I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ragib 05:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Morgan; I noticed the scan of Image:Future history 01.jpg from Heinlein. Unfortunately I don't think the copyright has expired -- Heinlein only died 20 years ago, and I think Wikipedia's policy is 100 years. Anyway, before I put a copyright problem tag on, I thought I'd check with you to see if you have a reason I don't know about to believe that the copyright has expired. Let me know on my talk page if there's something, otherwise I'll probably tag it for someone to look at in the next day or two. Thanks. Mike Christie 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will be the first to admit to a great deal of confusion on the whole copyright issue. I am not in the US and as such am not conversant with US copyright law. I know that in my country this image would be able to be used as fair use - as I believe wikipedia would constitute educational use and because it is a tiny part of the entire published work i.e. it is one page of a 256 page book, and also as public domain - as it is 80 years since it was published. I suggest you tag the image and get someone who knows a lot more about this than I do to settle this issue. Sorry for the inconvenience.
- Morgan Leigh 04:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) - cross posted to user talk:Mike Christie
Hi, many thanks for welcoming my suggestion at Dion Fortune. Furthermore, please look at The Society of Inner Light: I reverted the deletion that the author him/herself has done. I am not able for now to check the factual verifiability of the information, so please accept my apologies if I did something wrong. -- ''clearcontent'' a.k.a. '''Doktor Who''' 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- That page does contain some erroneous information and some parts of it have been lifted verbatim from other websites. I will put it on my list of things to improve...
- Morgan Leigh 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, could you give a look at Per capita, Per capita income, relevant talk/history pages and my talk page? I assert that the original form is 'pro capite, as I can find in a number of books here at my home. -- ''clearcontent'' a.k.a. '''Doktor Who''' 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have done a bit of research and added my comments to the per capita and per capita income pages.
- Morgan Leigh 05:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I removed Category:Occult after making Category:Kabbalah as subcategory of Category:Occult. As I am sure you know, an article should not also be in a supercategory of its approriate subcategory. - 999 ( Talk) 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn't aware that Kabbalah was a sub category of occult. Sorry.
- Morgan Leigh 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you said you were working on a new Hermetic Qabalah article. That sounds great, and I'd be happy to help with any areas I'm familiar with. Thanks for your work! Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Greetings Fuzzypeg,
- I am in fact still working on an Hermetic Qabalah page. Honest. I have been slowed down a bit on account of writing my thesis. I welcome your kind offer of assistance. The method I have been using to construct the page was to make a copy of the existing Kabbalah page in my sandbox and edit it to form an Hermetic Qabalah page. Take a look at my sandbox and you will see what I mean. The page presently contains the material I want to keep in the Hermetic Qabalah page at the top and the remains of the existing Kabbalah page at the bottom. I have been working through the Kabbalah page and either discarding or editing the material to suit Hermetic Qabalah. Please note the stuff at the top is really only a draft, though I am happy with some of it. Let me know what you think.
- Morgan Leigh 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't post messages with such an uncivil tone on my talk page again. IPSOS ( talk) 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- My post to you was not uncivil. Besides if you are going to have a user page as confrontational as yours you need to be able to cope if people respond in a less than enthusiastic way. The fact that your only response to my post was to complain about my tone and not to actually address the issues I raised tells me you are not to be taken seriously. Get over it.
- Morgan Leigh 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you made me laugh. WP:AGF says "This page in a nutshell: Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Your user page says "The main problem with Wikipedia is that complete fools cribbing from books consider themselves the equals of people who have studied a field and are intimately acquainted with it." All I shall say is, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
- Morgan Leigh 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you restore speculation about where the Alexandrine texts would have gone if they had survived the 700s? Since the texts did not then why include speculation? Rastov 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What I intended to say to the anonymous user was that he did not need to remove all the old information, and references, in order to add the other interpretation. As I say I intended to say this on the article talk page, in response, to his earlier messages, but then got distracted. I am not in favour of simply reverting edits without explanation, especially in the case of a new user who is really attempting an improvement. As I say, I simply got distracted, and forgot to leave the message. Thanks for your edits. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair Enough. It just ended coming across a bit hostile and the poor newbie seems to have taken it a bit hard. I am sure you meant well and hopefully they will get over it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the paragraph you put back in Neurotheology. It's spam: it doesn't give any facts from the books and is only referencing that the "monumental", "radical", "sweeping" book by a "prominent" theologian exists. Why do you think that marketese paragraph is encyclopedic? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-11 t12:30z
- Greetings Jeandre, I agree that the language is promotional, but the book seems worth mentioning, though perhaps it would be better to pick an English language title by this author for English Wikipedia. I was in a bit of a hurry at the time I made this edit so instead of rewording it I just put it back in. A bit slack I know, but there it is. :) For future reference this kind of question really belongs on the article's discussion page rather than on a user talk page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: "all the features needed to qualify fully as a civilization" - i removed this sentence, because i could not find any credible source listing "all the features to qualify as civilization". where do you found it? ( Unmet ( talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
- Greetings Unmet, There is a large body of social science on this topic. Naturally some authors regard different criteria as more important than others. You might like to take a look at Civilization#Characterising_civilization to help you to get an understanding of the topic. For future reference this type of question really belongs on the article's discussion page rather than on a user page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain. I have had a discussion with another user who uploaded an image of the "tree of life" symbol with arbitrary lines highlighted to make it resemble a hemp leaf. Predictably, the image has been deleted as original research and crackpottery. In turn, he brought attention to the image Image:Tree of life wk 02.jpg, which is the same (or similar) symbol with different arbirary lines highlighted to make it resemble a lightning/a flaming sword. Indeed I could have highlighted any set of lines to make it resemble some object. (To demonstrate my point to the user, I said that should I connect points 6-3-1-2-6-9-10, it'll resemble a kite [the flying device, not the bird], or perhaps a tadpole.)
Okay, there is some connection between the Tree of life and an angel with a flaming sword guarding the garden of Eden, but I believe that Wikipedia should include the actual kabbalistic symbol, and not your creative interpretation of it. (Was the symbol depicted anywhere with these particular lines highlighted? You don't cite give any source for it in the image description page.)
That's why I have been replacing it. (In hindsight, I should have brought attention to it somewhere first.) - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 09:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, While I sympathize with your problem, I do wish you had asked first as this image is not a creative interpretation and the lines are not arbitrary. The flaming sword is an integral part of kabbalistic theology and this image is used a great many times in a great many sources, which is why I made this image and why it was selected for use for the kabbalah portal. The flaming sword represents the the natural order of the sephirot on the tree of life and the path of the descent of the shekinah. Ordinarily I would be able to cite numerous references for this but presently I am traveling and don't have access to my library, however from memory (I am an academic in this area and remember such things as page numbers etc) it can be found on p62 of "The Golden Dawn" by Israel Regardie and Gershom Scholem mentions it in a great many of his works. I request that you replace the image as it represents concepts common to all schools of kabbalah, which the image you have replaced it with does not. The reason for this is that the arrangement of the paths on the tree are different in different schools of kabbalah and the image you have replaced it with applies to a particular variety of kabbalah only. Once I return home (next week) I can provide many citations. Thanks. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Your attempts at correcting the re-directs have re-introduced POV language I was trying to fix. Any relation between tarot cards and esoteric practices such as Alchemy should be specified as divinatory or occult tarot. The fact that there is another form of tarot usage should not be kept hidden from the reader. Also, you were incorrect that the suits of coins, cups, batons, and swords are not playing cards. They are playing card suits used in Italy and Latin America. I am on the same page as far as using the correct re-directs but we must be more specific and less culturally biased on the uses of tarot cards. Smiloid ( talk) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Au contraire, I was removing your POV language. It is you who is hiding things from the reader, if those suits are only found in Italian and Latin American cards then this should be specified as it is most certainly not true for all playing card decks. I am amused that you accuse me of cultural bias when it is you who is trying to privilege a geographically localised usage (tarot games) over a world wide usage (esoteric uses).
Morgan Leigh |
Talk 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I reviewed your most recent edit to Minchiate and this is acceptable. On the use of the term "occult tarot" which for some reason has caused some controversy. I would recommend you Google this term and you would find it is a common one used by many tarot historians and it is in no way a tautology. We can avoid many edit wars if you learn to use Google. Smiloid ( talk) 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I see you're looking for a mediator. I've got some time on my hands, I'd be glad to mediate. I read a bit about the issues and as far as I can tell the dispute is whether the specific use of tarot (playing or occult) should be specified in the article. Is that about right? Anyway, if you'd like me to mediate, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks, -- Slarti bartfast 1992 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
as you will have noted, there is a long history of discussion as to the degree to which Wikipedia entry on Mithraism should reflect current scholarship (i.e. Beck, Clauss, Gordon, Boyce etc), or whether it should range wider into more speculative areas. At present, the article tends to treat the current consensus as primary (as it is the one that has support in the archeological record), and to treat the alternatives as digressions. If you disagree with this, you should state the published evidence that you are referring to on the talk page. TomHennell ( talk) 17:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Future history 02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. FYI, your edit here has been reverted. After googling Princo Corp., it seems that the revert was justified. Princo Corp. appears to be a middle-size Taiwanese manufacturer of CD-R. Cheers, -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi.. regarding your revert to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. I have two concerns. First, it's redlinked anyway (and EOGD hasn't received enough mainstream coverage--though God knows it should, more on that later--to justify turning a redlink into a bluelink). Second, the EOGD has a history of astroturfing (as do a couple other of the modern orders), amongst other shady tactics. So I'd generally be in favour of not including it. Note that I am a former member of EOGD who left due to grave concerns over the aforementioned shady practices, so you may or may not be justified in taking what I have to say with a grain of salt. I largely only have various GD articles on my watchlist these days to keep an eye out in case the enormous internet wars that periodically grip the GD community spill over onto Wikipedia. One can see that they have in the past, and I am not sanguine that it will not again in the future. → ROUX ₪ 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Greetings Roux, Thank you for comments. It is laudable that you have declared your connection with this order. I agree with you that personal feelings are not the basis of good edits on wikipedia, and we must look at the situation objectively. It is objectively true that the EOGD is an existing order in the Golden Dawn tradition. I am not making here any statements about anyone's claims to be 'genuine' GD orders or anything like that. But imho the EOGD has as much claim as say, the Open Source order of the GD to be described as a Golden Dawn order. Bearing this and your comments in mind, and the fact that there is no article on wikipedia for the EOGD, I have edited the article to include the EOGD in the list of contemporary golden dawn orders. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Patrik fitzgerald group tonight EP cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've closed your request due to the pending RfC. Most dispute resolution processes are unavailable while any other dispute resolution process is pending. RFC's generally stay open for 30 days unless consensus is reached prior to that time, and many will not get responses until well along in that period. If the RFC does not resolve your dispute, feel free to re-list the dispute at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that the rfc usually lasts 30 days. However I sought this remedy as one editor, Xenophrenic, is reverting all other editor's edits and then badgering them on both the article talk page and their personal talk pages. This editor has so far alientated three other editors, and continues to edit the page despite having agreed with me that we would both refrain from editing the page - Protect IP Act. What other remedies are available? Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- While other content dispute resolution is probably foreclosed by the pending RFC, if the user's conduct is edit warring, engaging in page ownership, or otherwise violating Wikipedia policy you can go to WP:WQA to get the opinion of other editors (especially if you are uncertain) or to WP:ANI, or for edit warring WP:EWN, to seek blocking or banning. Before you do — and I'm not implying anything here, just making a wholly-neutral recommendation — you probably need to also read WP:BOOMERANG. Conduct dispute resolution, unlike content DR, is not likely to be held up due to the RFC. If there are no content policies violated, then your only remedy is persuasion. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I deeply appreciate. But this is far from over... ;) Elinruby ( talk) 03:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the following inappropriate comments here since you apparently have something you want to discuss:
- If people don't agree with your edits you revert their edits and badger them on the talk page. So far you are, in your opinion, clever and righter than three other editors. You are clearly incapable of keeping your word, as we had an agreement that we would each not edit this page and let others go forward. I will be keeping my word and not editing this article, and I will be seeking further remedies to your constant harassment of editors. Morgan Leigh
Your mischaracterizations are inappropriate and unwarranted. I'll ask you this one last time to cease your personal attacks. They are unfounded, and in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. If you do not, I will raise this issue for immediate administrative action. If, however, you would like to rationally discuss whatever concerns you may have, I would be willing to listen.
As for our "agreement", I was willing, as a show of good will and politeness, to hold off on editing until we received more editor input. Input that we are now receiving. After your recent actions and comments, I am no longer inclined to extend that unreciprocated good will. Xenophrenic ( talk) 06:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- for what it is worth I will say, as the source of that input, that I agree with the above characterization. I think Xenophrenic may be working in what he perceives to be good faith, maybe, but that he does have biases that blind him and yes, he does wield wiki tags in a bullying manner. That said, I will try some more to reach consensus with him, as this has actually happened on a couple of points. Since I know he'll see this I'll add that responding to requests that he explain his rationale would make that outcome more likely. Elinruby ( talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
a post at Wikipedia:NPOVN mentions the Protect IP page and, indirectly, you and your RfC. You may wish to comment. Elinruby ( talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've explained this in my edit summary. WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Flickr doesn't qualify. As one editor once wrote, "anyone and his brother can add to Flickr, so it is actually the definition of non-RS". You can question this at WP:RSN but note that you are using it as a source to a statement about cleaning the ceiling and of course it says nothing about this. What you seem to be looking for is another image of the cleaned ceiling - find one of those and use it if you want, but please don't keep replacing this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ragib 05:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Morgan; I noticed the scan of Image:Future history 01.jpg from Heinlein. Unfortunately I don't think the copyright has expired -- Heinlein only died 20 years ago, and I think Wikipedia's policy is 100 years. Anyway, before I put a copyright problem tag on, I thought I'd check with you to see if you have a reason I don't know about to believe that the copyright has expired. Let me know on my talk page if there's something, otherwise I'll probably tag it for someone to look at in the next day or two. Thanks. Mike Christie 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will be the first to admit to a great deal of confusion on the whole copyright issue. I am not in the US and as such am not conversant with US copyright law. I know that in my country this image would be able to be used as fair use - as I believe wikipedia would constitute educational use and because it is a tiny part of the entire published work i.e. it is one page of a 256 page book, and also as public domain - as it is 80 years since it was published. I suggest you tag the image and get someone who knows a lot more about this than I do to settle this issue. Sorry for the inconvenience.
- Morgan Leigh 04:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) - cross posted to user talk:Mike Christie
Hi, many thanks for welcoming my suggestion at Dion Fortune. Furthermore, please look at The Society of Inner Light: I reverted the deletion that the author him/herself has done. I am not able for now to check the factual verifiability of the information, so please accept my apologies if I did something wrong. -- ''clearcontent'' a.k.a. '''Doktor Who''' 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- That page does contain some erroneous information and some parts of it have been lifted verbatim from other websites. I will put it on my list of things to improve...
- Morgan Leigh 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, could you give a look at Per capita, Per capita income, relevant talk/history pages and my talk page? I assert that the original form is 'pro capite, as I can find in a number of books here at my home. -- ''clearcontent'' a.k.a. '''Doktor Who''' 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have done a bit of research and added my comments to the per capita and per capita income pages.
- Morgan Leigh 05:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I removed Category:Occult after making Category:Kabbalah as subcategory of Category:Occult. As I am sure you know, an article should not also be in a supercategory of its approriate subcategory. - 999 ( Talk) 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn't aware that Kabbalah was a sub category of occult. Sorry.
- Morgan Leigh 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you said you were working on a new Hermetic Qabalah article. That sounds great, and I'd be happy to help with any areas I'm familiar with. Thanks for your work! Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Greetings Fuzzypeg,
- I am in fact still working on an Hermetic Qabalah page. Honest. I have been slowed down a bit on account of writing my thesis. I welcome your kind offer of assistance. The method I have been using to construct the page was to make a copy of the existing Kabbalah page in my sandbox and edit it to form an Hermetic Qabalah page. Take a look at my sandbox and you will see what I mean. The page presently contains the material I want to keep in the Hermetic Qabalah page at the top and the remains of the existing Kabbalah page at the bottom. I have been working through the Kabbalah page and either discarding or editing the material to suit Hermetic Qabalah. Please note the stuff at the top is really only a draft, though I am happy with some of it. Let me know what you think.
- Morgan Leigh 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't post messages with such an uncivil tone on my talk page again. IPSOS ( talk) 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- My post to you was not uncivil. Besides if you are going to have a user page as confrontational as yours you need to be able to cope if people respond in a less than enthusiastic way. The fact that your only response to my post was to complain about my tone and not to actually address the issues I raised tells me you are not to be taken seriously. Get over it.
- Morgan Leigh 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you made me laugh. WP:AGF says "This page in a nutshell: Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Your user page says "The main problem with Wikipedia is that complete fools cribbing from books consider themselves the equals of people who have studied a field and are intimately acquainted with it." All I shall say is, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
- Morgan Leigh 04:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you restore speculation about where the Alexandrine texts would have gone if they had survived the 700s? Since the texts did not then why include speculation? Rastov 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What I intended to say to the anonymous user was that he did not need to remove all the old information, and references, in order to add the other interpretation. As I say I intended to say this on the article talk page, in response, to his earlier messages, but then got distracted. I am not in favour of simply reverting edits without explanation, especially in the case of a new user who is really attempting an improvement. As I say, I simply got distracted, and forgot to leave the message. Thanks for your edits. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair Enough. It just ended coming across a bit hostile and the poor newbie seems to have taken it a bit hard. I am sure you meant well and hopefully they will get over it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the paragraph you put back in Neurotheology. It's spam: it doesn't give any facts from the books and is only referencing that the "monumental", "radical", "sweeping" book by a "prominent" theologian exists. Why do you think that marketese paragraph is encyclopedic? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-11 t12:30z
- Greetings Jeandre, I agree that the language is promotional, but the book seems worth mentioning, though perhaps it would be better to pick an English language title by this author for English Wikipedia. I was in a bit of a hurry at the time I made this edit so instead of rewording it I just put it back in. A bit slack I know, but there it is. :) For future reference this kind of question really belongs on the article's discussion page rather than on a user talk page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: "all the features needed to qualify fully as a civilization" - i removed this sentence, because i could not find any credible source listing "all the features to qualify as civilization". where do you found it? ( Unmet ( talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
- Greetings Unmet, There is a large body of social science on this topic. Naturally some authors regard different criteria as more important than others. You might like to take a look at Civilization#Characterising_civilization to help you to get an understanding of the topic. For future reference this type of question really belongs on the article's discussion page rather than on a user page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain. I have had a discussion with another user who uploaded an image of the "tree of life" symbol with arbitrary lines highlighted to make it resemble a hemp leaf. Predictably, the image has been deleted as original research and crackpottery. In turn, he brought attention to the image Image:Tree of life wk 02.jpg, which is the same (or similar) symbol with different arbirary lines highlighted to make it resemble a lightning/a flaming sword. Indeed I could have highlighted any set of lines to make it resemble some object. (To demonstrate my point to the user, I said that should I connect points 6-3-1-2-6-9-10, it'll resemble a kite [the flying device, not the bird], or perhaps a tadpole.)
Okay, there is some connection between the Tree of life and an angel with a flaming sword guarding the garden of Eden, but I believe that Wikipedia should include the actual kabbalistic symbol, and not your creative interpretation of it. (Was the symbol depicted anywhere with these particular lines highlighted? You don't cite give any source for it in the image description page.)
That's why I have been replacing it. (In hindsight, I should have brought attention to it somewhere first.) - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 09:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, While I sympathize with your problem, I do wish you had asked first as this image is not a creative interpretation and the lines are not arbitrary. The flaming sword is an integral part of kabbalistic theology and this image is used a great many times in a great many sources, which is why I made this image and why it was selected for use for the kabbalah portal. The flaming sword represents the the natural order of the sephirot on the tree of life and the path of the descent of the shekinah. Ordinarily I would be able to cite numerous references for this but presently I am traveling and don't have access to my library, however from memory (I am an academic in this area and remember such things as page numbers etc) it can be found on p62 of "The Golden Dawn" by Israel Regardie and Gershom Scholem mentions it in a great many of his works. I request that you replace the image as it represents concepts common to all schools of kabbalah, which the image you have replaced it with does not. The reason for this is that the arrangement of the paths on the tree are different in different schools of kabbalah and the image you have replaced it with applies to a particular variety of kabbalah only. Once I return home (next week) I can provide many citations. Thanks. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Your attempts at correcting the re-directs have re-introduced POV language I was trying to fix. Any relation between tarot cards and esoteric practices such as Alchemy should be specified as divinatory or occult tarot. The fact that there is another form of tarot usage should not be kept hidden from the reader. Also, you were incorrect that the suits of coins, cups, batons, and swords are not playing cards. They are playing card suits used in Italy and Latin America. I am on the same page as far as using the correct re-directs but we must be more specific and less culturally biased on the uses of tarot cards. Smiloid ( talk) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Au contraire, I was removing your POV language. It is you who is hiding things from the reader, if those suits are only found in Italian and Latin American cards then this should be specified as it is most certainly not true for all playing card decks. I am amused that you accuse me of cultural bias when it is you who is trying to privilege a geographically localised usage (tarot games) over a world wide usage (esoteric uses).
Morgan Leigh |
Talk 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I reviewed your most recent edit to Minchiate and this is acceptable. On the use of the term "occult tarot" which for some reason has caused some controversy. I would recommend you Google this term and you would find it is a common one used by many tarot historians and it is in no way a tautology. We can avoid many edit wars if you learn to use Google. Smiloid ( talk) 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I see you're looking for a mediator. I've got some time on my hands, I'd be glad to mediate. I read a bit about the issues and as far as I can tell the dispute is whether the specific use of tarot (playing or occult) should be specified in the article. Is that about right? Anyway, if you'd like me to mediate, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks, -- Slarti bartfast 1992 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
as you will have noted, there is a long history of discussion as to the degree to which Wikipedia entry on Mithraism should reflect current scholarship (i.e. Beck, Clauss, Gordon, Boyce etc), or whether it should range wider into more speculative areas. At present, the article tends to treat the current consensus as primary (as it is the one that has support in the archeological record), and to treat the alternatives as digressions. If you disagree with this, you should state the published evidence that you are referring to on the talk page. TomHennell ( talk) 17:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Future history 02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. FYI, your edit here has been reverted. After googling Princo Corp., it seems that the revert was justified. Princo Corp. appears to be a middle-size Taiwanese manufacturer of CD-R. Cheers, -- Edcolins ( talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi.. regarding your revert to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. I have two concerns. First, it's redlinked anyway (and EOGD hasn't received enough mainstream coverage--though God knows it should, more on that later--to justify turning a redlink into a bluelink). Second, the EOGD has a history of astroturfing (as do a couple other of the modern orders), amongst other shady tactics. So I'd generally be in favour of not including it. Note that I am a former member of EOGD who left due to grave concerns over the aforementioned shady practices, so you may or may not be justified in taking what I have to say with a grain of salt. I largely only have various GD articles on my watchlist these days to keep an eye out in case the enormous internet wars that periodically grip the GD community spill over onto Wikipedia. One can see that they have in the past, and I am not sanguine that it will not again in the future. → ROUX ₪ 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Greetings Roux, Thank you for comments. It is laudable that you have declared your connection with this order. I agree with you that personal feelings are not the basis of good edits on wikipedia, and we must look at the situation objectively. It is objectively true that the EOGD is an existing order in the Golden Dawn tradition. I am not making here any statements about anyone's claims to be 'genuine' GD orders or anything like that. But imho the EOGD has as much claim as say, the Open Source order of the GD to be described as a Golden Dawn order. Bearing this and your comments in mind, and the fact that there is no article on wikipedia for the EOGD, I have edited the article to include the EOGD in the list of contemporary golden dawn orders. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Patrik fitzgerald group tonight EP cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've closed your request due to the pending RfC. Most dispute resolution processes are unavailable while any other dispute resolution process is pending. RFC's generally stay open for 30 days unless consensus is reached prior to that time, and many will not get responses until well along in that period. If the RFC does not resolve your dispute, feel free to re-list the dispute at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that the rfc usually lasts 30 days. However I sought this remedy as one editor, Xenophrenic, is reverting all other editor's edits and then badgering them on both the article talk page and their personal talk pages. This editor has so far alientated three other editors, and continues to edit the page despite having agreed with me that we would both refrain from editing the page - Protect IP Act. What other remedies are available? Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- While other content dispute resolution is probably foreclosed by the pending RFC, if the user's conduct is edit warring, engaging in page ownership, or otherwise violating Wikipedia policy you can go to WP:WQA to get the opinion of other editors (especially if you are uncertain) or to WP:ANI, or for edit warring WP:EWN, to seek blocking or banning. Before you do — and I'm not implying anything here, just making a wholly-neutral recommendation — you probably need to also read WP:BOOMERANG. Conduct dispute resolution, unlike content DR, is not likely to be held up due to the RFC. If there are no content policies violated, then your only remedy is persuasion. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I deeply appreciate. But this is far from over... ;) Elinruby ( talk) 03:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the following inappropriate comments here since you apparently have something you want to discuss:
- If people don't agree with your edits you revert their edits and badger them on the talk page. So far you are, in your opinion, clever and righter than three other editors. You are clearly incapable of keeping your word, as we had an agreement that we would each not edit this page and let others go forward. I will be keeping my word and not editing this article, and I will be seeking further remedies to your constant harassment of editors. Morgan Leigh
Your mischaracterizations are inappropriate and unwarranted. I'll ask you this one last time to cease your personal attacks. They are unfounded, and in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. If you do not, I will raise this issue for immediate administrative action. If, however, you would like to rationally discuss whatever concerns you may have, I would be willing to listen.
As for our "agreement", I was willing, as a show of good will and politeness, to hold off on editing until we received more editor input. Input that we are now receiving. After your recent actions and comments, I am no longer inclined to extend that unreciprocated good will. Xenophrenic ( talk) 06:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- for what it is worth I will say, as the source of that input, that I agree with the above characterization. I think Xenophrenic may be working in what he perceives to be good faith, maybe, but that he does have biases that blind him and yes, he does wield wiki tags in a bullying manner. That said, I will try some more to reach consensus with him, as this has actually happened on a couple of points. Since I know he'll see this I'll add that responding to requests that he explain his rationale would make that outcome more likely. Elinruby ( talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
a post at Wikipedia:NPOVN mentions the Protect IP page and, indirectly, you and your RfC. You may wish to comment. Elinruby ( talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've explained this in my edit summary. WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Flickr doesn't qualify. As one editor once wrote, "anyone and his brother can add to Flickr, so it is actually the definition of non-RS". You can question this at WP:RSN but note that you are using it as a source to a statement about cleaning the ceiling and of course it says nothing about this. What you seem to be looking for is another image of the cleaned ceiling - find one of those and use it if you want, but please don't keep replacing this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)