of the criteria in WP:BK and is entirely sourced to the book itself.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Liturgical Revolution

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Liturgical Revolution, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article makes no assertion that the topic meets any of the criteria in WP:BK and is wholly unsourced.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Order: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question for you

User:Gimmetrow told me to ask you this: Do you think that all articles which cite the Catholic Encyclopedia should be tagged with {{Catholic}}? Let me know on my talk page if you have time. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aaron D. Wolf

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aaron D. Wolf, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.   Will Beback  talk  04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Early Christian Lamps

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Early Christian Lamps, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Looks like a personal essay or dissertation rather than an encyolpedia entry

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TurningWork (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. you might want to archive your talk page.....

Secret societies at the University of Virginia

Hi. Thanks very much for assessing Secret societies at the University of Virginia. If you have a few minutes, please leave a comment indicating why the page was assessed at Start--there is a lot of work in the page and I'd like to get it on track. Thanks! -Tjarrett (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Papal Documents relating to Freemasonry

Hi JASpencer. Reading/researching a book on our notorious dictator António de Oliveira Salazar(in Portugal) I was further checking his alleged influences from pope's Leo XIII writings. This led me to Inimica vis... bla bla... Well, this to say that so many solo documents issued from the church attacking freemasonry needed cross-references and that is what I tried to do adding the "See also" section on most of them, allowing a wider view. Since I am new on this, and notice your nick is all around those docs, please give some hints if I did well on (at least) most cases. So take a look at the Discussion page at Papal Documents relating to Freemasonry and its documents please. I hope to have contributed at some point.LeonelMarques (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Worship

Should Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat Worship be deleted? Or is it still needed? Since you blanked it, I've redirected it to Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics for now. If it is no longer needed {{db-g6}} or {{db-g7}} would be the correct course of action. -- œ^™ 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blue Pig

The article Blue Pig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:COMPANY. A local pub with no claims of notability. WP:NOTDIRECTORY

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SilkTork *^YES! 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Blue Pig

I have nominated Blue Pig, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Pig (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork *^YES! 10:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Seal (device) move

Since you have made several edits to Seal (device), this message is to notify you that the article has recently been moved without discussion, and a discussion is now taking place at Talk:Seal (impression)#Recent move to decide the most appropriate name. As a contributor to the article, your ideas and comments are valued in this discussion. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of Catholicism and Freemasonry

It has been suggested that the article be moved to a new title... something like: Papal ban of Freemasonry, and the title "Catholicism and Freemasonry" be redirected to the broader scoped Christianity and Freemasonry article. As you are probably the largest single contributer to the article from the Catholic viewpoint, I have asked that before any action be taken, you be given a chance to opine. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know... Per Fullstop's suggestion the above article has now been moved and redirected. The material has been moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry and the title has been redirected to Christianity and Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've registerd my objection to the move. I'm dissatisfied with what has been done with the article - a large scale deletion of sourced material. The primary reason simply seems to be that some editors don't like it. What are your thoughts. Mamalujo (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William C. Hetzel

The article William C. Hetzel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability does not inherit: the person is not notable becakse his book is, which anyway does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own entry. No other facts about him are given.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello JASpencer! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 312 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Harvey Proctor - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Need your input at Anticlericalism and Freemasonry

Much of the material which was in the article Catholicism and Freemasonry is now in the article Anticlericalism and Freemasonry. Blueboar tried to blank the article and redirect it but other editors steped in. Then he tried to delete almost all of the material in one edit but I objected. Now he is attempting to do the same thing piecemeal. Your input would be appreciated. Mamalujo (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. The really scary thing about Blueboar is he doesn't recognise his bias and thinks that promoting Freemasonry is the neutral point of view by definition. JASpencer (talk) 23

40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record... I am in no way trying to "promote" Freemasonry. I am mearly trying to clean up an article that is riddled with multiple Wikipedia policy violations. As for bias, I fully recognize my biases. The question is, do you recognize your bias?

Articles for deletion nomination of Swinton Circle

I have nominated Swinton Circle, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton Circle. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion discussion

You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Boxwood Public School

Wasn't that tag removed before? And didn't you just repeat what you did earlier? ~~Keep It Clean! Respect Public Property! -Superintendent, Halo 3:ODST Chairsenses(Talk)~~ 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of A List (Conservative)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is A List (Conservative). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A List (Conservative). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Rao

The article John Rao has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

doesn't seem notable, can't find any third-party sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prezbo (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Conservative MEPs

Category:Conservative MEPs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whole bunch of run-on stubs

Hi, you see to be creating a lot of articles where the text consists of "X is a Roman Catholic titular see in Pisidia it is a suffragan of Y". These are run-on sentences and you are using no punctuation whatsoever. Would you please clean up the ones you've already created and be a little more careful with any additional ones? Typing it as "X is a Roman Catholic titular see in Pisidia. It is a suffragan of Y." would require little additional effort on your part, but would save much cleanup work on the parts of others. LadyofShalott 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Others have cleaned up after you. Please be more careful in the future. (Also, please think about archiving old discussions from your talk page. This page is huge!) LadyofShalott 15:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect OrthodoxWiki. Since you had some involvement with the OrthodoxWiki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

St Eunan's Cathedral

Hi, I see you've converted St Eunan's Cathedral into a disambig. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, could you help clean up the links that now point to a disambig? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 11:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice, thanks much! --JaGa^talk 19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Why do you think that this this blog is a reliable source? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of John Rao

I have nominated John Rao, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rao. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Prezbo (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Left Democratic Front

Hi again. Just a reminder asking you to help clean up these links per WP:FIXDABLINKS. Thanks! --JaGa^talk 11:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchate of Aquileia

{{Talkback|OwenBlacker|ts=16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)}}
{{Talkback|OwenBlacker|ts=16:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)}}
{{Talkback|OwenBlacker|ts=10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)}}

Hello, JASpencer. You have new messages at OwenBlacker's talk page.
Message added 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK nomination of Free City of Besançon

Hello! Your submission of Free City of Besançon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Free City of Besançon

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)