User talk:Jachin

You have new messages . (last change).

Welcome to the talk page of JachinTo ensure that your communication is recieved in order and replied to, a certain code of conduct must be followed -- which for most people goes without saying and it is not neccesary to state this, but for some it is unfortunately required -- please ensure that you do the following: -

sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
use headlines when starting new talk topics by inserting ==Subject==
be signed in, all messages by anonymous users will be disregarded.
attempt to use proper spelling and grammar to convey your message accurately and concisely.

Your message will be syndicated (ie: copied) to your talk page in reply including the response, please reciprocate likewise to maintain efficient communication and general politesse. Thank you.

Start a new talk topic.

Votes for Deletion: White Supremacist list

Hey Jachin. I've put the List of White supremacists on votes for deletion. You might want to vote since you've expressed a strong opinion. Hopefully this link will work; if not, there's a link on the article page itself. Here goes:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists NoahB 05:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:BelgarethTS: Vandalisation of Freemasonry

I fail to see what you define as vandalism for my editing of the freemasonery topic. You messaged me and told me that I did something I did not, and I would like proof from you so that I may learn what I did wrong although I highly doubt I did anything 'bad'. Belgarath TS 10:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure to look after the Freemasonry page while you sleep. (On the other hand, I will be on vacation from 1 to 22 September and hope not to touch a computer during that time. (Why the heck learn Arabic? I have little need for it and find the distinction between Modern and Classical VERY confusing!) Paul, in Saudi 17:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be keeping my eyes pealed, MSJapan seems to be doing a good job also, don't know much about them or their involvement in the brotherhood. A holiday that involves being away from the internet sounds scary to me. The internet is my primary source of at-home entertainment though. ;)

As for Arabic, it's one of the hardest languages I've dealt with, although I'm slowly getting a better grasp of it. It's come in handy with a fair bit of my (masonic oriented) research, as has Ancient Egyptian for that matter, which is a whoooole new ball game. Unfortunately the template for Aramaic isn't functioning as it should be, it's another language I'm struggling to master, although I'm failing at most of late due to not enough time on my hands. But alas, such is life. :) Jachin 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you guys are all just ganging up on people to bully wikipedia into having only the information you want on the entry in question. The fact that I now seem to be stalked by your group is proof of this enough in my humble opinion. Stop bullying people. Belgarath TS 22:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it's a global masonic conspiracy to hound you. You're entitled to your opinions and paranoia, but likewise I'm entitled to not really care. I don't know who you are, or why you're making a song and dance. You got caught out being a douche and defacing a very well written article and were asked to stop. So here's a tip, stop. Jachin 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again your taking it out of context in an attempt to amke me look like the bad guy. I was nto 'being a douche' I was doign what millions of others have done on wikipedia: Shareing what I know with others. If I was wrong you could have said that instead of acting like a douche yourself. I personaly have nothing against you, its just your actions and the bullying nature you show that gets to me And just because it says what you want it to does not mean that it is well written or even factual, it just means your own NPOV has been currupted and your own bias is for the current version without the added information.. Belgarath TS 22:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of others do not update articles with lies, ignorance and hate speech propaganda. You can have a problem with the way I go about things, as I said, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled not to care.

Perhaps I'm being snappy because your post contained rubbish and coincided with another user (ie: the user who is whinging below) who was vandalising and/or making updates based on his opinion with no hard fact, but regardless, the facts remain your edit was erroneous and quite immature.

Please see the Freemasonry talk page, you have quite a few people keen on seeing your references in relation to your above allegations of 'masonite' conspiracies. As an aside, Masonite is an erroneous term in itself. Although I must admit, I did get a really good belly laugh out of your additional paragraph of: -

"'NOTE: Reading any further could spoil the secrecy. This is wikipedia, not something controled or filtered so it may contain information that the Freemasonry would not want you to know about. If your a freemason and you disagree with this, tough."

In future just try and keep with the verifiable facts. Or, as you so elloquently put it, if you disagree with our reversions of your defacement / drivel, tough. :) Jachin 23:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapinmies: Vandalisation of Freemasonry

Stop bullying/harashing Lapinmies. I can't tolerate this anymore. PacoCrunz 21:27, 29 August 2005

To begin with, the word is 'harassing'. I believe you are refering to my request that the user refrains from vandalising and defacing the Freemasonry article. I am assuming the bullying and harassing you refer to is my initial request he doesn't deface the article, his subsequent offended response that I pulled him up on it, my further explaination as to why he is a vandal and his later hurt and saddened feelings about the matter.

I suggest you read through those links before you start having a cry as though I have targetted some random innocent person and abused them. I also suggest that you take heed of your own words, Lapinmies hassling me because he's not bright enough to understand what I was saying to him is one thing, your getting involved totally crosses the line into harassment. Of me, that is. Jachin 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue pouring sand in my mailbox, I will get very angry. Lapinmies 19:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what're you on about? Jachin 02:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin writer italian list

Dear Jachin,

I have just completed a big list of Latin language ancient writers, (from III BC to VI AD circa), and I'm in the process of extracting it from my sandbox. Before the final step I was looking for interwikilinks, but in en.wiki I found only a tiny list of Latin language poets... have you any news about a list of Latin authors in en.wiki.

I sent this message also because if you need a ready-made list needing only simple search and replace adaptation for en.wiki we have one!

Grazie per qualunque risposta. Mi scuso per il povero inglese

Da it.wiki Edoardo.

Native Latin speakers?

Greetings, fellow Latinist. If you have second, please cast your two cents in on the discussion of a category for native Latin speakers who are also Wikipedians. --Flex 13:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry Article Restructure

I just discovered how this User Page discussion works, and it's easier than trying to follow a thread in the Talk section. When you get a chance, could you look over my proposed changes to the article (now in Archive 2), and see what you can do with it, while also incorporating Spinboy's suggestions, especially wrt not linking every Masonic jurisdiction in the world (which was bit ambitious on my part, perhaps)? MSJapan 03:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightbringer: Vandalisation of Freemasonry

I'm posting this to all people majorly involved in editing Freemasonry. I think discretion is the better part of valor here. Reasonable arguments have failed, and Lightbringer is in fact confusing people (he claimed I edited Taxil hoax, when I did not) and statements (he accused me of deleting sections from Freemasnory that were clearly still part of the article). That being said, I'm sure he doesn't care how stupid he looks, as long as it gets us, "the Masonic editors" to look stupid as well. To that end, I would suggest that we merely follow the revision path, and comment on nothing Lightbringer says, positive or negative. MSJapan 23:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Could you look at the evidence page for the case and add your own material, and make sure mine makes sense? There's so much that it's hard to keep it all straight. MSJapan 03:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean brother, I've had the same difficulty in the past with astro-turfing twats, somehow when they are really obnoxious and leave an evidence trail so huge, it gets overwhelming keeping it all together. If you're on MSN messenger, add me, val@tunnelrats.org.au and we can work over it together. Jachin 04:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page.))[reply]

Catholic Masons

Oh, I didn't realize you were one, too! Neat.--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they'll let anyone in these days! :P I jest, actually, there are quite a few brethren, in my lodge alone, who are RC. Many usually persue trinitarian perfection also, quite a few well ranked RC's in my district. What's the situation where you are? Jachin 21:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know: it doesn't usually come up in conversation. I know that when I joined the new Knights of Columbus chapter at my church, I specifically brought up my Masonic membership and was told it wasn't an issue.--SarekOfVulcan 21:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting chapter name, sounds very rosicrucian actually. Wouldn't mind hearing more about it, feel free to add me on MSN, val@valdebauchee.com (new address). :) Jachin 09:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I’m glad you like the award. Your User Page is cool, and I may “pirate” some of the cooler bits for my page matey, “aghrrr”. Yours F & S ;-) Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 10:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originality is merely undetected plagiarism! Everything on my user page has been pirated or made from disecting other peoples stuff, so feel free to help yourself! :) Jachin 12:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Card

Just in case I forget later my Christian brethren, “I have news of great joy, for a child and Saviour is born to us.” Greetings of this Christ-tide to you and yours! Skull 'n' Femurs 18:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Riots

Sorry it took so long to get back to you... If he wants to remove his edits, he should use strike though font. As far as the popup reversion that is a vandalism fighting tool here on Wiki. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Notices

Please do not remove notices selectively from the talk page, while this is called your talk page it is not entirely yours and it is a needed tool for other editors to be able to openly read the messages you have gotten as well as communicate with you. If you feel that the messages are no longer relevant instead of deleting them outright I suggest you archive them to a subpage which you link to from your main talk page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such policy, could you please cite where it gains it's authority? That would be very difficult to implement and enforce wiki-wide, it also seems rather redundant and a waste of space. Jachin 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. See Help:Talk_page#Etiquette, Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "removing warnings". It is neither redundant nor a waste of space, as it provides admins with the very important capability of checking whether a user has been warned before in determining whether or not to escalate a penalty like blocking to a higher level. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess ten grand per term law school is actually worth it, first things that came to my attention were: -

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

The cause given was obviously not that and the use of the words 'generally prohibited from removing' above indicate that the decision is persuasive not binding. Further to that we have a contrary argument (and interestingly the only argument supporting your case), two conflicting statements in the same 'policy': -

Removing warnings for vandalism, personal attacks, or disruption from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

However, the above line has too much of an obiter dictum flare to it and is too broad scope to be applied when a matter is still not cemented as policy as Wikipedia:Removing_warnings stipulates that it is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process and not a passed or accepted policy.

Furthermore 3RR does not apply to user talk pages and thus a user may revert your edits continuously to a prior state that they see as applicable to the status they desire regardless of the above yet undecided policy in the making: -

The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space (this includes associated talk pages and subpages), on the principle that although you do not own them, your user space is "yours" (for project-related purposes).

I am now adamant that it has been made out that I may remove anything I please from my user page until conclusion is brought about pertaining to Wikipedia:Removing_warnings regardless of the status of the user or the hostility of the action. That being said I do not consider hostility to be an apt method of dealing with anything, nor do I intend any disrespect to fellow editors of Wikipedia, however it is quite clear that the odds are not stacked in your favour the next time I notice how long my talk page is and cut it down in size.

Furthermore, I draw into question the validity of 'personal attack' as the appropriate taxonomy in relation to the matter of your original complaint; that being allegations that a fellow editor--who has a sock-puppet ring in excess of thirty odd users who has incessantly vandalised approximately 18 known articles with hate-speech and general defamation of an organisation outside of Wikipedia--is a suspected of being a goat or perhaps an idiot. The allegations claimed suspicion, not indicative of sustained agreeance or confirmation.

Therefore the 'personal attack' required validation, a personal attack is a statement not a question, thus my application of the 'goat' boilerplate is not deemed a personal attack under Personal attack nor the official policy description of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.

In conclusion one may also take into account, aside from the above arguments that cement the facts, the intent that was underlying in my act of removal of the 'warning' left by User:Stifle, the intent was to maintain order and clarity of communications between myself and other editors which is the prima facie purpose of the user talk pages as per the talk page policy; if it could be alleged that my intent was to 'hide an admins warning' or some such, there could be more persuasive an argument put forward on your side, however at the time I was unaware Stifle was an administrator. However according to the above outlined policies that makes no difference to the acceptability of my actions. Jachin 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus1138 and Stifle .. you both seem to be able to revert my user talk page within ten minutes of editing, yet five days have passed. Feedback? Criticism? Argument? Something? Jachin 09:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

501st BF2 Clan

HI,

I changed youre 'delete' to a 'nn-group' it seamed more appropriate. Orangutan 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries dude, just doing a late night run through the new articles, getting a bit cut and paste happy with the deletes, so much crap to sort through. Appreciated and well spotted. Jachin 18:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (Syndicated)[reply]

I'm sorry Jachin

I thought that was my user page. Sorry. ^__^; Good bye. --Shadow ruler 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarahKali

Hi. I think placing the final warning template on this user's talk page (SarahKali (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)) is a bit extreme. This was the user's first contribution. I've placed {{test1}} which should be adequate. Please remember WP:BITE. :-) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that she was vandalising various articles ongoing; thus why there are other vandal warnings and why she has subsequently been blocked twice in the last twenty four hours by two different admins. I'd say that clears up the warrant for the big hand. :) Jachin 06:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Suhag

Jachin 07:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Hi Jachin, The article on Suhag may not be deleted. It is historical stub on a social group in India. It has been provided with valid verifyable source. It will help to further reconstruct the missing links of History if it is retained. burdak 07:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are only 58 websites that use the words in the article applied in the context they are used in the article which definately would indicate that it is not noteworthy enough for inclusion. Feel free to use your userpage as a means to compile such information into a form of significant quality, content and material before submitting it to it's own article, but 'reconstructing history' through first hand research on Wikipedia isn't a tenet or purpose for which Wikipedia exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jachin 08:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you Brother - I do try my humble best :) WegianWarrior 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masena Moke

Did you delete this page before reading my answer to your message? Please, do not take controversial actions before accounting for all important information on a given issue. I will rewrite the article now and hope it won't get deleted this time without a discussion. --Cryout 18:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I nominated it for speedy deletion as it was not noteworthy information and was merely a one line biography, if that. Jachin 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me then. I will take care to expand the articles. --Cryout 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Society for Biomaterials

About your note of speedy deletion. I just added some more info. The Society itself is very much alive, although I am not a member... Benkeboy 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Alejandro Camara

Piss off dude. You don't know what you're messin' with. Zigz0gger 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]