User talk:Basil Rathbone/Archive

1st Warning Message

This message is regarding the page Freemasonry. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia! Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you! Millennium Sentinel 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Sentinel identifies himself as being a Freemason on his user page.Basil Rathbone 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Warning Message

This message is regarding the page Freemasonry. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Millennium Sentinel 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Sentinel identifies himself as being a Freemason on his user page.Basil Rathbone 16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User

What was it I did exactly? Please refresh my memory.Basil Rathbone 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to see with your edit history; you replaced the whole article (twice) with something completly different... WegianWarrior 10:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever did that should apologize, I respect the work you guys are doing here.Basil Rathbone 10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go right ahead and appologise on the talk page of the freemason article - that was your edits (or at least; edits done from your account). But you don't have to take my word for it - if you look at the top of your screen (while logged in, off course), you see several links; one of these is named my contributions and will show your edit history. The relevant edits are the two first done from your account... WegianWarrior 11:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WegianWarrior identifies himself as being a Freemason on his user page.Basil Rathbone 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda Due Article

Dear Basil, While we may have our differences on other matters (Jahbulon at wiktionary for example), I hope that protecting the wiki project from law suits would be a common goal. Your adding the link to the P2 page to the Freemasonry Article caused me to go and check out the article. I found it well written and fairly NPOV. However, when I surfed the web to find out more information, I discovered that whole chunks of it are identical to a similar article at Reference.com (another on-line encyclopedia - see: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Propaganda_Due). It looks like whoever wrote the P2 article did a cut and paste job (I hope it wasn't you). That would be OK with me (after all, we are not all great writers) except for the fact that the material at reference.com is Copywrited. I am not sure it this rises to the level of a violation or not, so I have not (yet) put a violation warning on the P2 page ... I have placed a comment on Talk:Propaganda Due stating my concerns, and asking for the P2 article to be significantly re-written. Blueboar 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basil... Ignore my comments above. Apparently the similarity between the articles is due to reference.com copying the Wikipedia article and not the other way around. (It has been pointed out to me that the reference.com page gives wikipedia as the source) - My mistake. Keep up the good work. Blueboar 23:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar identifies himself as being a Freemason on his user page.Basil Rathbone 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind proving that you're not Lightbringer?

For someone who "doesn't edit much" you've never touched anything but the Freemasonry article. I'll also point out that your removals betray a lack of knowledge in the area, and seem to mirror those made by one of our well-known vandals. So, I would suggest you discuss any removals you want to make on the Talk page before making them. MSJapan 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who?

Please provide proof you are not a POV Masonic Editor who habitually disregards Wikipedia rules and policy regarding NPOV.

Please confirm/deny you are a Freemason and please post a listing here of all the Editors who are or who have edited Freemasonry related pages who you know or assume of being 'Brother' Masons.Basil Rathbone 12

21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to justify a thing. Your interest is clearly not in "esoterica", as you've never touched any articles but Masonic ones, and you have no idea what WP policy states unless it falls in line with your goals. So don't try to turn this around on me to justify yourself. I'm not a "POV Masonic editor" because unlike you, I know what is correct and what is not. You have gross misunderstandings of policies, procedures, NPOV, and just about everyo other basic tenet of Wikipedia. This is not your private soapbox - if you want that, go get a blog. MSJapan 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan identifies himself as being a Freemason on his user page.

MSJapan is requested to post here a list of every editor of Freemasonry related pages that he knows to be a Freemason.

MSJapan is requested to post here a list of any and all e-mail lists or offsite discussion forums where Masons gather to exchange views or strategies regarding editing Wikipedia pages related to Freemasonry.

MSJapan is requested to post here a list of any and all Grand Lodge Officers who are editing Freemasonry related pages on Wikipedia, or who have discussed the editing of Freemasonry related pages on Wikipedia, or who have directed Freemasons to edit Freemasonry related pages on Wikipedia.Basil Rathbone 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. none. MSJapan 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we thought Freemasonry had no 'hidden master'...Basil Rathbone 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jahbulon.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Jahbulon.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images are not copyright. They come from a 175 year old expose of Freemasonry and are now public domain.Basil Rathbone 12:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading editsummaries

Hi.

I notice that your edit summaries are at times, to be blunt, misleading. For instance, take a look at your recent edit here[1], where you claim to have "removed duplicate link to masonic site about anti-masonry added link to catholic site and masonic site about fm and nazis".

No, it was the Masonic editors which made the misleading edit summaries. The purpose of their edit was to delete my recent additons which were in fact restoring Wiki links they had previously deleted. You will note that never indicated any deletion was taking place and hid the deletion underneath meaningless minor spelling edits. You will also note the belittling comments they make. Perhaps you need to reread and rethink your above comments.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, looking thru your edit, I noticed that you in reality did the following:

Changed the lead, removed relevant information on what the secrets of Freemasonry are and why they need to be secrets.

This is demonstrably false. I added section entitled Masonic Secrets and clearly labled it as such. Of course Masonic editors had deleted a similarly titled section last week with no discussion.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinked a number of years.

Is this supposed to mean something. I restored Wiki links to Secret Society and Mormonism and Freemasonry that Masonic editors keep deleting. The Wiki links are to pages that are directly about and mention Freemasonry.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the wording of a wikilink currently under discussion on the talkpage (this is usually considered bad form)

Did nothing of the kind, cite please.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the text under the section Other degrees, orders and bodies

Did nothing of the kind, cite please.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a correctly spelled word (Lodges) to an incorrectly spelled one (Loges)

Did nothing of the kind, cite please.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed text in the section Ritual and symbolism, which among others included adding speculations on the meaning of certain symbols without citations to back it up.

Did nothing of the kind, cite please.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the wikilink to the article on Anti-Freemasonry

not today. Did yesterday. Fully summarized in edit summary reasons for doing this.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed an image

not today. Did yesterday. Fully summarized in edit summary reasons for doing this.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the wikilink to Mormonism and Freemasonry (which you had placed there shortly before)

Did nothing of the kind, cite please. Actually you know full well it was Masonic editors who keep deleting these Wiki links and I who keep re-inserting them. A very odd claim by you.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added and removed links as your editsummary stated.

Did nothing of the kind, cite please.Basil Rathbone 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it might just be me liking such things as accurancy and honesty, but I'm wondering if you are trying to hide what your edits really are about with misleading editsummeries like this. WegianWarrior 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have either confused my edits with some of your 'brother' Masonic editors serial deletion of my contributions or you are intentionally making false accusations.

I am fully aware that Masonic Editors believe the various Wikipedia entries related to Freemasonry to be their private domain and intensely dislike all attempts by non-masons to make edits here. However you should be fully aware that Wikipedia is an NPOV Encyclopedia and not a private Masonic web site.Basil Rathbone 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link i provided to one of your edits (repeated here for your convinience - my comments was on that single edit and not the others you have done today), you'll see that that single edit by you intruduced all the changes I pointed out. My comment on misleading edit summaries stand. For proof, again I refer you to your edit which my comment was based on. And yes, I am aware of the policies on NPOV - I'm wondering if you are, since you both use higly POV sources and are extremly quick to claim everyone else is violating said policy. WegianWarrior 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never made that edit, it seems to be one done by Masonic Editors ALR or Blue Square, probably Blue Square but it is a bit confusion. Blue Square made the following comment which appears to be in violation of Wikipedia terms of use: 10:46, 3 February 2006 Blue Square m (Edited to throw a bone to the loonie element. ie put notices on rv. to last least loonie edit. Ok?) This is the misleading edit summary by this Masonic editor I was referring to above you will note. The purpose of him making this edit appears to be to delete my re-insertion of the Secret society and Mormonism and Freemasonry Wiki links masked under a plethora of minor mispelling additions and minor edits. Now it is possible that when I was attempting to revert this deletion I edited on his older version instead of refreshing the page, but it should be quite obvious if you review his edit what was going on. All these minor para and spelling changes were done by ALR and Blue Square, not I.Basil Rathbone 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never made that edit? How come the database attributes it to your username? Allow me to qoute from the heading of the edit in question:

Revision as of 11:23, 3 February 2006

Basil Rathbone (Talk | contribs)

removed duplicate link to masonic site about anti-masonry added link to catholic site and masonic site about fm and nazis that masonic editors keep deleting

Are you User:Basil Rathbone? Yes? In that cause, yes, you DID make the edit which I based my comment on. Any other lies you want to spread, in defiance of verifiable facts? WegianWarrior 12:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just playing some game here, wasting my time, and anyone else who bothers to wade through your links and reasonings. First of all you are changing the subject, your original accusation being I was making a series of paragraph changes to the Ritual and other sections, when clearly I didn't. If you cared you would have clicked on the Blue Square and ALR edits and see it was them who was making a series of changes to those sections, inserting spelling errors and strange rephrasing of sentences and paragraphs while sneeking in at the end a blanket deletion of the additions I had just made to the See Also and External Links section. They made those changes not I.

Here is the Edit by ALR which made all those changes [[2]] and here is the edit by Blue Square [[3]] and here is the edit I made trying to restore the deleted Wiki links [[4]] These are three edits in a row, so I don't know how you see me making those changes.

Now for your above point, yes it does seem I made my re-insertion of the deleted links on the "incorrect" version of the page, the one ALR or Blue Square made. I was interested in re-inserting the Wiki links and External Links, I could have cared less about a series of meaningless spelling and para re-alignments which these two gentlemen had made only to mask their deletion of my Secret society and Mormonism additions. Hope this helps to clear up your confusion on this matter.

Anyways if you were really concerned about what is and has been going on on this page you would be focusing on the serial deletions and NPOV edits by a large group of Masonic editors here, that is the problem here. Please focus your ample Wiki skills on that chestnut. Thank-you.Basil Rathbone 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not playing a game. I'm trying to get you to stop using misleading edit summaries and to face up to what you actully did. My original "accusation" was simply that your edit summary was misleading, and I proved that. That you can't see how I see what chages you do may be because you don't know how to look at your own contributions perhaps. Allow me to repeat a bit of advice I placed on this very talkpage earlier: if you look at the top of your screen (while logged in, off course), you see several links; one of these is named my contributions and will show your edit history. By selecting diff in front any single edit you will see excatly what you did in that edit - and so can anyone else.

However, I don't think that the NPOV edits are the problem here. NPOV is what we strive for at Wikipedia, if you didn't notice. WegianWarrior 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see on your personal page you have a little Masonic symbol with 'I'm on the Square' beside it like ALR, Blue Square, and Blueboar who have been serially deleting my contributions today. I appreciate your concern to make me a better Wiki editor. Thank-you for your assistance and contribution to my Talk page.Basil Rathbone 14:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if they do have the S&C? Where is your POV warning tag saying you hate Masons, and wish to do whatever you can to annoy them, and continue to spread anti-Masonic propaganda that is not verifiable? Go on, point to Duncan's: it does you no good, as it is not considered a valid Masonic source book to learn the degree work in ANY Grand Lodge at this time. Therefore, you cannot make any claims as to how accurate the material is based on modern Masonic practices. This is quite akin to the various blood libel claims that have been floated about for centuries.--Vidkun 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord My God Is There No Help For The...Basil Rathbone 15:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a tale

Told by an idiot,

full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing." Macbeth V.v. --Vidkun 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this yet another explanation of the 'Craft'? Basil Rathbone 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I do list on my userpage several things that I think helps define who I am. Not only do I have the S&C there, but I also point out that I drink coffe, likes Red Dwarf and that I use the metric system of measurement. And your point was? WegianWarrior 08:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Basil, I (well,m "we", obviously) find you rather disruptive to Freemasonry, & I don't "have a little Masonic symbol with 'I'm on the Square' beside it". So... what now? Oh, I'm sure you'll find some conspiracy theory to apply to me too. But hey, know what? I'm not worried about it. You are caught, & you are watched. Grye 06:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't thow me in that ole briar patch, that's the last place I want to be...Basil Rathbone 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Freemasonry

I have blocked you [5] for 3rr on freemasonry. Please discuss this here, if you wish to. William M. Connolley 17:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cite please. If you can't then please remove block.Basil Rathbone 17:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite? What? I gave you the link to the block log. William M. Connolley 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And? You obviously did bother to see what I had reverted, if you did you would have seen that the last revert was only the second one of that para area. You have abused your 'power' by making a false 3rr ruling and banning me, on the complaint of a number of Freemasons. Why didn't you ban the half dozen or or so Masonic Editors who combine their strenth continually to circumvent Wikipedia 3rr rules? Incompetence or bias?Basil Rathbone 12:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence or bias... ah, you certinaly know how to make people sympathetic to you. It's bias of course: why not dig around my edit history to find my Freemasonry edits? William M. Connolley 17:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You're right William M. Connolley I overstepped my place. Thank-you for banning me and allowing me time to reflect. Thank-you for not banning the Masonic Editors who deleted and destroyed hours of my editorial work, and who continue to do so today. You're not biased at all, I am, and I apologize for my short sightedness. Thank-you and God Bless you.Basil Rathbone 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you get some more time to ponder these questions [6]. In the (hopefully unlikely) event of this happening again you will have even longer to think. William M. Connolley 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

AMA Request

I have read your request for advocacy concerning posting non-Masonic views of Freemasonry. As a Catholic, I have no association with Freemasonry. However, I read your posting history before deciding to accept your case. Your first two edits to Freemasonry appear to have been vandalism. I did not research your more recent posts in enough detail to decide whether there is a content issue that warrants advocacy. However, I will decline to accept your case because I am not persuaded of the good faith of your efforts. Robert McClenon 13:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, again?

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Freemasonry. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Vidkun 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Freemasonry, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vidkun 16:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]