This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

For the article Magical organization:

You added a citation needed for "Some organizations in the list below claim to have been founded earlier. In the list, they are sorted to the first verifiable appearance."

To satisfy this, should I find one source of which century they first appeared for every organization, or is it the clumsy statement itself that is the issue?

Thanks for your help anyways, not just on this article, but overall. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnissiahs hierophant: Hey, I didn't write the article, I'm just watching it. I put in all the cite tags. It's not my responsibility to cite it. Some things I might cite, but I'm really more of an organizer, I improve the structure of the article with what's already there. Eventually, I just take the uncited out. Skyerise (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. Your edit history reads like the vacuum cleaner of wikipedia :) I found the article and realized it was severely incomplete, which was why I just added the remaining major groups. Anyways, the original question is pretty much moot now when you reorganized the article completely. It is a somewhat interesting topic, and one of the weirdest pages on wikipedia :D! Finding sources for this will be somewhat fun, probably. It will take some time for me though! If you feel you want to delete it go ahead! I will be careful to only add sourced stuff · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnissiahs hierophant:: Well, I do also write articles in other fields. In this one I am mostly composing a whole from bits and pieces of other (mostly) well-cited articles. Eg. Astrotheology, Renaissance magic, and Ceremonial magic (merged the old "Magick (Thelema)" into that, so it's not actually gone). Anything well-cited gets preserved. The standards were really much lower when these articles were written, and the authors seem to have left Wikipedia or perhaps are simply no longer interested in magick. Time... Skyerise (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I am gonna NOT focus om this topic of magical organizations, and not do what I said I was going to do. To be quite honest, the topic just makes me sad and depressed. The reason I began doing it was basically that the list was severely incomplete, and I basically have some sort of OCD to complete stuff and answer unanswered questions. And wikipedia is an amplifier for that. Plus, you seem to be doing quite a good work at this anyways :) Sorry for spamming, bai! · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnissiahs hierophant: Oh, was that IP you? IP editors don't get cut any slack and when they revert established editors, established editors get pissed off. All the lists have been moved to the talk page; if you want them in the article, write a bit of prose and add a citation. Otherwise you are just making work for other editors, who haven't agreed to cover your ass. Skyerise (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not angry or anything :) Chill. But whatever, seems liek you don't remember it anyways, so i guess i rly didn't matter. Thanks for your edits :D · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnissiahs hierophant: I think you didn't understand what I wrote, but no matter. You may find the new body of light of interest. Still expanding it. Skyerise (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I understand what you wrote about. No, "that IP" was not me. I basically always edit under this account. What I meant was what I wrote, nothing else. And I agree with what you wrote about not adding unsourced stuff, you are right about that. See you around, maybe! :) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skyerise,

Just because it has been years since a User page was last edited and the editor has departed from Wikipedia, this does not make their User pages eligible for a CSD G13 stale draft page deletion. If you look at Wikipedia:G13, you'll see that there either must be 1) Userspace with an {AFC submission}} template or 2) Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text. Neither of these conditions are true for this page.

I imagine that there are hundreds of thousands of old user pages exactly like this one but unless either of these conditions is present, the only way forward to delete this page is to nominate it at WP:MFD. If you want to propose a solution to all of these musty, abandoned User pages, I encourage you to bring it up at the Village Pump because you are not the only editor who would like to see them gone. They just aren't eligible for CSD G13. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skyerise,

Just a reminder that any type you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notification of the deletion tagging on the talk page of the page creator. It's an important step in the deletion processes on Wikipedia.

This process is made easier if you use Twinkle because once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post these notices for you. If you don't use Twinkle, you'll need to use a template or write a message yourself. Please remember to do this talk page notification in the future if you plan on tagging any pages for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: the article was created in 2007 and the user had a total of 3 edits - in 2007. Do you really think they are going to read it? Skyerise (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also going to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM after the revert? There is no target or likely target for that item on the page. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Philoserf: Source was added during the revert. Revert+found Hayward. Skyerise (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I missed that. Perfect! —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing contributions to articles merely because they are unsourced. Half of Wikipedia would disappear under that burden. For instance, in that same article, there are 5 other roles which have no citation in just the first paragraph alone. The linked Wikipedia article itself verified the role. As noted in [Unsourced Content removal], the contribution should only be removed when it is doubtful a source could be found. In this case, a source could be readily found on IMDB or numerous other sources, so, per Wikipedia guidelines, the "Citation Needed" tag should be used and the contribution should not be deleted. TroubledSenior (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TroubledSenior: sorry, standards are higher now than when that was written - and it's just an essay, not even a guideline, much less policy. Just somebody's opinion with which I disagree. Just provide sources. Period. It's not a burden, you're just lazy. You make work for other editors and honestly what you add is of little value. There is no hurry here. We are way more up to date than a print encyclopedia, we're not intended as a 'current resource' for film or sports, there are plenty of other sites for that. We can wait until an experienced and conscientious editor adds it with sources. You'll find I am not the only editor with this attitude: your other unsourced edits have been reverted by other editors. You want your additions to stick? Cite them - properly. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your corrections. It is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oria 6 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable oversight. And your time. It is appreciated!
My comments below are merely with an intention to learn and improve my own editing skills and help me to contribute to Wikipedia better.
You had highlighted 3 concerns in the article
1. Confused Terminology.
Duly noted. And thank you!
I still feel using the word "enlightened states" in the sentence is closer to what is being conveyed in this context. So wondering if we could retain it?
Note: However, it will no longer be linked to Enlightenment in Buddhism.
2. The two Theses as sources
Doctoral Thesis: (external link). I was of the opinion that this was a reliable source (scholarship), because it is a doctoral dissertation and was academically peer reviewed by three entities:

Prof. Yi Wu (external link); Prof. Janis Phelps (external link); Dr. Sastry from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University.

I had also checked earlier that CIIS was an accredited University. But just noticed that the psychology department is not. Does this make the source a bit weaker/invalid? Could it be used as a supporting citation? Please share your thoughts on this

3. With regard to MOS issues (Unsupported Attributions)
Agreed. And thank you!
Will do a re-look and attempt to fix them shortly.

Thanks again for your valuable feedback

Oria 6 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The doctoral thesis in question

Info about the school is duly noted. Thank you! Your time, patience and your recommendations are also appreciated. What you say makes a lot of sense, especially with regard to citing the said doctoral thesis as a reference to scientific study or claims of psychological benefits.

I am wondering if you feel it is ok to use it as a source when defining/describing theoretical concepts. Especially since it is a secondary source and has gone through multiple reviewers? Would this be ok? Or would you still advise to avoid using it completely?

Oria 6 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tags and formatting

I can understand how annoying it must've been. Humblest apologies! Oria 6 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books links are only permitted if they are direct to page – is that in policy somewhere? In my experience there are lots of page-free Gbooks links in reference templates – I've added plenty myself, since I find pasting a Gbooks URL into the editing toolbar a very efficient way of generating a reference – but of course a practice being common on Wikipedia doesn't exclude it being forbidden! I see that they don't add much to a reference that already contains a correct ISBN, but I don't think that they take much away from it either. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001:: they don't add anything and suggest we prefer Google books over other sources which are reached by clicking the ISBN number. But we don't prefer Google. There was a ruling on it at one point. If I find it I'll let you know. Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001:: Here it is: WP:GBOOKS. Skyerise (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could have looked there before asking you. Pedantically, though, unless I'm missing something, that page doesn't say that non-page-linked Google Books links are forbidden, just that page-linked ones are permitted. The linked essay makes a good set of arguments for avoiding Google Books entirely, though, which I will bear in mind. Thanks again, Wham2001 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001:: In any case they are not protected from removal unless they have page numbers, since it's just an extra click through the ISBN to find the same page. Skyerise (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it harassment to report edit-warring in progress, itself a form of harassment? Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are increasingly showing signs of a battleground mentality. I encourage you to moderate your behavior, for your own good and the good of the encyclopedia. Be cautious. Yes, the other editor is asking me to observe your behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. You have twice now told users they "have 24 hours" and urged them to "use it wisely", in the context of Beyond My Ken having to self-revert at Wingnut (politics).[1][2][3] I can only take that as encouraging them to game the edit warring rules to the hilt and do as much battle as possible. You will be blocked per WP:BATTLEGROUND next time you display such attitudes and/or attempt to spread them to others. I remind you that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an MMORPG, but a collaborative project. Bishonen | tålk 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]