User talk:Lpivonka

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Cthulhu. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Cthulhu, you will be blocked from editing. Oxymoron⁸³ 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Cthulhu, you will be blocked from editing. Rjd0060 23:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I only blanked out the article because i was getting frustrated that the article was false and anything i put there was deleted. The whole article is wrong, claiming that cthulu was invented by an author in the 20s is so ridiculous. The idea of cthulu has been around since becore the birth of christ.

Cthulhu

Hey, thanks for catching the errors at Cthulhu. I removed your edit because we're not supposed to have any commentary in the article, but feel free to put what you wrote on Talk:Cthulhu. In fact, you can point out which errors you found and say you're removing them, and ask if others are ok with it. That way no one will mistake your edits for vandalism as we did before. It also helps to have a clear edit summary explaining what you're doing and why. Anyway, sorry for the confusion, thanks for helping out with the project! Peace, delldot talk 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing Cthulhu-related articles

First of all, you tried to put warnings saying that "the whole article is false". This is not constructive, and that's not how things are done in Wikipedia. It's widely accepted that Cthulhu is a fictional being, invented by Lovecraft. If you have solid sources who say otherwise, you could mention them in the article. A more comprehensive rewrite of the article should be discussed in the talk page first.

Your edits aren't helping Wikipedia (especially when you tried [twice] to blank the Cthulhu article). I've noticed you did the same thing to the Necronomicon and the Wicca articles. Please refrain from doing so in the future. --Miguel1626 23:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing the Cthulhu article. Your comments should be made in the talk page, not on the article itself. No use insisting on it. --Miguel1626 00:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Cthulhu, you will be blocked from editing. Oxymoron⁸³ 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this account for 24 hours because of all the disruption - he already had a test 4 earlier but continued his edit warring and messages posting.--JForget 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not vandalizing anything. This whole article is bullshit. cthulu is a wiccan god whos presence has been known about since before the birth of christ. i just figured wikipedia was a place of facts and you have bullshit articles up.

Saying that Cthulu is widely accepted as a creation of Lovecraft is the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. Im sorry but you would have to stupid to beleive that. Look at the history of witchcraft which your article is also wrong about, Cthulu is a god that like i have said has been an idea since before the birth of christ. Your lack of knowledge proves that you shouldnt be doing what your doing. By the way, good job at haveing false articles on this site.

If this is the case, gather your sources and discuss them in the talk page. If you're right, truth will prevail in the end. That's due Wikipedia process. Just weaving accusations regarding an article's veracity, and then defacing said article with baseless warnings will lead us nowhere. I hope you think about it in the next 24 hours, while your account is blocked. BTW, I'd really to see the sources for your suggestion that "cthulu is a wiccan god". And thanks for the ad hominem atacks, BTW :) --Miguel1626 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If thats your idea of defacing an article all i can say is how quaint. I simply put that the information in the article was incorrect, which it is. That is in no way defacing an article. The fact that your knowledge of the subject is so minimal only makes it funny to me. Regardless of what you think, if you knew any history other than what society has pounded in your head, you would have something to argue about. BTW saying that "if you beleive that your stupid" lol is defintely not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should look up words in the dictionary before using them, if you dont know the meaning.

I already said what the proper procedure is: gather your sources and discuss them on the talk page. At the very least, make constructive, sourced, verifiable edits to the article page. Saying generic stuff like "this article is all false" isn't helpful at all. And calling my knowledge "minimal" without providing any sources to back up your claims is just, well, ironic. It would be nice if you could prove that you actually know anything about the subject... --Miguel1626 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize what you said, you already said it, you dont need to repeat anything. I mean i know you do to reassure yourself so you can sleep at night, but i mean for me, its not neceassary. I know the procedures. The fact you say that my claim of your minimal knowlegde is ironic, proves my point. Your false sense of intelligence is product of society's views they bash into children when they grow up. Possibly consider disconnecting yourself and actually start your quest for knowledge, because you seem like you try really hard to be smart, which is quite funny. You should possibly consider wasting your time elsewhere, instead thinking your awesome via the internet. Its funny to me that you argue all these points, but everything you say just proves my point. In 24 hours when im not blocked anymore i plan on inputting the correct Cthulu information on the site as well as the correct information for the Wicca page and the Necronomicon page. Your comical attempts to insult me are futile. Dont waste anymore of your time with me because it appears you should spend it more wisely doing what you usually do, trying to look cool on the internet hahaha.

You're certainly very smart and mature. Go on and "correct" the article all you want. I'm brainwashed by "society". --Miguel1626 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to me, i knew that, you didnt need to tell me. Your attempts to win an internet argument is like winning the special olympics, either way, your still retarded. <3

Find a reference to Chthulhu that predates 1900. One. That's all I'm asking for. One. 216.26.131.217 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay thats no problem. Look man all you have to do is go to any bookstore and find a book about the first religions, such as wiccan or celtics, and read them man. Unfortunately what you dont realize is that cthulu though he is used differently in Lovecrafts work, the actual origination of Cthulu is in those religions. Cthulu is a "God" from both religions. Im not trying to mean or anything like that. I just think its unfair to give credit to Lovecraft when Cthulu has been a "God" in one of the first organized religions since B.C. Im not unreasonable, i just read a lot more than the average person and if you just look through history man you will find it. Heres another reference as well, if you look up an old wiccan spell, dating back again, to B.C. Its called The Summoning of Cthulu. How can anyone claim to have thought up the idea of Cthulu when a spell like that is set more than 100s of years before christ?

Wicca's roots might be in old religions, but it's an upstart in terms of being an actual faith; my understanding is that so far, no verifiable source of information referring to Wicca can be found earlier then the 1900s, nearly two millenium AFTER the purported birth of Christ. Although the religion began at around the same time Lovecraft was writing, I find it a bit sketchy to suggest that Lovecraft inspired the traditions of Wicca, given the difference in its philosophy and practices from his universe. You're spelling Cthulhu wrong, by the way. In addition, after consultation with my local occult bookstores and considerable independent research, I am unable to locate your "old Wiccan spell" or, indeed, any mention of Cthulhu or a similar entity in a religious work. Could you provide scholarly support for your claims? I am tempted to put it all down to frivolous nonsense, at present. --146.94.163.195 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

lol that whole paragraph just shows your lack of knowledge. First of all dont argue with me on spelling because if you knew anything about CTHULU you would know that it has many different spellings, MANY and all are correct. Kutulu, Ktulu, Cthulu, Cthulhu, its a good sized list. Also claiming that organized wiccanism has only been around since the 1900s is not only asenine but completely wrong. Wiccanism has been an organized faith since before christ regardless of what your sources tell you, or lack thereof. If you actually went to an occult bookstore and couldnt find any information on Cthulu then that bookstore was either a complete fabrication or they dont have any idea what they are doing there. Also, saying that Lovecraft inspired the traditions of wiccanism is not only wrong but insulting to any wicca practitioner. Your ignorance and claims are kind of frustrating, forgive me, but lack of intelligence or common sense frustrates me. Go buy a book and stop wasting my time with your puerile intelligence.