User talk:Gallagher2x2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Moshtradamus) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Someguy1221 08:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Verifiable conspiracy theories
Not only is that an oxymoronic statement, there's no proof of conspiracy there - the refs we have in the article debunk the "Masonic architecture" and "Founding Fathers were all Masons" theories. Saying that politicians are Masons also isn't really a "conspiracy" either. MSJapan (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Masonic conspiracy theories, you will be blocked from editing. MSJapan (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Verifiable" theories
Generally speaking, verifiable material isn't "conspiracy theory". "So-and-so was a Freemason" is not the same as "Freemasons faked the moon landings" - the latter is a conspiracy theory, the former is a fact. There's no conspiracy when the information isn't hidden, and when a theory is provable, it's no longer a theory. So in my view, there's no such thing as a provable Masonic conspiracy theory. Also, your architecture claim is flat-out wrong; see here, and again, it's not a conspiracy. MSJapan (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Proof of membership is not proof of conspiracy. Somehow it makes a difference if somebody famous is a Mason, but the other 4 million never factor into the equation. You could just as well say there's an Ivy League conspiracy in politics; it's more a function of what will capture the public's imagination.
- The politicians on whom we have membership info clearly did not hide their membership, or otherwise we wouldn't know about it. I think all the major American politicians that are verifiably Masons are already on the list. Note that Thomas Jefferson is not verifiable, and neither Bush is a Mason. Clinton was in DeMolay, but never became a Mason. The last President to be a Mason was Ford. Verifiability means a Lodge or Grand Lodge has a record of the member, and there's no such thing as being a member off the books.
- So, I don't really think there's anything that fits into your category, but I would suggest giving your argument on the article's talk page before doing anything directly to the article so other people can weigh in on it. MSJapan (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, if we missed a few, by all means add them in to the list, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that deals with facts; it is not meant to be an arena for speculation or to state your own research.
-
- However, in that vein of history, it is just as valid to state that the principles of the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents are a byproduct of Enlightenment thinking, just as Freemasonry was, meaning that even if you want to posit a connection, it could be a parallel one that can be tied to the same earlier social/philosophical impetus, as opposed to a direct cause and effect relationship. MSJapan (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Photo Finish Records
A tag has been placed on Photo Finish Records 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 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 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. --Finngall talk 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Alternative music Newsletter
 Issue 13 - April 2008 |
|
|
Arleach, Panic!out, N0tverycreative, and Gallagher2x2 joined the alternative music fold during April.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Alternative music newsletter
|
Issue 14 - May 2008 |
|
|
Seraphim Whipp, Guitardude3600, Lunar Jesters, Kristmace, Freedom (song), TwentiethApril1986, JD554, Thom, and Sethward joined the alternative music fold during May.
|
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conspiracy Theories on Masons
Hello. I think that article has been input by masons themselves, to use the anti article as a meager defence set so to create a weak opposition, which has no credibility at all. If you check my comments on discusson part you can see a minor example of that usage. (cantikadam (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)).
