Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fuzzypeg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I don't like the way you've changed the festivals listing on Wicca. Nothing personal. The primacy is fine, I just don't like the names you put first, I think you've got it all backwards. Those are the traditional Wiccan names? Since when? Never have I heard a fellow Wiccan call it the Winter Solstice rather than Yule, or the Spring Equinox and the Fall Equinox rather than Ostara and Mabon. Granted, I'm sure some things are different depending on who you ask, but in my experiences you've got that all backwards. Search4Lancer 05:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind words. When I first started editing Wikipedia I told myself I was going to avoid the Wicca article like the plague. I knew from my experience on various Pagan Usenet groups, like alt.religion.wicca and alt.witchcraft, and from real life experiences with various Pagan groups in the Washington, D.C. area that it could be a minefield. As a friend of mine once said, “Christians don't need to attack us, we do a fine job of that ourselves.”
you seem well established here as a regular
I think I may have caught the wikipedia bug too
you seem thorough and knowledgable, and people who have these qualities as well as the motivation to actually do something with their knowledge are rare as hens' teeth.
I'm sure we'll run across each other as we fritter away our time here. The opportunity for cataloging information about the Pagan tradition on Wikipedia is fantastic. It's nice to have a friendly companion on the way.--◀Pucktalk▶ 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to bring some sanity to that issue. Crowley is probably chuckling in his grave about the entire issue. I was getting tired of fixing the 'magic / magick' edits myself, quite honestly, so hopefully people will see your comments on the appropriate Talk page. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In case you hadn;t seen it, I responded to your question on my talk page. DreamGuy 21:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than a bit annoyed that you are tossing my name around as having INSISTED on anything in the CoMasonry article. Please stop, or substantiate the claim.--Vidkun 14:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I have gone and checked the list of grand lodges, as well as the comasonry page, and I have said NOTHING like that. I am now specifically requesting that you place a retraction of your statements regarding me on pages where you have made them.--Vidkun 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzypeg, founding member of Jack Frost Morris. In your user page, could you please put a link to the side page, I'm trying to improve our Google rating? It's at the same old place
Sorry if this the wrong way to ask this.
cheers,
Michiel
28/2/'06 2116hrs
It's so rare that another established user will actually publically comment on the freemasonry pages. Thanks :) Seraphim 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you got any references you can point us towards for this information? The phrase "It has been claimed that" sticks out like a sore thumb as needing some kind of reference. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Given that my archiving of a Talk page you were involved with was a little out of the ordinary, I thought that I would leave a note here explaining that I did it as a courtesy in an attempt to move towards less conflict-oriented discussion. I suspect that we will wind up returning to the conversation in question, but, for the moment, I am hoping that things will be easier to discuss rationally if we remove the contentious material from Google-searchable pages. If you have any concerns about this, please let me know. Jkelly 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the symbol of Merlin is not a pentagram . It is a figure that might be called "pentangle" (like "triangle"). I am not a native speaker, so maybe you will find a better word for this figure. It has 5 angles and 5 sides, unlike a pentagram. In Amber chronicles Fiona uses a real pentagram. Regards Jasra 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I am certain that what you have got in User:Fyodor Dosis an evangelical/Roman Catholic user who believes that any beliefs (or systems, for that matter) that are not Christian are Satanic mockeries of Christianity. He's been POV-pushing on Freemasonry for months to try to show it is Satanic, he adds partisan links and factually incorrect information, was banned by ArbCom, and has apparently set his sights on occult as a way to further his agenda. Because somebody made an etymological mistake and he doesn't think the Rosicrucian material is correct, you're going to have an edit war on your hands. He's already shown his true colors, and asking him for WP:RS-based proof for his claims is going to get you nowhere. Just a heads-up. MSJapan 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been having a hack at the Regular Masonic jurisdictions page to try to reflect some of the compexity around mutual recognition, it's the kind of article where it might be useful to have some input from the Co-FM side as well, so I'd be grateful if you could find time to add to it.ALR 11:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a new editor on Rosicrucian, Rosaecruz (talk · contribs), who is trying far too hard not to look like Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs) for it not to be him (Rosaecruz is portraying himself as a Christian Rosicrucian, but I bet I'm going to see him over on Freemasonry once the protect expires). I believe he's completely mucked up the article and done some obfuscated reversiions, but there's only so many things I can keep an eye on, especially since I really don't know enough about the subject to know what's right and what isn't. As you seem to know more, I figured it might be useful to keep you apprised of a possible issue. That being said, you might want to look at the Rosicrucian article and make sure it's still accurate. MSJapan 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your corrections to the recent editions in the article. I would like to give you the link to the following page, which was already up for more than a year but became completed just a few minutes ago: ; to be to understood to your own discretion. Best regards, --Rosaecruz 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This was added by an automatic bot, so I had to remove the interlinks on all other Wikipedias, too. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Good edit. Can you think of any reliable source that actually gets into this? I seem to recall some essay by either Starhawk or Margot Adler on beliefnet... Jkelly 16:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It is my suspicion that Ndru01 is suffering from some form of mental illness. At this point, no other explanation can adequately account for his behavior. Please understand that I don't mean this as an insult, just my considered opinion that I'm sharing because it may help you deal with him. Alienus 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That's my guess too. I suspect an inability to keep different world views separated, such as hypothetical world-views or world-views based on reputable sources. My last comment to him was in the hopes that if he were suffering fron a diagnosed condition, he would be reminded of the fact and realise that this had something to do with his difficulties on Wikipedia. I haven't yet checked to see what his response was... I hate seeing a person so much in conflict with themselves... Fuzzypeg 11:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the article as recreation of AfD'ed material. In future cases, just tag the article with {{deleteagain}}, and any other sysop will come and handle the rest. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know :) —porges(talk) 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw you pining about your lack of OED:
Here's WITCH n.1:
And WITCH n.2:
—porges(talk) 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I really like what you wrote, as it is well written, but I would like to point out a few issues I have with it. Specifically, the section
seems to fly in the face of the fairly standard view of the the Gods of the Wica being specific tribal gods, known only to those who are initiated. Of course, now I need to go pick up one of the few Gardner books I have (can't touch the Farrars Bible, as I am trying to avoid reading anything about initiation until I get to it myself) and see what GBG has to say about the nature of the Gods. Additionally, I would suggest that the all gods are one god thing is a Valiente-ism, and not in line with the idea of specific tribal gods alongside other gods from other pantheons. For example, if/when I am initiated, I will be introduced to the Gods of the Wica, but that will not preclude me from honoring and working with other Gods, such as my Matron, the Morrigan. I do like the wording in the first line of what you wrote, as I seen tons of references within BTW and seeker chats regarding the idea that being of the Wica is a calling to serve the Gods.--Vidkun 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have solid evidence that this originated within Wicca? In any case, it seems to be a reinterpretation of the Hathor headdress in line with Graves' symbolism in his White Goddess. AnonMoos 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Ben, can you point me towards a source for a song, used in Morris dancing, talking about the famed cheeses of cheshire? I have the feeling I am missing an inside joke by some Morris people.--Vidkun 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very useful. What I'm doing right now is removing references to the old image from people's signatures, so that it is possible to see where it is being used properly. When that is done, I can then see to replacing it with that new image you showed me. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
(Didn't want to stick that in the page move thread since it's closed now.)--Birdmessenger 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Peer review/Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches -- would you mind? I'd like to take it WP:FAC sometime soon. You may want to check, for instance, if it still needs to be on your to do list. Jkelly 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, about that. I would like to apologize for my errant actions in this matter. It was my intent to combine the two pages, not delete yours entirely. I had computer issues and the result was that I deleted your page. I meant to fix it but didn't get around to it. Sorry. I'll just leave it alone for the time being.--SweetNeo85 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have edited you last edit. Feel free to edit my last edit, but please ensure that you do not refer to Magic as paranormal, or supernatural. Magick is believed to be the use of natural energies, and in no way paranormal, or supernatural.
Thanks,
Norfolk Dumpling
Hi, you've been listed as an editor here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 Pentagram vs. Five-Point Star. If you'd like to participate, you are more than welcome. SynergeticMaggot 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Kerub is mispelled on the image.--Vidkun 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This is excellent work. Please do consider uploading stuff like this to Wikimedia Commons so that every project can use it. Jkelly 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Im not exactly sure, (nor am i interested) why you still seem unable to grasp the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You see, it is not generally considered acceptable for users to deviate from the official policies set by Wikipedia. And in your case, Assume good faith; which as i see, you may of had a few problems with in the past.
If you indeed have a problem, with the afermentioned article, or any other, then i suggest you explain yourself in a calm, and reasonable fashion. instead of belligerently disrupting that article and introducing tags were there is no requirement for them whilst foaming at the mouth.
Also, if you continue to have issues regarding other referenced and sourced article content then you may add [citation needed] to the lines of text you feel are needing verification.
Thanks for understanding.
Viogfernos 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
? - its just one long spiral down for you isn't it fuzzypeg, (in more ways than one). and if petty vandalism and nonsensical misinformation is what you contribute using whatever small time you have left on wikipedia before you are blocked, then that is indeed unfortunate.
Also, try not to spam my, and any other users' talk pages with attention seeking trollish messages. I trust a second warning will not be necessary.
Hey, just wanted to thank you for all the cleaning up you've been doing on the article.
Search4Lancer 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That, infact, is the exact reason why it was featured, because Correllian tradition is widely despised. Id rather feature it now, while its under-construction(the portal), because that way it doesnt have to be "re-featured" in the near future at all, and that way, the discussion page wont get 7358257593 messages such as yours. Please also note, that this portal is under construction, and one of my main reasonings for creating it was to feature newly "up-to-standard articles", i wouldnt say the correllian one is, and because you seem so disturbed by it, im happy to change to another article. I do say though, it was temporary, the Correllian Article is certainly in much despair, and it is a very foreign tradition to me, so thats why it is included at the moment. --Brenton.eccles 10:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzypeg; I have provided a reference for the high regard in which Chumbley is held (Hutton lauds him in his book-says he couldn't have done it w/o Chumbley's help) and I added that he has been influential with many, many references-both ignored by Bongo and removed. Bongo has been personally offensive. Now what? Lulubyrd 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The Triumph of the Moon:
Hiya' Ben! I see that as of June you were writing a review of Hutton's text (a scholar with whom I find problematic, especially when I see the majority of his readers accepting it as gospel, regarldess of other little-known academics): Triumph Of The Moon. I'd love to be able to read it sometime, and even be able to eventually link to it from my My Space Blog: MySpace.Com/MacMorrighan
Take Care, Wade MacMorrighan, MacMorrigaine(at)AIM(dot)Com (Keep in touch and keep uo the good work!)
Thanks!--Vidkun 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Fuzzypeg. An adminstrator (User:Bastique) has personally said to me that Wikipedia does not recognize US Games Copyright since those images were made before the 1921 copyright law. Ok, bro? ;] That´s valid for Minor Arcana cards, For Major Arcana,if the copyright was accepted, any modification could be valid, according to him, because that would make them different images. Don Leon 14:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
US Games thinks they hold the copyright, but the images, as I said before, were made before the copyright law...For Wikipedia that 1971 Copyright mark doesn´t mean anything. If an administrator does not recognize, that means Wikipedia doesn´t. Until it´s said the oposite, that´s the "current law". Fuzzypeg, the same administrator has said before that was a copyright violation, but later he changed his mind. (Correcting a mistake: It´s the 1923 law, not 1921) Don Leon 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
will do, but first there are more important things for me to do... my daily newspaper linked an artical as a source! Evil oranges 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Heya. Merry Xmas =) I have summarized up my researches on Theban script on my user page - and will probably re-shape the main article page in the future. Maybe also with images of the diverse little variations in reported theban scripts. Since you seem quite interested into this script and its origins, is that ok with you? Also, do you still have the book, probably by Nigel Pennick, which describes a possible precursor of Theban? The info in the text could be interesting. Nyctophilia 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You removed edits I performed on the Athame page and as a reason said this...."A few weird assertions that just don't seem true I've removed". Now sure you may have meant that about something else other than the stuff which you removed from the section on associations but still I would like to tell you that the part about a secret society which I added I referenced from, A Witches Bible, written by Janet&Stewart Farrar. This may sound like an attack, believe me thats not how I intend it. Grey witch 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand where you are coming from. If you wish to check before I add it back in its on page 252 of the 2nd half of A Witches Bible line 30 onwards. Grey witch 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dont be sorry its completely understandable, I dont know how to add references as i mentioned on the athame talk page which i feel bad about. Grey witch 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I will clean it up a bit since i have the book with me, they term it a blind also. Grey witch 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The last change to athame before me removed all uses of the words wicca and witchcraft. Could it have been done by accident or was it deliberate vandalism? Grey witch 11:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, on another note i assume you dont contribute to wikipedia without clothes when you are at work...or you might, i guess it all depends on where you work haha. Again thanks. Grey witch 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That is one great job there mate. Clutterbuck was a tory??? Totnesmartin 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, someone placed a link that had nothing to do with occultism. I shouldnt have deleted it. --Manyminds17 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzypeg. Thanks for the explanation behind your change. I'm concerned about WP:NOR. You seem to have a theory that "Pentacles often had no connotation of "five" in the old magical texts". You support this theory by citing "that section (and indeed the rest of the article)" because it gives examples. Here's what I'm concerned about: 1) The limited examples cited don't provide convincing evidence of whether the connotation you prefer was truly used "often". It would take a lot of research into "old magical texts" to determine whether the usage you posit was truly used often. Also, it would take an expert to determine which sources constituted "old magical texts" that should be considered for examples. I'm not doubting that you are an expert on the texts, or that pentacle means anything other than what you think it means. I just think Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place for you to present your knowledge about the usage of "pentacle" without corroborating that specific view in published research.Tritium6 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I read what you wrote on G-Rye's account. I fully understand the problem you're going through, as i go through it myself (especially considering that not all BTW consider BlueStar to be BTW, but some do, and some consider only certain lines of BlueStar to be so . . .), especially over on Livejournal. what I have found is that wikipedia ends up being descriptivist, not prescriptivist. That is, I call myself Wiccan is enough to say I am, and that concept is extended to all things calling themselves Wiccan. That's why, unfortunately, the Wicca article describes most fo what I would call neo- or eclectic- wicca. Not Wicca as those who are "of the Wica/Wicca" know it, but derived, essentially, from the Pagan Way outer court type traditions that Ed Fitch started in the 70's to provide something for those who hadn't yet found a Traditional Group with which to work. That seems to have become the standard, the outer court, non oath bound, non initiatory stuff, because it is A: easier to work, 2: easier to find (pick up a book and you're off), Γ: it SELLS books, in a way that "You need to find an in person teacher to actually initiate you, after you have been found to be a proper person, and then properly prepared" does NOT sell books . . . was I going anywhere with this? Only that i feel your pain, it should be quite evident when I edit both in Masonic articles (where the definition of Mason is no longer controlled by GL's they having all said that each GL is sovereign unto itself), where I tend to support an inclusivist viewpoint, and in Wicca-related articles where I tend to support the exclusivist viewpoint, as the origins of Wicca in the 20th century are fairly well documented, and the inheritors of that lineage have not relinquished their sovereign use of the term, IMHO.--Vidkun 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I too have been keeping an eye on Smith Jones. At first I was not sure if s/he was a child, had a disability or was actually a very insidous vandal. In the interest of assuming good faith and not wanting to blast (as I'v been knownw to do to others) a child or patentially "afflicted" person I've tried to establish communication and inquire into his age (with no luck). To be honest I'm at a bit of a loss as how to proceed with him and as you've had some more extensive dealings with this potentially good (but inhibited) user I was looking for some input. Thanks. NeoFreak 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben, thank you for your note of concern. The reason for my "subtle rewording" of the article as you put it, is that obviously I didn't feel what was written was entirely accurate, (particularly so in other documentable areas such as "Witchcraft" and "Warlock"). I've looked at your user page and am impressed by your dedication and research. However, if you are the person responsible for inserting what I believe to be inaccurate info in areas that I believe I have some knowledge about (that I can substantiate by documentation) obviously, while I have the time and inclination, I'm going to do so.
Re. your major concern: No, I'm not persuaded that Garderian "Wicca" with all its shibboleths and "Redes" and "Ardanes" represents anything like the corpus of ritual and belief that constitutes genuine European witchcraft. "Wicca" is a New Age cult demonstrably created by Gerald and Doreen, with diddles added later by the Farrars and Sanders and whoever you choose to cite, period. It has adopted some practices from witchcraft, and the rituals can indeed be worked with power by someone knowledgable. However, and this is the point, I don't believe this turns Wiccans into genuine witches who practice a genuine, traditional, form of witchcraft any more that taking an oath in the KKK as a Grand Wizard turns a man into a wizard. Sorry if that sounds insulting, its not meant to be, but I can't think of another simile at the moment. That Wiccans choose to style themselves "witches" is their choice, but obviously this has no bearing on what has been written about witchcraft in the past (true or false). What they say or believe, unless they can find persuasive documented or physical evidence to support it, has no place in an article on "witchcraft". Nor does the fact that they are now recognized as a new religion give them licence to pontificate about matters where they are at variance with the documented record. Not that they can even get their own history/dogma straight: e.g. the idiotic quibble that keeps being inserted ad nauseam concerning the use of the term "warlock". This is, and was, the term used for a male witch in Scotland. That is an historical fact. Gerald Gardner used "warlock" as a verb to signify ritual binding. That Wiccans of the past 5,10,20 (who knows how many) years, know nothing of Gardner's original usage/coinage, (and appear to care less) can only diminish ones respect for them. I did not invent the term "fluffy", but I shall use it here: wikipedia is not the place for "fluffy" spoutings.
Anyway, apologies to you and anyone else I may have offended by my unheralded and unarbitrated insertions, but truth to tell I haven't yet figured out the protocols or indeed the techniques of Wikipedia, so in this I am in error, and can only tender my regrets. Sincerely KitMarlowe2 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben/Fuzzypeg: Responding to your somewhat intemperate response: Glad to hear you've met the gods and are a true believer, but as you note, your subjective experience is not of particular importance to this discussion, and certainly not to an encyclopedia entry. What is important is that facts, not opinions, however dearly cherished, be recorded, and on this kind of topic the only facts one can obtain are those reported in books written by painstaking historians like Hutton. And if Hutton comes to the conclusion that Wicca was made up out of whole cloth, I would tend to put my credence there. Your experiences only add up to what used to be called in witch trials "spectral evidence".
And by the way, my "simplistic statement" as you put it, was made to you in "User talk" (not in the body of the article) and as such, I believe, a perfectly justified, albeit abbreviated, expression of my own personal beliefs. Your self-serving huffing and puffing about initiations and lineages and whatever is not worth responding to. You, as a card-carrying Wiccan, may feel my negative assessment of some of the dottier statements placed in the article to be derogatory, but I hardly think you are an impartial judge of the matter. KitMarlowe2 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Jerry 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello; I noticed that you reverted my removal of the signs on the table for the article Shemhamphorasch. I understand why you did that, but most browsers (including the ones on the several computers to which I have access) do not have the required fonts necessary to see those symbols; they just look like boxes of ASCII. In the interest of ensuring readability, would you consider having us state the sign rather than using the symbol? I think that would be much better, and I decided to let you know of my plan to do this instead of simply cancelling your change. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again; I noticed that you simplified the code for the derivation table. There is a reason I placed the (considerable amount of) font code before each symbol, as Hebrew text does not clearly display in any browser unless a font style is specified. See the Hebrew alphabet article for the acceptable Wikipedia convention; and note, for example, that in the first row of the column labelled "1" the "vav" looks like a lowercase "l" and in column 3 the "samech" symbol now looks like an uppercase O. I haven't reverted the table yet, I decided to comment here first. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 05:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, removing text that was not written to closely follow published sources (text that is weasel worded and supports personal feelings and is not concisely written as a whole) greatly helps the article be re-written with references.Lotusduck 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you edited the aforementioned article; would you like to join my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah, it is greatly in need of your assistance. Lighthead 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ben,
I want you to know that I will place an added note in Witchcraft > Discussion concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(movie_rental_store). I did not want to surprise you. I will post perhaps tomorrow, the day after or so. Incidentally, in the article I reference Gore Vidal, one of the more superior American authors. One of his famously anti-US policy books is "Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia." Dated but still great stuff.
I want to let you know that I believe you are doing some good work. I do realize you have editors above you that edit you, and I also realize that dealing with the public is sometimes unpleasant. But I sense good from you.
Nevertheless, as you well know, I disagree with you, or perhaps with Wiki. Yes, I have considered writing/editing in Wiki, even before your kind suggestion that I do so. And it is of interest to me, although I think I would be heavily edited to the point of distortion. So, I don't know. And at this time I can't. I'm writing a novel and I have a partner and an affiliate business (computers and patio furniture). Both of these are horribly behind schedule. I'll think about it.
Anyway, I wish you well, Adrian You can reach me directly at adrian @ blue-moon-manor.com (close the spacing.) Adrianius 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Fuzzypeg: I want to report Redblossom to administrators for his abuse in the discussion page (calling several contributors dishonest) and his now vandalism of the article by deleting or striking referenced material because he doesn't appear to be able to understand what he's reading. (I have fully and patiently explained it four times). The trouble is, as you must have noticed, I am not able to negotiate the technical aspects of this site and when faced with the report abuse page I am totally lost. It looks like gibberish to me. Will you please help me to navigate through the process so that I may make a report? Lulubyrd 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think there might be something funny about three brand new accounts all starting to edit the same set of articles about the Golden Dawn on the same day? IPSOS (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be back as User:Pahuson. Thought you might like to keep an eye on that, as there was massive stated intent to ignore policy on the part of the former account.--Vidkun 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you know how I can convert a PNG image to SVG with Inkscape? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Anthony5429 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey whats up!!! I seen the script of theban or thebian on your user page And i am wondering if I could download that from wikipedia so i can use it. I would use that to write on my user page but since many people consider it the alphabet of satan but it's really the wiccan alphabet.--Bloodsource 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi - My main concern is that the names of the siblings are not shown - there are clear policies regarding verifiablity, and of using placemarkers for unverified information (although, for the life of me, I cannot remember where this is stated explicitly). How, for example, do we even know that there were siblings? I leave it to your discretion as to whether it is better to remove the information, or to pare it down to something along the lines of "he had / has three brothers and two sisters" - the names themselves being of little material value to the article. - Tiswas(t) 08:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The world is a very large place. What may seem uncommon and unusual to you in your realm may not be in others. I am referring, specifically, to your deletion of the few sentences that you have dubbed an "essay" on white and green witches. This is not original research. More than half the statements were sourced and I can easily source the other portion.
I don't know what is common or uncommon in New Zealand, however, it is VERY COMMON in the U.S. for witches to identify in this manner. Only this evening I watched a highly rated, mainstream, primetime, major network reality based television show - the entire episode of which revolved around a green witch and her family. As is common here, she was very careful to repeatedly identify herself as a "green" witch.
The discussion of white witches was in the article before I touched it. I only expanded, clarified and sourced the material. If such identifications are unusual in other parts of the world, then the text needs some clarification to make the statements specific to the U.S. However, I do not believe that the material should be deleted entirely simply because it does not conform to one group's beliefs in one part of the world.
Rather than getting into an edit war over this - let's discuss it. Good will to you. MegaMom 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've opened a deletion review about the deletion of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Thought you would want to know. IPSOS (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the stylistic probs, the main problem is 'ooooh, sounds a bit like' http://www.bota.org/ - scroll down a bit on the b.o.t.a page and the stuff about group work is there in its entirety too. We may have to start over from scratch. Not that B.O.T.A probably will mind- hey, it's a free ad.:)Merkinsmum 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your magic POV statement at my talk page. Wasnt sure if you were watching it or not. Since there seemed to be some disagreement (which i just realized what was going on). I wanted to let you know so you cna read my response. It seems we both made a bit of an error and were completely off track. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello mate, Thank you very much for your overview on the Chumbley piece, you've been an absolute gem. Latest is a move to have the article deleted, which seems a bit like overkill. Do you think that is warranted? I put a note on the discussion page, but discovered I could as well come over here to your place. Good to read about you - all best, reineke 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Fuzz, Long time! Just to add another thanks for your input and continued interest. I noticed that old friend redblossom altered his user page to remove his edit CV, and add a comment. I believe he also posts as 'Zain' on Lashtal.com, where he has made similar comments of the stuck-record variety; 'Zain' writes "has" when he means "as", just like redblossom. Anyway hats off to you matey, hope it's sunny where you are :) reineke (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I really needed them because I'm not on here much, so it's kinda hard to learn to use all of the controls and articles. Keep in touch --Piro-san. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piro-san (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Fuzzypeg, I like the edits for the most part, though I still don't really think they need sections unto themselves, especially given how short they are...such are generally discouraged (at least that is what I've found in my time here). Perhaps these could all be placed in expanded prose under a general "Beliefs" second-tier header? However, I don't quite understand this sentence: "Some Wiccans believe in the las of karma as well as the Threefold Law." What is 'las'? In a brief search, I can only find that 'las' is another term for karma. Any help here? Also, unless a citation can be found, that particular section/sentence should probably be deleted after a week or two. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I just have to thank you for your comments concerning the controversy section of Church and School of Wicca. I've done a lot of work on the presence of material on issues of a Magical, Neo-Pagan, Occult, and Shamanic nature (among a few other interests) in Wikipedia, and it is rare that I get a compliment for my efforts. I consider your interest to have been sincere and thoughtful, and I am happy that I was able to supply you with the information you needed. Please feel free to contact me if you see something I can help you with that seems to be in my field of experience. Rosencomet (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Fuzzypeg, I was looking through some of the changes made recently, and noticed two citations were removed without any being adding in their place. I'm just curious as to why this was done. Regarding Hermetica, I thought the citation dealt specifically with animism; for High Magic's Aid, was the wording really changed significantly enough to render the citation unusable? -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fuzzypeg. You have said that wikipedia is not the place for your critique of TOTM, please let me know where the place is because I would want to read it. Thank you for your courtesy, I also am glad to have met you. Jeremy (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello there Fuzzypeg, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been involved with these articles quite closely. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
i wondered about that. i actually saved the one you wrote because it lead into the article so nicely and i didn’t want to get rid of it completely. i was just concerned about duplicating the information. i'll revise the old one to duplicate as little info as possible but keep the spirit of the original because it was so nice and concise. the topic really is fascinating and there are so many social, religious, and economic issues that this one relatively unknown topic brings up that i’m surprised it hasn’t been thoroughly researched. r33nicholas (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
Editing at Wikipedia is supposed to be a joy, and it really can be. The thrill of personally adding to the repository of human knowledge! The pleasure of debating with worthy peers in your field of expertise! It's a real shame when people don't experience Wikipedia as the stimulating and supportive community it should be. Fuzzypeg talk 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The "joy" of editing Wikipedia. I wish I could have experienced it. But it is good to know that it is there, even if I have missed it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Fuzzypeg, concerning my removing that link, and other controversies, I suspect that you (and some others) think I am motivated by religious views I hold. That is not so. I do not have a religious affiliation, and am closer in my personal views to Greek and Roman philosophy (particularly Stoicism), than to traditional Judaism. I am trying to get the article right, not to impose a personal biases. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fuzzypeg, I wish there were more people, as pleasant to deal with as you, editing Wikipedia. But I hope that you understand when I say that I have enough controversy already, without trying to make changes to the Sephirot article, when it is almost certain that someone will object to that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Taifarious1 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to keep an eye on this RFCU case. I had originally filed it after O oPK reverted me, but rescinded it after he explained himself on his TP. I've refiled it after looking a little closer at the history. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishvax (talk • contribs) 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the change, though I imagine many other wikiprojects have the same since that's copied text. Looking at your userpage, it seems that you could be a great member of the WikiProject. Please consider joining. Thanks. KV(Talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
ME accused of vandalism? Did you notice the wikifying I made on that awful article? I just deleted what was learly unrelevant information. Firrao's parents were totally unrelevant and unfamous people; Firrao himself is totally unrelevant, figure his parents! Anyway I wouldn't have problems to accept that info, if decently written in an encyclopdeical style. Let me know. Ciao and good work. --Attilios (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've now read the case. You asserted that it is ground-breaking, but I cannot find any sources to back your claim up. AFAICT, the case was a set up by 232 Canadian FG practitioners as a sort of 'class action libel' case against a small-run Chinese newspaper whose persistently critical views and articles offended them. They succeeded in taking it all the way to the supreme court. The case was summarised by the judge as" as to the effectiveness of a class action in the context of collective defamation, as opposed to its availability, there is no certainty [...] "The evidence is not sufficient to allow the Court to come to the conclusion that the contents of the impugned articles... are false, grossly inaccurate, published to incite hatred and derision in Canada or persecution in the People's Republic of China"
or in plain English: "The court rejected the plaintiffs claim of class action, and stated that there was insufficient evidence that the journal had published false and grossly inaccurate articles in order to incite hatred and derision of Falun Gong practitioners"
I still doubt the case is worth citing. The source document is a primary source, and although it may have picked up coverage, but there are no secondary sources I could find. If include this apparently minor civil case, there could be endless edit wars over the Truthful, Compassionate, and Forbearant (sic) behaviour of FG practitioners, attempting to silence the movement's critics. I'll leave it for you to decide whether that's desirable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Fuzzy, am I guessing correctly that you don't care for the new {{Wicca portal}} template either? If this is the case, I will probably go and revert those changes as unnecessary...the template itself is nothing more than the existing Portalpar template with the Triple Goddess symbol included. If you peeked at his contributions, he apparently went template crazy with more than just Wicca. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please intervene with regard to the user Quorty. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright.
Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Good fix of my edit. Though as far as I'm aware, those where the only three churches/branches/{insert term here} that actively embraced both the pagan spiritually of earth and control of matter, and the teachings of Christ, though often in a more gnostic interpretation than a branch one. As for the spelling, all branches of all religion, spirituality. and non-religious philosophy that I have studies have always termed magick as being wholly separate (as does the Oxford Advanced Dictionary of International English History). Magic with k, with or without c (regional differences, see differences between British English and American English for understanding of the C. The K, is used in everything from Wicca to Tao super-spiritually, and Tazo Buddhist Philosophy (Original/non-religious philosophy of which I practice). The key separation being in the knowing intention of falsehood (sans-k) and the spiritual acceptance (+K) of some secondary force which may or may not be supernatural and may or may not be scientific. If that is easier to understand the reason I differentiated the two. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I did appreciate your input and no offence was taken. I do agree with you that 'isms' shouldn't be used to dismiss academic sources out of hand (and I take your point concerning Hutton versus Dashu), but I do think it's important (especially in a highly charged article such as the witch hunt article, which requires extremely careful assessment of primary sources), that 'isms' be kept as far away as possible. It's fine to cite 'ism' treatment of history, as long as people are aware of the effect the 'ism' is having on the treatment. In this particular case I know of no reputable scholarship on the witch hunts which takes Federici seriously, draws the same conclusions as her, or even refers to her work. And that's before the glaring errors which even I (as a complete amateur myself), can identify. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
For your hard work uploading authentic public domain images of the Rider Waite Tarot. This is been a great benefit to articles which must use them as we now have appropriate images. Smiloid (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Fuzzy, looking for an opinion on something. The article Book of Mirrors was created middle of last year, and has received virtually no activity since then. Even more, it has no citations. I've never heard of it, though the specific term is in Google around 10,000 times...unknown how many are directly related to paganism. I'm close to prodding this as non-notable/unreferenced, but I wanted to ask what you thought. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.