User talk:Xuchilbara
Welcome
|
Wikibreak
- I'm still around, just not as much (and not participating in Wikipedia's processes very much). I'm just having some complications from the kidney disease, but it should be over soon once my uncle's health gets back in line and he can donate his kidney. ^_^ Thanks for the thoughts. Don't worry about Lilith, the solution made everyone happy. JuJube 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
SH Samael
I attempted to make the Samael bit in the SH creatures list neutral, but you added some unofficial translations as proof that Samael is not important or something, which far from proves anything. I'm just posting here to tell you that I was trying to go for a neutral approach, not a dismissive one. Now, I can't imagine the section simply saying 'Samael is mentioned in SH1', but there's no need to use the article to push theories on why Samael isn't important. Fact is, Samael is mentioned in 1 and is contradicted in 3. Leave it at that. I don't want to start an editing war here, I'm in fact not going to change the article anymore. Your main page says that you attempt to go for neutrality on controversial subjects. I'm attempting to appeal to that here. --Thaddius 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm responding to your rather catty message on my talk page.
My point is that, while Metatron is mentioned by Dahlia in SH1 (yes I concede to that), Metatron and Samael are not discussed as the same person. There are many SH fans out there try to cram the SH pages full of speculation rather than fact. By all means, mention that Metatron was mentioned in SH, albeit (here's the important part) in passing, but please do not speculate as to the supposed real identity of what\who Dahlia refers to as Samael. I've attempted to keep that portion as neutral as possible. Despite all this, you must admit having played the games, that Metatron's mention in SH1 is of no importance. It reveals nothing in the game and does not help one gain insight into future games. As for the unofficial translations, please try to pick verifiable sources, not fan translations. --Thaddius 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
By all means, mention it if it really is that important (it has never seemed that important to me), but I really don't care. I may has mistaken you for some of the other fankids who comes and attack me for changing their precious edits. My mistake. Make sure you mention the 'in passing' part though since it was well... in passing (and again, of no consequence). SH3 is the only time when any character goes into detail. Also, try and avoid unnecessary italics and bolding in edits. --Thaddius 12:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for my rudeness. I honestly thought you were one of those SH uber-fanboys who contact me all the time (mostly in article's talk pages) to harass me for 'ruining' their articles or to nitpick on inane details. I'm instinctively hostile toward those types for some reason. You were right though, I was wrong. I jumped to conclusions, and for that I am sorry. I keep forgetting about having to assume good faith. --Thaddius 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:S205.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:S205.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you are going overboard on your recent edits to Lilith. First off you are trying to claim that "most scholars say the identification is definitive" when that certainly isn't so. You can;t just pick one author you believe and then claim that he/she was right and everyone else was wrong, as that's a colossal violation of WP:NPOV policy. I also think a large number of additions you have made recently need far more citations than you provide and an understanding that these areas are controversial. They should be discussed on the talk page. DreamGuy 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
re:Lilith
Hey Xuchilbara,
thanks for all the info in the Lilith page. You obviously know your demonology. However, some of your recent edits are quite cumbersome, and I think it could be shortened quite a bit. What say we work together and try to make it a FA? --WoodElf 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, u really need to fix your references. its not enough to simply write <ref> Patai p228<ref/>. you need to give the full name of the book, along with publishing history. ISBN codes when possible. Referring to specific pages is not required, since page nos. will change in different editions. If you are refering to a single book multiple times, try using a ref name.It works like this:
- you give your ref a name, eg. <ref name=Bigbum> Larry Bigbum, "How to Lose Without Dignity", Burper Books, ISBN 2-666-666-666 </ref>. Now if you want to refer to that book again later, you simply write, <ref name=Bigbum/>.
- Secondly, you are putting too much point of view into your work, like writing things like "not considered important" or "sources are... dubious". Wikipedia simply displays the facts, and lets viewers make their own conclusions.
- Hope this helps you to write better articles, WoodElf 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
RE:BURNEY RELIEF
Since Burney Relief has it's own article, writing a lot about in in the Lilith article is redundant, esp if it isnt even Lilith but Ishtar/Inanna. Try moving all the stuff about the Relief to its main article page, and give just a single line about it in Lilith, maybe as an image label. Ciao, WoodElf 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is still some contention about Samael and Baphomet by 69.180.75.234, so I've taken both names out of the Incubus/God entry. My reasoning is that it's not verifiable that either of those names are an official name or nickname, and those names or influences are explained elsewhere in the article. Hopefully you and I can go back to whatever we normally do around here, instead of having to revert the article back whenever a well-meaning fan comes upon the article. Probably gives us about 5 minutes of freedom. :-) --健次(derumi)talk 00:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Silent Hill 3
I was trying to rewrite the plot summary for Silent Hill 3 and ran into a problem: as I never played the game I don't know a exactly what point it becomes clear that Claudia's trying to have God reborn. I don't even think the original plot summary made that completely clear. Could you help me out? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I see where she makes these comments. Thanks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Alessa
I put Alessa Gillespie up for peer review to figure out how much more work it needs and to ascertain whether or not Lost Memories is to be used extensively. Thought you should know. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Given it's gone 5 days with no reply, I'm taking the liberty of nominating Alessa for GA myself and seeing what happens. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a review up, and Alessa is on hold. I have put some work into it now and any help would be appreciated. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
SH Characters
You might have seen I started work on a page for the characters of SH2. You think it's ready to be brought into the main article space? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to bring it out now. Do you think you could help me rewrite the "supernatural characters" section? At the very least it probably should stress more strongly that Maria is a manifestation of Silent Hill. If it's finished soon enough it might even be passable for "Did you know". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any help would be appreciated. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Xuchilbara. I'm gonna extend an olive branch here, and I'd love if you could take it. The debate at Vampire is going overboard. As per my comments there, the community has already decided the fate of the Lilith text with the recently cosed RFC. It is unacceptable that you have chosen to go against what the community has decided. You can't simply make unilateral decisions about what you think should be in the article, especially when the community has had an in-depth discussion about it already. As was decided, you may add to the text, but unless you can prove it's undoubtedly wrong, it was decided it should be allowed to stay. That was final. The only way to get this revoked is to go higher, a silly thing to do IMO. Considering you've had POV problems previously on the Lilith article, I'd suggest you cease to ignore community consensus and let me and my co-collaborator get on with our work on the article. It wouldn't be nice for you if you were quietly working on an article and then people came along and started a kifuffle about your work and then after that was resolved, yet another person came along doing the same thing. Do me a favour and let it drop. Add your text about your views, but unless you can find a text that says "Lilith was not removed from the Old Testament" then I'm sorry, but consensus stands. Thanks, Spawn Man 01:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar....and request
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| for keeping a cool head over Lilith and the Old Testament..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) |
But seriously, I note you've got some contribs on aztec stuff - care to import a small bit on any bloodsucking critters from there? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- heck - Kali rocks too. Thinking laterally, any other cosmopolitan stuff embellishment would be great - have a scan thru and see anything else worth adding. Were only at 88kb page after all. I've done lion thru to FAC and it was heftier. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Just saw the note on medieval folklore...hmmmm...good idea, woder where and how we can stuff it in the vampire suitcase...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You Rock!
I wanted to see the Star Spawn mentioned Cas had given you. So I hopped on over to check out your page. Soooo cool. 'Nough said. I'm a Zep fan from way back, also The Cult and Sisters of Mercy. Pretty cheesy stuff, but I love 'em.
Your scholarship's outstanding, and you've got great taste. WikiProject religious texts needs a Meso-American afficionado. I gather some glyph systems have been recently deciphered. If you can help inform an eager, curious public (including yours truly) in your oodles of spare time, please help.
Hmmm, I didn't stop by to make that request, it only came to mind when I read your page. He he, you asked for it. ;) Alastair Haines 05:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: Alastair and I were sprucing up Cain and Abel too, was musing that it was another one possibly for FAC at some point, though if you're a deletionist you'll not like the modern refs at the bottom.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Silent Hill 4
I think Silent Hill 4: The Room is approaching FA quality, but it still has some work to go. Do you know of any sources for additional production information or sales figures? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Another One-degree-of-separation from Lilith
This time I was tinkering around with Algol, the Demon Star, and it mentioned You-know-who in a book by richard Hinckley Allen from matrial by Edmund Chilmead. Others have had some issue with Allen's translations so if tehre was anything closer to the original I'd love it to be added...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cool! Any cool star stuff is good...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
happy Mango season
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Vampire is now featured!
Your Recent Edits
Your recent edits of Lilith are unfounded. Feminist.eserver is not a verifiable link, nor is it academically credible. Furthermore, it does not represent any kind of mainstream opinion in the academic community. It also does not use proper evidence to support its claims. The Pre-Raphaelites are not Romantics. They are Victorians. Your edits do not reflect the above, and are patently wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your information is patently absurd. The Romantic period is a period of literature that ended around 1825. The Pre-Raphaelites are Victorians. Furthermore, your link proves nothing to say that he was a Romantic nor does it prove that Keats was talking about Lilith. Please do not leave nonsense upon my talk page like you have. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- And for your information, the Cambridge Bibliograph of English Literature disagrees with you completely on your classification. And none of the copies of Norton I own have ever confused Romantic with Victorian as you are attempting. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Neoclassicism and Romanticism does not mean that the person falls under "Romantic", which is different. 2. Neoclassicism and Romantic are different also, so it disproves your idea of some united understanding. 3. The "Pre-Raphaelite" movement was its own movement, as was the Romantic movement. The Romantics did not call themselves Romantics, but the Pre-Raphaelites surely called themselves Pre-Raphaelites. Furthermore, all-art.org is not a critical nor academic website and is prone to errors. 4. Constable is a Romantic painter. The Pre-Raphaelites are not like Constable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Its quite alright. I removed the feminist.org citations, as they were unnecessary speculation, but I moved the Pre-Raphaelites down so no one would become confused. I specialize in 18th and 19th century Literature (novels, poetry, and political). The feminist.org website wanted to unite all depictions of seductress women, even of different cultures, as one. Keats uses the Sidhe in LaBelle Dame Sans Merci, which acts quite differently than Lilith. His Lamia story is base on a myth of Apollodorus, and it deals primarily with a classical/non-Biblical entity. It would be unfair to have independent mentions of Lamia to all be given to Lilith. The two are quite distinct, even though some at one time may have blended them. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I shall search JStor for Articles on Lilith and what potential meanings come from her image when I get a chance. I would have accepted the source, except that she does not cite actual evidence to back up her claims and have included artists that were not following the idea that she put forth. If you can find access to a local university, I would use it as a quick verification of ideas and sources. After I finish with the current Swift article I am working on, I will go through the Lilith article and clean up the sections. There is a lot of information out there on Geothe. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jlojsl.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jlojsl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jlojsl.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jlojsl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination
AfD nomination of Xuchilbara
An article that you have been involved in editing, Xuchilbara, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuchilbara. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ptcamn (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You still editing WP?
I'm working on Lilith and noticed you added this Koltuv source. It still stands in the article but I can't find the text of the source. Any help? I'm trying through myspace too. Alatari (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I found alternate supporting sources showing she has some place of honor in feminist circles. I couldn't find the text of the Koltuv source for reproduction and another editor had challenged it. Alatari (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Lilith and Mesopotamia
See the discussion on the Talk:Lilith page. If you have the text of the Hurwitz book it would be helpful. Alatari (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the Lilith page all day. The Mesopotamia section needs representation from old school academics that refute Hurwitz work. It will make the article stronger. Is your knowledge of the sources such that you can toss out names and books from memory? Do you have time? I can read what you offer up if not. Alatari (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Goddess
Your comments and edits of the Goddess page are insightful; you are right, some of these pages are prone to being attacked/rewritten by "Lilithistic" feministis revisionists. Ben Ammi (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I see a lot of feminist revisionist history in the Goddess Neopagan promoters. Wiki maybe should comment on them, but add they do not reflect facts or current academia in regards to their beliefs.
Xuchilbara (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
WikiWomen's Collaborative
| WikiWomen Unite! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi Xuchilbara! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! |
WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!
| WikiWomen - We need you! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi Xuchilbara! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by:
Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Xuchilbara. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)