User talk:Stealthepiscopalian

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 and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Alabaster Crow (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thelema and NPOV
Um, please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thelema is a lot broader than Crowley, which is accurately reflected in the article. Then read Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The material you keep removing from the article represents a valid, cited viewpoint. Then read Wikipedia's vandalism policy, especially with respect to the deletion of information. Then you might want to read the archives of the article talk page where there exist previous discussions about just the material you keep removing. Then, read your first official warning, which follows... Alabaster Crow (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of cited material from Thelema
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Alabaster Crow (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thelema and Mahendranath
Hey there. I notice you charge this Nath guy with making false claims. Can you point me towards the proof you mention?

Note by the way that Alabaster Crow was another sockpuppet of my old friend "999". Dan (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this at Talk:Thelema, but it bears repeating: if you really have evidence that Mahendranath never met Crowley, you should edit Aiwass to reflect this. Dan (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to deleted articles
Deleted articles should not be recreated. To discourage recreation, they should not be wikilinked. If you believe that the names removed from Thelema are actually notable, then they must have a citation to that effect when you return them to the article. All material in WIkipedia must be verifiable. The sentence is making a claim of notability and a citation is required to support that claim. If you believe the articles were improperly deleted, take the issue to Deletion review. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of cited material from Aleister Crowley
The material you keep removing from the article represents a valid, cited viewpoint. This is the third time I've requested that you take the matter to talk. Please read about revision vandalism. Dara Allarah (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589244972 your edit] to A∴A∴ may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ===The Order of the S. S. ===

Exactly how are lineages unacceptable?
Dear Stealthepiscopalian,

Could you please explain how links to various lineages of the order unacceptable? You mention a talk page, but there is no link to it. Various lineage links have been posted on the A.'.A.'. page for many years, without bias and in the fraternal spirit of cooperation. Your edits seem to work directly against that, linking only one particular lineage. In my opinion, this is very much biased and I request that you provide exact justification for your actions.

Sincerely,

Soror Svetlonos — Preceding unsigned comment added by SororSvetlonos (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley
I removed because it's been superseded by. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Foster Case
Good catch. AWB checks for quotations, but if quotation marks are not paired in a paragraph, it doesn't look like a quotation to AWB. I'll try to keep my eyes peeled. Chris the speller  yack  18:11, 17 July 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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wankers
Oh my god the vanity of trolls - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1vKDM7wfiA

February 2016
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. --John (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. I have been discussing this with my colleagues at the Univ. of Oregon (check the IP and Wikipedia policy regarding multiple users from academic institutions). Because they have been reverting does not mean I have. Please don't make categorical statements as above, when they are in fact false.
 * That doesn't actually matter. See also WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASSING. --John (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * -) of course not, why would the truth or academic agreement have anything to do with it.

Reading through all the Wiki policies I am still at a loss to see where I erred. I certainly didn't do the 3 reverts necessary. Oh well I guess Wikipedia is subject to the same kinds of arbitrary politics and petty tyrannies as any group. So much for neutral POVS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)


 * Really? I thought I had clearly explained where you went wrong. When you discussed this with your colleagues and encouraged them to come here and revert, you broke WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASSING (linked above) and per a previous request for arbitration decision, this is treated identically to you making the reverts yourself. The magic number that guarantees a block is 4 in 24 hours, not 3, but three is not an entitlement and it is quite possible to be blocked for fewer than this. I have also warned your opponent about edit-warrring. The reason I have blocked you and not him is that, while you were both edit-warring, you also engaged in illegal canvassing practices (or logged out and made the reverts yourself; I don't care which it is and it makes no difference as I explained above). By repeatedly signalling that you do not understand what you have done wrong you make it impossible for me to unblock you early and worry me that you will be going right back to the same misbehaviour when your block expires. I will be keeping an eye on you to ensure this doesn't happen. --John (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah hopefully I will figure it out at some point. Stealthepiscopalian 11:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian
 * Yes, it's a steep learning curve. As your block is about to expire, would you like me to help you to figure out a solution to your dispute? If you do, I will shortly start a new discussion at the article talk. If you don't want to and instead decide to move on and edit other areas, that is fine too and no hard feelings from me either way. I am sorry I had to block you and I offer a collegiate hand to you if you wish to avail yourself of my offer. --John (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am actually not surewhat was going on. By my reading of reliability standards all the links to other wikipedia pages were sound. The identity of these people is not, mostly in question, so I don't know why the linking was removed. Jayaguru-Shishya originally was saying that there was no correlation on the linked Wikipedia pages such as Amun, and Gerard Encausse when clearly there was. Then Jayaguru-Shishya said that they wanted to nominate the article for deletion. Most of the attempts to provide citation were more or less immediately reverted by Jayaguru-Shishya with only a vague assertion that the sources weren't reliable. I don't see how it's in doubt that Mosheh is Mosheh and even if it were, citations have been given in the Wikipedia article where that Mosheh correlated to Mosheh. It looks like vandalism to me, but I'm no expert. I see no reason that the names mentioned in the list shouldn't be linked to the relevant articles on those persons, what else use is there for such an article list if it doesn't do this? Stealthepiscopalian 21:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian

WP:SPI
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Stealthepiscopalian. Thank you. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My wife and I share a IP, which is in no way prohibited by Wikipedia. Beyond that this is a false accusation. I find it amazing that I am made the victim of such harrassment by you - I think your actions really need to be reported and your account blocked. Stealthepiscopalian 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian