User talk:Frater Xyzzy

Welcome!

Hello, Frater Xyzzy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Occult[edit]

Hello. Regarding the Occult page, some chap keeps stripping categories off if articles, and now you are stripping internal links. Try to remember that the articles should lead elsewhere....--Blackhood 20:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. As for Hinduism, it does indeed have occult aspects, such as the Thuggee (a secret society) and the various Left-Handed Tantrik movements. --Blackhood 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Occult" means hidden. So a secret society by definition qualifies. --Blackhood 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree. If the word "occult" has changed in meaning, the meaning has been perverted by modernism. --Blackhood 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Categories[edit]

Thanks for the heads up there. I thought that seemed wrong, but wasn't sure what to do about it.

It seems that when I transclude userboxes the categories are also added to my page...

I will double check the syntax in both making and using the boxes.

Again, thanks for pointing out that this should not be happening, as I already felt it was odd.

- Rockthing 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange, but now that I look at the userpage

documentationa and userbox documentation

what you say is written in plain English

Just didn't register, I guess.

Thanks again for pointing it out to me.

- Rockthing 08:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neopaganism[edit]

There are quite a few differences between Neopaganism and Wicca. In fact, Wicca is just one pagan religion, in that some define pagan as any non-monotheistic religion. Wicca is nature based, specifically focusing on the Lady, but there are many more pagan traditions, like Shinto, shamanism, and others. Remember, you asked! If still confused, just ask...Niki Whimbrel 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Ech. Well, I'm not really an active editor of the article, but maybe comment on its talk page about it? Have a nice day!Niki Whimbrel 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

friendly advice[edit]

Frater Xyzzy, it isn't a good idea to act quite as belligerently with such a young account. I realize you may have edited under other names, but so may those whom you lecture about policy. It is perfectly fair to prod or afd articles, however, you should do so with decorum and detachment. I don't know what Huld has done to you, but we can certainly reach an amicable solution, there is no reason to make people cross over it. If you are irked by short articles on minor characters, suggest merges, not deletion. Anyway, there is a lot of nonsensical clutter added to Wikipedia every day, and your sceptical attention is more than welcome. happy editing, dab (�) 11:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)[edit]

I tried to get the Jahbulon page to where it should be around this time last year, but schoolwork and just the stone wall I was running up against of ALR MSJ Blueboar et all started to annoy me. They actually came up with a new version of the page on their own and then replaced the entire page with a version they approved.

Since you haven't been editing these pages before i'd like to give you a few heads up. First off do not be a sockpuppet, if you start editing the page alot they will likely check you against "Lightbringer" a banned user, and if your a sock of any other user it will likely pop up. Secondly be prepared for alot of wikilawyering, they have all stated they do not feel the article should exist, and unless you have 50billion things backing you up, it will be immediatly removed with some random reason, and turn into a 2week long debate where nothing gets accomplished. I'm on winter break starting soon so i'll be around watching the article. Seraphim 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on the AfD talkpage you may be interested in.LessHeard vanU 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry David[edit]

Fra x. as regards Larry David.

The proper thing to do with unverified content is to put a citation needed tag after it and give the other editors a few days to add a proper reference. Reverts, without a few days for other editors to verify ,is considered vandalism

In Mr. Davids case, this should be easy, as he is deeply involved in the new york magick scene.

I will look for better sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.x.x (talk • contribs)

You are not correct. In the case of living persons, dubious unsupported information must be removed immediately. See WP:LIVING. Also, even for non-living persons, it is an editors right to remove the information. Leaving it in and using {fact} tags is not required by policy. It may be decided on a case-by-case basis by any editor, who may remove unlikely unsupported information at any time. See WP:V. Frater Xyzzy 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked that info out. And you are correct, Brother Xyzzy. And that is the problem with the topics in the heading occult.

I thought that I had LD`s permission to mention that fact, as we have had numerous discussions regarding CM. Turned out, due to his children's privacy, I was wrong, and have already had to apologize. Twice.

And as you are familiar with this topic, a question on li`l Markie Chao. Her wiki entry page has a link regarding a film being produced by her own film company, saying that a "famous actor" is currently working with her on this film, in preproduction.

Nowhere, anywhere, does it say that except in markie`s movie company site. Not even his own Personal Website, that lists all the projects that he has done, is doing, and that he has officially signed onto, mentions it, not even in passing.

Is that WIKI certified?

RasputinJSvengali 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Heads Up[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to give you a heads up that you have been mentioned in an arbcom case [1]. Rather confusingly, the arbcom case is no longer located at that link, but has move to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some action taken[edit]

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while. Rosencomet 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Festival & RasputinJSvengali[edit]

First of all, Happy New Year to you.

I have just left this note on User:CheNuevara's talk page:

I have just seen an action taken by User: RasputinJSvengali during this arbitration (and, as far as I know, an ongoing mediation) which not only rewrites the text of the article and deletes the entire "Featured Speakers" and "Featured Entertainers" sections, but adds "Satanists" and "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" to the list of people attending. I am afraid that this has been done to bait me into a revert war during the arbitration. As an objective party who has offered to help with my efforts to rectify the problems caused by the disagreements between myself and other editors, I would like to ask you to reverse this action and request that User: RasputinJSvengali refrain from such actions. For several weeks I have only reduced the number of links and added 3rd party citations, all of which were requested by editors during the mediation, and have engaged in civil discussion on issues related to the article on the discussion page without actually doing the editing (except for one grammatical edit). Thank you. Rosencomet 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's the move going?[edit]

Still at the hotel? or knee-deep in boxes? If you do get on, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddy. -999 (Talk) 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me[edit]

AfD nomination of Obligations in Freemasonry[edit]

An editor has nominated Obligations in Freemasonry, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please[edit]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

As per checkuser

Request handled by: Yamla 15:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your mail / sock block[edit]

I blocked User:204.122.16.13 as a sock of *you*. As to the JA stuff: you'll have to sort that out with whoever did the CU William M. Connolley 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

Hey, congratulations on your getting cleared and unblocked. From what I've seen, that almost never happens on WP. Jefferson Anderson 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, spoke too soon. Just got your email and see that you have indeed been blocked again. Yes, I will do what I can... Jefferson Anderson 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message for BigDT[edit]

I find it very strange that when ALR, who claims to reside in England, logs out and uses an IP address to evade 3RR, his IP should be in the US. You might want to read this brag by ALR claiming to be able to walk 10 yards and be able to post from a different continent. I wonder if that's what he did here? Frater Xyzzy 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award[edit]

		Tin-Foil Hat
		I hereby award you this Tin-foil hat for your tireless efforts in exposing the conspiracy of the Freemasons, the Illuminati, Neopagans, Occultists and UFO's editing wikipedia for their own evil purposes. - WeniWidiWiki 02:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets[edit]

This might interest you. I contacted an arbitrator who confirmed that Mattisse, BackMaun and Alien666 "all share an IP from time to time", and he asked how serious the problem is. I told him to look at the activity on List of Thelemites, List of UFO researchers, Allen H. Greenfield and Anodea Judith; Mattisse has been criticized for this kind of thing before on some of the same pages and others edited by the same editors, and supported then by Kathryn (like she did on Anodea Judith) and her two partners as may be happening now. I told him that this looks like a "ramp up" to me, at a time when others in the Starwood arbitration had been saying that there were no recent indications of sockpuppet activity on the part of Mattisse. Rosencomet 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Frater Xyzzy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous.

Decline reason:

I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.