User talk:Lulubyrd

Chumbley vandal

Thanks for the heads-up. Vandals can only be blocked if they persist after having received sufficient warning. Because this was such a clear and disgusting example of intentional vandalism, I went straight to a level-4 warning, which means that next time he/she/it vandalises, he/she/it can be blocked. If you ever want to police this kind of thing yourself, instructions are given at WP:VAND. Cheers, and have a great day! Fuzzypeg ★ 02:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbatic Witchcraft?

Hi Lulu. I'm not really expert enough in Chumbley's writings to know what he called his mode of magic. I recall him using the term Sabbatic a few times, but perhaps he only used the term "Sabbatic Craft" or some such, and never "Sabbatic Witchcraft". I don't have his books in front of me to check.

I suggest that the first thing to do, if you have concerns, is to mention them at Talk:Sabbatic Witchcraft, and possibly put some kind of template at the top of the article to indicate that its content is disputed (See Category:Dispute templates). That will help get other knowledgeable users to contribute to the discussion. I'm not such a regular contributor nowadays, so I can't promise much help. Fuzzypeg ★ 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to get a community decision, I decided to send it to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft. I think it not only duplicative but no-notable DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice Sabbatic dis-information

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sabbatic dis-information. Thank you. —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulubyrd, would you be so kind as strike out or remove your post for the reasons I explained in the ANI thread? (Reader's digest version: because it's not true, I even gave you a diff, and because I'm bothered you'd say such things). If you would do, then perhaps I owe you an apology for not WP:AGFing and assuming you wouldn't. It's not like our paths will cross very often, if ever, but why not score another friend?

Like you said in the article talk, the sources I cited didn't support "Sabbatic Witchcraft", and... hey now, believe it or not, I was aware of that. You are welcome. Polemics make it difficult to communicate effectively.. there was no dispute, and no good options... but if you had renamed the article Sabbatic Craft, no one would have undone it. Better still, if you had suggested deletion and mentioned there was already a writeup in Contemporary witchcraft, I would have been behind that 100%, (even just mentioning the latter, I'd have suggested the former), with redirect 'natch.

"Sabbatic Current" works ok as a section header, but because it's so obscure, it couldn't be used for the article per the guidelines for WP:TITLE, and while "Sabbatic Craft" would have been better in that regard, it's supposed to be proprietary—the kanundrum... In addition to struggling with the guideline, I was trying to find a way to go by what Chumbley said too... and that's consistent with what you thought WP should do, yes?

Do you have any concerns with the redirects for Sabbatic witchcraft and Sabbatic Craft?

It's a sure bet you know way more about Sabbatic Craft than I intend to learn. What did you think of the changes I made to Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Current? Is there a particular section in the Chumbley article that would be good to point the Cultus Sabbati redirect to? (My impression was none in particular, but I only read it once through). Was the link to cunning folk copacetic?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Lulubyrd, My apologies that I didn't simply ask in the first place. Best wishes.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]