User talk:Aleister Wilson

'original' vs. 'earliest' manuscripts etc.

Just a quick note as a sort of apology and explanation, because I think we actually agree, despite edit-reverting! I had seen changes in the articles Gospel of Mark and Jesus to the phrase "original manuscripts" (in the Gospel of Mark article from the earlier "recension"). The phrase "original manuscripts" struck me as odd, because "original" is inappropriate when we don't now have any genuine "originals" (even the John Rylands fragment isn't "original") and the term can be used rather loosely in some fundamentalist circles. But your newer phrase "earliest manuscripts" seems fine and right, and to be in keeping with terminology used in Bible translation work and some theological research circles. Can I suggest that in the Jesus article a similar replacement ('original'->'earliest') is also made? What do you think? (Reply here; I'll watch; or feel free to widen out the discussion of one of the article 'Talk' pages.) All the best. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just got to your notes. Thanks for the input, and I tried to work towards an appropriate wording. Aleister Wilson (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Article

I'm of the personal persuasion that if an article can't be conceived without such glaring problems, it should be deleted immadiately. Unfortunately this creates alot of conflict with other people, so I've been trying to control myself.

But, yeah, that page has very little going for it... Vinithehat (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Omega: Tweren't no thang! Vinithehat (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foyers

I think it is an extremely common situation that houses that were once near (or not so near) a town or village are eventually engulfed. Housing has spread along the loch joining Foyers and Boleskine, but I do not know if there are any defined boundaries. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for suggesting the Discordian pope userbox. I haven't gotten around to putting any userboxes on my page because just haven't gotten around to hunting and sorting. Fish. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyright catch

You grabbed a graphic off my page for copyright infraction, and alas. upon studing the policy and the photo you were correct. It was an Alex Grey painting, and I looked long for a painting of his on Wiki, and that was the only one I found. If you don't know Grey's work, you may be in for a treat if you have a few minutes to look at his websites, etc. But for catching my error, I thank you. I like your user page opening, a big fan of the good Emperor as well. Aleister Wilson (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to meet another, fellow admirer of St. Norton the First. I'm sorry to have had to make your userpage less pretty, but the rules are the rules, and without them there would be chaos . . . and we couldn't have any of that now, could we? In truth, I noticed this plea for help and, resolving to pitch in by knocking out a few of the hundreds of WP:FUC'ing problems listed, picked your userpage entirely at random. Image policy is often a headache to deal with, but I'm glad there are no hard feelings for my having given you enticement to venture into the turgid morass that is WP:NFC. Cheers. --Dynaflow babble 04:32, 19 November 2009

RE: Great Rite and Sex Magic

Hi Aleister. I've left a reply on my talk page. Xxglennxx (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've left another reply to you on my talk page Xxglennxx (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Thurman

Well, again, the issue is that by setting a specific image size (forcing the size), it overrides user preference settings and settings for those who use CSS style sheets. There is a current discussion opened on the talk page regarding the appropriateness of usage because the images are non-free. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contractions

Yes, you might want to read the Manual of Style. Some other stylistic rules you may want to be aware of: only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized in headings (this applies to article titles as well). Ref tags go after punctuation with no space between it and the punctuation (or between separate ref tags). This (usually) prevents the superscript from appearing on the next line. There are a lot more, especially involving image placement, that I wander around fixing... Welcome to Wikipedia! If you don't mind, I'll browse over some of your recent work and do a little clean up. Sometimes easier to just do and let someone observe instead of explaining at length... Yworo (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found a couple of things in Sex magic: you misused the "cquote" template. It is only used for pull quotes, that template is for repetitions of something already in the article in a text box to call it out. Just use the "quote" template for inline blockquotes. Also, there is a specific order for the end sections: See also, Notes, References, Further reading, External links. You had the Further reading heading out of order and miscapitalized. Yworo (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV requirements

On looking through your edits to Sex magic, I noticed that you removed a long cited section about Samael Weor. Not covering the differing points of view at equal lengths violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you are going to cover one or more POVs in depth, you should not be removing in depth coverage of another POV. Yworo (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and fix the repetitious use of Weor's full name. This isn't really within any of my fields of expertise, but if he is notable enough to have an article, he is notable enough to have his views on sex magic discussed in depth in the article on sex magic. Removing them gives the impression that one view of sex magic is somehow standard, preferred, or right, which is a biased POV in an encyclopedia. While that might be true within small communities of practitioners, unless you have a way to judge (i.e. sources) the relative populations and/or adherents to specific views, the article should be balanced by having around 50/50 coverage of the ejaculatory vs. non-ejaculatory views.

As for the talk page, what I see is evidence that there was some contention between editors, but that they reached a compromise and consensus as to the balance of the article. We should not wipe out such hard won consensus without a discussion that includes editors from both points of view. If those editors are no longer active, no worries, there is no hurry. Improve the section by all means, but significantly changing the article balance from the previous consensus is IMO being too bold. Yworo (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An observation about the sex magic article

I've tidied up a few things. But I can't help but notice that the Crowley section is primarily about how great Crowley was and has little substantive content about sex magic. I am going to tag this as POV. Crowley has his own article; this article should be more about the content of his writings on sex magic, similar to the section on Weor, and less about the man. The Crowley section reads as if it were written by a fan of the man with little knowledge of the details of his writings on the topic of sex magic. Yworo (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is a lot of old content on WP, much of it written when the "rules" were apparently much looser. Yworo (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sex Magick in Neopaganism

Hi Aleister. I removed it as (as you by now probably understand), the "See also" section contains a list of Wikipedia articles that expand upon critical points raised within the specific article (if it needs to be, that is). As sex magic isn't integral to Neo-Paganism itself (but to individual practitioners), I see there no reason to have it linked in the "See also" section. By all means, you may add relevant pointers to the article in the form of constrictive additions to the Neo-Paganism article (by expanding upon a sentence/paragraph already there), but if it isn't there already, I suggest refrain from adding it there also. Lets open this to discussion on the Neo-Paganism talk page. Xxglennxx (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use

Thank you! I appreciate your compliments. I did undo the link to The New York Times you added, since it was linked previously. I do appreciate you taking the time to look over the list, and I did leave some of the edits you made, including the removal of "city" and the sentence separations. Currently, the list is nominated for featured list status, so feel free to drop by if you have additional comments or concerns. Also, I went ahead and changed the 2010 California initiatives article relating to marijuana to Cannabis in California, which I hope to expand later to resemble the Cannabis in Oregon article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, just re-read your comment and noticed the reference to Abe's porch comment. Enough said! :p I hope to add a picture of Lincoln to the list once the list is expanded a bit more. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Magic in numerous articles

Hi Aleister. It has come to my attention, and the attention of others, that you have been adding a link to Sex magic (and the Great Rite) without care and consideration. This could be seen as an action spamming. I, and others, have removed "sex magic" from numerous pages; I have personally removed them Paganism, Wicca, Witchcraft, Orgasm control, White Stains, the Sex template, and Human sexual behaviour. If this is kept up, then action will need to be taken. I am very sorry about this, but it simply will not do. Xxglennxx (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the above knows that an ongoing discussion had taken place many weeks ago on the Wicca talk page, and that these topics were starting to be addressed. Since then the link has not been made to any of the wiccan articles, or any of the other ones he mentions here. Many of the links removed should not have been, imho, and there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what a See also section consists of in terms of relevant links. The tone of the above comment seems inconsistent with the facts stated here. I've asked for the discussion to continue, and am awaiting glenn to suggest a forum, and hopefully the two pov's can come to a consensus. Aleister Wilson (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aleister. I've left a comment on my talk page. As to where we can further discuss this topic - there is no "common room" as such, so the only place to discuss it is on the relevant talk page. Xxglennxx (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help Question

{{helpme}} Hi, if you can help with this. . .I reverted a photo to an older photo on File:Leila Waddell.jpg, but even though the line says the one I updated to is now the "current" image the old photo is still the one featured and linked. Can someone go in and see what the problem is, I tried a few things and they didn't work. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aleister, apparently from the image page you changed the image three times, including blanking the page....I assume you reverted to the headshot instead of the full bodyshot with the violin? If that's the case, I see the correct one on both pages, and if you don't you probably just need to purge the page or probably refresh your browser's cache (on Firefox just hold ⇧ Shift and click "refresh"). Anything else, ask away - you won't need the helpme tag, I'll be watching your page! Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks. I put the photo up three times because it wasn't changing, and the blanking was because the data on the older photo was typed in and I thought that may have been the problem. Yes, the head shot, which is from the original 1913 book and the best known photo of Waddell. I've never used Firefox, and should learn, but what I'll do is sign out and sign back in again to see if that works. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had to turn my computer off and on again, and now it shows up. I'm not even close to technical enough to know why the old photo was maintaining on my machine. Thanks for "walking" me through that. And for being available. Enjoy, Aleister Wilson (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! If you ever need anything, just drop by my user talk page. :-] Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 01:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leila Waddell.jpg

Can you please not overwrite existing images? Both images can co-exist if you choose a different name for the file. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(copying my reply from my talk page...)

Revert is for doing exactly that - "reverting" back to a previous version of the file. It's often used to clean up vandalism or when someone mistakenly overwrites a perfectly good photo.

The image your uploading is a good one and I'd hate to see it not be used. Here's where you should start:

Click on Wikipedia:Upload (you can find it to the left, as well).
Select "An image from a website"
Scroll down past the warning. I'd recommend pausing for a moment and reading them, but at this point it's fine.
Choose a good "Destination filename:". Choose something other then "Leila Waddell.jpg". Maybe... "Leila Waddell Headshot.jpg". Accurate and descriptive is the key.
Fill out the description the best you can.
Choose the license "First published in the United States Before 1923". Since the image was published as part of the "The Book of Lies" (published 1913) we can be fairly certain it's in the public domain.
Press "Upload file"

And then your done. Now both files co-exist! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go... File:Leila Waddell Headshot.jpg. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem.. let me know if you need anything else. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleister Crowley and Sex Magick

Hey, thanks for your interest in my additions to the Aleister Crowley page; basically I've just been tidying a few things up, adding references etc, using John Symonds The Beast 666: The Life of Aleister Crowley (1997). I have every intention of ensuring information on Sex magick is included in this article - after all, Crowley was a great practitioner of it, both in heretosexual and homosexual forms. However such information mus, of course, be referenced. Regarding the Wicca page, my objection to the inclusion of sex magick was not because I oppose the practice of sex magick in the Craft by any means; it just simply doesn't play a hugely significant part in Wicca today, where it only really appears in the form of the Great Rite, and even then only within certain traditions. Many thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oh and regarding Alan Moore, of whom I am a great admirer, his page needs a lot of work to include more information on his general occult and kabbalistic leanings... one of the many projects that i'd like to get done on Wikipedia some time in the future.. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Crowley's signature

Clicking the dead link in the infobox, it looks like the signature file was deleted in April due to "Lack of licensing information, no permission".

(Incidentally, if you've got a question about an article, it's always better to ask it on the talk page (Talk:Aleister Crowley) than to add some unnecessary spacing and comment in the edit summary.) --McGeddon (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley et the Stele

Hey Aleister! Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look over at Aleister Crowley. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Its an interesting link. Not sure that the argument that the stele was fake and Thelema a whole forgery holds up however; the writer's argument rests largely on quotes taken from Wikipedia, which (dare I say it here) is not a particularly accurate source of information much of the time. Such a theory verges a little on the Amado Crowley side of things methinks. Still, thanks for linking it to me! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Navboxes

I've reverted your deletion of a navbox from the Aleister Crowley article. If there is more than one navbox, then all are automatically collapsed. If you want to see why, take a look at the RMS Titanic article and expand all the navboxes there. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for comment

As the subject seems to be highly of your interest, would be very appreciated your opinion in this, as yet, non-consensual and critical talk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jack Parsons

Fair point about the Candy thing. Sara Northrup is uniformly referred to as "Betty" in the biographies, but we had to settle on Sara because it would be too problematic otherwise. JJARichardson (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Aleister Wilson/ethereal being

User:Aleister Wilson/ethereal being, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aleister Wilson/ethereal being and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Aleister Wilson/ethereal being during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]