User talk:999~enwiki/Archive 4

Notice

If you've come to gawk at or offer unsolicited advice on the latest dust-up, it is all perfectly preserved in /Archive 3. Please read there and comment here, but...I'll be on wikibreak through the Labor Day weekend. -999 (Talk) 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry

Though your allegation regarding Dattat and Shravak turned out false, in the course of investigating the issue, I discovered a great deal of other sockpuppets (of which Dattat is one) being operated by yet another user. I write, therefore, to thank you for drawing attention to a suspicious situation, and to encourage you to be a bit less abrasive in future; people tend to react to rudeness by disregarding everything you have to say, valid though it may be. Regards — Dan | talk 06:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article

The deletion log entry says:

16:32, 4 September 2006 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Ellen Evert Hopman" (non-notable; complaints on reliability received by WMF; numerous unsourced assertions)

... so you should probably ask David.Monniaux about it. — Dan | talk 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Evert Hopman

We had a complaint from the subject of the article about wrong information being forcefully reinserted. From WP:BLP, you are supposed not to include potentially libellious or misleading information on living people without good sources... David.Monniaux 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints are sent by private emails to the Foundation. If you wish, I can undelete the bio, but please remove everything unsourced. David.Monniaux 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehension! David.Monniaux 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tattva

Do you have any knowledge of the tattvas in the western tradition? Or eastern for that matter, though I have that covered. The article that used to be there appears to have been a copyvio. Although there is a note claiming to have permission on the talk page, the article copied was completely unsuitable for WP, full of POV and original research, so I've started the article over. Check the old article for some possible references. I should probably move them to the talk page, but don't have time right now... —Hanuman Das 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTO + Rudolf Steiner

Thank you for your welcome! Steiner as a member of OTO does not agree with what I have read of Steiner so far. Also, I have seen statements claiming that there is no evidence that he was part of this organisation. If you can show me that he was a member and had a charter I will rest my case. Many thanks Lkleinjans 09:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascended master

Could you add to your watch list? Another user insists on reverting the removal of unsuitable links. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 05:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated reversion

Don't use automated tools to revert good faith editing. It is rude. Jkelly 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thelemites

Greetings, 999,

I'm hoping we can form a consensus on the List of Thelemites page, and would greatly enjoy if you have an opportunity to join the discussion. Thanks. Justin Eiler 15:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it

This thread was archived:

♦ "Irrevocable" GFDL

Hey, just regarding some comments you left at User talk:Catherineyronwode, it's generally tacitly accepted that people *can* revoke their GFDL if they've acted in good faith. What does anyone gain by insisting on their right to use something that someone mistakenly licenced? Better to keep onside with our contributors! Stevage 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well people can still change their minds. Legally speaking maybe they can't, but morally speaking, we should probably let them. If other people have worked on the thing, then fair enough, that's a different matter. Stevage 10:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ♦[reply]

This is a dangerous position to advance. If we entertain the notion that some person, somewhere, sometime, under some set of rare circumstances, may revoke project licensing; then we invite a tiny army of feisty men in loud suits to stretch this to non-planet Pluto and beyond. Meanwhile, anybody who has created a derivative work is exposed -- and GFDL does not require that anybody notify previous licensees when using a licensed work. Chaos, pandemonium, the jaws of hell &c. &c. IANAL. John Reid 01:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Sheng-yen

Don't know if you've heard of him or not...but there's an AfD... Take a look at it if you can... —Hanuman Das 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind

I removed a bad-faith ticket for vandalism from your talk page... —Hanuman Das 06:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Thanks for your advice! —Hanuman Das 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to stop harassing me, 999 -- I will stop editing any articles you, Hanuman Das or Ekajati have anything to do with in return -- please!

You say it's boring in your last message to me. I say it is exhausting to have you and and User:Ekajati and the people you enlist, User:Anger22, User:Aguerriero the last time, and who ever you manage to get in the future after me day after day.

I don't know what you had against me from the beginning, you and User:Hanuman Das. Really, I have thought about it a lot. Just because I edited a few articles that you felt I had no business doing when I started here? It doesn't make sense to me. And now you leave another flippant message that I get as soon as I log on? To what end? Just to make sure when I log on I will be brought down and put in my place? Just to show you will never stop and can beat me down? just to let me know that if User:Ekajati takes a rest, you'll make sure to remind me in the interium that there will never be any peace?

Well, I concede defeat to you and propose the following:

If I back off of all articles the three of you edit, will that do it? I will do that if you three will just let me alone.

Even though I have dailup connection, I will try to check edit histories of all article (except in Recent Changes) to make sure the three of you haven't edited an article before I do anything. Will that be enough? I concede to the three of you all your articles if you will leave me alone. And if I make a mistake and accidently edit one your (collectively) articles -- including any connected with Starwood -- just let me know without berating me. Lots of times I haven't known it was an article of your's until the ugliness starts.

I will stick exclusively to Recent Changes.

I ask you to consider this. I am willing to abide by this. Please consider this -- the three of you. Timmy12 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Hanuman Das, do not remove above message from 999's page

I know the two of you (999 and Hanuman Das) remove comments you don't like from each other's pages, I guess to watch eachother's back. Please leave this one here, as I want 999 to seriously consider this. Please. Timmy12 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Sue

Thank you for helping out. I began to get the idea that that user is a troublemaker, as well as getting the idea that he was maybe not complaining about the lack of a citation, but rather that I did not conform to a particular style of citation, which a different issue. Wahkeenah 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12

I've finished and listed the RfC, as well as notifying as many interested parties as I can think of. Hope you don't mind, I listed at least some of your attempts to resolve from looking at your Talk and User Talk page contribs. Probably missed some, maybe... —Hanuman Das 11:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please do not engage in personal attacks as you did in this edit. --BostonMA ^talk 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin?

Hi, You seem and write as if you are an administrator. But I don't see any info on this at your main user page. Are you? Thanks, Thebee 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steiner

Ran into your Steiner AfD while voting today's AfDs. Looks like an interesting edit war with probable socks. Mind if I play? (not that it makes a difference ;-) —Hanuman Das 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HA! looks like you've managed to annoy both sides! That POV essay will have to be dumped and the little that is encyclopedic merged into the main article. Looks like you're on one side in the main article, and the other in the POV fork, but that's just b/c POV forks are disallowed, right? Not exactly sure what you're doing, except that you're poking a nest of hornets with a sharp stick. !!! —Hanuman Das 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys know we can hear you... right <G>. It's actually good to have some fresh blood... Buy stock in band-aids though... Welcome... Pete K 02:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we know. We'd have to go to email to avoid it, and what fun is that? I did try to get even more fresh blood involved the correct way, by listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, though response from that tends to be spotty at best. —Hanuman Das 02:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - I appreciate that. There are a couple new people - probably socks, as you said above - but it will be interesting to have fresh eyes look at this stuff. Thanks again - even if you guys edit in opposition to me. Pete K 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In edit wars, I find the more the merrier, since it introduces even more different opinions into the mix, it can sometimes resolve at least parts of the issue. Polls are good too, unless there are two many socks. :-( —Hanuman Das 03:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the problem is (in this case) too much direct editing and not enough talking (IMO). Have a peek at the first paragraph of the Waldorf Education article. It has been edited more than Michael Jackson's nose - and it ain't pretty. The problem with polls is, as you said, is sock puppets and meat puppets who come out of the woodwork. One side is, after all, a religious organization. They tend to rally better than the general public - for some reason. Pete K 03:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you're interested - but Arbitration has been requested. Pete K 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

As you well know, the actual Reference is Encarta Encyclopedia which is meets all the Wikipedia requirements for WP:V and WP:RS, it's not just a search link, I put that there so it could be viewed. But have it your way for today. I'll fix it tomorrow with the real Encyclopedia link. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I know all about 3RR, you can save your warnings. You violated editing rules yourself by deleting without discussion - even after I asked you to discuss it on the talk page. Are you the anonymous editor who first removed the word from the article? Dreadlocke ☥ 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then we can argue about the use of tertiary rather than secondary sources. :-) -999 (Talk) 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a real short "argument". Yes, Encarta is a tertiary source and is specifically noted as a Reliable Source for the purposes of Wikipedia, to wit: "Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources."

You're supposed to give other editors a chance to cite sources before deleting. Unless it's a WP:BLP that has poorly sourced or unsourced potentially libelous material. What you did was uncivil. I've worked with you before and expected better of you. How disappointing. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, regardless of the citations, magic is supernatural but not irrational. There will be citations for that too, making the whole thing rather long and complex. What possible reason do you have for insisting to include it. Supernatural is fine. -999 (Talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is “nonrational,” not “irrational.” While the two words are similar, they have different meanings. Nonrational is not a negative “POV” comment as put forth by anon - since you're not him, I have no idea what your objection actually is.

I “insist” on including it because it is a true, proper and accepted part of the definition of certain kinds of magic (such as sorcery) and should be included in the article.

Supernatural, by definition [1] suggests “nonrational, mysterious forces at work."

Webster’s online defines Supernatural as

“of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature”

That describes the nonrational universe, something beyond the visible, observable universe appearing to transcend the laws of nature. That is the very definition of nonrational – “obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation”

What possible reason do you have for not including it?

Dreadlocke ☥ 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your talents and knowledge would be better spent expanding this section, which is pretty lousy at this time. Refuting supernatural and therfore nonrational magic may be interesting, but I don't think it's very notable - although it was something you should have done to begin with instead of edit warring and insulting me. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, then. Apology accepted, thanks for that. I totally understand having "one of those days". :) Now let's see if we can't improve and expand that article a bit! Dreadlocke ☥ 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No wonder you were having such a bad day! Now I understand! Eeep indeed! :) Dreadlocke ☥ 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

The community and blog links are mandated by the artice because it is largely about them.

"Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." - WP:EL

Please address this issue here or in Talk:Mormon_mysticism before removing them again. --Tsuzuki26 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic runic astrology

Hi, it is not an external link, but an internal one? and I have seen this done on article that make the main page. FK0071a 07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you Gutting Article

Hi. Please do not remove important external links. They help people conduct research....

Wikipedia is a starting point! It is supposed to lead to primary sources!

--Tstrickland 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If You Gut, Please Fix

OK, so you like to go around castrating external links. But could you fix the ISBN link? I am new at this.

As for owning geocities sites, I have no idea what you are talking about....

--Tstrickland 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the isbn link. Now, please do the other books in the bibliography.

--Tstrickland 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Also, why did you delete the picture at the top? Some chap from England went to a lot of trouble to put it there.

--Tstrickland 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the caps.

There was a article on the book, but it was merged with this article. Frankly, I am not certain the book should be separate....--Tstrickland 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a Vandal?

Would you please stop vandalizing the Odin Brotherhood site? If you know aomething abouit the subject, write some text!

--Holtj 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Print out a copy of the article before you pruned it, and compare it now....

Before, a neophyte could link on to information about Odinists in Italy and South America, he could gather useful information on books, he could find categories that would draw him to other sites. Now, he cannot.

Also, anyone who would delte a link about the Asatru Alliance from an Odin Brotherhood site--or would remove a pagae category--cannot know anything about the subject.

So, please, whatever you call yourself, try to respect the work of others....

--Holtj 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote

Thanks for template.

BTW, there are about 30 or so Odinists at this university. That explains the flak.

--Tstrickland 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article gutting

Well, I'm not from the university and this is getting silly. When once these articles used to be informative and can lead you onto further research (which is what Wikipedia is about?) they are no longer.

I believe that Wikipedia is the future of knowledge distribution. Albeit, NOT at all the be all and end all! This I fear MUST be clearly pointed out! I see Wikipedia as a “first point of contact” for source information. There is no doubt in my mind about this as Wikipedia supplies far more information on any given subject than any other Encyclopaedia or other source of information out their. This is simply a case of “more often than not.” Wikipedia is a fantastic and ever growing resource for a “first point of contact” regarding substantial information on any subject. However, as with any source for information, it is never infallible and on this note I would always say that you should verify everything with secondary sources! I would say this with anything, not only Wikipedia. In fact, I would go as far as to say that you should do your own independent investigations into subjects of a personal interest and for basically furthering your own knowledge in any subject. “A recent "Gadget Show" also compared the Wikipedia with the chargeable Brittanica equivalent subscitpion and came to a similar conclusion. They pointed out that Wikipedia was more likely to produce more information about current world people and information (the example they gave was that a search for Brad Pitt would only reveal a reference to Pitt the Elder in Britanicca), so it could be agrued that Wikipedia provides more information - albeit potentially biased or even just plain incorrect. It did however qualify this by saying that Wikipedia was an excellent first source of information, but that any information should be checked with a second reference source. I tend to agree - as long as you realise this when using it.“

FK0071a 07:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of magick terms

Why was this renamed to 'magical' magick with a 'k' was used herE: List of magickal terms in germanic mysticism specifically, for its difference in meaning. FK0071a 13:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you out on this one, 999. Magic is the correct spelling for magic in paganism. Magic (paranormal) is the general article on magic. Magick is specific to the work of Aleister Crowley. The word "magickal" does not exist. It is not in the English dictionary, and even Crowley didn't use it... —Hanuman Das 14:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed with Hanuman Das on mine and his talkpage. I agree on this. Apologies 999. FK0071a 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gutting External Links

The external link to http://www.gatesofhorn.com was removed recently. The gentleman in question was involved in Magick prior to the repeal of the Witchcraft Act in England. He was someone who knew Gerald Gardner and Idries Shah, among others, and indeed was responsible for rewriting Gardner's horribly handwritten Book of Shadows into something legible. In addition he was asked to train Monica Wilson, allegedly Garder's niece, to be the High Priestess of the first coven after the repeal of the Witchcraft Act. To exclude his venture from this article is pretty odd, since other "External References" are similar. Seems like Counter-Competition is afoot. I'm going to add the link back in, and I would request it stay in unless someone can tell me why it should be removed and the other sites in the list should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.37.16 (talk • contribs)

Uh, it's a blog. Links to blogs are explicitly disallowed by Wikipedia external link policy. Plus, it's offtopic, this is not a page about Wiccan magic. Please get an account and sign your comments so that it is easier to communicate. -999 (Talk) 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my previous entries now I have a user account. The policy on external links I have now read. Blogs are mentioned in those GUIDELINES. They are not 100% disallowed if you read the policy. The policy actually reads "normally to be avoided". And point 8 is "Links to blogs, except those written by a recognized authority." Blogs are not 100% certain to be linkspam. Also, I have asked for clarification because most content management systems these days have blog components, but the question is does this make a site a "Blog" just for having a portion of the site be a Blog?

Now, I did not post the link to gatesofhorn. I do know the gentleman who runs the blog but I don't run it for him. I do agree it is a blog in large part. There are gray areas - the blog is by an authority (guy's been writing for over 50 years and knew some of the luminaries personally). The WikiPedia GUIDELINE says in a nutshell "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article" I think the link was appropriate, and not spam. However, I will not be reposting it. ryanthered 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, there are several articles on magic - Magic (paranormal), Folk magic, Witchcraft, and Magick. The latter, on Wikipedia, is Crowley-specific. That is, it is not the most appropriate article for the link. However, it is not me, but Wikipedia policy which prohibits links to blogs, discussion forums, mailing lists, and the like. The reason is that they are not reliable sources with references, etc. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a link directory. Thus the prohibition on links to certain types of sites. -999 (Talk) 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

999 - Magick, according to Crowley, is causing change in accordance to the Will. There are a couple of things that come up immediately for someone who is really into any form of Magick as a way of knowing and being, rather than as a realm of clever argument and fundamentalist belief. First, what is changing? At what level? Second, what is the "Will" and why is it capitalized? My answer is that change is often change of consciousness and that Will is the True Will, not the will of the ego personality. Thus, Magick encompasses any system of changing consciousness, which is the essential Thing anyway, and any system of getting in touch with the True Will. There are many. Case closed. You have made the term exclusively regarding Crowley. Crowley, as others have noted, is not the inventor of the term, though he famously used it as a way to distinguish from stage magic or charlatanry. I and others disagree with the fundamentalism here, which is as bad as fandamentalism in religions. Magick is not religion.ryanthered 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jkelley

Hm. I'm not sure that it makes sense to say that everyone with a first name beginning with J and a last name that is a variant on Kelly needs to pick some other username... it is probably fine as long as there's no attempt to confuse people about who is who. That said, I think I'll go create some variants on my username so that they cannot be registered... and I'm not crazy about the idea that people are going to think that I have something to do with that account's edits... Thanks for pointing it out. Jkelly 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Stalk

999, what's with the borderline Wikstalking? Suddenly today you've turned up and started editing a number of articles I've worked on (Eleven at last count), even obscure ones like the disambig page for the name Catriona. Most of your edits have been countering mine, including placing a ProD notice on an established article, and you are now bordering on a revert war on Faery Wicca over a minor link (which is inappropriate to the article). I notice this started after my participation in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Ellwood AfD, in which we voted on opposite sides of the matter. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Hi 999. If you believe another editor is making edits which violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines, then it is appropriate to use that user's contributions list to check for such bad edits. However, it is not appropriate to take a conflict from one article to the next simply because the same editor is involved. Since you appear to be following another user, please explain what policies or guidelines you believe this user to be violating, or what other grounds you may have to follow this user. Alternatively, I strongly suggest that you avoid editting articles which you find in this other user's contributions list. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]