User talk:QaBobAllah

This is QaBobAllah's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, QaBobAllah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Ooh

Thanks for the tip. I used to be into Thelema years ago and had heard of Jake Stratton Kent, but not Jim Lees, I'm in the UK if that explains it. I feel that it sounds like this Jim bloke is trying to take the credit, whereas from what I remember from the 90s/2000, Stratton-Kent was the main figure people associated with the English Qabalah.

Could you try and find some links to the journal or at least mentions of it, or if you have any lying around could you dig them out and find something in it we can use as a ref? I was surprised that JSK has never been published by a proper publishing house. Actually, unfortunately the Equinox you mentioned is edited by JSK of course, not by a third-party source, which would be more WP:RS. Would you consider them more well known than his "kaaba publications" (I'd not heard of them either.) Sticky Parkin 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've met all the figures involved, actually. Lees was the originator, older gent, even when I met them all in the mid-80's. He's more of a recluse than the others. Stratton-Kent and Langford were publishers of the Equinox (BJM), so they wrote it up, but they were describing Lees' system. I am sure they wre also expanding on it, so it is part third-party, part-first party, semi-self-published. "Carol Smith" may actually be a pseudonym of Lees, or so I have heard. I do have the journals.... at least some of them (finding them may be another matter). QaBobAllah (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....I merged the two articles, thought I'd already done it to be honest.:) Welcome to wiki and I hope you stick around and edit all sorts of articles.:) Sticky Parkin 02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks, I'm going to sleep soon but I'll add something about that to the article tomorrow. Sticky Parkin 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editing semi-protected pages

Found this in one of the policy blurbs:- "Autoconfirmed status is required to {...} edit semi-protected pages {...} accounts which are more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. However, users editing through a Tor network are subjected to much stricter autoconfirmed thresholds: currently 90 days and 100 edits." You should be able to edit the page in a few days. In the mean time, you're welcome to comment on the deletion discussions, if you haven't already, and edit anything else you like the look of. Sticky Parkin 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm waiting to see what's in which article before I say anything in the deletion discussions. I will make a couple comments on the article talk pages, though... QaBobAllah (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask on User talk:Black Kite, you never know, she might also consider unprotecting the page, unless there's been other problems from IPs. Sticky Parkin 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person behind the IPs seems a bit of a fanatic, unfortunately. I'd rather have them kept protected.... QaBobAllah (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdwardLeeFrampton

I suggest you file a request at WP:RFCHU. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small hi

Hi there, I was jumping through articles, as does happen in wikipedia, and I saw that you'd gotten into a (I'm not sure what word to use) "confrontation" with the very enthusiastic User:Collectonian over an article. I went through something similar with the same user on other articles, and it came to a point where I had to walk away from my computer because I was so frustrated and was likely to do or say something that I knew I'd regret later. I'm just letting you know that you're not alone, and I hope that it hasn't put you off wikipedia too badly. Discussion is always good! :) -- Annie D (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay bob

You're doing great:) I was wondering, could you create a new email addy and add it to your preferences on wiki, so I can send you an email? Sticky Parkin 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

category/old afd

I think they just mean don't tamper with the substance of the arguments themselves. To find where someone (probably me lol) has mentioned the category, and stop it being an active link, would be fine. Sticky Parkin 13:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Qabalah

Article has been kept, HS! And you should be able to edit now. Please help me keep all the different theories in, while keeping the rubbish ones out lol. If after the checkuser and hopefully block, we have further problems with ELF we should be able to get his IP blocked or something, eventually. Sticky Parkin 01:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to newspaper blogs

You recently deleted a small fact from the page Jon Dee Graham, apparently on the basis that it came from a so-called "blog". Please note that the source for this fact was the Austin Chronicle. As I understand the policy as stated in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources:

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

I believe the news item in question is covered by the above policy. It's hardly the most important piece of information out there (although my concern is that the article is now left less accurate than before) but I did want to call this piece of the policy to your attention, especially since these newspaper "blogs" are a rich source of information on Austin music, which .--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For verification of the author (Margaret Moser's) status as staff member of the Chronicle see eg http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Info/directory --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polytheism and monotheism page

Hi Bob, Thanks for your note. I apologize for my assumptions that you were perhaps trying to ridicule some belief systems. Listen, I appreciate you so much. If there's anyway I can help out or contribute, feel free to ask. You have a fantastic evening~! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VedicScience (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my picture

Thanks for proactively moving the picture I just posted to the right article. Americasroof (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moves and redirects

Before making page moves and redirects, please gather a consensus to do so, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Texas literature

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texas literature, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! B G 7even 15:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Literature DYK

Congrats! However, I'd be more comfortable with that article if you could find some appropriate reliable sources instead of sourcing everything out of a single book of somewhat tangential relevance. I would work more on finding sourcing than expanding the article, since sourcing will usually give you additional content. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something like an additional cite from The Texas Literary Tradition: Fiction, Folklore, History book. Or a newspaper story about big names in Texas Lit. Or something like a TV show on PBS or something about it. The handbook just strikes me mostly as a collection of facts and concepts rather than actually quantifying the idea of Texas Lit. A list of authors is great, but something has to be said about the Genre or it could just as well be called "List of Texas Authors". Does that make sense? -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list in the Texas Handbook is much broader than that. It includes literature about Texas by non-Texan authors. Look more closely. It in turn is a secondary source based on work by Dobie and some of others which I've listed in the references section, though it cites them inline by mention rather than at the end. Bob (QaBob) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Graham, the author of the entry, is research professor in the Department of English at the University of Texas in the fields of American literature, Australian literature and Southwestern American literature, carrying on a tradition started at UT by J. Frank Dobie. Surely that's not a primary source. Bob (QaBob) 18:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I *am* looking at it. It's talking about "stuff about Texas" instead of "stuff about Texas Literature". The reason I redirected it in the first place is that I could find LOTS of things about "stories about Texas" and "Texas authors", but there wasn't a good coherent definition of "what is Texas literature". English literature, American literature, medieval literature can mostly be defined, and consistently. As far as Graham, why doesn't he teach a course on "TEXAS" Lit? If I didn't feel it would be dickish of me to do after you've worked so hard on the article, I'd suggest merging with whatever we have on literature of the American Southwest. Eh. I'm just going to watch you build it and maybe learn something, and slap people upside the head if they try to AfD it. Considering my opinion of most authors in Texas, I probably have a COI. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He probably does teach a course on it. There's no course list on the pages I linked to, just areas of interest, which are of course broader than individual course topics. Bob (QaBob) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the page. Edit the tags as you see fit. :) -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Kabbalah

To an uninformed outsider (color me ignorant), a lot of your proposals seem to make sense, but I've been around WP a while and I think I have a few suggestions. Would you mind very much if I emailed you on this issue? -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 21:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind. Seems I've rubbed a couple people the wrong way and trying to recover... Bob (QaBob) 21:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought

Thanks for the input on the NT article.69.86.159.47 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I don't think it was me who reverted you. Check the history. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. There was a wiki-hiccup. My intention was to only edit the lead. Who decided on the stupid phrasing "mainstream scientific community"? That's a real stinker. Anyway, I restored the edits you guys did to the rest of the article with my stuff. Hope that's okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of including the NAS committee report in the lead and elsewhere in the article. However, I think that we should try to keep the science all together rather than stuck in various disparate locations throughout the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Psychic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. El on ka 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic

Sorry about that mate - fixed now. -FlyingToaster (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

QaBobAllah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not Ekajati. Yes, I've edited Wikipedia before and got locked out of my previous account which I had not used since early 2007. I am happy to reveal my old user name by email to any admin willing to listen. Bob (QaBob) 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are too many entwined IPs, sockpuppets, behaviours and topics here for this to be happenstance. I think the block is fitting. — Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As the block was performed by a checkuser, I would suggest the unblock request be reviewed by another checkuser. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QaBob, if you haven't yet, you should probably send an email to the unblock list. --El on ka 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best would probably be to email directly User:YellowMonkey (Special:EmailUser/YellowMonkey). He has private information that led to the block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Elonka, thank you. I was unaware of that list and was in the process of composing email to another checkuser. I will send it to the list instead. Bob (QaBob) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt to write to both. :) And for what it's worth, YellowMonkey (aka Blnguyen) is an arbitrator, an excellent editor, and in my experience very reasonable and level-headed. So simply lay things out in a calm way, and I'm sure they'll give a fair hearing. --El on ka 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have emailed both the Yellow Monkey and the unblock list. I guess now all I can do is wait, eh? Bob (QaBob) 15:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a direct hit on a now-stale Ekajati sock. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a static IP. It changes more frequently than I would like. It shouldn't, I have DSL, but it does. I get kicked out in the middle of doing something, my router drops offline, it comes back with a new IP. Sometimes it starts with 67, as it does as I post this, sometimes 68, sometimes 70, sometimes 209. All my editing has been from one place, my home office. Damn SBC/AT&T service sucks. I can only assume Ekajati has the same rotten service. Please judge me by my editing record. Thanks. Bob (QaBob) 06:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it happened today. I've had a 68.93.xx.xx this morning, now I have a 67.67.xx.xx. When I created this account, it was 209.30.xx.xx. I know, because Sticky Parkin invited me to create an account on the talk page of that IP: "Ah go on, please do.:) Your edits are good, but people would appreciate them far more if you had an account, and probably wouldn't revert you as much.:)". In fact, Sticky Parkin asked me if I'd had previous account via email and I replied telling her my old user name before I was blocked. Feel free to compare notes with her.

One thing I've noticed is that when it hops between the different subnets, I don't get the IP I had the previous time I was on the same subnet. Believe me, this IP-hopping is involuntary. It screws up my email and other apps I am using, sometimes to the point where it requires a reboot to recover... Bob (QaBob) 06:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought your edits were good as an IP and you kept getting reverted because you were an IP- 209.XXXX , so I asked you to create an account. However you could have told me that you were already editing as User:Wednesday Next over the same AfD/articles.:) And you were particularly concerned with the article New Aeon English Qabalah, which Ekajati started under his alias User:999. Then I asked you if you knew Ekajati as your edits were very similar to some of his socks. Other people think so too. You denied it, and told me what you said was your previous account. Then it just so happens one of your IPs matches Ekajarti's. :) It's too much of a coincidence. Sticky Parkin 14:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even encountered Wednesday Next. I was certainly not editing as that user. Bob (QaBob) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I looked at that user's contribs. Looks like they did a couple of reverts of vandalism on articles that I worked on, apparently while on vandalism patrol. But there are no posts on the talk pages and they didn't !vote on the AfDs. If I were Ekajati desperately trying to save "my" article, wouldn't I have stuffed the ballot box?

It occurs to me that I didn't email you the background I've mailed to others. If will fwd it to you via email. Bob (QaBob) 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, seems I didn't notice that my unblock request had been declined. That being the case, I will note for the record that after I moved Kabbalah to Jewish Kabbalah, I received an email from another user stating (and I've removed a bit that might identify the user):

Can't say this on wiki. Stay the fuck away from the Jewish articles, man. When I was last here, back in 2005, it was VERY appearant that if you pissed off people about the Jewish articles, you'd be stalked by a wikideathsquad. They'd collect diffs, push you into losing your cool, then drag you in front of ArbCom and get you banned.

You're not doing anything wrong ... except dealing with the wrong group of idiots, pushing their goddamned POV. There's lots to do on Wiki. I'm not saying back down, just be careful.
You're a good editor, and you are dedicated. [...] But the tone I saw in that discussion -- which I only happened to see because your user page is on my watchlist for some reason and I saw your wikistress change -- is chilling. There's no discussion, it's just people slapping you down.
Don't lose your cool. Be polite. Be very policy concious. And if it gets ugly, just walk away. Please. WP doesn't need to lose you.

Clearly, that's just what's happened here. I've been thinking about changing my ISP anyway due to the dropouts. I'll be back with a different connection and not only stay away from Jewish articles but also occult articles so the unrevealed data can't be manipulated into making me look like the sock of a banned user. Bye. Bob (QaBob) 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't helping your case by saying you'll "be back with a different connection" - this isn't going to reassure anyone of your innocence even if we ignored the CU evidence. Coldmachine^Talk 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only valid if I'm actually the banned user, as nothing I have done during my short editing career is anywhere near a blockable offense. I currently have 1 account, this one, and no sockpuppets. It's already been made clear to me that I won't be unblocked, unless my email to Jimbo yields results. Don't worry, I'm not running out and calling Time-Warner today or probably even this month. It's an eventuality, not a threat. Bob (QaBob) 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no odds if you are Ekajati, you used your confirmed other account, User:Wednesday Next to back up this account/ to back up yourself and your WP:POV editing as an IP over the articles about English Qabalah and the related AfDs in various ways. That violates WP:SOCK and would merit a block of some length in and of itslf probably. The other info is too much of a coincidence, anyway. Sticky Parkin 18:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my account, as any honest checkuser should be able to tell you. It could be an Ekajati sock for all I know, but it's not mine. For all I know, it could be your sock backing up your changes to the articles, as you were also editing them and the AfDs. That'd be a cute trick if it's actually you who is Ekajati, get some info from another user by email and then use it to frame them via email to admins behind the scenes. Real cute. That's why I've always been dubious about answering emails from other users. You can believe I won't register or respond to requests to register an email address in the future. It was after all you who asked me to do so, which was the only reason I did, and then you didn't email me right away, but only a few days later and only then to ask me about Ekajati. What was that all about, anyway? Bob (QaBob) 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl at the it could be my sock. I just read the current WP:AFD debates most days, and happened to know a bit about the subject, enough to have an opinion and hae sufficient interest to try and clean up the English Qabalah article with the spam around it from various sides. Was it not caught as your sock as it was one of your IP ranges? How have I used email info to frame you- you denied being Ekky to me, you didn't say anything I could use against you in any way, I actually backed you up a bit here [1] and WP:AGFed a bit. Naive really of me not to assume you were not the same as the User:Wednesday Next. If you hadn't been socking, there'd have been nothing for you to be 'caught out' about by making an account. I didn't suspect it at first and thought your edits were good, that's why I asked you to make an account- then I realised you seemed to have a very similar agenda and interests to some of the Ekajati socks, and you made about 1400 edits within a fortnight or something, so I thought you might be him. Before that and before looking at the history of New Aeon English Qabalah, I honestly didn't suspect. Sticky Parkin 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that I have had three IPs since I created this account and the only account I've logged into has been this one. Period. If WN has been on some other subnet that Ekajati used, it has not been the 3 IPs I've been on. A checkuser done properly could verify that. It could say that yes, WN was associated with Ekajati, but not with me directly, and that inference has been used, even though it is known that the IPs in question are not static, to connect us, something I have explained via email as due to proximity and non-static IPs. I've looked through the contribs of the IPs I know about, and not all the edits are mine. Some of them are on wildly different topics which from what I've been told about Ekajati would not be of interest to her. So there is at the very least a third dynamic-IP editor out there who may or may not have an account.

Out of our group which I told you about by email, one lived for a while next door to the person I suspect y'all refer to as Ekajati. For all I know they knowingly or secretly shared a wireless router. That party moved, but only a half-block down the street. Other members are respectively 3 blocks away (diagonally) and 5 or 6 blocks away on the same street. All belonging to a certain special interest group involving the occult and all known to edit one or the other of 2 other Wikis on that topic. I mean, there are 4 or 5 couples, 9 individuals (including myself) all in the same broad neighborhood, all interested in the same thing but dividing into 2 or 3 different viewpoints, etc. I happen to know from complaints I've heard that at least 2 or maybe 3 different people are categorized as sockpuppets of Ekajati, and that's not including me.

But of course, this can all be dismissed by calling us meatpuppets even though we really don't compare notes or even know each other's current user names. And of course, Ekajati herself has probably pointed this all out long ago, and the fact that I am also pointing it out doesn't make it true, but is just another proof that I must be her. Sweet. Bob (QaBob) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, unless Ekajati is actually my wife. But I walk into her home office quite frequently and she's never even been reading Wikipedia, much less editing it, so I rather doubt it :-) Bob (QaBob) 21:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But she has been using the computer all the time recently which is weird b/c she used to always say she hated it, hard on her eyes, etc. hmmm..... Bob (QaBob) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, that's probably simply due to the fact that I bought her a nice new Mac... Bob (QaBob) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you another thing. If I were somebody trying to hide who and where I am, I sure wouldn't have edited Texas literature, Jon Dee Graham, Texas Family, Music of Austin and the other Texas and Austin related articles I've edited! Bob (QaBob) 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catch-22

If I get blocked as a sockpuppet and don't argue, that would be taken as "proof" that the accusation must be correct. And if I argue, that is also taken as "proof" that the accusation must be correct. What's wrong with this logic? There is no way out. So I've argued, I've emailed details and now I'm done. Jimbo can email me if he chooses to unblock me. Again, goodbye. Bob (QaBob) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas literature

Good effort so far, but it needs better citation. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]