"

 Neutrality tag 

OK... Uku has tagged the article as not being neutral... so, what is not neutral about it?   

Respond to the points that I brought up, which continue to accumulate for each instance of bullshit that you post on here.   
I am responding to your points ... you just don't like what I have to say.  (I get the idea that you equate ""agree with me"" as a valid response, and ""don't agree with me"" as ""bullshit"".) And once again you are attempting to avoid the question... what is not neutral about the article?   
WP:CIVIL refers to this as ""feigned incomprehension."" Learn how to scroll up.   
Nothing feigned about it... I think this article is excrutiatingly neutral in tone, so I really do not see how you can think otherwise.  In any case... since you don't seem to want to discuss your concerns point by point... I have responded to them all below.   
You have not proven that this article is ""excruciatingly neutral."" You are simply reacting defensively and irrationally. You may have invested a lot into it already, and that may be distorting your perspective. As someone looking in from the outside, it appears, on no uncertain terms, that this article is biased. In addition, you have demonstrated a lack of self-control, compassion and objectivity, which are all needed to make unbiased statements.   
I wish I had more time to take part in the discussions these days, but best guess is that 'current version' =! 'his version', therefore 'current version' =! neutral.
I would suggest that the current version is as close as an article of this kind is going to get - it reports simple facts (per WP:V) without taking a bias as far as possible (per WP:NPOV). This is not saying that todays version can't be improved though, but 's changes were not an improvement.
Off course, if we were apply WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE heavoly to this article we might as well delete the whole thing - but thats beside the point. I would argue that the neutrailty tag is misused on this article.
  
You don't have enough time to engage in discussion, yet you are certain that the neutrality tag is misused and you apparently have enough time to click ""undo."" Your sincerity is questionnable.   
Nice ad hominen there, but perhaps you had something more usefull to add to the discusson?   
Flamebait. Sock puppeting.   

 responding to Uku's points 

Let's try again... since you don't seem to want to discuss them point by point, fine... I will deal with them all together:

The article uses the phrase ""in the broadest terms"" which clearly shows intent to diminish or otherwise misrepresent the subject matter.
The exact sentence is: Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. In broadest terms, these theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. This is a statement that summarizes a broad concept that is common to most of the theories. Wikipedia's style guidelines say we are supposed to summarize the article in broad scope in the intro... that is what we do (even a quick look at the list shows that most of the theories claim this in some way. How is it not neutral?
It insinuates that the subject matter does not warrant serious consideration. Besides, that phrase is not only false, but exaggerated   
False? It's a very accurate description, but the meaning don't change much if we rewrite it to ""''Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. These theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. - it just turns the last sentence into a fragment and a repeat of the first. As for being exaggerat