User talk:JMax555

Discussion Moved From User Page to Talk Page

JM: I agree with your adding the translation of name "Sprengel" and its significance.

HH: Cool. Why did you take out the link to the article? That was where I got my information. I'll add an External Links section to the article, but I'm trying to be thorough here.

JM: Because it's abiased on-line source, not a published book by a reputable publisher. See below.

JM: I did send a message to Mr. Zink regarding this controversy, but he has not answered. But it seems my advice to have someone in his group actually register with Wikipedia, instead of posting anonymous edits, was taken to heart.

HH: Whoever said that I was part of his group?

JM: You seem to be promoting their unique perspective on these issues. If you are not a member, you should do some more research. You'll find that there are many experts in the fieild that do not agree with the assertions made in their "Truth in the Golden Dawn" series. In particular, you should read BOOKS on the subject, especially those by R.A. Gilbert and Ellic Howe. Putting edits in an encyclopedia article based only on what you find from one website with their own agenda to promote is not good scholarship.

JM: What I still take issue with you over are the following edits (in italics):

However, after becoming a member of the Golden Dawn, S.L. Macgregor Mathers resigned from Freemasonry. This is a parenthetical comment at best, unless you have it in mind to discount Freemasonry as an influence on the GD, which is ridiculous. I don't think Mathers IMMEDIATELY resigned from the UGLE, which is what you seem to be implying here. I don't even think it's worth mentioning, but if you do you should attach a time frame to it -- for example, after he moved to Paris. What reference do you have that shows if and when he resigned from the Grand Lodge and/or the SRIA? (I've never found any, but this could be checked in Masonic records.) Maybe he just stopped paying his dues and went inactive. What it seems you're doing here is a backhanded slap at Masonry, trying to separate the GD from its genuine Masonic roots, and I've never understood why you guys are so obsessed with doing that, except possibly due to your leader's Catholic sympathies.

HH: No, I have it in mind to show that Mathers' membership in Freemasonry was not dependent on his membership in the Golden Dawn, and that thus, they were separate Orders. Not trying to make any implication; just being thorough. I don't mind adding that he did that after moving to Paris, but why would you want to do that? Anyway, for this part, let's add 'after moving to Paris' and be done with it.

JM: I added a parenthetical comment saying he was no longer a Mason at some time after the GD was established. I hope that's enough.

JM:The Cipher Manuscripts and other documents called the Z documents provide the basis of the Golden Dawn tradition, and define the structure of Golden Dawn ritual. This is "biased POV" in the language of Wikipedia. In other words, it's what YOUR Order purports to believe, but it is not in any way universally accepted. No reputable, published GD scholar recognizes the Z Documents as being of the same foundational nature as the Cipher. Neither Gilbert nor Howe has ever advanced this idea. Not even Cicero, who sticks to a very traditional GD form, will back you guys on this one. In his "The Essential Golden Dawn', there is a whole chapter on the Cipher, which begins, "No history of the Golden Dawn can be given without some reference to the Cipher Manuscript -- the enigmatic document upon which the rituals and the knowledge lectures of the Golden Dan are based." Period. The Z Docs are mentioned in passing only twice, and not as a fundamental basis of the GD. What you're trying to do with this one is de-legitimize any group as being "not real Golden Dawn" if they don't revere Mathers and the Z Docs like you do. In other words, it's a reflection of an exclusively biased POV, and has no place in a general encyclopedia article."

HH: Reverence is not at issue here, but I'm guessing that Mathers' status as Chief of the Order is at issue.

JM: No, historical accuracy and NPOV is the issue. That Mathers was once a Chief of the Order is indisputable. That he was officially expelled by the entire College of Adepti in 1900 is also a fact. Whether they had any authority to do this is a matter of opinion, but it HAPPENED. They believed Mathers had become dangerously megalomaniacal and was no longer competent to administer the Order. If you read his letters from the period it's hard to disagree. That he was completely bamboozled by the Horos's and exposed the Order to a horrible scandal is also a fact -- he thought Mrs. Horos was a "Secret Chief", and she turned out to be a swindler and a criminal. So much for Mathers' ability to discern "Secret Chiefs"! All of this is faithfully documented by a REPUTABLE SCHOLAR (R.A. Gilbert) in a book (Golden Dawn Scrapbook) from a REPUTABLE PUBLISHER (Weiser Books), so it fits the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

HH: Regardie, in his Introduction to The Golden Dawn, supports the idea that neither Westcott nor Mathers wrote the Z documents.

JM: I am unable to find a reference in my copy of Regardie's introducton. Can you cite the passage?

There is an entire list of Inner Order documents, lettered 'A' through 'Z', which Regardie calls the "catalouge of manuscripts, enumerating in alphabetical order the documents circulated amongst Zelator Adeptus Minors." The 'Z' documents are the ones concerned with "Symbolism of the Temple, Candidate and Ritual of the Neophyte Grade". Why are ONLY those documents singled out for special "canonical" status and not the others? In my opinion, it's because there are those who wish to canonize the particular interpretation of the Ciphers by Mathers as being the one and only interpretation.

HH: Besides, if you accept the Cipher Manuscripts as foundational documents, then it is only through the founding Chiefs that they were ever actually used.

JM: According to their own purported history of the Order, they WERE used, by "Hermanibus Temple No. 2". Logically, whomever wrote the Cipher Manuscripts are the "founding Chiefs", not Westcott and Mathers, who came along years later.

HH: If they had access to the Cipher Manuscripts, a previously unknown document until they came along, then wouldn't it be possible that they also had access to the Z documents?

JM: Because of the unique manner in which the Cipher came to be discovered. It was not something that Westcott had "access" to, it was accidentally found by him. He wasn't even SUPPOSED to have access to it, it was a fluke, if you believe the mythology. He claimed the "German Adepts" cut the Order in the UK off from further communications shortly after their Charter was granted by Sprengel. If there were other manuscripts, why didn't Westcott produce them when he was being challenged by Mathers for forging the letters themselves?

HH: And if they were used by the founding Chiefs, then that would make them foundational documents.

JM: Only of Westcott and Mathers' Order in England. They were not involved in the "German Lodge", nor in "Temple No. 2", so it's hard to argue that they and only they are "founding chiefs."

HH: Anyway, the Z documents should appear somewhere in there, if only to give a thorough accounting of the Z documents.

JM: I added a sentence or two about the Z Documents. Which gives it the same attention that Cicero, Gilbert and Howe, reputable authors from reputable publishers, give it.

HH: I'll just be bold and ask the question: are you trying to support the view that Mathers was somehow not the Chief and that he was illegitimate?

JM: I'm trying to eliminate any biased view as to whether he was or not. Back in 1900, you could have found nearly 100 Adepts of the Order, including Praemonstrator W.B. Yeats, Chief Adept Florence Farr, the Order's financieer Anne Horniman, and even Westcott himself, who believed Mathers had lost his legitimacy (and his sanity) after that point. Supporting Mathers' were a small handful of Adepts, mostly in Paris, his wife, Brodie-Innes (who later changed his mind), and notably Aleister Crowley, whom the EOGD spares no effort to denigrate! So, do we declare that one side or the other is "right", or do we present the FACTS as they occured and let the individual decide what to believe? That is what's called being "non-point-of-view."

JM: What the Z Docs really are is an exegesis by Mathers of the original system of the Cipher. The Z Docs are NOT in any way "original materials" in the way the Ciphers are, because the Ciphers pre-dated the establishment of the original Isis-Urania Temple No. 3, whereas the Z Docs were created AFTER it's establishment.

HH: There is no evidence that the Z docs were created before Isis-Urania's establishment, but there is no evidence that they didn't exist either.

JM: Absense of evidence is evidence of absence. If you're going to promote a narrow-POV, you need to SAY it's mere speculation, not present it as indisputable fact.

HH: Regardie seems to believe that they came from an earlier source.

JM: If you have a citation, let's see it.

JM: They are Mathers' interpretation of the Ciphers, but they are in no way the ONLY possible interpretation.

HH: There is no way to prove that they are Mathers' intepretation,

JM: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. They are unmistakably written in Mathers' distinctly turgid style. They are documents pretaining to the Second Order, not even allowed to be seen by non-Adepts. There was no Second Order until 1892, long after Westcott claimed they had been "cut off" from contact with the supposed "German Adepts". You could group them along with Mathers' other "channeled" information, I suppose. They are part of a catalog of other Second Order documents, so why is no one claiming "foundational" status for Documents A through Y? The EOGD wouldn't want to, since there are things in those documants they do not adhere to themselves.

HH: but if you want to have an Order based on historical tradition, you should probably use the interpretation that the founding Chiefs used.

JM: Again, this is a metter of what constitues "founding chiefs".

JM: Even if you buy into the mythology given by Westcott of Fraulien Sprengel and the "German Rosicrucians", as your group does, your claim doesn't stand up.

HH: That's some fast shooting there, Tex. I certainly don't speak for the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn.

JM: Yes you do. Whether you are a member of their organization or not, you are promoting their uniquely biased POV. In that sense, you are speaking for them. You might do well to study some other materials beyond what is on their website. Like books. Try a library or bookstore.

JM: Part of that mythology (specifically mentioned in the Sprengel letters) is the existence of a GD Temple PRIOR to the one created by Westcott and Mathers, referred to as "Hermanubis Temple No. 2". This being the case, then a GD Lodge was in fact formed BEFORE the Z Documents were written by Mathers, even before Mathers had ever heard of the Golden Dawn! Logically, therefore, the Z Docs are not "foundational documents", since a GD Temple (recognized by Sprengel) was founded before they existed!

HH: Who says that Mathers created the Z docs?

JM: If you want to substitute something to the effect that the authorship is unknown, that's fine. They read like everything else that Mathers ever wrote. But to claim they are from the same antiquarian source as the Ciphers, and therefore are equal in importance to the foundation of the tradition, is unsupportable and contradicted by what we know about Egyptology.

JM: Here's the evidence that was brought up by A.E. Waite: the Z Documents could not have had antiquarian origins, since they specifcially refer to the Neophyte Hall represnting the "Hall of Dual Manifestation of the Truth", a Egyptological religious concept that was entirely unknown after the fall of Pharonic Egypt until the decoding of the Rosetta Stone in the early 19th century, and the subsequent translation of the Pyramid texts. This places the Z documents to be no earlier than the late 19th century.

JM:Be aware I'll continue to keep eliminating this edit to the article, and I'll make my case to the Wikipedia Mediation Cabal if I have to. I expect to hear from them in three days. If you want to describe the Z Documents as part of Mathers' work to refine and develop the Cipher materials into a workable form, I'll go along with that, but not with any idea that they are universally accepted as foundational.

HH: Well, if they were from the founding Chiefs, doesn't that make them just as legitimate as the Cipher Manuscripts, which also came through the founding Chiefs, veen if they had claims that they came from earlier sources?

JM: Once again, it depends on what you define as "founding Chiefs". One entirely logical arguemtn is that the "founding Chiefs" are the ones who wrote the Cipher Manuscripts. If you want to include a passage saying that SOME modern GD practioners consider the Z Docs to be canonical, that's fine. But you can't flatly declare that they ARE canonical, and not acknowledge the genuine debate around the issue in the GD community.

JM: (This should not, however, detract from the importance of the Cipher Manuscripts.) Expressions like this are OPINIONS, not statements of fact. The preceding paragraph that I wrote states the FACTS: "The actual material itself described in the Manuscript is of known origins. Hermeticism, Alchemy, Qabalah, Astrology and Tarot were certainly not unknown to 19th century scholars of the Magical arts; the Cipher is a compendium of previously known Magical traditions. The basic structure of the rituals and the names of the Grades are based on those of the S.R.I.A." The appending of an OPINION on "importance" is yet again, a biased POV.

HH: I'm sure that the Golden Dawn scholars would support me in the opinion that the Cipher Manuscripts were important; this section tends to belittle their importance.

JM: I don't see that is does. It simply sates what is in them, and points out that all that material was also available from other sources. It's odd that you're trying to say my version of the article "belittles their importance" when I devoted an entire section JUST to them.

JM: Many Golden Dawn scholars believe that Mathers received his materials from the "Secret Chiefs" connected to his German Rosicrucian predecessors... You changed "some" to "many", and added the appellation "scholars" to what I wrote. I challenge you to find ANY reputable scholar of GD history who has EVER given any credence to Mathers' claims of contacts with these "Secret Chief" representatives. Howe does not, nor does Gilbert, nor Kuntz, nor Runyon, nor King, nor Cicero. They don't even claim that these "Secret Chiefs" existed at all! So who are these "many scholars"? The only "scholars" claiming this are those who belong to groups who have a religious faith in their actual existence, such as your group and Mr. Griffin's.

HH: Dude, I'm acting independently here.

JM: I think you're promoting one particular group's unsupportable beliefs over all others.

HH: Either way, like you said, we're not talking about beliefs; we are talking about facts. And it is a fact that Mathers claimed that there were secret Chiefs; as a founding Chief,

JM: Again, we differ in what constitutes a "founding Chief".

HH: he is probably a good source for understanding Golden Dawn beliefs, even if not everything he might say is verifiable.

JM: Quite a lot of what he said is obviously barking mad. Westcott was also a "founding Chief" by your definition, and he did not support Mathers assertion of being in contact with "Secret Chiefs". He thought Mathers had lost his mind. So why don't we give equal weight to Westcott's opinions? Or why don't we leave off ALL the opinions and stick to the FACTS that can be verified?

JM: Some believe that S.L. Macgregor Mathers and his wife Moina invoked the materials, and he refined and developed them, as he had with the Cipher Manuscripts. You replaced my descriptor of "channeled" with "invoked." That is non-sequitur. "Invoking" is something you do with a spirit or deity, not with textural material. "Channeling" is the proper term for receiving raw material in a trance state from a spiritual source, which is what she (and you claim also Mathers himself too, but I won't quibble about that point) actually did. It's unfortunate that "channeling" has acquired a somewhat touchy-feely "New Age" connotation, but it's the proper descriptive term.

HH: To channel means that a person acts as a medium for a spirit. To invoke simply means that a person conjures someone or something. Now, it is probably true that some people believe that Moina channeled the materials, but others believe that both she and Samuel invoked the material. The article should reflect this.

JM: Wikipedia: "Channelling or channeling is the alleged communication of information to or through a physically embodied human being (the channel or medium), from a spirit or other supernatural entity outside the mind (or self) of the channel." Is this not a description of what they claimed they were doing? To "invoke" is something else. I suggest you try the dictionary.

JM: Adding Ithell Colquhoun's book to the references was a good idea, as it's certainly influential. But adding your own website link, "Truth About the Cipher Manuscripts", to the list of actual published BOOKS on the subject is, once again, promoting a biased POV. You already have a link to your "Golden Dawn Research Center" in the article, and someone can find that essay and others promoting your POV on your website. But it has no standing to be included as a primary reference in a general encyclopedia article.

HH: Like I said, I used it as a source, and my source needs to be referenced.

JM: The source is baised. To include it in a collection of soucre materials that are all published books by recognized scholars is misleading at the least. I suggest you look up Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.

JMax555 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm really trying to follow this conversation. I find it fascinating, but you're making it very difficult. Please sign you comments with four tildes like this ~~~~. I'm having a very hard time knowing who said what. As a matter of policy, this conversation should be taking place on your talk pages, not your user pages. There's a lot of good stuff here. Please help make it so me and others like me don't get lost in the poor formatting. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'll be happy to help you master the relatively simple mechanics of Wikipedia if I can.--◀Puck^talk▶ 20:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Puck. I've added my sig-tildes. Iawsn't going to try to re-format it, but I gave it a go. The old versions are accessible anyway. I appreciate your getting involved to help clear things up and put an end to this edit-war.

Here, let me try your formatting:

◀Joseph Max^talk▶

JMax555 20:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A word of acknowledgment

I don't know if you'll ever read this, but I ran into the work of anon. user 24.22.204.79 because it hit the S.L. MacGregor Mathers page, one I watch. I was following its progress with an eye toward repairs when I saw that you had beaten me too it. Good lookin' out. I'm adding the pages it hit to my watch list to keep an I on it myself. I've only been here a few weeks, but I'm beginning to appreciate the potential for Wikipedia to have a very good repository of information on the Western Mysteries for both the practitioner and those who are merely curious or wishing to expand their knowledge of this facet of Western culture. However, if it just becomes a rant festival along the lines of alt.magick , alt.religion.wicca and the rest of Usenet's smoking ruin it will have been rendered useless. Preserving NPOV is essential. I'm glad to see your efforts. Carry on.--◀Puck^talk▶ 05:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OSOGD

On the Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page you said:

I wrote a factual account of the GD history that has been published since 2002, which has many outside links going to it. It can be seen at: http://www.osogd.org/library/biscuits/history.html. My own group is affiliated with the Florida Corporation, but I did not even make a special paragraph describing ny group, much less blatantly promoting it.

I didn't realize you were with the OSOGD. I was in contact with you guys back in October of 2002. I contacted the Cancellarius and she said some one who lived in Baltimore would get in touch with me. I'm still waiting :-)

Yes, we have a member in Balitmore, but she's been inactive for at least a year. We still haven't penetrated the Ease Coast of the US.

A friend of mine also wrote you around the same time. He's still waiting too. We were both very hungry. We still are. In the mean time, though, he has joined the O.T.O. and will soon be getting his III° and I'm currently waiting for approval on my Minerval application. You let two potential members slip through your hands. I'm really saying all this in jest because I sense the spirit of your order is not about recruiting lots of members and being the one true way.

We're not keeping score. Frankly, almost all of our members found us by word of mouth or by one of the seminars we hold from time to time. We get very few applicants through the Web. We're not playing the "Internet Order" game. We're trying to keep the "fraternal" in our fraternal order.

I appreciate your efforts to share the information you have and make it easier for others, like myself, who have chosen to pursue the Great Work, whether or not we are affiliated with any particular organizational manifestation or not.

Our greatest wish for the GD community is that we would all just live together in peace, deal with each other as brothers and sisters, and do the Work.

Speaking of affiliation, though, on the OSOGD web site it says "We are not affiliated with, nor do we represent, any other organization calling itself 'Golden Dawn', in whole or in part." You said here that your group is affiliated with the HOGD in Florida. That's a bit confusing to me.

We aren't a Temple of Cicero's HOGD, but our Chief Adept is a member of the HOGD(Inc.) Board of Directors. So there is a "sideways" affiliation in that sense, and I wanted to be 100% up front about what my connections are from the get-go.

It's also a bit off-putting for outsiders to see all the bickering and claims about who can and can't use the words "Golden Dawn."

Pathetic, isn't it? It's like laying claim to the word "yoga".

I am aware the O.T.O. goes through the same thing about the use of its name and is not above going to court about it, but even though I am associated with them I find it all degrading and petty. Maybe it's only because I don't have any financial interest in copyrights and such, but I would think people who aspire to union with the light beyond the abyss could find a way to pursue their spiritual goals with whining like a bunch of spoiled brats. I hope you don't take this as a personal criticism. I'm just venting.--◀Puck^talk▶ 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You think YOU feel like venting???

I haven't even put an entry in the Wiki article about the OSOGD. I'll keep to keep my hands clean until a Wiki Mediator can untangle the mess. This isn't about me or my GD group. We don't gather members or sell courses over the Internet, so we don't even have a dog in that race. This is about not letting one faction or another hijack Wikipedia's entry on the Golden Dawn and fill it with their self-advertisments. It isn't fair. There's links at the bottom of the article for all the various Orders, including ours. Go to those pages and get all the self-promotion you'll ever need. Nothing wrong with that, let the buyer beware! Let all the various groups compete fairly in the marketplace of ideas. But Wikipedia should be neutral, and both the EOGD and Griffin's HOGD/A+O have repeatedly filled Wikipedia with specious information about what constitutes the "real" Golden Dawn, taking great care, of course, that only THEIR organization fits the description. They do the same thing with the general entry on the Golden Dawn. For example, this dust-up about the Cipher Manuscripts and the Z Documents. The EOGD makes a big deal out of the Z Documents, because some of the other Orders (like ours) don't adhere to everything in them as canonical.

JMax555 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn article - better me than you as WP discourages articles being started by members of the group the article is about. I'm a very old friend of Sam's, by the way, We go back to the early '80s. I'd prefer to remain anonymous on WP, though, so please go to email if you'd like to discuss. --999 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How can I reach you by e-mail? Mine is maxx58585@yahoo.com, if you just want to send me a note.

When you go to a user's user page or talk page, "E-mail this user" should appear on the left in the "toolbox." I think it will only work if you have an e-mail address registered for yourself as well, so if you don't, just go into preferences and set it up. You can easily email any user who has registered their email address this way... --999 00:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Request

I was taking a look at you MedCab request. Things seem to have simmered down (to someone from the outside anyway), have they or did you still need help? --Wgfinley 02:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Job

I award this Barnstar to Joe Max for his heroic work fighting Zink's sock puppet army.

That's most gracious of you, but all I want is a balanced, non-POV article. Someone was removing the EOGD's appropriate (non-spam) links and that's not fair either. The article itself should not promote any group over another. That's what the links to their respective websites are for, where everyone can self-promote to their heart's content. - JMax555 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Attn

"Someone" has obfuscated the external link to the OSOGD at the GD Tradition to "Open Sores Order of the Golden Dawn".
Here is a link to the diff. The spoof page was last modified on 02/06/2006 at 11:31 AM. The link was added to wikipedia on 02/06/2006 at 11:45 AM. This is the only contribution from User:209.160.73.26.
Cyberdenizen 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hello, I am Prodego, a VandalProof moderator. You left a message on AmiDaniel's talk page about possible abuse of VandalProof. On the article you linked to, only two reverts were made using VandalProof, both by Yanksox. You said however, that an anonymous editor is using VandalProof. This should not be possible, and it also should not be possible to remove "using VandalProof" from the edit summary when VandalProof is used. Could you please clarify who abused the program and provide diffs? Thanks, Prodego ^talk 16:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

3rr

Hi. Please read and understand WP:3RR. You may or may not get blocked for your recent edits. William M. Connolley 21:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which...could you please take a look at recent diffs on the article Golden Dawn tradition? The anon and I have violated 3RR at least 5 times. The anon is now signed in as User:Friar FiatLux, and has left a message on the talk page. I would like you to respond to his/her allegations about whether your edits were POV. Thanks. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 03:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Received and replied to... -999 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

Please help watch the article(s). Frater FiatLux is at it again. (Though it seems he just got blocked for 24hrs for WP:3RR :-) -999 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FFL

Little point talking to FFL, he's been blocked for 72h and his sock Opuaut has been indefinitely blocked. Check the reports and results at WP:AN/3RR. -999 (Talk) 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This sock puppet case was proven patently false.

Frater FiatLux 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

HOGD Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, HOGD/A+O, HOGD Inc, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible..

RfC on Frater FiatLux

I've started this RfC against FFL's conduct with an eye to getting a community ban. Please help with it. ---Baba Louis 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Woodman

You wouldnt happen to have any sources on William Robert Woodman would you? I created the article tonight but forgot about the copyrights and added the whole thing! It was deleted fast though and now I'm working on it again but with citations (User:SynergeticMaggot/Woodman, then i'll repost it when I'm done. Zos 05:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For instance, I know that amazon has that feature where you can look in the book but its not working for me. Yet hes in the Golden Dawn scrapbook and the History of the S.R.I.A by wescott. Zos 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of what Gilbert writes probably comes from SRIA records, which he certianly has access to. I know people in the SRIA, I'll see if I can ask them what original sources might have been published.

He's got a bit in the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, page 880, mostly describing his SRIA activities. Here's a link to Google Books, so try this link and see if it works for you:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0766147207&id=GUS5-9IouBIC&pg=PA880&lpg=PA880&dq=%22william+robert+woodman%22&sig=Wf9adqzHLcHIDXyE-MggaeG-s-4

If I can think of anything else I'll send it to your talk page.

Myself, I want to start an article on Florence Farr. - JMax555 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have a few statements on Farr for you, just let me know when the page is created. And thanks. Zos 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah that google one didnt work either. my com must suck. i'll just wait until i get another book on woodman until i put the article back up. thanks though. Zos 05:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A thought

It just occured to me, that a few of the pages that are requested for mediation should be worked on if they are to be kept. After working on some of these bio's I'm starting on them. I think I'll start with Stella Mattutina...Zos 16:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend against touching them prior to mediation. The fact that we are leaving them alone while FFL and his bunch have been essentially vandalizing them gives us the moral high ground in an obvious way. We lose that if you start editing them... The other issues might not be so clear to the mediators who may not have looked into it very deeply. Thus better to preserve the appearance which they can see. -999 (Talk) 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that leaving them untouched is worse. If they are deleted, then most of the time we have spent on them was for nothing. I'm adding sources to any article that needs them. As we have been to the Cipher Manuscripts. Zos 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They can't be deleted without an AfD process. Mediators will not delete articles, there is a process for that... Also, I wrote every single one of those articles: they are all meticulously cited. -999 (Talk) 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well stella matutuina is a stub, needs expansion, and more book citations. Zos 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Things can't be deleted simply b/c they are still stubs. Have you ever participated in an WP:AFD? I have, and I find it highly unlikely that any of these articles would get a delete concensus... Also, all the articles have also been contributed to the Free Encyclopedia of Thelema [1], so even if they are deleted, they will not be lost. We could restore and expand them... -999 (Talk) 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had articles deleted before they went to AfD, and they were supposed to, because they had sources. All someone needs to do is slap a speedy deletion tag on and its over. Trust me. Now enough on JMax's talk page. If you want to talk to me, go to my talk page please. Zos 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Secret Chiefs

Secret Chiefs. I didnt know someone made this already. Wasnt made by me, but I'll work on it in the morning (hopfully) before Frater FiatLux finds it! Zos 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!!

I was getting ready to put you on Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. :p SynergeticMaggot 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you dont remember me, I recently changed my signature from Zos to my username. SynergeticMaggot 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So now that you're back, how do you feel about an article about the Flying Rolls of the Golden Dawn? I'm thinking I shouldnt make an article with that name, but maybe Golden Dawn Teachings? SynergeticMaggot 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

JMax, I also welcome you back...

S.M., if you do create such an article, it should be Golden Dawn teachings. WP discourages the use of caps in article titles and headings except for proper nouns... -999 (Talk) 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. If you dont want me to give adivce to you (no matter how antagonistic it is, but in good faith nontheless :p) on AfD, I'd expect the same on other peoples talk pages. JMax hasnt even responded yet! SynergeticMaggot 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got the citations. Francis X. King published a book on the flying rolls. Although he didnt reproduce the already existing ones in Regardies Golden Dawn. If you have the text, I think we can combind them to create and validate the artricle. SynergeticMaggot 01:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Webster

I see you've worked on some of the Golden Dawn articles. Could you see if you could improve and/or find material to add to this article? Khabs 06:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Farr

I skimmed it and it looks pretty good to me. Hand it over to peer review and see if there are anymore kinks in it. Nice work. SynergeticMaggot 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

I've opened a deletion review about the deletion of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Thought you would want to know. IPSOS (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on being cleared

I see you've been cleared of sockpuppetry. It seems that the accuser was the one who was using puppets. That being the case, I see no reason you should not participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (second nomination) and encourage you to do so. IPSOS (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HOGD logo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:HOGD logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Florence Farr

The article Florence Farr you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Florence Farr for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. SriMesh | talk 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Trixon04.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trixon04.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:AXlogo1.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AXlogo1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC) --Skier Dude (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hieronymus analyzer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hieronymus analyzer.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hieronymus Machine.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hieronymus Machine.jpg, which you've sourced to http://josephmax.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/utilitarian-hieronymus-machine/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:JMax555/Sandbox

User:JMax555/Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JMax555/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:JMax555/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Samuel Mathers.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Samuel Mathers.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Samuel Mathers.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Samuel Mathers.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crime (band) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of fiction in recent years: ''[http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1147399 Ports of Hell]'', [[http://catalog.rockhall.com/catalog/53962938 which is listed] in the [[Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame#

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Collected Trashman Vol. 1, No. 1 cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Collected Trashman Vol. 1, No. 1 cover.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JMax555. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:FlorenceFarr.jpg

The file File:FlorenceFarr.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TrixonLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TrixonLogo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)