User talk:The Warlock

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

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:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

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:

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:

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)

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)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Seere

I have nominated Seere, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seere. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Flauros

I have nominated Flauros, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flauros. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Focalor

I have nominated Focalor, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focalor. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Eligos

I have nominated Eligos, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eligos. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Decarabia

I have nominated Decarabia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decarabia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Shax

I have nominated Shax, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shax. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Sitri

I have nominated Sitri, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sitri. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Saleos

I have nominated Saleos, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saleos. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Sabnock

I have nominated Sabnock, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabnock. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Stolas

I have nominated Stolas, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolas. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Zepar

I have nominated Zepar, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zepar. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Zagan

I have nominated Zagan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Names of the demons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Names of the demons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of the demons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. sageinventor 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Malphas

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Malphas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. -- Random Time 11:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Buer (demon), has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Buer (demon)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 16:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Evocation in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Evocation in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evocation in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anchorite for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anchorite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchorite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PamD 23:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the above: accidentally hit the "XFD" button with this page open, instead of the dubious redirect from Flight from the world which I meant to send to WP:RFD. Sorry about that. PamD 23:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Holy Inquisition" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Holy Inquisition. Since you had some involvement with the Holy Inquisition redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Glasya-Labolas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glasya-Labolas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasya-Labolas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pithius" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pithius has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § Pithius until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Caim

The article Caim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:GNG. The subject is in the Lesser Key of Solomon book but I cannot find sources to back up these many other claims. Short of the Lesser Key book, the subject is not notable and, since this article has been unsourced for twenty years, a fair bit of this may have caused citogenesis.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Caim for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caim until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]