Note: This talk page has been archived at User_talk:Basil_Rathbone/Archive.

Please come discuss your propose changes to Freemasonry on the talk page. I'll make sure they are treated fairly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you get your changes to stick, but only if you will discuss them on the talk page and stop reverting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

The basic rule of Masonic Editors is to remove any contribution by Non-Masonic editors demanding it be discussed while allowing all Masonic Editors to make contributions as they like without similar discussion. Similarily any information that already existed on page that is critical of Freemasonry is deleted without discussion while demanding discussion before deleting any information that is pro-masonic. Masonic editors combine their numbers to go-around 3rr rules, acting as a group, and harrass and attempt to get banned non-masonic editors who refuse to accept their hegemony of the pages. Additionly Masonic editors make false 3rr, vandalism, and sockpuppet allegations against any editor who is known to make contributions that are critical of freemasonry. So good luck Hipocrite, I wish you well.Basil Rathbone 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1. Do not comment on other editors until you have enough experience here to understand that the above comment is not helpful.

Step 2. Do not add any content to the page that fails any of our three important policies -> WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Step 3. When chaning the article, do not delete, only add. Deletions are much harder than addtions.

Step 4. When adding, make sure all of your statements were made by someone else first. All additions must be cited. If you are the person who found out about the conspiracy, then it's not acceptable for publication here. You must find a source that said what you want to say, and then quote it.

If you follow those 4 steps, I will make sure your edits stick. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the large group of Masonic editors which keep deleting Material critical of Freemasonry with no discussion. They refuse any contributions by non-masonic editors, deleting them every time, again with no discussion. This is where the problem is. I am causing no difficulties on that page, other than having the 'temerity' to contradict and challenge the Masonic Editors complete control of Freemasonr related pages, a situation that has existed for two years, a situation which Wikipedia has done little if anything to recitify.Basil Rathbone 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either follow my 4 steps or fail to get your information included. I don't care about, nor can I help you with your problems regarding editors that you see as problematic. Please provide the requested citations on my sandbox version of the requested changes, located at User:Hipocrite/Freemasonry, and we can get your changes, to follow the three policies, and have them included in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing editors' comments from your talk page without archiving. It is often considered an uncivil act on the part of the remover if disputes come to mediation or arbitration. --Malthusian (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to have the continual stream of unsubstantiated commentary and accusations by Masonic Editors on my talk page. If I respond to their nonsense I will leave their 'comments' up, otherwise I will delete them. It is my talk page.Basil Rathbone 18:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, William and Malthusian are not in the habit of issuing warnings lightly, and I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the others either. Sometimes when a large number of poeple tell you that you're wrong, it's because you are. Deleting comments from your Talk page is frowned on, for good reason. Apart from anything else, the more you delete comments the more you will have to delete other comments from other people telling you the same thing - you can't have adebate if one party gives every appearance of not listening. I strongly recommend you take the advice you have been given to stop blanking this page, and also that you seek consenssu on the Talk pages of the freemasonry articles. There is an established way of achieving consensus on Wikipedia, and neither edit warring nor deleting talk pages are part of it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Masons are always posting their slander on my talk page. I on the other hand don't make posts on their pages. I don't vandalize their pages with 'suspected sockpuppet'. But if I remove their trash from my page? Fine, I don't really care. I've seen for the last two years how the Masonic Editors have run off any non-masonic editor using their Wiki lawyering skills, making hypocritical accusations and use of the rules. No one has ever stopped them at 'Wiki Central', and you know what, I bet dollars to donuts you won't stop them now either. Your just scared of them, what they will do to Wikipedia if they don't get there way. And your're probably right, they are that powerful. They can and probably will turn Wikipedia's lights out if they don't get there way, just like they are trying to do all over the internet.Basil Rathbone 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are getting very tired of this continuous stream of personal attacks. I strongly advise you to stop it now and work with Hipocrite on finding references for your claims. --Malthusian (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their suspicions appear at this point to be well-founded. If you are, as you assert, not a sockpuppet of Lightbringer, your best route to proving it is to make constructive edits to other areas of the encyclopaedia, and to engage in constructive debate withotu accusing absolutely everybody who disagrees with you of being a mason. Aside form making you look paranoid, that is a sure-fire way to get yourself blocked for incivility. Oh, and as far as I can tell (without actually undergoing psychoanalysis) I have never given so much as a passing thought as to what the Masons can do to Wikipedia. I suspect that it amounts to the square root of fuck-all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be very clear - I am not a Mason, I know nothing about Masons, nor do I care about Masons. I saw your posting at AMA requests for advocacy, and while I am unwilling to advocate for you, I felt that I would be able to help resolve a conflict, or at least make the article better and not make a conflict worse. I will do this, regardless of how much of my time is wasted fixing what was once a featured article. You can either get on the bus by helping me fix your edits for inclusion in the article, or you can get thrown off of it either when ArbCom or an admin blocks you from the article or the project. I intend to give this self-same offer to the scores of disruptive pro-side editors who you have been in a constant edit war with. Since the whole lot of you do little more than POV war over Masonic article, I really could care less if any of you get banned or stick around. I will fix the article with or without you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued by the material you've submitted. Please source it so it can be included within the article. Use the rules for your benefit, instead of railing against them. Deucelow 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mason_penalsigns.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 07:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]