User talk:999~enwiki/Archive 1

Disclaimer
All uncivil comments will be removed w/o reply. -999 (Talk) 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic church
Done! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic Catholic Church
First, I appreciate your polite answer. Thanks. Second, I didn't know a nomination had been made. I don't see it...where is the nomination message or comment area so I can make my case? If folks think that "Gnostic Catholic Church" should be a generic term, then so be it. I agree that our disagreement would be better served by a larger concensus. Frater5 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Gnostic Catholic Church (disambiguation). You replied to it... Yeah, I hadn't seen the main notice, and then I forgot about the discussion. No harm meant.


 * Re: By the way, thanks for your work at compromise on the Thelema page. Nice outcome I think. The Crowey section has indeed turned out pretty good...much better than before. I think the Thelema article as a whole is now a solid "okay". I want to take a break from it for a few days before even looking at it again. However, the sections after Crowley are sloppy. The "Post-Crowlean Thelema" section is, well, lousy. I suggest we call it "Contemporary Thelema" or something similar, and discuss various ways Thelema has branched. Then there could be a separate section on Thelema in comparitive religion, since that is really a different topic (which hopefully one day have enough info for its own article). But like I said, I'm just spiffballing ways to improve it...I think we should all aim towards getting this article frontpage-worthy. Frater5 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Thelemites
Curious why you would remove Charles Henry Allan Bennett from the list (though he became Buddhist, he was for some time, to the best of my understanding, a self-professed Thelemite), and even more curious regarding Carl Kellner (freemason), who was instrumental in the OTO. I understand the bulk of your other deletions. (Personally, I'd like to see the whole page go away to be replaced by Category:Thelemites, but until the redlinks are gone, it's a convenient placeholder.) --Geoff Capp 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bennett was never a Thelemite. He was a Golden Dawn member and Crowley's mentor. He never professed to follow Thelema: He went to India, and became a Buddhist. Crowley tried to convert him to Thelema during a visit to India, but was rebuffed. Bennett had renounced western magick. Would you want to be called a member of a religion you never joined after you die? -999 05:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for Kellner, Thelema is not the same as OTO and vice-versa. Kellner was never really even a founder of OTO, but simply an associate of Reuss' who he found it convenient to make part of the order's mythology. Thelema had not come into it at all at that time. You have to understand that Crowley made claims that various dead people were Thelemites. However, unless they themselves professed Thelema, they should not be on List of Thelemites, IMO. -999 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought Bennett had so professed, but I will assume both good faith and that your sources are better than mine, since mine are scant. As for Kellner, nevermind, since I see now that he died prior to Crowley's taking initiation into the OTO. (As a side note, even when dead, I don't think a deciding factor in listing someone as a Thelemite should be whether they would want to be so listed. If there is evidence that they were, at some point, Thelemites, then that is a fact worth noting, IMHO.) Finally, I agree that no one dead before the "revelation" of the Law of Thelema should properly be called a Thelemite, no matter how Thelemic they may have been, notwithstanding the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. --Geoff Capp 05:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Bennett left for Asia in 1900 and not only became a Buddhist but had founded the World Buddhist Society by 1903, before Crowley received the Book of the Law. Crowley tried but fail to convert him later during a visit to India. (Crowley wrote that he was a traitor to the West because of this, or some such rubbish.) You may be thinking of Frank Bennett, the Australian that Crowley wrote Liber Samekh for... -999 05:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, Bennett definitely never called himself a Thelemite or accepted the Book of the Law. At least, it would shock me to discover that he did, since he broke with Crowley (without giving a reason, as far as I know) around the time that AC accepted the Book. (I don't know of any evidence that Crowley "tried to convert him", and I haven't seen this supposed "traitor" remark -- in fact, from what I've read, AC seems consistently respectful toward Bennett, unless you count general attacks on AC's own former religion of Buddhism.) And Crowley definitely referred to historical figures as members of the A.'. A.'. without giving verifiable proof, though I don't know if he ever used the word Thelemite for such people. Personally, I would remove Rabelais from the list as well. See Talk:Thelema. Dan 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
I sent you an e-mail through Wiki, could you let me know if you receive it? Thanks! - JMax555 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

heiroglyph fix
Don't thank me, thank User:BorgQueen who fixed it on the Ankh page telling me how to do it.

KV(Talk) 04:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

GD redirect
Thanks for the update, I thought the redirect was *part* of the edit war and not an end to it ;) --The One True Fred 23:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Magick
Thanks for the help with the references in the Magick article. I'm still a little confused about actual "References" and how they work. Another editor told me that References use the and format for References, but that doesn't seem to be the right way. Notes (footnotes) appear to go under the placeholder tag. For instance, the article on Natasha Demkina uses the footnote tags but puts them under References. Are that article's references structured wrong? - Dreadlocke 22:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And you know, I actually mixed together two of my references, I'm so glad you fixed it! I was planning on pulling another reference from philhine.org for the article, but mixed the thing up with the boudicca link in my reference template. Augh. Glad you saw that... :) - Dreadlocke 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic order of...
"I know that reverting a blocked user doesn't count against 3RR" I think in this case it would. I suggest you leave it alone for a day or so. If there is a consensus version, someone else will support it. If edit warring continues, I'll lock the page. I'm aware of the possibility that a blocked user may use sock puppets, so I'll watch for that. Tom Harrison Talk 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Abramelin oil/Archive 1 - speedy deletion requested
I've nominated this article for speedy deletion - you may want to comment on this --Xorkl000 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux
I was unaware he was blocked until now, as he has returned I am guessing, and he deleted a whole bunch of material that was cited on the hermetic golden dawn inc page. Zos 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Heads up (Here). Zos 04:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If he starts back up again, I'll report him to WP:ANI. I'd like to give him a fresh slate, and if he persist again, I'll ask forf help on the evidence. Zos 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
We've got a new one now, removing the links to other golden dawn factions. I think, if I'm not mistaken, I'm on revert 3. Zos 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The same user, Esoteric770 is also changing material from the HGD Inc page as well. I'm starting to think its Frater FiatLux again. Zos 20:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bug you again but...WikiWarrior69 just reverted again, and its the only thing that user has done. How can I proove that its the same person trying to escape the 3rr? Should I just provide the evidence to an admin? Zos 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is where I've reported him. I'm off for a few, so if he continues, please add to the report if you have time. Thanks. Zos 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordo Templi Orientis
I just noticed that the main article is using other encyclopedias as sources. I forgot where I found that this cant be done, but wat do you think? Zos 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your earlier edit to the OTO page on unsourced critique has been reverted as well. Looks like you have a full day. Zos 17:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * n/m you found it. Zos 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OTO
No, you must prove a link for Freemasonry (and I know quite alot about FM) and the OTO, and the subject as miss-represented had no citation in the first place. Imacomp 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp
Not sure if you notice or not, but everytime we make a comment on Imacomp's talk page, he deletes it. Zos 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We should be able to get him on the 3RR soon. Zos 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "All uncivil comments will be removed w/o reply. -999" Imacomp 02:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Zanoni666 / Kephera975|
Check this and thisout. Ehheh 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley
Im actually in awe now...Someone added a wealth of info to the crowley page, in the wrong place, and, you guessed it, none of it was cited. Do you think I should remove it to the talk page or question the user first? Zos 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Give 'em the third degree! No, seriously leave him alone but discuss on the talk page the terr'ble G.D. edit wars (you must overact the terr'ble part, like Jim Carey as the one-legged sailor in Unfortunate Events ;-) -999 (Talk) 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was by an anon user, and he/shes been warned already. I commented on their talk page. So eh.Zos 02:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

reverts
Somethings gotta be done about Frater FiatLux, I think I may have accidently reverted a fourth time in 24 hours, which sucks for me. We have to get a mediator on this, to end it. How do we do this? Zos 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Go to WP:DR. I think the Mediation Cabal would be the best first step. Also, if you put some effort into trying to resolve things of FFL's talk page, that can be used as evidence in a user conduct RfC... -999 (Talk) 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try later tonight. Zos 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice about a 3RR report
User:Opuaut has been indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Frater FiatLux, due to;
 * 1) The notice that used to be on the user's userpage.
 * 2) 3RR violation, reverting to material favoured by User:Frater FiatLux.

As a result of the block of the sockpuppet;
 * 1) User:Frater FiatLux has had his block time increased to 72 hours as of now.

If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what a community ban is, but when I figure it out, I'll post to wp:ANI. Zos 21:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what, I'm a moron. I know what community ban means now. I'll wait for one day, maybe...and request that all the other editors in the middle of this contribute to the wp:ANI. This will give it one day on the page, so it isnt done while Frater FiatLux is gone. I want him to be able to respond to it. I think thats only fair. Zos 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes its me. Imacomp 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuses
Excuse me, my fault. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
 * My excuses, the sockpuppet accounts I normally deal with go along other lines. I have reinserted the tag. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thelema template
I feel like such a moron right now. I forgot that that was the thelema tag for the template, I thought someone added that in for a different reason. Sorry, and thanks for restoring them! Zos 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Secret Rituals of the OTO
I cant find this book on amazon. Where did you find it? Zos 22:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * eBay maybe? It's long out of print. Goes for around $500 when you can find it... -999 (Talk) 03:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, check my contributions. I'm facing an admin who deleted an article of mine. And isnt willing to quote policy. This is rediculous. I've posted to wp:ani, and it was moved to the sandbox talk. Zos 03:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm interesting. Imacomp 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

HOGD Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, HOGD/A+O, HOGD Inc, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible..

Leadbeater
I notice the beginnings of an edit war over this article, and wanted to point out that it is wiser to leave contested material in the article and ask for citations by using tags. I myself disagree with your approach there but I thought it better to discuss here than to start yanking the article back and forth. Regards, Haiduc 03:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Mystery Tradition
Hi 999 and thank you for your welcome. Apologies about what must have seemed to be an edit war yesterday. I was unsure of what was taking place and finding my feet {Frater Sepa 15:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)}

Mediation
Please go and read my comments at the discussion page at the GD article. You are breaking mediation rules by changing the mediation file. I have explaned all this there.

Frater FiatLux 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediate the Mediation
Let Essjay know how you feel about this. Hes the chairman of the Mediation Committee. Let him know whats going on, as I have already on his talk page. We're gonna need you in mediation! Zos 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfM
Hi, I've edited the RfM on the GD article a few minutes ago. I have let Frater FiatLux know. I hope that this edit has resolved any of the issues relating to the RfM, if it hasn't then please let me know. I have also commented on Frater FiatLux's 3RR case, which you requested. I have suggested that there should not be a block, as it appears Frater FiatLux has misunderstood the nature of the RfM page, thinking that only the originial contributor may edit the thing, and also your edits were not incorrect (e.g. there is no User:Zos, so such an entry is incorrect). I hope you will accept my reasoning, and understand my actions. If you have any further problems regarding the RfM, then please contact me directly, either via e-mail or my talk page, so that the problem can be resolved without any conflict. --Wisd e n17 16:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the merits of the case, but I certainly would not agree with you regarding the 3RR. The reversions were caused by a misunderstanding combined with conflict which never go well together. WP:NOR is always a source of problems on Wikipedia, and the last case I mediated involved 8 people in disagreement over what constituted OR, so I know it can be a real problem on Wikipedia. Surely it would best in everyone's interests to get the mediation completed as quickly as possible? --Wisd e n17 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a quick addition, after I've just had a look at your latest edits to the RfM page. I understand that you are a bit frustrated with Frater FiatLux, and I can appreciate that. However, the issue about who to have as involved parties can be discussed as the first thing in the mediation. Obviously if people do not agree to the mediation then the mediation cannot take place, so I would urge you to reconsider you change in heart, and look to a mediation as being a good clearing of the air. --Wisd e n17 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to agree once objections to any of the other participants has been withdrawn. -999 (Talk) 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said any questions over who should participate can be included in the actual mediation, although it certainly is not an ideal situation. One thing you have to bear in mind is that mediations are not as effective when there are a number of contributors. Mediators may decide to have only two people involved in the mediation (allowing each 'side' to have a spokesperson). This is to try and stop the mediation becoming too lengthy, and to try and focus the mediation. This is in no way trying to defend the exclusion of a particular user, but to give you another angle to think about. Do you think that this extra person will add a lot to the mediation, or is it a case of this person merely reinforcing the rest of one side's views? Like I said the mediator, whoever that may be (I shall recuse myself from this case now, as I have become quite invovled already) may choose to have only the two 'voices' in the mediation. If this happens would this affect your view on having an extra partcipant? The fact that there is a RfM suggests that there has been a certain amount of disagreement over a number of issues for a relatively long time. For everyone's interests it is best to try and get this case mediator as soon as possible, so I would urge you to consider the points I've made above, and decide whether you would still be interested in the mediation. --Wisd e n17 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

confirmation section
I had requested that Essjay, the chairman of the MedCom, help Frater FiatLux fix the confirmation section. Under user page, its not listing where he addressed the topic at all. Zos 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to let you know that I've fixed that now. --Wisd e n17 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just letting him know so he didnt attempt it :p Zos 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources Fully
Again you use a non-existent *rule* to support your own view. There is no *policy* that you *must* cite page numbers. That sort of tactic might work on some people, but not me. If you want to try to beat someone with a rule, quote the rule exactly, don't attempt to badly paraphrase (read twist) it to suit yourself. Thank you and have a nice day. Wjhonson 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar
Hes starting a revert war. So heads up. Zos 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that its over the OTO article. Zos 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributer; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I know you've had quite a bit of conflict with User:Frater FiatLux, but making direct personal attacks on him will not improve the situation in any way. I recommend that you just leave him alone and focus on the content of the matter in question instead of insulting him. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to your recent edit summary, I am asking that you cease all attacks on other users. Comment on content, not on contributors. If you do not stop the attacks, you will be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia, to prevent the attacks from continuing. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, you must not add comments to the Issues to be mediated on the RfM. Comments such as impossible should not be added. With regard to the sockpuppet checks I've struck-through all of them as this is not for a mediation. All sockpuppet check requests should be at WP:RFCU where you can request the sockpuppet checks relating to this case. It would be best if any more comments are added to the request to let me or another member of the committee remove them, otherwise the conflict between you and Frater will escalate. I would advise contacting me if you think something should be looked at, as opposed to simply doing it yourself. --Wisd e n17 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit other user's user pages
Please do not edit other user's user pages without their consent. If Frater is a satanist, he can declare that on his own if he wants. If he isn't, then the claim may possibly be considered an insult, so it would be best to simply leave that matter alone. Once again, I recommend that you try to avoid possible controversial contact with Frater and instead focus on the mediation instead of the user. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)