User talk:The Warlock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, Warlock! Or should that be "Hello, The Warlock"? I'm not sure on addressing people whose names begin with "The"...  :o)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump.

— Paul A 07:53 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. You are logged in anytime the upper-right corner of your screen displays The Warlock and includes a link to log out and to your preferences page. If logging in isn't working right, leave a message at User talk:Brion Vibber -- he handles most of our technical stuff. Tuf-Kat

Warlock, I don't know if you've seen it, but a couple of people have left suggestions for you at Wikipedia:Village pump and at User talk:200.69.36.106. — Paul A 01:37 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I see you've managed to sort out your login problem. Congratulations! May your association with Wikipedia be a long and happy one. — Paul A 06:37 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

PS. A useful tip that maybe nobody's told you yet: when you're logged in, you don't have to type in your username every time you want to sign a message. If you type ~~~, that will be converted to your username wrapped in a link to your page, and if you type ~~~~, the time and date will be automatically added. The time will be in GMT (well, technically, in UTC, but the two are indistinguishable under any conditions we're likely to encounter here).

Not a problem. Glad you got it worked out.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 08:56 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Glad you made it in, Warlock. :) --Brion 17:50 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please consider adding the stub boilerplate text to smaller articles you've been creating (below let's say 250 bytes). Thank you! ''This article is a [[Wikipedia:The perfect stub article|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|fixing it]].''

Kpjas 12:36 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Basicaly there's nothing wrong with creating stubs, though I am personally in favour of merging small articles of the same subject into one larger. However if you feel that there's more that can be written please insert the stub identification text. It indicates that the article is far from complete and might be an incentive to others to continue developing it. Additionally you can go to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and click on "What links here" - the software will show you all stubs with the boilerplate text inseted.
Regards,
Kpjas 08:22 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
P.S Funny I was born in 1960 too.

A Wikipedia usage tip:

When you're editing a page, you can use the "Summary:" field to describe the changes you're making, so that anyone who looks at the page's edit history or your list of contributions can get an idea of what you did without having to call up a before-and-after comparison. (So, for instance, if you're editing Seti I to correct his dynasty, "corrected dynasty number" or "changed 18th dynasty to 19th dynasty" might be useful summaries.)

Conversely, it's not helpful to put just the name of the article in the "Summary:" field — your user contributions list will always specify the name of the article anyway, and it's obviously not saying anything new when it appears on the edit history of the article itself.

Consider, for instance, PageHistory:Seti I — "Fleshed out the article a bit and added an extenal link to a more detailed profile" and even "some wikifying" are far more helpful edit descriptions than "Seti I".

—Paul A 05:39 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by your recent changes to several Greek mythology pages. At least one source [1] claims that Aradia was an witch goddess in Italy, daughter of Diana and Lucifer. Is this false? If there are two different traditions regarding her, the article should differentiate between the two, not ignore one at the expense of the other. Tuf-Kat

Thanks for telling me about the List of specific demons and types of demons talk page: I'm not expecially interested in the matter, more like occasionally curious (with caution), but right now the page is surely a mess.

There exists an article for tutelary. I confess I am quite unclear what the precise distinction between it and a familiar spirit, if there is one. Just thought I'd mention it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:31 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Should Baal (demon) and Beelzebub be merged, or are these different stories? If they are the same, Baal probably needs to be integrated somewhat with Beelzebub as well. --Eloquence 06:06 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. Do you think you could elaborate a bit on the relationships within these articles, and perhaps cross-link them to each other? Right now, Baal, Baal (demon) and Beelzebub are almost completely separate. --Eloquence 21:51 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
That clarifies a lot, thanks again. Demonology sure is complicated ... --Eloquence 23:46 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nice work on the demonology pages. RickK 05:54 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Fascinating reading. -- ESP 05:26 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll want to take a look at the newly created Greek religion by User:Ihcoyc. I suspect that it parallels an existing article, but I'm not too familiar with the mythology areas of Wikipedia ..--Eloquence 12:55 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be added to Wikipedia:Duplicate articles instead of being deleted, so it can be merged. Maybe you could also explain the problems of the article on User talk:Ihcoyc. As for talk page archiving, adopting my style should be no problem, but I recommend listing the date and time of each removal so that people are not confused and can easily look up the previous revisions. --Eloquence 12:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Hi Warlock,

My concern on the pages on demon possession and the like is that the page, (on my brief perusal of it) asserts beliefs, held by only some people, as fact. Cultures across the world have a collection of (often mutually contradictory) ideas about supernatural beings and their powers to affect humanity, and some reference (even if only by linking to other pages) to them is appropriate. Moreover, (and I'm certainly no expert so I may be misguided here) many Christian traditions (and if I read the article correctly, it mainly refers to the European conception of demons) deemphasise or outright reject the idea of demons and particularly demon possession. Still more, as an atheist, empiricist and skeptic, I (and the millions of others like myself) reject the idea of demons or indeed any other supernatural being as complete piffle (if rather creative piffle), so claiming the existence of demons and their powers as fact is contrary to the NPOV policy.

None of this is to say I oppose the existence of Wikipedia articles on these topics. I want articles, but I want good articles!

At some stage (hopefully over the weekend) I will go over the demon possession article and attempt to improve it. --Robert Merkel 07:14, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I left. If you want to know the reason, it is written on my personal page. Thanks. The Warlock 08:22, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Sorry man, but calling anything 'NPOV' is just complete fucking bullshit.

Nothing is 'objective'. The point in the separation between the articles and the discussion page is to separate what is GENERALLY politically accepted by the vast majority, and what is more debated. That's it. There's no 'objectivity' about it. Everything on this site is completely subjective.

Khranus

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Sources for Orobas

Hello, good work on Orobas, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Orobas? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)