User talk:Bohemian Alchemyst

First Warning
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of occultists, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Don’t make ground breaking changes without extensive discussion at the talk page. This is your first warning.'' Celestina007 17:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes
You may not make such ground breaking changes as you did at the List of occultists article without first seeking consensus at the talk page of that article. If you continue this disruptive editing I’d see to it that you are blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia or to abide by the spirit of consensus & collaborative editing. Celestina007 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm going to get a more experienced editor here to check over my edits. You clearly feel ownership of that page despite its poor condition and I think an experienced Wikipedian checking over my work would be the best way forward. Thank you for making me feel welcome. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no I don’t feel like I WP:OWN the article, I did not create it, although I should say that I have made significant contributions to the article I do not feel like own it. What you did was wrong & contacting the most experienced of editors wouldn’t change a thing. If you are going to make such bold changes, you have to first seek consensus on the talk page of that article first & when significant contributors to that article “okay” your changes then you may go ahead to make those changes anything else is disruptive editing which if you continue would invariably land you a block. You are a new editor, barely 7 hours old. How about study some of our policies, guidelines & essays before jumping into areas where even experienced editors tread with caution. If you have anymore questions leave me a message on my talk page. Celestina007 18:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , one point of clarification: In the absence of a specific local restriction, there is no general requirement for any editor, no matter how new, to seek talk page permission before making changes of any size as long as they comply with the core content policies. Be bold, the normal editing cycle and "anyone can edit" still have some meaning, after all.  If another editor objects and reverts those changes, as in this case, then the edit-war prohibitions obviously mean the changes should not be re-instated without talk page discussion. That is exactly what  should have done after you reverted their changes and what should take place now. They especially should not have accused you of vandalism and I can see how that would have been upsetting. There is, however, no "Mother may I?" prior permission requirement. So, Bohemian Alchemyst, please take these revisions to the talk page and try to work out Celestina007's objections civilly there.  I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. However, if you want to talk about "upsetting" can we take a moment to think about how it feels to take the time to open an account and put three hours of work into making a page that's riddled with subjective, unprofessional data, something closer to encyclopedia standard and then having that reverted by the only person who has contributed to that page in months? I have a doctorate in history, with a specialisation in the role of the occult in the history of ideas. I have already contributed meaningfully but instead I feel like I've wasted three hours. I doubt that I'll be contributing any further given the unfriendly, possessive experience that this has been.Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Deletionism


 * Bohemian Alchemyst, new users sometimes do have negative initial experiences and this project does a poor job of helping new users understand the rules of the road before their first edit. The decentralized nature of the project and its editing environment makes it difficult to give everyone the necessary training wheels and I apologize for any contribution I've made to your frustration. I cannot tell you whether sticking around is worth your time.  I can say that there are two general options: either you feel this information is important enough to be shared despite a poor welcome and you continue or you feel that the editing environment is so toxic that it exceeds your tolerance.  That's a personal decision and I won't presume which is applicable to you. On the good news side: your effort isn't lost or wasted. it's still there in the page history and can be retrieved at any time. If you want to continue the discussion on what a professional version of the page would look like, the Talk:List of occultists page is where it needs to take place.  Can I assume that this discussion was your initial attempt prior to registering? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a good egg Eggishorn and you've put some calming, thoughtful questions to me here. Thank you for that. Yes, I made that comment last night and then, seeing that the page had had little meaningful activity and asking myself why I was asking someone else to do what I could do, I opened an account and made the edit. I thought editing a list page would be a good way to begin before moving into broader, essay based articles. The difficulty with "the occult" as an area of research is that it attracts a lot of pet theories, a lot of vagueness and a lot of people who should be grounding themselves in proper logical analysis before venturing off into this material. It's that way IRL and I think it will be that way here too and my tolerance for it isn't plentiful. I will think over your points before putting my time into writing here. Thank you again. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are correct there isn’t any “Mother may I” required. Yes! What the new editor should have done & like you have rightfully said was to either discuss it with me or take it to the talk page of the article as even a different editor advised them to., putting in three hours of work & seeing it go up in flames is a result of, like I earlier said “jumping into areas even experienced editors tread with caution” if you did your due diligence by reading some fundamental policies governing this collaborative project before editing articles you wouldn’t have been in this situation. The article in question has undergone serious changes over the years by very experienced senior editors who have brought it to its current state & you a newbie with little to no experience calling it “a poor state” is a very bold statement & I’d like for you to point out to me what, what & what makes it a “poor state” seeing as almost all entries there are backed up with WP:RS. You may also be unknowingly POV-PUSHING by trying to shape the article exactly how you (as an individual) want it to be/appear, so that’s something you might want to check out as well. Albeit Eggishorn is somewhat correct. In my opinion Any ground breaking changes/drastic changes should pass through the TP of that article. Minor edits might be overlooked but a total overhaul & restructuring of the article should be first discussed at the article’s TP. Thanks for your time.  Oh! Lest I forget, this is an optional question of which you may not answer obviously, Do you have any background in Occultism? Celestina007 19:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Do you have any background in Occultism?"

Yes, but that is not relevant in the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about rationally observable fact rather than noetic apprehension. A complete grounding in what is known should precede dealing with the unknown. In order to get that grounding, absolute precision in knowable facts is desirable and that is why standards on Wikipedia should be much higher.

''"The article in question has undergone serious changes over the years by very experienced senior editors who have brought it to its current state & you a newbie with little to no experience calling it “a poor state” is a very bold statement."

Perhaps if they'd spent more time opening a book and doing legitimate research than editing Wikipedia they'd have a better article? Experience in editing Wikipedia does not make a person more knowledgeable on a given subject. It just means they've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia, often writing things that they like to read but which are wrong.

''"I’d like for you to point out to me what, what & what makes it a “poor state”"

Where do I begin?

1. There's no definition of terms; the word "occultist" is being used to cover multiple categories of activity, some of which have actually got nothing to do with the occult. 2.There's no precision in the terms applied to historical figures; people are called things like "mage" and "sorcerer" without those terms being defined. Why are some called "mage", some "wizard", some "magician", some "sorcerer"? What are the differences in those terms? Why? I wrote you an academic definition in the intro which then made sense of attributing titles like "alchemist" to figures and, when I had the time, my next step was to develop that and cite real sources for those changes rather than the unprofessional websites that are currently used. You've rejected that. 3. People are included on this list that have nothing to do with the occult. One example: Plato's philosophy has been an important influence on occultism but that doesn't make him an "occultist". I would challenge you to ask an academic expert on Plato what they think of his being described as an "occultist" and observe the response that you get. In fact, go over to the Plato page and add him to the occult category and see what happens. Go on. I dare you. 4. Mythical figures are mixed with historical figures with impunity. 5. The list is full of factual inaccuracies; Marsilio Ficino was dead before the 16th century started and yet he's listed in the 16th century. What was that you were saying about "very experienced senior editors"? So senior that they can't get a date right? There are so many such inaccuracies that I cannot find the time to mention them all. I put them right in my edit of that article but, again, you've rejected that.

I spent time writing the basis of a good quality, non-speculative article on occult personalities. With proper sourcing and definitions it could have been the basis for a First Class article. You have made it clear that you like the page as it is, sloppiness and all. You are more willing to own this page than I am, therefore you can have it. I should be thanking you; if my edit today had been met with "thank you" I might have spent more time on this website but you've given that time back to me and I can spend it more productively, perhaps creating articles of the sort that are cited by Wikipedia rather than arguing with occultniks about why good academic standards are important. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not to be rude but WP:TLDR, I asked if you had any background in occultism just so I’d get where you are coming from & now I understand the problem here. Wikipedia doesn’t allow for WP:OR, that is, what you know for a fact & can’t prove it via RS isn’t acceptable here. You can’t include your own research here because it then becomes next to impossible to WP:V Neither is POV-PUSHING which seems to be another factor here. Wikipedia isn’t a joke or what anyone with an internet connection can edit despite the mantra you may have heard which states “anyone can edit Wikipedia” Technically yes, but would it stick? Probably not. I suggest you start reading up polices & guidelines prior bold editing such as you tried earlier today. Correcting typos in articles is also a good way to commence editing. Celestina007 23:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you’re still following this thread could you please review Celestina007’s comments which completely ignore my comments about why her question doesn’t matter but uses my response to it to suggest I’m pushing original research. She is also using a puppet account on the article that this thread is concerned with. You seem well read in wiki etiquette. Could you please consider whether her behaviour amounts to bullying? Perhaps recommend that she actually reads what is written? Thank you for any help you can offer Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I dare you to accuse me again of sock puppetry without evidence & you are going straight to an AN/I where you’d be indef blocked for casting aspersions. Celestina007 03:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure you're aware that your lack of AGF here and, quite frankly, extreme arrogance towards a newbie will very likely result in boomerangs if you attempt such. There's no reason to treat a new editor with this level of animosity because they are trying to respond to points you raised. , please do not accuse other editors of bad faith without good evidence.  If you believe here's substantiation for sock puppeting, the proper place for that is the Sock Puppet Investigations noticeboard.  I am not an admin but there really needs to be a drastic improvement of civility here. The underlying dispute, such as it is, is not worth this sort of charges and counter-charges. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Bohemian Alchemyst, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Of matters academic
I see that you have stated a strong academic background. WP:ACADEME may interest you, assuming you do not vacate here after your baptism of fire. Wikipedia is an odd place with a number of difficulties for every new editor. Generally this essay's target audience is the non academic editor, but it can assist the acadeic editor with a sometimes better understanding of the oddities here. I make no comment on the brouhaha above. It seems to me that it will take its course. Fiddle  Faddle  22:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for this; I've found the essays directed at academics useful. I think a "baptism of fire" is a good way of explaining my experience so far, not just the behaviour of one unkind user but learning something of the whole tangled map of Wikipedia's editorial policies. I have to say though, all other contact that I've had with Wikipedians has been positive and that has encouraged me to stay. I have a doctorate in history, specialising in the Renaissance/magic/history of ideas, and I think I could add something to the site once I've got my bearings about how things are done here. Thank you again! Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All I can suggest in practical terms is the 'least said soonest mended' approach to all apparent disasters. I'm not going to get at all involved in who said what to whom.
 * What you could not be aware of is the concept of WP:BRD. I find the 'D' must mean 'discuss', where Wikipedia wins, never ' debate' where one or another party wishes to win. The trick is never to let anything annoy one. This works for all parties. These discussions happen often. A recent example is at Talk:Lynching of Wilbur Little where I reverted an edit another editor felt strongly about. It took patience for us both (and another editor, for the discussion spread to my and other talk pages) to reach a working arrangement. We could each have become cross with the other. What happened is that Wikipedia won, and the article is much improved, though two parties (not me, I just cared about the article, not the facts in dispute) continue to have different views
 * This is a difficult place to work. It teaches us patience, gives us frustrations, pleasures, and is a worthwhile hobby Fiddle   Faddle  07:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The brokering of peace
I am still trying to broker peace between you and. As you will see I have "drawn a line" on the admin noticeboard, but I have also not lost hope. Why not use a neutral place, such as my own talk page, to see if you can each walk forward neither winning nor losing? Or we could set up a sub page that is deleted afterwards.

Neither of you has to encounter the other again, and I am mindful that ANI reports often have unpleasant consequences for each party to them. Do pop over there first before answering.

Each of you is valuable here, and I would hate Wikipedia to lose either of you by accident, let alone on purpose.

If you can reach peace I think all each has to do is to say so in just the words "We have reached peace, please close the discussion as 'no action required' " at ANI and that should let each move forward, probably never encountering each other again. Fiddle  Faddle  14:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry I already responded on the ANI before I saw this. I'm not going to pretend that hasn't behaved provocatively and awfully but, even though she's threatened to have me banned literally since my first edit, I don't want to see her banned. Clearly she's been here a long time and being an editor here means a lot more to her than it does to me. While I'm certain that my rushing into Wikipedia hasn't covered me in glory, I'm not sure on what basis there'd be admin repercussions for me but if there was, then it's not that big of a deal, I just got here and this whole nonsense makes me wonder if it's the place for me anyway. If there aren't any and I decide to stick around, my main concern is having an aggressive, authoritarian editor following me around the site, rolling back every edit that I make because she doesn't understand what I'm writing. All of her behaviour has led me to think that, if this wasn't brought to the attention of someone more senior, that's what she'd do. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , The thing about admins is that they are not senior, exactly. They are ordinary editors who have put themselves through a selection process to be granted janitorial tools. You've probably guessed that I am not going to comment on anyone's behaviour in this, or course you have. If I did I would be unable to mediate
 * There is a sort of senior group here, the arbitration committee, which handles intractable cases. Many years ago before domestic circumstances le!d me to withdraw I was asked to and agreed to stand for that committee. What they get is a bigger mop than admins and a bigger bucket. Mine might have been an interesting role since I have no interest in being an admin here, but there is no requirement to be one to arbitrate effectively. No-one wants to go before Arbcom.
 * We're hobbyists here, some of us are better than others. Who is better and who is not is in the eye of the beholder, and it varies depending upon where one stands.
 * I'm sad that you've decided no longer to edit here. I'd like to suggest to  you that you had a difficult introduction, and that is atypical.  We're not terribly kind to new editors. Those who make sweeping changes, right ones or wrong ones tend to find this a difficult thing to have done. This is down to the wisdom of crowds.
 * In our wisdom we have taken a web site without rules and created a huge bureaucracy, full of an alphabet soup of ordure. Pretty much every long term editor here has been through the slough of ordure to a greater or lesser extent.
 * We don't really help existing editors, either. There is a known thing, Wikiburnout, from trying to do good things here in the face of what are often overwhelming odds.
 * I cut my teeth on trying to keep a contentious article on track, with some success. If you're curious, have a look at the early archives of Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. I used it to see if I could.
 * So, please do not go. Instead wander away for a week or so. Pop back and dip your toe in. Say Hi on my talk page if you like, not if not. Fiddle   Faddle  16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In our wisdom we have taken a web site without rules and created a huge bureaucracy, full of an alphabet soup of ordure. Pretty much every long term editor here has been through the slough of ordure to a greater or lesser extent.
 * We don't really help existing editors, either. There is a known thing, Wikiburnout, from trying to do good things here in the face of what are often overwhelming odds.
 * I cut my teeth on trying to keep a contentious article on track, with some success. If you're curious, have a look at the early archives of Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. I used it to see if I could.
 * So, please do not go. Instead wander away for a week or so. Pop back and dip your toe in. Say Hi on my talk page if you like, not if not. Fiddle   Faddle  16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I cut my teeth on trying to keep a contentious article on track, with some success. If you're curious, have a look at the early archives of Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. I used it to see if I could.
 * So, please do not go. Instead wander away for a week or so. Pop back and dip your toe in. Say Hi on my talk page if you like, not if not. Fiddle   Faddle  16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, please do not go. Instead wander away for a week or so. Pop back and dip your toe in. Say Hi on my talk page if you like, not if not. Fiddle   Faddle  16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)