User talk:Rodneyorpheus

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Will in China (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Thanks for the warm welcome Will, much appreciated!--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
If there is any article which has been deleted which you feel should not have been, you can take it to Deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.35.120 (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"in medieval times there was only one Christian church"
Not quite. See Nestorianism, Three Chapters, Great Schism, Catharism, Western Schism, Hussites for examples of division among Christians. 216.8.134.175 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Thanks! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

93!
I noticed you editing the Noname Jane article. Nice to see you here. --BenBurch (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ben! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:DuQuette My Life Cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:DuQuette My Life Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Εω (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OTO Criticisms Section
There should be some consideration regarding the OTO entry's criticism's section. In particular the entire bit about certain former "high ranking" members calling for leadership changes needs to be reconsidered. The OTO has been criticized before for this and other matters; one man's opinion shouldn't make that big a difference. As you're a better judge of these things, I'll leave it to you. But it is worth contemplating. Eyes down, human. (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really not quite sure what you are suggesting here. Could you elaborate please? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agape Lodge, Jack Parsons, etc.
Hi, a few topics. Thanks for the Frieda Harris edit. Have gone over most of the Thelema articles with edit sweeps and additions (except for just minor edits on a few of the larger ones which are well handled). Just noticed that Agape Lodge doesn't have a page, do you know someone who can put one up and do it justice? Parsons page, in some respects, is very small compared with his place in two or three tracks of recent history, if you could take a look at it maybe you will catch a thing or two dozen I've missed in the Babalon Working data. Not to be too long, glad you are here. Standard close, Aleister Wilson (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could add quite a bit to those articles, thanks for suggesting it. Unfortunately I'm working away from home at the moment without easy access to my reference books, so it'll have to wait a few weeks... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the road trip. I've added a page for "Mass of the Phoenix", a small stub for now, and will enlarge it a bit and let a few people know it's there during the next few days, but please consider adding it to your 'to look at and maybe work on' agenda. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another, if time permits. Abyss, an article which needs work as well. Just added it to the Thelema series template, and did a quick work over on it. Has a questionable section, a "Recent view" which you may want to keep or delete depending on its accuracy to your knowledge. Again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And one more. I've been cleaning up and adding to Sex magick, and if you have time come and improve the page. A great deal of Crowley data is on it. On the discussion page a couple of editors were trying to get rid of it, so I figure go the opposite way and expand it to a very large article with a great deal of data from many disciplines. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw your note at sex magic, and the good people you mentioned. Would be nice to have others working to make this page one of the very good ones. With the pages I've linked it to (mostly in their See also section) in the last few days the hits on it have gone from 350 or so to over 2,000 and hopefully climbing. Others to probably add (and a Reading list would be one way for some of their books) would be Christopher Hyatt and the other authors at New Falcon and Original Falcon. Another item, someone put an external link at Boleskine House that goes to a half-hour BBC Scotland documentary on Google about AC and Boleskine House. Might be a fun watch. Aleister Wilson (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wiccan editor is rumbling through the AC page with an edit sweep in the last couple of days, removing data and adding data, with no discussion on the talk page. Some of the edits seem fine, but what concerns me is that he is one of those who argued that a Sex magick link to Wiccan "See also" pages had no relevance to the subject (see the long discussion held quite a few weeks ago on the Wicca talk page), so, to me, his knowledge of Wicca is lacking some very important data--and hence his personal practice and advice to students and friends also may have a particular lack of knowledge--and my concern is that if he wants to edit sweep an article such as Crowley's his bias against some of Crowley's main teachings may cloud his editing ability on the entire subject. Please take a look at his edits and see if most, all, some, or none of them (a revert until discussed on the talk page) fit the page. Thanks, and good work recently, Aleister Wilson (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

English Citizendium
Dear Rodney Orpheus: It is great to see your contributions in the Wiki article on OTO. Would you mind participating in the writing of the Citizendium OTO article? It could use some love and guidance from an expert such as yourself. Cheers, An OTO member (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would love to, but Wikipedia already takes a lot of my time. But the article here is Creative Commons licensed, so you could grab some bits of it and re-use if you want... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Rodneyorpheus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Traute Lafrenz -

Well done
Just noticed your name, well done on the recent article in Pentacle! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Thank you, much appreciated! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sex Magic
"Thelema Press" is now called "Glorian Publishing"; similar to the name "Thelema Publications" (which rang a bell). If you know of a template that's more focused on undue weight, as opposed to a POV dispute, please feel free to switch the tag. Thanks again.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hail Satan (book)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hail Satan (book), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fraternitas Saturni
Dear rodneyorpheus,

you asked for citation of the claim, that in the 1950´s the FS was regarded as the largest german magical brotherhood. Fact is, that there is no other known working order in that time. The OTO was out of function in Germany (P. Koenig has documented this very well, even if his commentaries are more or less useless), and no other brotherhood has left any signs in history. But the FS had documented around 100 active members in 1957, the time of its installation as "Grand-Lodge" (vgl. publications by F. Haack, P. Koenig, and the FS itself). This dwindeled in the following years, especially after Gregorius´ death, but the claim can be made for the 1950.

For the actual FS I have deleted the claim. Instead I repeated the statement from the german WP-page that the membership doubled with the incorporation of the GAG into the FS, as I don´t have information about the membership scale of the other orders in Germany. Greetings -- Darkravenwise (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, but on Wikipedia "facts" are irrelevant unless you can show verifiable evidence of such. I'm quite sure that you are correct, but it doesn't matter what you and I think, what matters is what can be proven. That's why I added the tag. Unfortunately you can't use one Wikipedia page to provide verification for another either, so it really doesn't matter what the German page says unless it has a good citation to prove it. And you are right to say that Koenig's commentaries are useless. He has compiled a lot of data, but so much of it is false or mistranslated or misinterpreted that it's hard to know what's real there or not. It's certainly not able to withstand any rigorous inspection.


 * I'm very glad you are working on that page, do keep up the good work! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I´ll do my very best to improve the site neutrally and keep it informative for the english-speaking world. And thank you very much, for correcting my sometimes too german english... ;-) -- Darkravenwise (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Emmel
Hi. Thank you for your note. I've restored Stephen Emmel. I'm sorry I didn't look more closely at the article's history before deleting it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Malik, much appreciated! Keep up the good work sir! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss
Hello sir! I hope I'm not bothering you, it's just that I got very interested in "Thelemism" for a long time, and it's the first time I meet a Themelite on the web, so I just ask if you would like to discuss with me as I've got a few questions. Oh, yes, I saw on the Book of the Law page, "written by Aleister Crowley" though in the French version it is written "written (or received) by Aleister Crowley". If it's so clear here, why isn't it written on the Qur'an page "written by Mohammed"? Do you agree that the French version is better, or do you think the Liber av vel Legis has only been written (verse I:36 and I:54 seem to contradict that idea) by Aleister Crowley, out of his own mind? Sincere greetings, --Rabbie Barns (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is hardly the place the place for such discussion. But since Wikipedia is a encyclopedia based on facts, and the fact is that Aleister Crowley physically wrote the Book of the Law, I see nothing inaccurate about the assertion in the article.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy/paste at Richard Kaczynski
Your addition to Richard Kaczynski has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I take copyright violation very seriously too, and I take great offence of being accused of this. What precisely am I being accused of? What copyright infringement have I engaged in? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You copy/pasted from the subject's C.V., including the numbering and the tabs rather than spaces. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Listing the titles of someone's works is NOT a copyright violation, so please refrain from accusing me of criminal behaviour. I DID copy the titles from his publicly available CV, that's entirely acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. I realise you are trying to edit in good faith here to improve the article, please assume I am doing likewise - there's no reason to be confrontational about this.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are going to copy/paste a C.V., then you must manually fix the formatting to comply with the Manual of Style. Don't be lazy. Yworo (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not trying to be lazy, just hadn't finished the formatting yet... If you look at most of my edits over the past years you'll see I spent a lot of time fixing formatting, because it annoys the hell out of me just as much as it does you :-) --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Religious categories
Our biographies of living people is explicit about the placement of religious and sexual orientation categories. The article must cite an explicit statement of self-identification by the subject. No inferences are allowed to be made. Yworo (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ordo Templi Orientis U.S.A. is the U.S. Grand Lodge (National Section) of Ordo Templi Orientis, a hierarchical, religious membership organization. Our mission is to effect and promote the doctrines and practices of the philosophical and religious system known as Thelema," (http://oto-usa.org/mission.html). So people who have publicly stated they are members of OTO are by definition Thelemites, just as people who are members of the Southern Baptist Church are by definition Christians. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To understand the reason for this, as you well know, clergy can be false to their outer vestments. Remember Cardinal Rampolla? I've been involved with the BLP noticeboard for some time. The attitude about religious categories is that we can't even say the Pope is Catholic unless he does. Take it up at the noticeboard. Yworo (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, just two months ago, when Yworo was asked to produce a source in which the Pope states that he is Catholic, his response was "self-identification does not have to be a verbal or written "I am a Buddhist" or "I am a Catholic"". He even called such a request a "stupid argument". 174.99.127.20 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my position that you linked to. The noticeboard position is stricter than mine. However, in this case, the organization in question explicitly states that it does not restrict members religious beliefs. But thanks so much for butting in, stalker. Yworo (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Asking someone to conform to Wikipedia's BLP noticeboard position is a "stupid argument". OK, as long as we're clear about that. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you continue to stalk me with the intent to harass me while having conversations with other editors, I will take the matter to AN/I. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop personalizing this, Yworo. I am entitled to leave a message on any editor's talk page. And you seem to have forgotten: among my collection of diffs are ten instances within a couple of hours in which you stalked me to articles I selected at random So please ... be my guest ... please do report this as stalking. Another of your self-created policies. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:HOUND: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." That's what you are doing. You don't have a watchlist, so you are repeatedly checking my contributions to follow me. Yworo (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, pot calling the kettle black. I suggest that you read WP:HOUND. Do you think I really don't have the diffs? Go ahead ... report my leaving a simple message on an editor's talk page as "hounding". 174.99.127.20 (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about the issue, here: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Yworo (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Independent sourcing
Event announcements are made on behalf of the subject by an organization with a financial interest in the event. The speaker blurbs are usually written by the speaker themselves and are self-promoting. Yes, they are third-party but they are not independent. And they do not help establish notability. That requires a independent third-party report or review of the lecture or lecturer. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I see where you are coming from now - my apologies for misunderstanding. Will look for some independent reviews instead then. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I hate to ask, but I noticed that you have been editing your own article. Are you aware of our conflict of interest policy? As a "leading member" of OTO, I don't think you should be editing any related articles, especially your own. Typically, those with a declared conflict of interest voluntarily restrict themselves to making suggestions, providing sources, and pointing out errors in the article on the article talk page. Your recent good faith but incorrect interpretation of our biographies of living people, especially with respect to religious categories on articles, makes me really question whether you can edit objectively about these subjects. As you are Deputy National Grand Master of the UK branch of the organization, some of your activities seem to be verging on promotional. While you technically didn't register a "vote" in the Kaczynski deletion discussion, policy says that you shouldn't vote in deletion discussions in which you may have a conflict of interest (fellow member of your organization). You should explicitly state your conflict on interest on your user page and in that deletion discussion. To clarify, I have no problem with you editing general articles on Thelema, Magick, etc. just Ordo Templi Orientis, the articles of other members and your own article. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the Discussion page on the article about me, you'll see that I go into this issue in some depth. You'll also no doubt realise that I am a Wikipedia editor with several years and many, many edits to my credit. If you also follow the discussions I have participated in you will also hopefully notice that in that time I have built up a reputation for fairness and dedication in my work here. I have always clearly and openly declared any possible conflict of interest that I may have before making any edits. As reagrds OTO membership, I specifically point that out at the top of my User page, and in any Discussion pages where the fact may be relevant. I don't see that it is particularly relevant in most cases - we don't say that Roman Catholics can't edit any articles about Christianity or people who are Christians, do we? However I would rather err on the side of caution so I am meticulous in citing third-party sources in any articles I edit, to ensure that no-one thinks that I am presenting my own point of view, or that of any organisation of which I am a member. Up until now, no-one else seems to have had a problem with this. However, if you have a problem with any particular edits I have performed, do please suggest improvements, that's how Wikipedia gets better. Also I didn't "vote" in the Kaczinski discussion, because Wikipedia doesn't work by voting, but by consensus building, as you are no doubt well aware. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You made a comment without specifying a keep or delete !vote. But you have made no indication to the admin closing the discussion that you have a conflict of interest. If you are going to participate in the discussion, you need to state that you and Kaczynski share a fraternal membership, which is not at all the same thing as professing the same religion, making the Christianity comparison nothing more than a straw man argument. But, man oh man, they keep changing things around here. The COI page used to say not to participate in related deletion discussions, now it says not to vote for deletion of your competitor's articles. Crazy, that. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, let's make a more exact comparison: would it be wrong for a Freemason to edit an article or participate in a discussion about Ben Franklin? Or a living person who happens to also be a Freemason? Would it be wrong for a member of the Republican Party to edit an article about Newt Gingrich? I do hope we're not going to reduce this to some kind of witch hunt based on the fraternal or religious membership of editors. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with either the Ben Franklin or Newt Gingrich example. In the Freemason example, I'd have to ask, are they members of the same Lodge and friends (or enemies). How big is OTO? Article says about 1200 members worldwide. A Freemason where I live in unlikely to know many Freemasons in other cities and states.  If they don't know each other, there is much less of a problem (for most people). I think a good question to ask, have you ever had a beer, wine, scotch (or non-alcoholic beverage if you don't drink) with Kaczynski? Been to his house? Has he been to yours? Do you consider him a friend, a close friend? Because our conflict of interest policy covers editing articles about your friends and associates. It's not about religion, and I'm not sure why you should suggest that, since the OTO FAQ states OTO is not a religion and does not dictate religious affiliation to its members (unless that is not really true). It's just that the smaller the organization, the more likely editing will turn into mutual back-scratching... Back to the Gingrich example, if the Republican in question happens to be a staff member at Gingrich's office, or at the office of somebody running against him in a primary, then again, we have a problem. Yworo (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Oh, also, I had a small dispute with Rosecomet about reliable sourcing and started a thread on the RS noticeboard, Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I figure you might want to chime in.

I also want to make sure you understand my position about things. I have nothing against magic, magicians, OTO or any other organization. While I don't believe in these things, I don't disbelieve in them either. I think Wikipedia should certainly have articles on every notable magician, occultist, etc. But I do strongly feel we should not have articles on non-notable ones. With your involvement in the area, you will see people as notable within the community who are simply not notable outside the community and in those cases the required level of reliable sourcing will simply not exist. I think Kaczynski and Eshelman fall into this category. When I am proven wrong as I was on the Lionel Snell deletion discussion, I am happy to help further source and improve the article. I think we can work together, and I am only taking issues to the noticeboard so we can all get on the same page with respect to the increasingly strict policies on biographies of living people. Take a look at the sources I've added on Phil Hine, Ray Sherwin, and Chaos magic. They were extremely poorly sourced to fringy sources. Ray Sherwin's article was so bad I proposed it for deletion, another instance in which I was proven wrong. A quick search revealed sources from Oxford and Cambridge University Presses which were not even listed as further reading! There have been a lot of reliable sources on chaos magic published since 2006. I was surprised! Yworo (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "another instance in which I was proven wrong" — you make it sound like it happens so rarely. It's like you're aware of the existence of many policies but often use them in a really twisted manner, like when you removed two of Ray Sherwin's most famous books from his bibliography in his own article, because they're "self-published"; or when you accused another editor (with an official template and all) of copyright infringement for copypasting a list of titles; or when you insist that primary sources are not reliable sources about the subject itself. You've been trying to paint yourself as some sort of a policy expert but you're not, and you should consider yourself to be on an equal level with those that are actually familiar with the subjects of the articles, being quasi-savvy about Wikipedia's technicalities doesn't make you more authoritative. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say. At least one assumption you've made in your rant is completely false. I'll let you guess which one. Yworo (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Service award
I just happened to notice that your last edit was exactly your 2000th edit, which entitles you to this service award. Other forms of this same award can be found at WP:SERVICE if you prefer a userbox or a ribbon or something different. Yworo (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd guessed you'd prefer the little red book. Glad to see I was right. BTW, we are very close on Kaczynski. I suspect there may be a good mainstream review published in another language than English, but I'm afraid that most of my French, German & Hebrew studies have evaporated over time. Perhaps you could query some of your international associates about whether they know of any. One more good in-depth mainstream review, in whatever language, and I will change my !vote to keep, though I can't withdraw the nom as there are some delete votes. Yworo (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for pointing that out, much appreciated! I think I can find a couple more decent reviews that will work, and then as you say we'll have something that works well. I do appreciate your working so hard to improve articles here. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thelemite
I know you are the subject, but do please add text and citations to support the inclusion of a religious category to both Rodney Orpheus and List of Thelemites. While we allow the subject to add referenced material to the article, we don't allow the subject to simply act as a primary source by adding unsupported material to the article. Wikipedia editors reviewing the article should only have to check citations, not check the history to see if the information requiring citation was added by the subject. Yworo (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm a Thelemite. Reference this page :-) Or reference either of my two books, I believe I specifically mention in the introduction to each of them that I'm a Thelemite. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't use Wikipedia pages as references, even articles; I'm sure you know that. You are in a better position to add, I don't have copies of your books so can't find the page numbers. :-) Yworo (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things
Hello, long time no "see". The Crowley page (and many of the related pages) have been edited by IP's and other minor-edits users without you or Dan or other "old guard" users checking the data or reverting back to older versions. Maybe that would be worth a bit of time.

There is also an interesting discussion about the Stele going on here, at Above Top Secret]. One of the points is that in the Wikipedia article on the stele it states that the stele was moved "around 1902" from the museum that Crowley says he saw it in in 1904. Many of the people interested in AC at Above Top Secret have logged into this thread, so it is a place to add your knowledge as well as to see if the factual data is correct or has gone astray. Thanks again, and hope all goes well and life is a bowl of cherries or mangos or something. Aleister Wilson 11:38 18-4-'12 (UTC)

Deletion of Crowley pics
There is an attempt going on to delete many Crowley pics, please ] And the Crowley page itself has noone actually keeping an eye on it, and lots of IPs are playing. That's a page that should be protected. And how have you been? Nobody writes you here, we come and go at r5andom times. Thanks again. Aleister Wilson 9:11 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making me aware of this, I will look into the copyright status and try to get a clear answer asap. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Crowley pictures
Hi there- based on what you said at the Commons deletion discussion, I've uploaded some of the pictures to the English Wikipedia. See my recent comments on the Crowley talk page- two have been added to the article, a third has not. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's great work, thank you for looking after this! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with some Crowleyan images
Dear Mr Orpheus; I have recently pulled the Aleister Crowley page up to GA status, and am currently engaged in doing the same for Wilfred Talbot Smith, but the reviewer (User:J Milburn) has highlighted some problems with a number of images that I had been using in the article. Being aware of your background knowledge in Thelemic history, I am turning to you in the hope that you might be able to help sort this situation out. I hoped to include an image of Jane Wolfe in the image, but J Milburn has highlighted that we need better sourcing on the File:Jane Wolfe Cefalù.jpg image. If you could possibly lend a hand here, that would be fantastic, as I'm a bit stumped. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

William Breeze
Hi. Just a quick question about the OTO/William Breeze. Do you know if he is an "official" freemason, ie - United Grand Lodge of England? I have removed the category English Freemasons from his article because I can't find any evidence. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The same goes for your own article at Rodney Orpheus for that matter. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not a Freemason. As regards William Breeze I have seen no evidence that he is either. Removing that category was entirely correct.

Coin discussion
The editor who originally posted your edits to the COIN noticeboard forgot to notify you, so I am doing so in the notice below.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, much appreciated! Rodneyorpheus (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Mysticism
Hi, I've put my name down my this, it's under discussion over at the Wikiproject proposals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Mysticism. I was wondering if you'd care to sign up for it. Bmcollier (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Orpheus Business1.jpg


The file File:Orpheus Business1.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused personal photo. Out of scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)