User talk:Tophatdan

Kontakion

No, not just any content is useful. Certainly, a sizable list of kontakia does not belong in the article; that's not what should be there. See WP:NOT for a guide to what does not belong in an article. There appeared to be no selectivity whatsoever to those you were adding. Sorry if your feelings got hurt, but when you edit on Wikipedia you should sometimes expect your work to either disappear or be heavily modified. It happens to everyone, myself included.

And please learn Wikipedia markup and style. See WP:EDIT and WP:STYLE for guidance. In general it's also best to let the text flow with the page; hard line breaks and other HTML are rarely necessary. On talk pages it's good practice to sign your posts. You can do that simply by appending 4 tildes (~~~~) which automatically adds a link to your user page and a timestamp. You can customize your sig via the preferences page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, although I appreciate your desire to include as much information as possible on the subject, please stop adding kontakia to articles on saints. The inclusion of any prayer at all in these articles is controversial, and if there's a place for them it's in the infobox. (See Template:Infobox Saint) There's an ongoing discussion of the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints which you may want to weigh in on if you're interested. (And do please consider joining the project!) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A mediation case has been opened in which your name is mentioned. I just signed up as a mediator, pending approval by the involved parties. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. If you would like to be listed as a party, please write your name in the blue box. If you feel you are not involved, please remove your name from the list under "Who's involved?". (In this case, your name will only be allowed to be reinserted if a reason is given.) — Sebastian 22:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The original case has been deleted by an involved party. I reported this incidend on administrators' noticeboard (now archived). Since I have not been asked by anyone to investigate this case, I will not pursue it any further. I'm not watching your user page anymore, so please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. — Sebastian 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nybbas

A tag has been placed on Nybbas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Is it really too difficult for you to begin an article with, for example, "Picollus is a demon or minor deity described in ..."?

You already know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahovart. I suggest you create a single article listing these minor demons and explaining their content. If you create each demon's name as a redirect to that article, you may get away with it.

It is considered very rude to blank your talk page. Please do not do so. -- RHaworth 06:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no one has spoken on my talk page in quite some time, but ok i wont clear it lol, none the less if you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_Infernal you will note a good many short articles that begin in such mannor and infact that is how de Plancy himself began a good many, as i note in the discussion page of each article related to the infernal dictionary i will be citing other sources soon and it lists there a link to an online ver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picollus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tophatdan (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have, in effect proved my point. Because you do not have the wit to begin each article with "... is a demon in the Dictionnaire Infernal", they are getting deleted. Why is it so difficult for you to start the article with a bit of context? Also please learn about Wikilinks and note Hagerman's message below. -- RHaworth 06:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not trying to be coy, just trying to do some meaningfull work, i have made the sugested change to said page and my other edits i have rcently done, i hope thats better...--Tophatdan 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

demons

mr. RHaworth yes i am aware that my articles are droping as fast as i can post them, lol, but infact i do cite sources and context in the talk page of each article, which of course no one reads, but thats not my concern, only that the page we are talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picollus is infact a work in progress, if there is any way i can persuade you to forego deletion for the time being to alow me to finish my current project of the infernal dictionary (which i dd not originally add wo wikipedia) so that atleast in this case i can go back and make corrections/additions, constructive criticism in the form of a cleanup or wikify posting would be nice, but in this case i do not believe deletion is warrented as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_Infernal is an existing article, aswell as the dozens of sub articles already existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophatdan (talk • contribs)

You deleted Rahovart too? lol, i mean i understand why but man, anyhoo, i wont repost it untill i finish the rest of them but seriously, its nothing i couldnt fix, and havnt on the other pages...--Tophatdan 08:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why this reluctance to use wikilinks?? Don't cite your sources on the talk page - put them in the article!! I deleted Rahovart: a) as a warning that we are serious, b) because JuJube had already tagged it for deletion and, most importantly, c) because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahovart. In this case you must go to WP:DRV to request permission to recreate. -- RHaworth 08:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no need to go to the other extreme. One link to Dictionnaire Infernal is quite sufficient. -- RHaworth 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need to maintain a hostile tone, i have complied to the best of my abilities so far, would you rather the infirnal dictionary remain incomplete, does not one of the pillars of wikipedia state that perfection, tho desireable is not a requirement? in any case when i have inished my task i will be aplying to repost rahovart as my information is factual and i hope in the future you can forgive the imperfections of others...--Tophatdan 09:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beat ya to those last few duplicate links, lol, its all good man, thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophatdan (talk • contribs)

Sorry if you find my tone hostile, but what should one do with someone who types " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_Infernal " after being asked to use wikilinks? Also, there is very rarely any need to use <br /> in wiki markup. -- RHaworth 10:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- About Rahovart, and obscure demons in general: I would suggest that you add a brief description of Rahovart to the list at Dictionnaire Infernal and remove the red link rather than creating an article; I think these demons are just too obscure to support their own article. If they haven't really been used in popular or religious literature other than one or two mentions in compendiums, I don't see the point. Brianyoumans 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well rahovart has been mentioned n other media including a movie called the keep (which i wont bother looking up right now) and several video games, also you find him listed in a number of religious texts from western europe, you see where you might see obscurity, those of us concerned with demonology see a living tradition, now as i state in the infirnal dictionary's talk page i'm not some occultist or wiccan or some kid attempting to pad my intelectual credentias by being able to say "i edited wikipedia" i'm just trying to do some meaningfull work here, to make this available online, and most importantly complete. this is important reference material for spirituialists and priests, the fact is the article will have to exist sooner or later, unless you intend to keep the public ignorant all on your own...--Tophatdan 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Nickar

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Nickar, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/articleview.asp?Post=306. As a copyright violation, Nickar appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Nickar has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nickar and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Nickar with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nickar.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has been rewriten to the best of my ability and stayed true to de Plancy's original text the Dictionnaire Infernal, i hope this is enough to satisfy the powers that be.--Tophatdan 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To gan or not to gan

Oh dear, we all seem to be getting at you! Please explain what the words "Togans Spirit Guide" which appear in some of your articles mean. Google knows nothing about them. -- RHaworth 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed that about goodle, for that matter the entire web, it suprises me, its an old limited print book, the inside cover gives a publisher and copywrite date as 1956, the publisher is

h.s. stuttmanco., publishers new york 16, n.y.

which you can find on goodle, mostly bibles and christian ethereal materials, dosnt give an author so i assume its a colaboritive work, i got it at a rare books auction in fort scott kansas, i have seen atleast 1 other copy, in any case i list it because its god a back section which lists all these demons and spirits and what they look like, not so much what they do. usefull little book. it also has a title page in the back listing the publisher and 1948, a little countradictive but it might be a an original printing date, on that page it lists it as "the secret of the master" instead of "togans spirit guide" in any case i havnt been able to find it online, i assumed i could find a new copy from amazon but they told me it was out of print after contacting the publisher. handy little book tho, good reading and informitive. hope that clears things up.

About Dictionnaire Infernal references

First of all I want to say that I've been reading trough your talk page and I don't wanna be another one of those that just mark up some article for speedy deletion od that reverts your posts but... I'm revising the deamons from the goetia, and I'm trying to link the Dictionnaire Infernal as a reference. But I'm having a hard time finding the hole text. All I've found is a list of the demons and some paraphrased content. So, looking trough your edits of the article, I've found that you mention "my research indicates". So my question is, which are your sources, as you don't seem to mention them in the article. All of the sources cited as references are not links to the actual text, so... how can you be so sure the deamons in Plancy's work are the same with the ones you linked? I would really apreciate if you could tell me where you are getting that info, as I would also like to do some research about the deamons of the goetia that Plancy listed. Thanks --Legion fi 07:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok well i understand your concern here, and i'm going to try not to comit any logical falacies here by noting my own research or expecting you to accept my research as a stand alone authority, i do want to note that i did not create the infernal dictionary page, i merely edited it in hopes of making it more complete, my work included adding i believe 16 articles that did not previously exist and connecting articles that were under other names by other people, but obviously were about the same demons, creatures or spirits.

i want to note that i do own a translated copy of the infernal dictionary by de plancy, in addition a variety of other books and manuals on the subject, referenced are togans spirit guide which has been removed in most cases because there is no reference to it anywhere on the internet, i can tell you there is a publishers stamp from the 1950s which i would provide photo copies of if it was required, another reference which has been removed by other editors is a field guide to demons and spirits by a carol somethingoranother (dont have the book infront of me right now) of course i have been forced to change the text to avoid "copywrite infringment" which i dont believe applies to a book of de plancy's nature but other wiki-editors do...

i hope this clears things up a bit, feel free to add, edit and change these articles but please do not delete them as in some cases they are the only reference available on the internet for anyone researching the topic for personal, profesional or dire reasons, i hope this clears a few things up and if you can find references and research these beings i believe you will find that my information, tho sometimes a little convoluted is infact factual... thank you. --Tophatdan 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It does clarify thinks knowing that you own a copy of the book in question. I've also find a copy in my university, so I will be checking it myself. I would also apreciate if you could post the references (name, author, editorial, year, etc.) of the other two books you mentiones. As this is a talk page, other editors musn't delete them. That way, I could also try to find those books. Thanks again. --Legion fi 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Field Guide To Demons - Carol K. Mack

that is one very usefull book, there are a number of books at my local ethereal library (at the lutheran church) which contain references to the more obscure demons and spirits, and aside from that de plancy's works are the main recourse for the work, as you will note the majority of the text i added has been 'rewritten' i my own words because a few other wikipedia editors believed that it was copywrite infringmen for me to copy directly from de plancy (ever heard of public domain)--Tophatdan 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey... I haven't got the Dictionaire Infernal, but I'm getting it tomorrow. I've been searching the internet and I've localized the book you mentioned from Mack. I think it can be taken as a reference, although I think the book by itself could be biased. About the Togan's spirits guise, I've found so far two really obscure links to it. Both of them are blogs, so they cannot be references in Wikipedia. Could you please post the entire reference to the book? Complete name, author, editorial, year published, etc. I think that could help. if we know the editorial then we can ask them if the book exists. Thanks again. --Legion fi 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, this 'guide' is a myth that came from the movie Ghostbusters, where it was referred to as Tobin's Spirit Guide. There is no such book, trust me, I'm an actual demonologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.213.56 (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... first of all, sign your comments please... Second of all, bye "demonologist" you mean you academically study demonology (as a part of exegesis) or that you are going to go all Varo Borja trying to summon demons? In any case, I wrote this question almost a year ago (ten months) and Tophatdan never answer it. Since then it has been made clear that the book he was referring to either doesn't exist or is a very rare (probably cheap exploiting the name) edition. We also know that is a paraphrases from the Ghostbuster's book. That doesn't mean that some crazy editor couldn't have had the occurrence to print such a thing. --Legion fi (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, a guy goes away for a while and see what happens, lol, I posted the author, editor and printer to that book months ago on someone else's talk page, I don’t have time to go dig it up again so I suppose if you are that interested you can dig through my posting history and find it...
and no I’m not some quack job who goes around trying to summon demons, I have an academic interest and I keep a large library, I could easily be wrong about this but in the Latin "o'logos" is knowledge, thought, reasoning, and love of those things, and by definition my academic interest in demons and ancient beliefs qualifies me as a demon-o'logos or demonologist for all intents and purposes, you can disagree thats your write but then again before my feverent activity on this god forsaken corner of the web you had never heard of colin de'plancy which makes me wonder if you are an achademicly disciplined demonologist if perhaps its you who should go back to your studies, thank you and good day. --Tophatdan 22 April 2008

and another thing, look around my talk page in the future people "

its an old limited print book, the inside cover gives a publisher and copywrite date as 1956, the publisher is

h.s. stuttmanco., publishers new york 16, n.y.

which you can find on goodle, mostly bibles and christian ethereal materials, dosnt give an author so i assume its a colaboritive work, i got it at a rare books auction in fort scott kansas, i have seen atleast 1 other copy. "

--Tophatdan 22 April 2008

LOL Top, welcome back. The "go all out and summon demons" comment wasn't ment for you. It was for the anon IP editor who claimed he was a demonologist. I know you study demonology properly, but I was asking the anon if he did. Also, don't flatter yourself so much. I knew about the Dictionnaire Infernale way before you started editing the article. This is not about who knows what or who is the oldest in here. When you were absent I studied most of your edits, and found that most of thye were OR. I appreciate you posting the reference, but keep in mind WP:V. If we cannot verify the info, then the source isn't reliable.--Legion fi (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ok legion, my bad, i just wish people would stop deleting them while i'm not looking--Tophatdan July 10 2008

Flaga (demon)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Flaga (demon), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Yan-gant-y-tan

A tag has been placed on Yan-gant-y-tan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Message from XENU^{u, t} 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TUTORIAL

Thank you for your contributions. I highly recommend you take the above tutorial: wikipedia doesn't like html, we use our on wiki syntax instead, and the tutorial can quickly teach you the details. Also, please use WP:CATEGORIES for the articles you create, categorizing articles is very important. Lastly, please WP:CITE your sources (see also WP:V). Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he-e-e

You're perfectly welcome to use the book, but just because others do it, doesn't make it right to copy text verbatim. Rephrase it in Wikipedia style writing and give it your own twist and it's perfectly save from deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why did you change the spelling? It was different on the site. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the spelling because thats how it was spelled in the book, and as far as verbatim, the book was printed in 1903, placing any content well within the scope of public domain. and if you look i did 'change it around' quite a bit. none the less, i will redo it.--Tophatdan (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy text from a book which is now in the public domain, you should include a note at the end that says "this article is based on material taken from (book), a publication which is now in the public domain". Just to make things clear. DS (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Togan's Spirit Guide

Togan's Spirit Guide does not appear on any rare book websites or even common book sites. Because the only places that the book shows up in are your citations and the movie Ghostbusters, it is not a reliable source. If you have a copy and intend to use it as a source, I would recommend loaning or donating it to www.sacred-texts.com, Project Gutenburg, or Kessinger Publications, some place in the public domain. A public library, while great, would unfortunately not improve its availability and reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to contact the publisher a while back (for about a week after leaving my previous message) and they are no longer there. I can find all kinds of stuff that they published. Togan's Spirit Guide never appears in any lists I have been able to find, and they don't appear to have published anything within about the past decade. They appear to be out of business. Google books keeps track of publishers' books even if they can't present those books or previews thereof, and as you can see here:

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&q=inpublisher:stuttman&as_brr=0&sa=N&start=0

-- Togan's spirit guide is not listed. Google books is highly reliable, they list the limited run books I've ever encountered.

The burden of proof rests on you and you have done nothing to try to prove the existance of the book except send people on goose chases or expect them to rely on faith. I'm glad you aren't using it as a source anymore, because you never did provide any proof that it existed. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---i will take a bloody picture if ya like..... but somehow i doubt you would even take that as proof, its easier to just let it be than to try convincing you that the internet dosnt know everything, good day and happy hunting... --Tophatdan (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Charitina1001.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Charitina1001.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yan-gant-y-tan

The article Yan-gant-y-tan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no notability even argued here, very poor sourcing, tagged as needing better sources back in 2007 - four years is ore than enough time to fix things

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tophatdan, i have added some sources to this ill-advised prod, but you are encouraged to further improve it. Cheers!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:11, 3 October 2011 (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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]