User talk:Kismetmagic

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be interpreted as an attack? Torah Magic isn't a very popular form of stage magic but it exists nonetheless. --Kismetmagic (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Angelo Stagnaro[reply]

WOW! Talk about reactionary! If you followed the link, you would have seen there was nothing to get angry about. I've written nothing that would justified your reaction.--Kismetmagic (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Angelo[reply]

If you had examined what I wrote and the link provided, it could never be considered an attack on anyone. I would argue that you didn't show good faith to me.--Kismetmagic (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Angelo[reply]

I've noticed that when you add category tags to articles, you put <noinclude> tags around them. You don't need to do that: noinclude tags are unnecessary on article pages. (They're for use on template pages, and when used anywhere else don't actually do anything.) —Paul A (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize...I was using vetern, established pages as template for my new pages. Please feel free to change it as you see fit.--Kismetmagic (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Angelo[reply]

No apology necessary: I didn't mean that as an admonition, only an explanation so that you would know better in future. I apologise if I upset you. —Paul A (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul...don't worry. There's a problem with electronic communicaiton...mood and intent can't always be transmitted. I was upset in the least. Please feel free to correct me as the need arises. I'm very new at all of this.--Kismetmagic (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Angelo[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page

You seem to be trying to add the Magic box template to pages by opening the Template:Magic box page and copying its contents onto the page in question. This is not the correct way to add a template to a page. (Among other reasons, doing it this way will cause some templates to break, because they're not designed to be used like this.)

The correct (and much easier!) way is to put the name of the template on the page in curly brackets, like this: {{Magic box}} —Paul A (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I presumed I was doing it correctly. Did you erase them or should I?--Kismetmagic (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Angelo[reply]

I've corrected the ones I found, but I don't know if that was all of them. —Paul A (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding

I should also point out that you would attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you post your criticisms in a more gentle and professional manner, I will take them more seriously.--Kismetmagic (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Angelo[reply]

Carlaude is not saying that Gospel Magic should not be under Christianity. What Carlaude is saying is that it should not be directly under Category:Christianity - that it should be, if possible, listed in one of the subcategories, rather than in Category:Christianity itself. (The same way, for example, that an article about a magic trick would go in Category:Magic tricks instead of in Category:Magic (illusion).)

That said, Carlaude's suggestion of Category:Religious occupations isn't a subcategory of Christianity - it includes occupations from all religions - so the article still needs an additional category that marks it as being specifically Christian. Category:Christian education, possibly? —Paul A (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what it takes, that will be fine. What I disapprooved of saying that Gospel Magic somehow had nothing to do with Christiainity. Gospel Magic has no existence other than to serve Christianity. It is unlike all other aspects of magic, other than Torah Magic. If Gospel Magic shouldn't be a part of the Christianity/Catholicism categories, then Torah Magic shouldn't be listed under the Judaism category. Whatever is decided, it must be applied fairly and evenly. --Kismetmagic (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Kismet[reply]

I looked over Torah Magic and saw that it clearly is included under the Judaism category, as it should be. It follows, logically, that Gospel Magic should be linked to the Christianity/Catholicism category...I don't see any way around it.--Kismetmagic (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Kismet[reply]

Your disapproval is misplaced. Carlaude never said that Gospel Magic has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, Carlaude explicitly said "it goes in a Christianity sub-category", which is a clear acknowledgement that Gospel Magic is connected to Christianity. —Paul A (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, the problem with electronic communication is that it doesn't convey subtlety of language. What I was objecting to was twofold:

1. The command to "Stop adding…" which I thought was rude. 2. The unfairness of insisting that Christian Gospel Magic must be dealt with in a fashion different than Jewish Torah Magic. Whatever is decided has to be fair. If everything is arbitrarily decided upon, then why complain in the first place?

A

Hello! Just to let you know I've been having a look around for some

WP:V - as there are guidelines as to what should be kept, and this will establish whether the article stays, as it's not a simple vote, it's all based on the consensus, and arguments based on policy are the ones with weight. Also consider that, if the article is perhaps not notable enough for a stand-alone article, the information could still be merged into Magic Circle or whatever, and you could continue to build it there. Good Luck! - Toon⁰⁵ 14:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Many thanks for your concern and help, Toon.--Kismetmagic (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Kismet[reply]

It may be a good idea for you to present your changes to the discussion

^discuss 06:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, just to let you know that I've redirected the

Young Magicians' Club page to The Magic Circle article, after a user merged some of the info. TThe article itself probably had too much info to merge completely, but the old content is still available here if you want to change the information at the new location. I'd also like to refer you to the cite web template - it has space for more information than just a hyperlink, and makes the refs look much better. The link I provided gives some instructions on how to use it, but if you have any questions at all, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Unfortunate that the article didn't stay, but at least it wasn't deleted and you can continue to work on it. I hope you don't let this stop you editing, as the state of magic-related articles is pretty bad and could certainly do with work from knowledgeable users, especially The Magic Circle entry itself. - Toon⁰⁵ 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I always sign my posts. I'm unsure to what you refer. --Kismetmagic (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Kismet[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on Template:Magic box. Because this template is used on several hundred pages, it is important that links on it be accurate; a link to the wrong page could be misleading to a large number of users. Therefore, before you add any link to any widely-used template, you really should preview the link and make sure that it leads to the most relevant article on the topic (and not to a disambiguation page). Thanks. --Russ (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...I apologize for the confusion. I check each link but several of the articles I've written have been greatly edited and merged with other articles. I think this might explain why some of the links aren't accurate.--Kismetmagic (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Kismet[reply]

guide to writing your first article

.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria

for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Post-it note pop culture

Hello. If you check the history, you'll see I only reverted it once; another editor reverted it the first time. While it can sometimes be illustrative to mention how a product has appeared in films or television, both of these seemed fairly minor one-joke references, for a product as universally well known and established as the post-it note.

If there's been a film or TV episode that's actually about the post-it note, then it'd be worth mentioning, but list of "name a film where there's one scene or joke involving post-it notes" seems like it would get unreadably long. --

McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

CMG

With all due respect, it seems like nonsense to me; more to the point, it's already been deleted at AfD, so unless it actually re-emerges in substantially changed form, it's going to keep getting speedily deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When one writes the expression "With all due respect" it means that one hopes to be respectful. You can't then write that my opinion is "nonsense." Personal opinions are irrelevant just as my belief that your opinion is nonsense. There's no need for negative and/or bloviating crosstalk here. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but I'm fairly certain what ethics and maturity demand of both you and I. Further, I have a respect for Wikipedia in that it can contain opinions different from mine. It's only concern is the accumulation and expression of verifiable knowledge.

The Catholic Magicians' Guild is a legitimate organization that has 700 members worldwide. It has published a book through Crossroad ^[1], on the art of Gospel Magic through one of the world's largest theology publishers .^[2] This is not a fly-by-night, flash-in-the-pan or self-serving organization. It is a non-profit that supports through funding and volunteering Maghi Senza Frontiere, a organization operated through Fondazione Mago Sales, (Torino) the world's largest Gospel Magic organization. We do good work and we ask nothing for it. --Kismetmagic (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Kismet[reply]

Well, a year ago the article was unanimously deleted. I don't question that you do great work, but the lack of coverage in multiple, independent sources is rather problematic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you made a poor choice in using the world "nonsense" but I forgive you. But I'm not arguing whether it was "unanimously deleted" a year ago or not. I'm arguing that my article was not labeled as "speedy deletion." In fact the wording was actually quite gentle suggesting that I had time to make changes. You didn't address that in your response. There are at least 30 mentions of the Guild on-line. This is a lot considering there aren't many magic organizations and we've been mentioned by several of them sometimes multiple times. To rephrase my question: why did you delete the large when the flag didn't suggest it it was in imminent danger of being deleted?--Kismetmagic (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Kismet[reply]

OK, you can make your case right here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Catholic Magicians' Guild

deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion

. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

says you, says me 17:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

CMG

Hello there. Yes, I deleted the page as a recreation of a page deleted at AFD. This was because concerns about notability had not gone away. If you can find information which establishes notability, then we can talk about putting a new article together. On the question of timing, the goalposts moved, as it switched from a prolonged debate to a speedy delete, which I carried out on the suggestion of other users. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I reverted your edits because there is no need to tag "Catholics " when "Italian Catholics" etc are already a subset of that, and it will crowd out hte parent cat YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious categories

talk) 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Torah magic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Torah magic 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/Torah magic 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. MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm

Blandina Segale 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:

• the Santa Fe Trail,'' first published time in 1932, by Bruce Publishing, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1948). The book was based on the letters she exchanged with her sister Justine, who was also a religious

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Magic Allied Arts

The article Magic Allied Arts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tim! (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of

I. B. M. Youth

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

I. B. M. Youth 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/I. B. M. Youth 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.

talk) 10:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

1. ^ www.cpcbooks.com/
2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Catechists-Magic-Kit-Teaching-Catholicism/dp/0824525183/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239663631&sr=8-1