Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Techniques in seeing the aura

I'm having trouble contributing to this cause - can anyone help me please?? (I'm new here and slow in the head - please forgive it.) I've written an article on how to see the aura, or "bio-electromagnetic field", primarily the etheric level, with the naked eye (written elsewhere). It's a very basic and detailed technique to see the aura. I wrote it with an eye towards the scientific factors behind this phenomenon. The article is here; I humbly think it would serve very well as an external link to add to many relating pages here, adding perhaps quite educationally to this cause.

My dilemma is that for some reason, the actual URL often needs to be twurled (as is done above) in order to be seen here. Someone here had told me that this was due to the main site's "dubious reliability" causing it to be otherwise filtered from view. I'm unsure if that means that most people who write there are not necessarily experts on much, or... ? Anyways, I'm just wondering if this can be used by anyone here to further educate readers in this field, or not... and is twurling acceptable? I mean, it works, right?

Please advise - thanx! ^_~

Coeur-Senechal (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the one having to denounce this, but this is a scheme. Assuming good faith from Coeur-Senechal I will have to assert that (as he has been told before apparently) the site he is linking is higly unreliable, as anyone can post whatever they want in it without any editorial. Not to mention that the article he is writing constitutes original research. But the real catch here is that the site pays the author for every thousand hits the article gets. So that is why he is trying to push this (if you check his contribution history you can see that the only contributions he has done is adding the spam link to several wiki articles). If you, Coeur-Senechal, really want to contribute to wikipedia, please read the policies about verifiability,original research and neutral point of view. Thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, thanks - I think. Yeah, I see your point about how anyone can write anything there. As far as the site "paying" however, I submitted it there just simply to have it read. I never thought that their "paying" a 64th of a penny every b'jillion viewers (or whatever the numbers of their nonsense) would ever amount to actual money. With all sincerity, none of that was remotely my motive at all - it was just a place suggested to me to post it, seeing as how they apparently bring readers to read what you write there. If there's another place I can submit it without the money thing, I'd be much more than super-happy to do so, as I was hoping the experiment would help spread education on the matter - but now, upon seeing the bit on "original research", I guess it wouldn't be acceptable here anyways. Crud. As far as "pushing" the article, I only tossed it up on a small few pages in order to contribute. It seems the whole thing was a stupid idea and I feel like such a complete idiot. I guess I was just over-zealous. I only hope that no-one truly thinks I was "scheming"... really, I truly wasn't. My heartfelt apologies to everyone, and my thanks for not being cruel - you were informative without being mean, and for that, I'm thankful. Once again, I'm sorry.

Coeur-Senechal (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging some articles - wraith and Shade (mythology) into ghost

See here - Talk:Ghost#what_about_merging_Wraith_into_ghost_then.3F. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellenismos portal

This is not completely occult, but I have started Portal:Hellenismos (WIP.) Of course, 'tis a synonym for Philosophy (capitalized) is a synonym for occultism....--Dchmelik (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

occult symbols

Answers.com used to have the most excellent occult, religous, abstract sci., etc. symbol pages on the 'net. Those pages are gone now, except in archive.org. We should ask answers.com if Wikipedia can use them (if we necessarily need to ask.)--Dchmelik (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I found they are at http://symboldictionary.net/ .--Dchmelik (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

proposed move

...of to Asmodai to Asmodeus as the latinised form is the more widely used. Put in your 2 c worth here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:30, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Max Theon

Category:Max Theon has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section of ghost

I am opening this up here at Talk:Ghost#Consensus_on_size_and_contents_of_the_lead so we can get a consensus on what should be in the lede. Comment on other ideas and/or add yer own on what the most salient points are. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

definition of Zombie

I'm in a (very minor!) edit war with DreamGuy over the definition of "Zombie". I'm in favor of the page's older definition, which said a zombie was an animated corpse; the new definition asserts that a zombie is first and foremost "a person who behaves like a human automaton." Unfortunately we're at a total impasse: Talk:Zombie#Definition_of_.22Zombie.22

I admit I'm no expert. I don't think DreamGuy is, either...we could use some expert opinions. Please help out. --Malvolio80 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I have updated the page with the correct information and cited a highly authoritative academic source. Zombie is a reanimated corpse. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merger Of Familiar spirits in popular culture into Familiar spirit

Proposed Merger Of Familiar spirits in popular culture into Familiar spirit, discuss at Talk:Familiar_spirit#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Witchcraft

Witchcraft has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Someone (not me) has proposed a merge of Satan into Devil discuss at Talk:Satan#Satan_merged_into_Devil.3F. I am circulating this among relevant boards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sex magic, come and help, no, not that, the other

There are a few people trying to get the page Sex magic deleted for lack of sources and "balance" (how do you balance sex magic? Sex repression?). When you track one back, a Christian user (not that there's anything wrong with that, God bless him) possibly biased for removal. So if anyone can come improve the article with sourced material, etc. It's heavy on Crowley, which is fine with me, and has now been weighted high on both occult project and Thelema project templates on the discussion page. Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be all that difficult. There are plenty of books on the subject. I wouldn't worry about deletion. Syn 04:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)