User talk:King Vegita/Archive 2

License tagging for Image:Elevatedwikistress.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Elevatedwikistress.GIF. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who looks, I forgot to load the {{GFDL-self}} for that and 3 other images, I got it for the first two. It is taken care of

KV 06:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested page move

I've deleted Nut (goddess), and moved Nuit into the empty space. AnnH ♫ 07:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, it would have been better to discuss all this on the article talk page, so other editors could contribute. However, I have no problem with the renaming. I also have no problem with moving Nuit (Thelema) to Nuit as long as all the links from all the Egyptian articles are fixed to point at Nut (goddess) first. There are about 100 of them. You'll find them listed here. Have fun! -999 17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just noticed that. Thanks!Timothy Usher 02:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for that KV. I just noticed it. Come to think of it, you certainly desever one too for your postive role in the Christianity article. I'll have to get around to making one for you.Giovanni33 19:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hieroglyph thanks!!!

I'm very pleased to see you figured out how to fix the reference on hieroglyph problem. A big thanks for the time you took to do so and fix the pages in question. -999 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you fixed it on the pages I'm watching, so thanks anyway :-) P.S., don't know if you're interested in the topic, but have you seen the ruckus over at Talk:Golden Dawn tradition? -999 04:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending my user page!

K.V., thanks for defending my user page. The user (since blocked for 3RR) is angry about an ongoing dispute about the existence and nature of The Muslim Guild, an open partisan cabal that's existed long enough for its members to believe it the normal state of affairs (that's my take on it at least.) Have you come across a similar project? Do you think I'm over-reacting?Timothy Usher 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

K.V., Thanks for responding. Str1977 has contacted me and is willing to take a stab at this. From going over the transcripts it seems there are several issues. 1) The disputed paragraph itelf, 2) A failure to find consensus on a NPOV 3) Arrogance/Ego 4) The lack of sourcing by Str1977. If you are interested, what would be helpful is if you could explain to me what the major issues are from your POV. I am especially intrested on your take on points 2 and 3. You can post this on my talk page or email it to me, where it will be totally confidential. Cheers. Sarazani 00:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Historicism

Hi KV,

The important thing, I think, is to come as close as possible to establishing what passses for a mainstream scholarly point of view. Trust me, what you've seen from the so-called Christian cabal pales in comparison to the relentless and unashamed partisanship you'll find on pages related to some other major religions. Excepting a few very pesky vandals, most westerners of any confession are long since (after centuries of conflict which science mostly won) acclimated to allowing secular scholarship its own space, and understand that they have to at least pretend to play along.

Were the atmosphere truly similar, I'd be called a Christian-bashing propagandist for not allowing the introduction to Jesus to be changed from "Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE — 29-36 AD/CE)" to "Jesus (1-33AD; 33AD-present)" - oh, then comes the "NPOV compromise" intro sentence, "Non-Christians believe Jesus to have died in 33AD, while Christians believe him to have been resurrected three days later to eternal life" - just really basic points about the framework in which we ought to be viewing all this. And I'd have Christians denouncing me daily (and vandalizing my user pages), thinking this an act of piety.

On Talk:Muhammad, the question du jour is, is it "Muslim-bashing" to say that Muhammad founded Islam? Idea being that Islam existed since Adam; source, Qur'an. Reliable sources (Watt, EB) are non-Muslim, and hence at best the representatives of non-Muslim (if not anti-Muslim) POV, which must be then set against the opinions of openly religiously-motivated editors to the talk page to achieve true NPOV. WP:RS is held to be itself anti-Muslim, because religious tracts are not considered reliable sources except for their own opinions (and for history only where there is no other source, as with Acts, Hadith, etc.)

I am starting to think we need a WP:SECULAR. It's already there, implicitly, in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT, but implicit may not suffice.

The STR1977 "heresies" controversy, albeit still recognizably partisan, accepts (at least overtly) the normal secular framework of naturalistic fact. I took another look last night, and it seems that you're winning this one. My impression has been that Christianity spread more rapidly than did its organization, and that as you say, Gnostics (for starters) was not, as a matter of historical fact, merely apostate Catholics, but a group which the church had suppressed using its newfound power as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Duh. It's a real shame you have to go through all this just to get a reasonable paragraph in there.

Well, I've posted enough...Is there a particular point you'd like me to take a closer look at?Timothy Usher 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusing Timothy Usher of anti-Semitism against anon users

Please have a look the section "Why I am not a vandal and Timothy Usher and Pgk are making false accusations" of the Muslim Guild. You may want to take back the awards you gave Timothy Usher. Thanks 70.231.233.118 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Userbox

Your welcome to the userbox! Perhaps we should create a template, but with

instead? Markh 07:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...

Sorry, that was my brother who shares my account said the thing about Joseph. While we share mostly the same theories and interests, he is a little more...compulsive about it, I guess you could say. Sorry for his...giving you a hard time.

Don't Worry

I have notified him not to anymore. Therealmikelvee 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR reminder

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You say that you understand WP:3RR, but then you wrote: my first two reverts restored someone else's edit that was reverted and the other one reverted back to how I improved upon that person's version, indicating that you seem to think those don't count. That's exactly the kind of thing that WP:3RR was created to prevent from happening. Jkelly 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Signing

King, when you sign your edits could you please just do it immedately after your edit rather than skippling a line. When you skip a line it adds space and it is more difficult to scan the article to get the gist of edits by easily identifying where one edit begins and the next ends. THanks, Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will always make formating changes that are appropriate and that follow WIKI standards. As far as signature blocks go, make it any way you like. However, do not attempt to make a formating change a personal attach on your "signature"; it was and is not personal, but rather a way to save space and follow typical protocol found by nearly all other editors on WIKI. To me, having a one line signature does look a little arrogant or like grandstanding. Everyone else just simply signs after their comments. Very, very, very few need to wave a flag, but hey, I will clap for your flag. My request was a simple one, I understand that you have courteously rejected it. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

I saw the dust-up on the noticeboards, and thought you might be interested.Timothy Usher 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

777 and other Cabalistic Writings

I'm wondering if you can help me out on this. I didnt get a chance to create the article 777 and other Cabalistic Writings because I left Mi in such a hurry and I was going to use your copy. The current article is called Liber 777 and I've waited a few weeks to see if someone objected to the creation of a main article which includs Liber 777 (seeing as how thats only one section of the actual book). Once this is done, a redirect to the main article should be done, and what not (you know how it goes). If you have time, it shouldnt take long. Thanks. Zos 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting link

Hi KV - have you come across this yet? [1] I thought you'd find it interesting. Sophia 20:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded the whole thing by accident just by clicking on a particular link (I can't work out how to post it). Try googling on the info and look for the PDF link - if you have no luck let me know and I'll e-mail it to you. Sophia 22:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the google search that shows it [2] Sophia 22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination Dismal's Paradox

I've nominated the article Dismal's Paradox for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Dismal's Paradox satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dismal's Paradox. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Dismal's Paradox during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Jesse Viviano 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. Zos 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried calling you to tell you, but you didnt pick up the phone. Zos 05:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation Cabal (Christianity)

I was looking through the Christianity case because there seemed to be uncertainty on the part of the mediators and I noticed that activity had dropped after a certain point. At a glance, it doesn't appear that any compromise was reached and that discussion became less productive over time. Has discussion migrated elsewhere or has it been resolved? If you are still open to mediation, I'd be happy to try. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It died. I tried to make many concessions without Str making a single one, and mediators were not attempting much in dispute resolution so I just gave up on it, my version is standing last I saw. I'm fine if someone helps, if they actually work towards helping.

KV(Talk) 02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Category:Kybalion

The Cat has been empty for while. May be you like to discuss before tagging. The main article will remain.Regards.--Connection 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Its deleted. :p Zos 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Creating a policy

For starters, you can go to WP:HCP. Then theres the village dump and the polices RfC, and you might want to check out WP:IAR in which I already voted on that particular talk page :p

If I find anything else I'll let you know. Zos 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

After creating a page which discusses a policy change or creation, you'd submit it to Wikipedia:Current surveys I believe as well as the polices RfC. Zos 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just let me know when you start something and I'll help out. SynergeticMaggot 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

List of weapons in Naruto

• List of weapons in Naruto

This has been listed for deletion. And no it wasnt done by me, but alas I am bringing it to your attention. Zos 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Djehuty

Hey, thought I'd let you know I started a discussion at Djehuty as to the page's name. Personally, I think we should go with the more common version (as we do with Set (mythology), Achilles, Ajax (mythology), etc.), but we'll see what everyone else thinks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Proof

This tool is great man. Toss your name on the request list. Vandal Proof

SynergeticMaggot 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult. SynergeticMaggot 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita: You added your name as a participant to the WikiProject on the talk page. If you wish to be a participant, please leave your name on the main article page. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 02:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental Gender

I didnt do it. SynergeticMaggot 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

heads up

Theres not one but two RfC's on Hermetism right now. Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy and here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Dont have a heart attack, and I didnt do it. SynergeticMaggot 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hermeticism and other thought systems

Your continued opinion would be helpful on the talk page.

I offered some input on the PROD, but I'm not certain how useful it will be. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement on Onslaught of Challenges

You speak as if you own the articles in question. Speaking for myself, I only want to improve the articles. Basing articles on questionable sources is the reason this is happening. That's a choice you made. Surely there are other editors of these articles who will work together to improve them according to WP standards on reliable sources. It's not all about you. :-) -999 (Talk) 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there were more editors of these articles. There is no personal challenge so please do not take it as such. We are helping to improve the article. If you do not have the time to edit Wikipedia, then wait until you do have time. If you feel the need to aquire an RfC, then by all means. And if you wish to bring this to ArbCom, I will be glad to participate. No worries. SynergeticMaggot 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing in good faith, K.V. - you, on the other hand, appear to be threatening to ignore that fact that multiple editors disagree with you. Please don't revert, it will get you nowhere. Try to move forward and take the opinions of the other editors seriously. That's good faith. —Hanuman Das 01:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

Somethings wrong with the template you created. Its the talk page template. It seems to tell users to edit the talk page instead of the main page. SynergeticMaggot 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Example: Talk:Acquisito (geomancy). SynergeticMaggot 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SynergeticMaggot (talk • contribs) .

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SynergeticMaggot (talk • contribs) .

SynergeticMaggot, your warnings are uncalled for. KV's no vandal. Unless you have diffs?Timothy Usher 09:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It refers to me reverting to a version that he had a content dispute about. AnnH already gave him hell about it.

KV(Talk) 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

She did? Where? SynergeticMaggot 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

KV(Talk) 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I dont see it. SynergeticMaggot 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

HAOTS

Sorry for not having been able to pipe in. I did take a look at the article, and the vote, but by the time i'd gotten around to having the chance to say something about it, it was gone. I'm really surprised at how quickly this was done. My personal opinion: there was definitely an OR quality to this article, but not all was OR, and the subject is completely legitimate. If it had been up to me, I probably would have stubbed it, keeping only referenced material. Deletion was unduly extreme. It's just a fact that Hermeticism has influenced other thought systems. The real debate is how much, and here we might (or might not) disagree...the challenge appears to be sourcing. I know it's frustrating - witness how uncontroversial (but potentially untrue) material is allowed to slip past the source policy, while controversial material is held beneath the magnifying glass - but I really don't know how to solve this. As with Template:Satanism vs. Template:Christianity, the bias is enshrined in procedure: whatever people call them, there are votes involved, and votes don't care if they're inconsistent. I can only encourage you to keep up the hard work - I do hope you've somewhere kept your article - and come back with either more sources or fewer claims. I don't think there's any policy against recreating the article if there's been a substantial attempt to address the objections in the AfD - though I might be mistaken, might want to ask an actual admin.Timothy Usher 09:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

the policy you wanted to make

I found an interesting proposal that already was in the works. User:Kelly Martin/Policy council. Seems an admin was already working on a simular proposal that you wanted to make. SynergeticMaggot 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman

Oh so now you're calling Hanuman a vandal? Wheres your proof of it. He may have been blocked for 3rr but this doesnt mean hes a vandal and this definitly doesnt mean you can just go adding information to his userpage. You're going to have to learn one of these days that reverting per point isnt the way of things on Wikipedia. SynergeticMaggot 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call him a vandal, I mentioned other instances in which such actions are taken. I also noted sockpuppets, and I am not calling him a sockpuppet. I did not accuse him of vandalizing or being a vandal.

KV(Talk) 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then dont mention it in your edit summaries. Its misleading and only serves to imply that you are doing it because hes somewhere proven to be a vandal, has a sock, or is dodging his old username. That username is blocked, and if he wants to add it in, then he can. Theres no reason why you should add in a previous username to validate a point on 3rr. SynergeticMaggot 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop Vandalising my user page

And see [3]. I changed my username b/c I was being harassed by someone who made legal threats. It is my right to do so, I did it with admin approval, and it's none of your f***ing business to expose it. Start a fight with me and YOU WILL NOT WIN. You've been reported for vandalizing my user page on WP:AN/I. You're not an admin, stay off both my user and talk page from now on. —Hanuman Das 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Egpytian Religion

Hey

I thought that it would sound better using the word "Kemetic" rather than the name "Egyptian Religion" as there is a new religious movement which claims to practice "Kemetic Orthodoxy"

Just thought I would add a bit of constructive criticism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.238.25 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

This may interest you

Hanuman Das' current sock puppetry - WeniWidiWiki 08:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Occult Communication

KV, the Occult Project is falling apart. We've had the same Featured things for months. I can't get anyone to collaborate either. Please help me get everyone active again.--Whytecypress 02:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does happen often. Now that Wikipedia is becoming more bureaucratic and the administrators becoming more trigger-happy, I fear we may end up like Memory Alpha, the only wiki where you can improve a stub and get a list of what you did wrong that longer than the page.

You can request undeletion, and say that your articles were deleted without consensus. It might help if you had me or someone else request them instead, because author requests for undeletion are frequently ignored. Hope it helps.--Whytecypress 22:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'd like to see the AfD's, that'd help when i request their restoration. I think there is a good chance we can get them back. Some obstacles to consider: They(especially the comparison article) are stylisticly similar to an essay, which are only allowed on Wikipædia if they are about Wikipædia itself. There is also some moderately unencyclopædic wording, and departure from the main topic is evident in the lower portions of §1. If you need to further explain the religious equivalentic dualism of the ancient Circum-Mediterranean world, then you should create a seperate article or find an existing portion of content, add a small interming sentance(s) to the main articel, and put in some linkwork.

Also, there is some mal§work in §3 of the Hermetisim(if it is so, pardon me on my phonetic englyphment.)

If we clean these up a bit, and rework them, improve some other crap in the way, then we could get these pages back into mainspace.

As for Wikipædia, being run by delætionists, I must agree, it is so. Mostly because no other logical philosophy exists in such a manner as deletionism does. Inclusionism, Editism, and Darwikinism have all been so quagmired to the point of unintelligability.

You seem to be very knowledgable in this field, that is, the Occult. If you are interested, i could recount to you a freemason ceremony that I attended lasterday.

Regards--Whytecypress 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Article tagged for deletion

An article I have written, which you had commented on, has been put up for deletion over notability. I am not sure about what it all means, even though I have looked it up on wiki. What do I do? Just sit and wait until the vote is over? If you could give me some advice that'd be great. Thanks, YeLLeY511 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Occult Articles

I hope you did not take my comments offencively. I now realize that they were a bit heavy. I am deeply sorry.

I've added both of the articles to the Project: Occult To-Do List, along with the priorities and intentions for their restoration to mainspace. I've begun to enlist help from other members. Please contact me or the project with what you want done with them aside from what has already been stated.--Whytecypress 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you're a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Occult

I saw that you're a member of WikiProject Occult; would you like to join my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah. Thanks. Lighthead 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

KING; DID U LEAVE ME AN EMAIL

r u an expert on SSI?joe 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New userbox

I saw that your user page links to Universal Life Church. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know that I created a new userbox that you can add to your user page should you wish. {{User:Green Joe/ULC}} is the template to add. GreenJoe 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ma'at

Not offhand. I'm sure there are plenty of post-Budge references, though. IPSOS (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't looked at them, busy with many changes on my long watchlist. I'm sure I'll catch up with it though. If you are in the middle of it, I'll wait till you are done. As long as you use reliable sources and don't read between the lines, I'm sure I'll be fine with it. I tend mostly to rearrange, improve grammar, that sort of thing. At least, that's what I prefer to do. I hate having to be picky about sources, b/c people get upset, but sometimes it seems necessary. IPSOS (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean like the article Egyptian soul? I'm not sure it is at all right, but not sure what's wrong either. IPSOS (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I can see you have not been active for a little while but in case you get this, I thought you'd like to know that the section you played a big role in creating for the Christianity article, to make it more NPOV, and comprehensive (the controveries section) is now being removed, and I don't see any good reasons to do so.Giovanni33 21:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)