User talk:JzG

←

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Chaos magic page

Hi Guy/JzG. Thank you for replying to my comments on the chaos magic talk page, I appreciate it. I'd also like to apologise for my slightly snarky comments towards you the other day, I allowed my frustration to get the better of me, and I shouldn't have.

I've added some new content to the chaos magic article, under the "concept and terminology" section near the top, in an attempt to address the "mainstream view" that needs to be given more weight. I've tried to address the mainstream view of magic historically, theologically, anthropologically, psychologically, and within occultism more generally. Then and only then have I moved on to addressing the viewpoint of chaos magic. Would you mind casting your eye over it and telling me whether you think this now gives adequate weight to the mainstream view? And, if so, whether the tag at the top of the article can now be removed. Or, if not, how precisely you think it needs to be dealt with? Rune370 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance

Mate, you've got a tag on your signature that says "help!" You've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, and your user page lists all kinds of different achievements. That's clearly something that's important to you. I'm asking for your help and guidance here.

I don't want the chaos magic page to try and convince people that chaos magic is real. That is not my aim here! If you want a big "criticism" section saying "all sane people think this is bullshit", I really don't care. OK? I'm not trying to push that kind of agenda.

Please, take a look at the page before I did anything to it: [[1]].

It's badly written trash. It looks like some children have written it.

Look at the page in 2008: [[2]].

It's almost the same! Nobody else is doing this. If I don't fix it, it's not going to happen. My aim here is just to have a well written, encyclopaedic article on chaos magic, the same as the articles for Wicca or Thelema. That is it. That is all I'm trying to do.

In my mind, within the general sphere of "things that are probably bullshit", Witchcraft and ceremonial magic and enochian magic occupy a different category to homeopathy and creationism and conspiracy theories. As you've pointed out, everyone else puts all of that stuff into one category. OK, that's fine, I accept that totally. But I'm really struggling to deal with the tag that's been put on the page: "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view". I thought it was fairly obvious that that wasn't the right tag, because I can't see how witchcraft or magic deviates from a mainstream view in the same way that creationism deviates from "we evolved", or homeopathy deviates from "homeopathic medicine is just water".

I'm not trying to make that argument again, now. I've made it till I'm blue in the face. I'm just trying to describe to you why I need some guidance now. Now I'm trying to fix that problem, I really need your input on this.

Have I correctly identified the mainstream view? Do I need to be more specific? Are we talking specifically about the mainstream view of science? Or the cultural mainstream, somehow? Does the mainstream view need to be threaded through the article somehow? Do I need to deal with the mainstream view of each sub-topic within chaos magic, like sigils or whatever? Have I covered the maintream view effectively with the new content I've added?

Please, I need your help on this. Rune370 (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You want someone to help you increase the amount of fancruft in the chaos magic article. I am not that person. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/91.235.142.81

You've had a bit of a run-in with this IP, and (while some of their edits are pretty good) they've got a heroic ability to IDHT, generally bludgeon away (yeah, it takes two to tango, but they do it to everyone) - Jamez42 had a lump of the same behaviour I got, where looking for other problematic edits gets you labelled a stalker.

I'm not sure what can be done but I thought I'd let you (and J42) know there's a pattern emerging. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast: Hi! I'm not sure if I fully understood the message, but in case it is useful to know, per WP:DUCK it is most likely that this IP is a sock of Apollo The Logician. Back then I only decided to leave warnings on its talk page, but seeing that they seem to have started edt warring again I strongly suggest you to file an investigation or make a report in the admin noticeboard. For the time being I personally can't do it, but you have my support and help if you decide to. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I decided to go ahead and file a report of sockpuppeting. They have already been warned and this will just go on. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it's a typical sock, I'll know it next time. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hello, Guy. I have just accepted an unblock request from an editor you blocked, at User talk:DefendingPages. Usually I consult the blocking editor first, but in view of what you have said on your talk page I decided to go ahead with the unblock, but of course if you know of any reason that I don't why the block should stay, please let me know. The reason you gave in the block log was "All edits are reverts, often reintroducing spam removed by others." I checked a sample of 20 edits, spread across the account's history. Of those 20, 15 were clearly beneficial edits, and the other five appeared to be at the least good faith attempts to improve articles, but it was not immediately obvious whether they were beneficial or not: it would have needed further searching, checking sources, etc, to determine which. I did not see a single edit which was obviously bad, and only one of them re-added something which looked as though it might or might not have have been spam (again, it would have needed more checking to decide). Of course, I may have missed problems which you saw, but it seems highly unlikely that in the sample I looked at I would have seen such a total lack of evidence of problems if the editor's history was so uniformly bad as to justify an indefinite block without warning. Please do tell me if there are significant aspects of the editing history which I have missed, but from what I have seen the block looks like a mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe I was wrong. The edits I saw were reverting spam links back in, but that may be an artifact. That said, the username is a huge red flag. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, user names like that usually suggest an editor who is not here for constructive reasons. In fact I think that is what called my attention to this one editor among dozens that were in the list of current unblock requests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Morrison

Talking to my son a few days ago, I realized I am still grieving over being deleted from Wikipedia 3 years ago (?). Stuff I put up about my hobby-horse, Flow-Based Programming, was apparently treated as advertising, whereas I saw that page as just a place to put some cross-references. I am not a villain... just someone who made the mistake of putting his enthusiasm in the wrong place! Since then a lot of material on FBP has been posted in various places, including videos, articles, plus products based on FBP - notably NiFi, NoFlo, etc. I guess if you feel someone should be penalized forever for making a mistake in their usage of WP, so be it!

Approaching the age of 81, with various medical problems, it would be nice to have even a small presence on Wikipedia other than a pink block - preferably before I die! Given that both my father and half-sister - also my godmother - have WP entries - although I realize this doesn't make a difference to the situation - it would be nice to join them! I also make an appeal to AGF - I was only motivated by my enthusiasm for the technology - apparently I should just have been patient!

Given the spread of interest in Flow-Based Programming worldwide recently (especially since NoFlo), probably a very short unembellished article about myself would have been enough, and of course one was put up on Wikipedia quite a few years ago (not by me). If the author of that one, or anyone else, could be prevailed upon to restore the original, how should they go about doing it?

The original decision to delete me seems draconian - have the rules or conventions been relaxed in the last few years? I have not been on WP much since then, but it seems likely that there may have been changes since those days... Jpaulm (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]