User talk:Ptdecker/Archive 3

Book of Tokens
No problem at all, and thanks for the note!!! --Jason Richards 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tarot edit
Hey there. Just so there's no confusion, I didn't mean to revert your additions just now. I intended to revert the anonymous user's edits but I didn't realize you had made an edit just before I had saved mine. Sorry about that. Sam 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just trying to clean up some things and resolve the concerns of Smiloid if possible.--P Todd 16:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On a slightly different subject, please don't post messages for users (even anonymous ones) on talk pages, per Talk page guidelines. Comments about behavior of users should be posted to their talk pages.  I realize it's frustrating to try to communicate with anonymous IP editors who don't seem to have the best of intentions, but otherwise the talk page gets filled with discussions of user behavior and not - as it is supposed to be - solely interaction between editors who are proposing specific changes to the article.  Thanks.  John Broughton  |  Talk 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the clarification.  I debated doing just that (the right thing); however, I also debated that the fellow (gal?) would just come in under a different IP and not see my talk posting on the others.   But, your right, I'll shift my thinking.--P Todd 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome; I appreciate the response. I think I do understand your reasoning - it's one reason I don't bother to post to anon talk pages if the account has done just one edit in its lifetime (what I think of as a hit-and-run edit).  Still, those who have bad intentions rarely read article talk pages anyway, and if they do, tend to ignore comments directed at them.  John Broughton  |  Talk 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Assault on Precinct 13/John Carpenter
I have reverted your edit to the John Carpenter article. There was really no reason to cut two substantial paragraphs from the AOP 13 section of the Carpenter page. As I argued on the Carpenter talk page, other films discussed in the article also have similar production information. Furthermore, one of the paragraphs you pasted into the AOP 13 article was nearly identical to a section of the "critical reception and reassessment" paragraph (I know because I wrote both sections).

Sullenspice 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. In my opinion it cleaned it up, but I can tell you have more passion engaged in leaving it as is.--P Todd 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lock and Dam No. 23
I was working on a List of locks and dams of the Upper Mississippi River and I wasn't able to find Lock and Dam No. 23 on the Mississippi River. I was wondering if it is a historical facility that was demolished or planned for future construction. If not, please place a db-author tag on the article so that it can be deleted. I can't find anything about it and the Upper Mississippi River article says it doesn't exist. Thanks. --Dual Freq 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a good question that I don't have the knowledge neccessary to say.  I could find no reference to it.--P Todd 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So is it cool if I delete it, then? Kafziel Talk 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that and would defer to Dual Freq for final confirmation. He has spent some wonderful time fleshing out the set of articles, so should probably give his input too.--P Todd 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He originally marked it for deletion, but I asked him to check with you first since you were the original author. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and do it. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it--my apology for being slow. Thank you for taking care of it.--P Todd 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tarot cards
Parsa and myself have been have been placing the NPOV tags on the cards. See the talk page at Talk:The World (Tarot card) Since tarot cards were not designed for the occult, the placement of "occult" stub tags does constitute POV and ignores tarot's gaming heritage. These individual card pages offer nothing more than occult speculations and perhaps should be deletedSmiloid 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. Do we have to have two versions of every card too... one for the game and one for the divination purposes for you to be satisfied??--P Todd 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated all those articles on individual "minor arcana" cards for deletion as some Wikipedians think it absurd and would never be encyclopeadic nor anything more than a stub. You are doing work. I will copy your balancing efforts for the "major" articles which perhaps should be kept.Smiloid 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hermeticism
As you and I are the only ones to respond to my proposal that the As Above, So Below article be merged into the Hermeticism article, I guess we can say that there is a consensus for the merge. Do you feel comfortable performing said merger, or would you prefer that I do it? If the latter, what content do you want to see merged, and what can be "left behind," so to speak? --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with you. I'll go ahead and make the merge assuming that's okay with you; however, probably will do it sometime this Thanksgiving weekend.--P Todd (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge completed.--P Todd (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)