Talk:Therion (Thelema)

Some minor issues with the article
Greetings! Some problems that very fixed earlier have now been restored to the articles. Please find below a short and concise list of the issues:


 * 1) Changed a link from vavs to waws : the source mentions "wavs" and the Wikipedia article is about "wavs", so I don't really understand why it's currently tried to be forced into "vavs"
 * 2) Removed a link to Yahweh : The text is about a Thelemic concept, "sun of Yahweh". The article "Yahweh" does not discuss Thelema nor the very concept. Besides, we shouldn't link from the middle of a term (or "name within a name").
 * 3) A link to Ha-Satan was added: As above, the text is about a Thelemic concept, "Satan has returned". Now there's a forced link to "Ha-Satan", an article that does not even mention Thelema nor the very concept (the gematric values used Thelema). Moreover, we shouldn't link from the middle of a term.
 * 4) WP:SEAOFBLUE violation was restored: not just qliphoth of Pisces] is a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation, it'd fall under "unspecific" per [[WP:SPECIFICLINK
 * 5) A  tag was removed without providing a source
 * 6) Another  tag was removed without providing a source
 * 7) The whole The Number of Therion and the numerology thereof section should be adjusted according to WP:HEBREW. I'll start working with this one after I've refreshed my memory with the specific guideline.

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Vav' is the usual name of the Hebrew letter, though it is occasionally called 'wav'. 'Waw', which is the name of the letter that you have entered in its place, is the name of the equivalent Phoenician letter, so it is incorrect.


 * 'Qliphoths' are a little-known concept, therefore it facilitates the reader's understanding to link to it, and linking to 'pisces' can also facilitate the reader's understanding, so Wikipedia's wikilinking policy supports those wikilinks.


 * Citations are not required for simple translations, nor simple gematrical arithmetic, though I added additional explanatory information for you anyway, as can be clearly seen in the diffs that you linked to. Buffalion (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer, Buffalion. I still think you couldn't reply to the most issues. Please find a short summary below:
 * Magic square : restored redundant repetition ("...magic square, which is called the magic square...") even the issue has been brought up here at the Talk Page. Your first added the material on 19:45, 28 June 2015, which I restored to the original stable version on 20:25, 28 June 2015. I brought up the issue at the article Talk Page, but have kept re-reverting without commenting the issue. This was the third time you have added the same material.
 * Waw : re-reverted "waws" to "vavs". According to the source however: "The Hebrew equivalent of our "w" is the letter "vav" or "waw"." Waw is also consistent with the existing Wikipedia article. Your argument was that: "'waw' is a phoenician letter, not a hebrew letter"; maybe, but that's your original research and not supported by the source. We'd need a better source to establish that.
 * : removed a tag that I placed for an unsourced phrase. Your rationale was: "...a source is not required for a simple translation". The tag was not for a translation, but for the whole passage.
 * Qliphoth of Pisces : restored the unspecific linking. Article "qliphoth" does not discuss "Pisces" or "Thelema"; neither does article "Pisces" discuss "Thelema" or "qliphoth". The right one'd be "qliphoth of Pisces"; if such article doesn't exist yet, we shouldn't force links that are not really related to the subject but try to catch others' attention by adding a WP:REDLINK. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

For this edit, we actually need a source to verify the whole claim, not just a separate off-context dictionary entry (that's not been quoted even). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Three times now you have pushed the deceptive wording which indicates that the 6x6 magic square is inherently related to the sun (which it isn't), while also deleting the important piece of information that it is the 6x6 magic square that is being referred to. You say that you are doing this 'to prevent redundancy', yet it is clearly not redundant because it provides more information, so your explanation for your edit is clearly dishonest.


 * The source mentions 'waw' only once, but mentions 'vav' several times, because 'vav' is the usual spelling, and 'waw' is a rare spelling.


 * I have provided a source that proves that 'shemesh' is the correct spelling, but you have deleted the source and reverted to the false spelling, in violation of Wikipedia's policy that articles must be factually accurate. You have also falsely stated that I must provide a reference for the whole statement in order to provide a reference for the spelling of one word, in violation of Wikipedia's policy against lying (WP:CIV; 2-d).


 * Being as it is obvious that "qliphoth of pisces" is too narrow a subject to ever have its own article, and information about the qliphoth of pisces would obviously belong in the article 'qliphoth' and/or 'pisces', a redlink for the phrase would obviously be inappropriate, and your suggestion is thus insincere. You have deleted the wikilinks in violation of Wikipedia's policy that wikilinks should be provided where they facilitate the reader's understanding.


 * Your multiple article-damaging edits demonstrate a general pattern of disruptive editting, which is against Wikipedia's rules.


 * Also, your use of the pseudo-friendly words 'Greetings!' and 'Cheers!' to a person whose constructive edits you have repeatedly reverted under false pretenses is, like the repeated reversions themselves, a violation of Wikipedia's policy against baiting, which is covered under WP:CIV, 2-a: "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves.".


 * You are also in violation of WP:OWN, by reverting several of my constructive edits to the article.


 * As per my strict adherence to Assume good faith, I have given you every opportunity to demonstrate honesty and good faith, but you have consistently demonstrated otherwise, as demonstrated above, and in your edits to the article. You may be doing so for the sake of sadistic flamebaiting, or dominance, and/or POV-pushing, but your motive is not particularly important. Buffalion (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)