User talk:999~enwiki

Disclaimer
I reserve the right to remove any comment w/o reply. If you are an admin, please simply say so and I will leave your message if you wish. If you are not an admin, please don't attempt to tell me how to edit or how I should or shouldn't communicate with other users. If you do not agree with this, please don't post on my talk page, but rather communicate on the talk page of the article(s) involved. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives

 * /Archive 1
 * /Archive 2
 * /Archive 3
 * /Archive 4

Magick
In your recent talk to me you said


 * You misunderstand me. I am not arguing for any particular position. I am simply describing the current state of affairs, as made clear in the disambiguation at the top of the article, Magick. However, Crowley did coin the term, the article is about his beliefs and writings on the topic, and other's use of the term may or may not be orthogonal to his.


 * If you think things should be changed, you'll need to follow Wikipedia process to argue for those changes with the current editors of the articles involved. As it stands, the general overview article on what you call Magick and what the dictionary lists as magic is Magic (paranormal). That's simply the state of things, and it is best to observe the distinctions arrived at by the consensus of previous editors. -999 (Talk) 16:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand. You are being rather fundamentalist and seem to have your own misunderstanding. Then you disclaim responsibility.

You are essentially saying that anything non-Thelema or non-Crowley is non-Magick. You are recommending that all other Magick goes to Magic (paranormal). But there is nothing paranormal about the rest of the Western Mystery Tradition, or Eastern Mystery Tradition, and this is my point.

Crowley did not invent the spelling of Magick, as others have already proven in the talk pages for the article using the word etymology. He just used the archaic spelling as a way to distinguish - and became (in)famous. It's similar to the convention of using A.D. for dates if you are Christian and C.E. for dates if you are non-sectarian and a scholar. Someday some scholar will infect the public mind with that meme and the masses will think this one smart guy invented an inclusive way to record historical dates.

But even if we take your stand, Crowley drew from both Western and Eastern Mystery Tradition. The Western Mystery Tradition is a vast underground stream that unites the more specific traditions of Thelema, Wicca, Celtic and other Folk Magick, the Grail stuff, the Faery stuff, and even outer religious practices that only initiates really understand. Thelema is one bubbling spring connected to the entirety through that underground stream.

You're also saying that it's best to observe consensus of those who came before. This is pretty much exactly like a fundamentalist of any dogmatic religion would say to any problematic person with a brain to think and question. You're saying submit to dogma and don't think for myself.

Also I think the "editors who have come before" just judging from the talk pages are in disagreement with you about the distinction and you are maintaining an "iron fist" policy over this article to keep it only about what you know. That's in direct contravention to what wikipedia is about.

Again, the best solution would be to make Magick a general index term and take your Thelema to a more specific level underneath it. Magick should probably itself be categorized under Western Mystery Tradition, as it's mostly the West that takes the active path up the Tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpehrson (talk • contribs)

Thurible article
In the thurible article, you refer to "non-Christian Gnostic Catholic Churches". I am a bit confused. What is a non-Christian Gnostic Catholic Church?--Filll 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Matisse
Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? G e o. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked G  e o. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure I am stalking?
Doesn't make any sense. I've posted on the page of the person you say I am stalking about that page. Also I advised him to utilize the Discussion page, which he did. I realise you think this page is yours but it is not. Others may work on it too. Mattisse(talk) 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How am I stalking?
You are not being specific enough. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about a Thelemite on the list
Hello, it seems to me that you are the authority on the subject so maybe you can help me out. There is a person on the Thelemite list named Dorothy Olsen. Do you know if this is the 1950's folk singer or is it someone else? Just curious. Thank you. 4giron 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 999, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. This info is very helpful. 4giron 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to non-esistant articles
In general, it is good to link to articles that should, but don't exist - it encourages people to create them, and moves them up the 'most wanted articles' list. When they are created, there is no need to go back and put links in. Trollderella 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - I think I disagree, but no big deal. ;) Trollderella 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Phil Hine
I've submitted this as a procedural nomination for AfD since the PROD was removed and re-added. You can visit the discussion and participate here.--Isotope23 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse
No, I'm afraid I'm not convinced any more that Timmy12 is a sock of Mattisse. I can't sign on to most of your issues. It appears that Mattisse's main issue is lack of assuming good faith and biting the newcomer, User:Rosencomet. Another incident that's come to my attention is, where she repeatedly inserted citation requests even though the source was cited in the text of the article instead of with footnotes, and continued to do so even after another editor bolded the in-text citations.

Now, if you open an RfC on User:Timmy12's conduct, who has done nothing but serial tag, I'd be happy to endorse it. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tantra
Hello there. Just a note to say that I do not intend criticism towards fellow editors on this or any other article. Perhaps my language is a little strong at times, or I may make bold edits and these can be construed as personal criticism. Please believe me when I say that nothing personal is directed towards any of the authors. I do assume good faith and I try to be bold with my edits.

On this article, most of my edits have been geared towards pointing out that the material can be a little clearer in some places. I am not an expert on tantra and have little more than a passing interest. In a certain sense, this gives me a good perspective on the material because I am just an average reader. Often the opinions of an average reader can show interested editors where things can be improved.

This article is now improving by leaps and bounds, not because of my edits, but because you and other editors are now reexamining it. Eventually we will be able to remove the cleanup and neutrality tags.

TheRingess 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon
Well, I know you are away, but this one is right up your alley. Anything about this word in Secret Rituals of the O.T.O.? I suspect there would be, since Crowley borrowed freely from the Masons. I'll copy the article as it is not into my user space in case it gets deleted before you return. &mdash;Hanuman Das 05:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your email. I'm glad to know that the word is indeed mentioned in a specific chapter of that book. I can add that to the article and wait for your return (or for the person you emailed about it) for the details to be added to the article. &mdash;Hanuman Das 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Link History
A couple of fellow editors suggested that I appraise you of these facts. I realize I have already posted some of this information, but for the sake of organizing it I will put it all here together. I'm sorry if it's long.

The following information is just to show that while Matisse was wildly tagging articles linked to Starwood Festival with "citation needed" tags, later to call on many editors to help in a campaign to delete them, then have them taken down as linkspam and google-bombing, she was ALSO CREATING articles with links to Starwood Festival herself, then calling them to the attention of other editors as examples of how there were too many articles linked to it and that I was "out of control". I believe that most of the objections by editors other than Matisse and socks of Matisse (who have weighed in multiple times in discussions about both the links and the notability of individual articles I've written in order to create the illusion that she had major support in the Wiki community) were swayed, in great part, by this campaign to create a "Major Problem" where one did not exist. (Ironic, since a running theme of the event is conspiracy theory & the Illuminati...)

1. The Musart article (linked to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium) was created August 25th by Flinders, a sock of Matisse, 12 days after my first Wiki input. The Answers.com text mentioned below about Musart (point 6) is obviously cribbed from the Wiki article she created, yet she speaks as if she "found" this evidence that this issue is not minor!

2. The "What Witches Do" article was created on September 3rd by LiftWaffen, another Matisse sock. She returned the next day to add a link to Association for Consciousness Exploration.

3. Andrew Cohen, mentioned below by Matisse on Salix Alba's page as a "Starwood Speaker", has never appeared at Starwood nor has his page been linked to the Starwood page.

4. There are links to Musart on the "Chalino Sánchez" and "Lucero" articles that I believe are incorrect, and probably refer to the record company DiscosMusart, which has no Wiki article.

5. Here is what Matisse said to BostonMa about Musart in November:

hopeless mediation


 * Hi. I wrote a question on the Starwood Mediation page and got an unsatisfactory answer from Rosencomet. Plus I notices another article waiting in the wings: Musart. Do you think we should ask for another mediator? Ours seems to be missing in action. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I must agree. It is hopeless and would be a waste of your time. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

6. This was posted on Salix Alba's talk page the same day:


 * Hi again! Check out Musart. it is waiting in the wings to have bunches of names added. Mattisse(talk) 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this out [16] from Answers.com If, by chance, you think this is minor. Mattisse(talk) 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And 8 days later:


 * Maybe you would weigh in on the Andrew Cohen talk page (a Starwood Festival speaker) as there is a discussion on what type of links to include as external links. The particular link in question may not be a good example to defend, but at least it's the start of a general discussion. Mattisse(talk) 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Now this one was on Pigman's talk page just a few days ago. I've included Ekajati's comment.


 * I just ran across this: Musart. The links at the bottom are bad. One goes nowhere. The other pertains if anything to this: Musart Records -- which I wrote (not very well) trying to sort out the problem regarding various (legitimate) artists whose articles list this label -- none of which are in that list on Musart. What to do? Perhaps you know. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see, it's the usual Starwood Festival crowd listed. I wonder if this is hopeless. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, now this is not funny, Mattisse. That article, as you have to know, was started by Flinders, who was confirmed by CheckUser as one of your sockpuppets. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

8. This non-explanation of the creation of the Musart article was posted on BostonMa's talk page. I've included Hanuman Das' input:


 * I clicked on the name, Flinders, and it was identified as a sockpuppet of my account. I don't know what else to say. I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done. I am not clear what was going on at that time. At the time I explained my role in the matter. The result is though that I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article. If will explain the situation in any degree of detail you desire. I don't know what level of detail is appropriate here. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Further explanation: That I personally did not create the sockpuppets but they were created on my computer, as proved by CheckUser. There was an unusual sitation. Relatives, including my daughter and her children, suddenly were in my house. In the middle of this was when I was doing backlogs in the wikify bin (to get away from real life stress) and AFD'd Philip Farber. This was just after Netsnipe had identified a suite of similar articles and ADFed the whole suite. I asked him what to do but he was busy with his admin election. I used bad judgment and tagged too many articles. 999 attacked me. I became upset, being already upset because of outside events. I talked about it too much to my visitors, none of whom were involved with Wikipedia. I don't know really what happened. Part of what was going on here meant that I was not home always. I do know that I left my granddaughter alone, at that time not realising that Wikipedia was such a dangerous place, so she did somethings on Wikipedia unsupervised. I guess I should look back and see exactly what. Someone emailed me that she put her age on her user page and that I should delete that. I tried but was not allowed. Then an admin believed she was my granddaughter and did delete it or do something with it. To tell you the truth, I don't really want to know what these various accounts did because it starts to give me bad feelings about my family -- whether they were trying to harm me or help me I don't know. And it has affected our relationship since then. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for butting in here, but this is the same excuse she used for the previous sockpuppet incident (pre-Rosencomet). See Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. I believe that User:Salix alba was involved in that incident. —Hanuman Das 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at the discussion and I don't quite get what I did that was so wrong. I asked Paul Pigman a question. At the time I didn't know it was a Flinders article. Flinders did whatever in the past. In any case, I would not have done anything to a Starwood article myself. That is why I asked someone. If I repeat the same story regarding events around that time, what else should I do? It's only because Musart Records came up on my watch list as "unsourced" that I even looked at it. Because I write and edit so many record label articles, I did not get the connection at first. I do not understand this place. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

9. I must say that this is a pretty bizarre situation. Matisse has used sock-puppets for a long time to disrupt the work of a number of editors in various ways, and seems to openly admit it here, and I find that strange enough (since, perhaps because I'm a newcomer, I just don't see what she gets out of this kind of behavior except sowing anger and frustration among hard-working volunteers), but phrases like "I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done." or "I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article" make me wonder how she can EVER be held accountable for what she does. It sounds bi-polar to me (I'm not diagnosing, just saying what it sounds like). She seems not to know what she has done, or perhaps even what she is doing. In a different way, I find the attempt to shift the blame to unspecified family members even more disturbing.

Matisse seems to have a talent for creating trouble and drawing well-meaning people into the fray. I don't see how the issue under mediation can be discussed without at least airing these facts, and allowing those who have been swayed to believe that there is a serious situation that must be nipped in the bud to understand that, at least to some extent, it has not only been exaggerated but increased and manipulated by the very person that brought it to their attention and enlisted their help. Rosencomet 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thurible
Hello 999,

I did not remove your reference because it relates to witchcraft, I removed it because I did not believe it. I have never heard of a thurible called a weapon (granted, it can hurt people, but it's hardly a good design for a weapon), and I've never heard anyone refer to it as magic. I am guessing that most people do not know the thurible is a magic weapon, so I wonder if it would be helpful if you would cite where you got the information. I know that other parts of the article are not cited, but I think they are fairly common knowledge (at least to me).

I've not been a wikipedian long, and am not hoping to insult. Just asking for some sort of reference that supports what you are saying.

Thanks, Sarum blue 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Starwood
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
Well, the arbitration is obviously open. I would appreciate any advice you can give me as to how to proceed (or not proceed). Someone named User:RasputinJSvengali has already deleted the fact that the Starwood Festival is run by ACE, information which was in the Starwood Festival article when it was created over a year before I first inputted anything to Wikipedia. I have been assembling whatever "3rd party sources" I can find for articles I've created, but I'm not sure I know how to properly list them as references. Since they are not to the ACE website, I hope they will be taken as fulfilling what was asked for. I suspect, however, that nothing will satisfy these folks. Rosencomet 15:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser results
The ins and outs of checkuser results are not usually made public, both due to privacy concerns and because it's not really in Wikipedia's best interest to teach people how to avoid being detected by checkuser. This is one of the reason that checkuser access is only given to users who are deeply trusted by the community; findings are accepted purely on the say-so of the checkuser operator. The only accountability in the process is to another person with checkuser access; you can ask another checkuser operator to double-check the results if you really think it is necessary. Jkelly 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some action taken
I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while. Rosencomet 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

included Dianomd-Cutter.org link at Michael Roach per discussion we still had and User:HumanDas' requirements of inlcusion
When we had the discussion about including the critical link mainly User:HumanDas and user:Ekajati were against it. All other editors were for including or at least not against it. Because user.HumanDas argued:
 * I am happy to include a critical link - as long as the publishers of the site have the balls to put their names on it. I can create a site that trashes you in a few moments work (if I knew your identity) - would you want that information then linked to by WP? —Hanuman Das 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (see archive2)

I now inlclude the link and the responsible person, because the website owner gives his name on the website, see: http://www.diamond-cutter.org/about/about.html Regards, --Kt66 12:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Festival & RasputinJSvengali
First of all, Happy New Year to you, and welcome back.

I have just left this note on User:CheNuevara's talk page:

I have just seen an action taken by User: RasputinJSvengali during this arbitration (and, as far as I know, an ongoing mediation) which not only rewrites the text of the article and deletes the entire "Featured Speakers" and "Featured Entertainers" sections, but adds "Satanists" and "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" to the list of people attending. I am afraid that this has been done to bait me into a revert war during the arbitration. As an objective party who has offered to help with my efforts to rectify the problems caused by the disagreements between myself and other editors, I would like to ask you to reverse this action and request that User: RasputinJSvengali refrain from such actions. For several weeks I have only reduced the number of links and added 3rd party citations, all of which were requested by editors during the mediation, and have engaged in civil discussion on issues related to the article on the discussion page without actually doing the editing (except for one grammatical edit). Thank you. Rosencomet 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy
Hmm. Could Plastic Paddy be a relative of Polythene Pam? :-)

This is the first time I've heard of this deletion attempt. And here I thought the person I had heard use that term had made it up himself.

My only caveat on the article is that while I've often heard of St. Patrick's Day called "St. Paddy's Day", I've never heard it just called "Paddy's Day". Of course, I'm far from Irish. Rosencomet 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse
Hi 999! Mattisse has requested assistance. She has mentioned you in her request. I am starting to look into the issue. Any background information you could give me would be very welcome. Cheers. SilkTork 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. SilkTork 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

H. Das
Looks like a big mess to me. If nothing is proven then it should be overturned. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldnt know what to believe. Theres so much "sock" talk that I've had my doubts about Das before, yet I give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll look more closely at it on Wed. when I have more time. Other than that I'm not really worried about it since he "retired". He can come back and defend himself if he wishes. SynergeticMaggot 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heheh... wish I could have been there for that arb case. Ekajati sounds familiar nonetheless. I "think" I've ran into him/her once while Hanuman was still around. If anything new happens I'll think about jumping in in, although I try not too since I'd be jumping in late. SynergeticMaggot 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood arbitration update
The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. The work you are doing is appreciated. 999 (Talk) 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Allen H. Greenfield
Rather than posting a new article despite Articles for deletion/Allen Greenfield (2nd nomination), you need to go to Deletion review and argue why this article (which is about the same person) should be reinstated. NawlinWiki 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind -- I was persuaded by another user to reinstate the article and the afd. NawlinWiki 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allen H. Greenfield
An editor has nominated Allen H. Greenfield, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Starwood
The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of The Sanctuary of Ma'at Order of the Golden Dawn
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Sanctuary of Ma'at Order of the Golden Dawn, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Sanctuary of Ma'at Order of the Golden Dawn is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Sanctuary of Ma'at Order of the Golden Dawn, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma’at
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma’at, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma’at is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma’at, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of The Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Hermetic Sanctuary of Maat, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Philip H. Farber
An article that you have been involved in editing, Philip H. Farber, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Speedy deletion of College of Thelema
A tag has been placed on College of Thelema requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Sticky Parkin 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Phyllis Seckler
A tag has been placed on Phyllis Seckler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Sticky Parkin 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Calm talk with tea
Template:Calm talk with tea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Computerjoe 's talk 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called 999. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name 999~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Gnostic saints for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gnostic saints is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gnostic saints until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)