User talk:LucaviX

Constantine Bio
Thanks for your support. 20 Aug 2005

Personhood theory
I assume it was you editing person as 66.92.131.66? Anyway, it would be good if the term "personhood theory" could be introduced, instead of just used as if the reader is familiar with it. Tell us who supports it, when it sprung up, etc.... Evercat 14:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't touched person for a long time. Anyway, I don't think that's my IP, but I'm not sure. --Lucavix 23:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

WOW! I just looked at personhood theory and a LOT has been added. Whoever typed it has a clear transhumanist slant (not that this is a bad thing but minor regulations may be needed) but it seems pretty interesting. Anyway Personhood theory is a collective theory, the first to use it were arguably in the field of medical psychiatry, particularly those who argued against the idea that personhood depended entirely on physical mechanisms in the brain. Later it became more common among those who accept physical mechanisms in personhood. I'm not sure who coined the terms Personhood theory but I do have a lot of collogues in my field who take a great deal of interest in Personhood, particularly trying to understand what it is and how it develops. I may tend to have too much of a conservative slant on the issue to objectively write an article on it myself (particularly when it comes to infants). --Lucavix 00:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hecate and Neo-Pagan animal sacrifice
Please document your allegations of Neo-Pagan animal sacrifice or cult-like behavior in the Hecate article by citing a reputable source in the references section; meanwhile I have moved the portion including "Most sects that include worship of Hecate are considered cults, even by Neopagan standards" to Talk:Hecate. Please also read Neutral point of view before making similar edits in future. --Nantonos 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I lack any sources that I can actually cite. I let my neopagan friends include most of the information and then copy-edit it a bit. There was a special on Animal Planet that dealt with animal sacrifices to both Aries and Hecate by a cult, but I have no way to verify that. I have no objection to removing mention of animal sacrifices personally. --Lucavix 21:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Person again
Help me out here. I was thinking that all of anon's edits in this chunk: might be candidates for removal since they really seem too tangential and would be better placed elsewhere. What do you think? Evercat 12:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I agree with you but I'm staying out of personhood for now, I'm a bit too old fashoned for it. --Lucavix 18:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing Tartaric Demonology
I removing the section entitled Tartaric Demonology under the article Demonology. I understand what you are trying to say, sadly you lack any cited references. The practice you describe does indeed occur and is well dealt with under the article Demonolatry. The practices you are describing is the worship of demons.

This part of the section also creates some NPOV problems.

''Tartaric Demonology, though practiced, is extremely uncommon and may be no more than delusion on the part of those who practice it. In its most tantalizing and outrageous forms it is much more common in the works of fiction than in reality. Some literature, most written to be intentionally blasphemous and offensive, have also held examples of Tartaric Demonology but such examples should not always (if ever) be taken seriously.''

Any questions or comments can be directed to the discussion page or my page. --Chaoscrowley 08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

X in Neopaganism
I noticed you have contributed to a lot of "X in Neopaganism" sections in articles. What are the sources of the information you are adding to these sections? I've found what look to me to be some serious inaccuracies in these sections, so this information will be deleted if it can't be verified through reference to reliable sources. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:31034180A.jpg requires attention
Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:31034180A.jpg, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as GFDL-presumed. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these GFDL-presumed image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:31034180A.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:31034180A.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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)