Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:18, 17 December 2006

999 is away on vacation in until 2 January 2007 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Disclaimer

I reserve the right to remove any comment w/o reply. If you are an admin, please simply say so and I will leave your message if you wish. If you are not an admin, please don't attempt to tell me how to edit or how I should or shouldn't communicate with other users. If you do not agree with this, please don't post on my talk page, but rather communicate on the talk page of the article(s) involved. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

Magick

In your recent talk to me you said

You misunderstand me. I am not arguing for any particular position. I am simply describing the current state of affairs, as made clear in the disambiguation at the top of the article, Magick. However, Crowley did coin the term, the article is about his beliefs and writings on the topic, and other's use of the term may or may not be orthogonal to his.

If you think things should be changed, you'll need to follow Misplaced Pages process to argue for those changes with the current editors of the articles involved. As it stands, the general overview article on what you call Magick and what the dictionary lists as magic is Magic (paranormal). That's simply the state of things, and it is best to observe the distinctions arrived at by the consensus of previous editors. -999 (Talk) 16:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand. You are being rather fundamentalist and seem to have your own misunderstanding. Then you disclaim responsibility.

You are essentially saying that anything non-Thelema or non-Crowley is non-Magick. You are recommending that all other Magick goes to Magic (paranormal). But there is nothing paranormal about the rest of the Western Mystery Tradition, or Eastern Mystery Tradition, and this is my point.

Crowley did not invent the spelling of Magick, as others have already proven in the talk pages for the article using the word etymology. He just used the archaic spelling as a way to distinguish - and became (in)famous. It's similar to the convention of using A.D. for dates if you are Christian and C.E. for dates if you are non-sectarian and a scholar. Someday some scholar will infect the public mind with that meme and the masses will think this one smart guy invented an inclusive way to record historical dates.

But even if we take your stand, Crowley drew from both Western and Eastern Mystery Tradition. The Western Mystery Tradition is a vast underground stream that unites the more specific traditions of Thelema, Wicca, Celtic and other Folk Magick, the Grail stuff, the Faery stuff, and even outer religious practices that only initiates really understand. Thelema is one bubbling spring connected to the entirety through that underground stream.

You're also saying that it's best to observe consensus of those who came before. This is pretty much exactly like a fundamentalist of any dogmatic religion would say to any problematic person with a brain to think and question. You're saying submit to dogma and don't think for myself.

Also I think the "editors who have come before" just judging from the talk pages are in disagreement with you about the distinction and you are maintaining an "iron fist" policy over this article to keep it only about what you know. That's in direct contravention to what wikipedia is about.

Again, the best solution would be to make Magick a general index term and take your Thelema to a more specific level underneath it. Magick should probably itself be categorized under Western Mystery Tradition, as it's mostly the West that takes the active path up the Tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpehrson (talk • contribs)

Thurible article

In the thurible article, you refer to "non-Christian Gnostic Catholic Churches". I am a bit confused. What is a non-Christian Gnostic Catholic Church?--Filll 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Matisse

Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? Geo. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked Geo. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure I am stalking?

Doesn't make any sense. I've posted on the page of the person you say I am stalking about that page. Also I advised him to utilize the Discussion page, which he did. I realise you think this page is yours but it is not. Others may work on it too. Mattisse(talk) 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How am I stalking?

You are not being specific enough. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about a Thelemite on the list

Hello, it seems to me that you are the authority on the subject so maybe you can help me out. There is a person on the Thelemite list named Dorothy Olsen. Do you know if this is the 1950's folk singer or is it someone else? Just curious. Thank you. 4giron 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

999, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. This info is very helpful. 4giron 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to non-esistant articles

In general, it is good to link to articles that should, but don't exist - it encourages people to create them, and moves them up the 'most wanted articles' list. When they are created, there is no need to go back and put links in. Trollderella 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - I think I disagree, but no big deal. ;) Trollderella 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Phil Hine

I've submitted this as a procedural nomination for AfD since the PROD was removed and re-added. You can visit the discussion and participate here.--Isotope23 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse

No, I'm afraid I'm not convinced any more that Timmy12 is a sock of Mattisse. I can't sign on to most of your issues. It appears that Mattisse's main issue is lack of assuming good faith and biting the newcomer, User:Rosencomet. Another incident that's come to my attention is Peggy Sue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where she repeatedly inserted citation requests even though the source was cited in the text of the article instead of with footnotes, and continued to do so even after another editor bolded the in-text citations.

Now, if you open an RfC on User:Timmy12's conduct, who has done nothing but serial tag, I'd be happy to endorse it. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tantra

Hello there. Just a note to say that I do not intend criticism towards fellow editors on this or any other article. Perhaps my language is a little strong at times, or I may make bold edits and these can be construed as personal criticism. Please believe me when I say that nothing personal is directed towards any of the authors. I do assume good faith and I try to be bold with my edits.

On this article, most of my edits have been geared towards pointing out that the material can be a little clearer in some places. I am not an expert on tantra and have little more than a passing interest. In a certain sense, this gives me a good perspective on the material because I am just an average reader. Often the opinions of an average reader can show interested editors where things can be improved.

This article is now improving by leaps and bounds, not because of my edits, but because you and other editors are now reexamining it. Eventually we will be able to remove the cleanup and neutrality tags.

TheRingess 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon

Well, I know you are away, but this one is right up your alley. Anything about this word in Secret Rituals of the O.T.O.? I suspect there would be, since Crowley borrowed freely from the Masons. I'll copy the article as it is not into my user space in case it gets deleted before you return. —Hanuman Das 05:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your email. I'm glad to know that the word is indeed mentioned in a specific chapter of that book. I can add that to the article and wait for your return (or for the person you emailed about it) for the details to be added to the article. —Hanuman Das 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Link History

A couple of fellow editors suggested that I appraise you of these facts. I realize I have already posted some of this information, but for the sake of organizing it I will put it all here together. I'm sorry if it's long.

The following information is just to show that while Matisse was wildly tagging articles linked to Starwood Festival with "citation needed" tags, later to call on many editors to help in a campaign to delete them, then have them taken down as linkspam and google-bombing, she was ALSO CREATING articles with links to Starwood Festival herself, then calling them to the attention of other editors as examples of how there were too many articles linked to it and that I was "out of control". I believe that most of the objections by editors other than Matisse and socks of Matisse (who have weighed in multiple times in discussions about both the links and the notability of individual articles I've written in order to create the illusion that she had major support in the Wiki community) were swayed, in great part, by this campaign to create a "Major Problem" where one did not exist. (Ironic, since a running theme of the event is conspiracy theory & the Illuminati...)

1. The Musart article (linked to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium) was created August 25th by Flinders, a sock of Matisse, 12 days after my first Wiki input. The Answers.com text mentioned below about Musart (point 6) is obviously cribbed from the Wiki article she created, yet she speaks as if she "found" this evidence that this issue is not minor!

2. The "What Witches Do" article was created on September 3rd by LiftWaffen, another Matisse sock. She returned the next day to add a link to Association for Consciousness Exploration.

3. Andrew Cohen, mentioned below by Matisse on Salix Alba's page as a "Starwood Speaker", has never appeared at Starwood nor has his page been linked to the Starwood page.

4. There are links to Musart on the "Chalino Sánchez" and "Lucero" articles that I believe are incorrect, and probably refer to the record company DiscosMusart, which has no Wiki article.

5. Here is what Matisse said to BostonMa about Musart in November:

hopeless mediation

Hi. I wrote a question on the Starwood Mediation page and got an unsatisfactory answer from Rosencomet. Plus I notices another article waiting in the wings: Musart. Do you think we should ask for another mediator? Ours seems to be missing in action. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree. It is hopeless and would be a waste of your time. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

6. This was posted on Salix Alba's talk page the same day:

Hi again! Check out Musart. it is waiting in the wings to have bunches of names added. Mattisse(talk) 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this out from Answers.com If, by chance, you think this is minor. Mattisse(talk) 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And 8 days later:

Maybe you would weigh in on the Andrew Cohen talk page (a Starwood Festival speaker) as there is a discussion on what type of links to include as external links. The particular link in question may not be a good example to defend, but at least it's the start of a general discussion. Mattisse(talk) 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Now this one was on Pigman's talk page just a few days ago. I've included Ekajati's comment.

I just ran across this: Musart. The links at the bottom are bad. One goes nowhere. The other pertains if anything to this: Musart Records -- which I wrote (not very well) trying to sort out the problem regarding various (legitimate) artists whose articles list this label -- none of which are in that list on Musart. What to do? Perhaps you know. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, it's the usual Starwood Festival crowd listed. I wonder if this is hopeless. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now this is not funny, Mattisse. That article, as you have to know, was started by Flinders, who was confirmed by CheckUser as one of your sockpuppets. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

8. This non-explanation of the creation of the Musart article was posted on BostonMa's talk page. I've included Hanuman Das' input:

I clicked on the name, Flinders, and it was identified as a sockpuppet of my account. I don't know what else to say. I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done. I am not clear what was going on at that time. At the time I explained my role in the matter. The result is though that I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article. If will explain the situation in any degree of detail you desire. I don't know what level of detail is appropriate here. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation: That I personally did not create the sockpuppets but they were created on my computer, as proved by CheckUser. There was an unusual sitation. Relatives, including my daughter and her children, suddenly were in my house. In the middle of this was when I was doing backlogs in the wikify bin (to get away from real life stress) and AFD'd Philip Farber. This was just after Netsnipe had identified a suite of similar articles and ADFed the whole suite. I asked him what to do but he was busy with his admin election. I used bad judgment and tagged too many articles. 999 attacked me. I became upset, being already upset because of outside events. I talked about it too much to my visitors, none of whom were involved with Misplaced Pages. I don't know really what happened. Part of what was going on here meant that I was not home always. I do know that I left my granddaughter alone, at that time not realising that Misplaced Pages was such a dangerous place, so she did somethings on Misplaced Pages unsupervised. I guess I should look back and see exactly what. Someone emailed me that she put her age on her user page and that I should delete that. I tried but was not allowed. Then an admin believed she was my granddaughter and did delete it or do something with it. To tell you the truth, I don't really want to know what these various accounts did because it starts to give me bad feelings about my family -- whether they were trying to harm me or help me I don't know. And it has affected our relationship since then. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me for butting in here, but this is the same excuse she used for the previous sockpuppet incident (pre-Rosencomet). See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. I believe that User:Salix alba was involved in that incident. —Hanuman Das 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion and I don't quite get what I did that was so wrong. I asked Paul Pigman a question. At the time I didn't know it was a Flinders article. Flinders did whatever in the past. In any case, I would not have done anything to a Starwood article myself. That is why I asked someone. If I repeat the same story regarding events around that time, what else should I do? It's only because Musart Records came up on my watch list as "unsourced" that I even looked at it. Because I write and edit so many record label articles, I did not get the connection at first. I do not understand this place. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

9. I must say that this is a pretty bizarre situation. Matisse has used sock-puppets for a long time to disrupt the work of a number of editors in various ways, and seems to openly admit it here, and I find that strange enough (since, perhaps because I'm a newcomer, I just don't see what she gets out of this kind of behavior except sowing anger and frustration among hard-working volunteers), but phrases like "I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done." or "I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article" make me wonder how she can EVER be held accountable for what she does. It sounds bi-polar to me (I'm not diagnosing, just saying what it sounds like). She seems not to know what she has done, or perhaps even what she is doing. In a different way, I find the attempt to shift the blame to unspecified family members even more disturbing.

Matisse seems to have a talent for creating trouble and drawing well-meaning people into the fray. I don't see how the issue under mediation can be discussed without at least airing these facts, and allowing those who have been swayed to believe that there is a serious situation that must be nipped in the bud to understand that, at least to some extent, it has not only been exaggerated but increased and manipulated by the very person that brought it to their attention and enlisted their help. Rosencomet 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Ascended master, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Your removal of other editors' comments from talk page (diff)

Please do not remove content from Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)