User talk:Hour of Angels

Welcome!

Hello, Hour of Angels, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Ghost beings
About the article Ghost beings, in fact the name is very similar to Ghost article. However the article Ghost beings focuses on another subject (involving others beings besides ghosts). May be the better solution to avoid further confusion should be improve the article. (Hour of Angels 26 January 2011)

Article duplication
Continuing to recreate your article under a different name is not helpful. It's unclear that this is a separate topic from legendary creature. Is there some difference between the two? You may want to improve the existing article rather than starting your own. Friday (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has many issues and is not yet ready for article space. I have moved it for now, to User:Hour of Angels/Ethereal beings. Friday (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

====== Friday, the article not is about legendary creatures. It is about common features of only ethereal creatures (made of mystic energy). I will give you examples: werewolves, living-deads, vampires, mummies, etc regularly not are ethereal creatures but are legendary creatures.

I see this inside of Wikipedia’s rules, but I agree it is not perfect. However the world wiki-editors can make it in time.

I was planning new articles (translations) from French Wikipedia related with this moved article by you. I wasn’t expecting this, so I stopped the new articles for now because I don’t want waste time. I know you are doing your work but the fact is I am old and have little time so may I ask you when the moved article will have a final position (be restored or deleted)?

Thank you, for your attention, Hour of Angels (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

======


 * That's not just up to me. Anyone could come along and move the article if they think it's not ready for article space. How do you know which creatures are "ethereal" or not?  The problem is, that very distinction relies on knowledge that (I assume) does not actually exist, anywhere in the world.  My fear is that any attempt to classify nonexistent creatures is going to heavily rely on original research.  What happens when another editor comes along who disagrees with your taxonomy?  Are there going to be reliable sources that tell us who is correct?  I could easily assert that vamps are ethereal and how on earth could you possible produce a source telling us otherwise?  Friday (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Friday take a moment please. As I said, the subject is to expose the common characteristics recorded in literature, etc. About your question: It is not up to me, the editor, decide what is ethereal or not (I didn’t make a taxonomy). Therefore the records speak by themselves (they do that). From that the article lists, shows, describes these frequent features and their relationship with cultures, doctrines, etc. The article only describes what is found in the references. When the article uses the word “class”, “kind”, etc means something in common found in books, etc and not made by my own interpretation. Your comment about vampires (at least the popular vampire) is not congruent with records (so, wasn’t a good example). Even so, you made a point and I totally agree can be thin the separation between a solid entity and an ethereal entity. Indeed this is mentioned in the first lines of the article (take a look). But bottom line, unfortunately again the name of the article brings confusion.


 * So, I will follow your orientation, change the approach (starting by the name) of the article, adapt the contents and re-publish. Now, I am really considering your suggestion (legendary creature) as a better name inside the article. But I will sleep on that.


 * Friday, don’t get me wrong, even bringing to me some disappointment I appreciated your considerations in this wikijob. If Wikipedia weren’t good I wouldn’t use my time for it. Hour of Angels (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Article already substantiated
Friday, I leaved this message here and not in your Talk´page because are only comments.

Last week your concerns took me seriously to researching again the records and references about “ethereals” (checking the consistency). What became a good thing because made feasible improve the article with more references and noteworthy contents. On the other hand, got possible considerer “ethereal” as relative of “legendary creature”, but in truth according to the records, the subject (Ethereal) deserve own space because have particular identity and large development. Actually there are many articles in Wikipedia under those same conditions (for instance, “Alien”, and many others – unnecessary mention because you certainly realize it) and yet they continue to have own presence because put all information in only one spot would be too confuse. Separate large themes (of same root) always is a good idea because is more organized and thus approachable (to readers).

See, our task as editors, is only gathering, enhancing and publishing registered information (you know). Hence, the article while available to readers (for one week), already was being improved by editors (and welcome, apparently). And I see that very positively, after all Wikipedia is a democratic place for adding sections (with references, of course) from authors with distinct views. Different views enrich any article. In fact there are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia like that. So, I am sure that giving time to editors work on it (5th pillar), the article will be very good and plentiful.

Thanks for the considerations, (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Nomination of Murry Hope for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murry Hope 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 Articles for deletion/Murry Hope 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I see that you yourself have not registered a formal keep vote. You should do so, with a disclaimer that you wrote the article. When there is no consensus, the article is kept. While a deletion discussion is not a vote, having equally split opinions tends to result in the article being kept. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This article was discussed and considered OK, an appropriated article to Wikipedia. Thanks everyone for helping. Hour of Angels

Ethereal being
Please do not undo my policy-based edits when you make your additions. Please also note that we do no use the html "br" tag, we leave a blank line. Also, we do not apply any special formatting to blockquotes or poetry. We do not make such quotatation bold, or italic, or small. We use the correct tags or templates and let our built-in formatting give articles a consistent appearance.

Making copies of articles in personal space is not very useful. When you paste your work in you undo the work of all the editors since you made the copy. That's not permitted. You can't undo my edits when adding your references and material, and I will completely revert you every time you edit in such a rude and inconsiderate fashion. I spent quite some time bringing the images and formatting into alignment with the image use policy and the Manual of Style. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The copies in my personal space are used only to comparisons, tests and analysis. That reverted version in main space was not pasted from that personal area. They were two distinct versions between differences and similarities. The reverted version placed in main space saved most images you had resized; fixed the uncompleted sentences left by previous editors; and likewise all the previous solicitations for more references and grammar revision were supplied. In spite of few images of horizontal complexion had been slightly enlarged (now undone), others were still more shrunk. Usually the world editors from Wikipedia, have different approaches, some are more technical than others, which implies that mistakes normally can happen. Your formatting edits are welcomed; if some ones were incorrectly changed, please always assume that made in good faith. Hour of Angels (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken: all of my image edits and all of my formatting edits were reverted by your edit. Yworo (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda
I have to question your decision to put Castaneda's views before the general views. In fact, I am duious that Castaneda's views should be included at all. His works have pretty much been proven to be fiction from library records. He was in the library at times he claimed to be with Don Juan. Yworo (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally believe Castaneda was a fictional writer. Actually some user removed when I cited (from references) that he was a polemic author (may be correctly). On the other hand his writings (even been fictional, in my opinion) brings esoteric knowledge (true or not). And this article it not about Castaneda, he is a secondary source about ethereal entities. Our mission it is expose that with neutrality, the reader must decide what is worth or not (not us). The Castaneda section and all other sections do not intend to state what is true or false. The sections are only public expositions to the reader know what such an author or doctrine proclaimed (be true or false). That is the role of an encyclopedia. And that is why I think that Tag in his section it is inappropriate. Besides, there are dozens of different authors talking about his writings (I was lazy not citing them, actually I didn’t have time).


 * In my opinion Castaneda used esoteric knowledge to build his romances (but my opinion doesn’t matter, I’m an editor, not a critic). Bottom line, what matters it is to expose his view and any other available; we editors cannot deny that to readers, we must expose with neutrality his allegations. I will give another example: there is another author (20 century) mentioned in the article that I simply would prefer not mention at all, but we cannot do that (I don’t believe him, but his writings are here painfully showed with neutrality).


 * And yes I agree, it is strange Castaneda section before general view. Why is that? Honestly I was afraid of putting his section before any other, then I kind isolated and made a far section from others. I mean, I believe he has some worth writings and a peculiar view (and mainly, how not mention someone with millions of books sold?). But if you want other location, I suggest… I really don’t know. Hour of Angels (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't get a chance to change it. I see you came up with a good solution! Yworo (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Argumentation and references to the reader
Ethereal being needs some further rewriting to conform with our Manual of Style. In particular, encyclopedia articles never refer to the reader or the writer. The word "we" needs to be excised from the article except in quotations.

Also, there seems to be a lot of argumentation in the article, which is a sign of synthesis. There are way too many uses of "however", "therefore", "moreover", and other such conjunctive adverbs. These should mostly be eliminated. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I partly agree, I also noticed the many adverbs, and probably a better edition can improve the text. The reason for many adverbs it is based on fact that there are many parts from different sources. Eliminate the sentences it is a radical option, probably inspect the sources would be better to Wikipedia. But as you told me before, taking off it is a usual procedure. So I wash my hands, I cannot anymore afford time here to re-research, fix or complete missing parts, it is up to you. Hour of Angels (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take so long to reply, been busy in real life. Please know that your contributions are appreciated. If you have any further projects in mind, I'd be glad to help. Yworo (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethereal Being
Hi Hour of Angels! Hope you're doing well, and I sincerely hope your experience on wikipedia so far hasn't been an unending string of small-minded warnings and "you can't do that" and "that's bad form" etc. etc. I see that you're making a real contribution. Remember that yeses will beat the nos every time, eventually, so be encouraged. You'd asked me to have a look at Ethereal being, which is a long article and, for me, a daunting task. I'll have a look and see if I can sensibly contribute. On the other hand Jean Chevalier (writer) is a more appealing candidate for improvement (smile) so I'll start there. All best! --Lockley (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethernal beings
The article is back again, since there was no consensus to redirect it, that out of process, and is now at AFD. Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings I'm contacting everyone who participated in the discussion previously, who hasn't been told yet.  D r e a m Focus  13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethereal beings
I am dropping a note to User:Dream Focus, User:Hour of Angels, User:Melodychick and User:BluishPixie about Ethereal beings to say that I like the article and would like to see this material retained in some form, even if the article as constructed does not ultimately achieve recognition as a valid topic under this title. It is a nice article and the contents at the least could be incorporated into the relevant articles for each topic if they are lacking any of it. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Saved your article
Saved your article : http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Ethereal_beings James Michael DuPont (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Hour of Angels/Ethereal beings
User:Hour of Angels/Ethereal beings, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hour of Angels/Ethereal beings and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Hour of Angels/Ethereal beings during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Dancing Elves - August Malmstrom.jpg


The file File:Dancing Elves - August Malmstrom.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Redundant to File:Dancing Fairies (August Malmström) - Nationalmuseum - 18226.tif which is hosted on Commons"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)