User talk:Jjs hd

Welcome!
Hello, Jjs hd, 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 take 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! BracketBot (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=722879351 your edit] to Eliphas Levi 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * convinced that the "masses" were not able to establish a harmonious order and needed instruction a concept similar to other socialist doctrines such as the "revolution from above," the Avantgarde,

Welcome!
Hello, Jjs hd, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Eliphas Levi, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to 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)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that WP:COI as a whole applies as much as WP:SELFCITE. Seeing as your sources were published by Walter de Gruyter and Taylor & Francis, they pretty clearly meets WP:Identifying reliable source.  There could be potential arguments about undue weight on the source, but you're citing other works enough to satisfy me.  Only issue I can find at the moment is that the line "In fact, Bulwer-Lytton's famous novel A Strange Story (1862) includes a rather unflattering remark about Constant's Dogme et rituel" relies on a primary source in a way that arguably goes against our policy against original research.  Yes, it's clearly negative, but we could use a non-primary source to establish that the negativity is noteworthy and indicative of a broader trend.  Other than that, the only improvements I can think of (and would try to carry out myself if my plate wasn't full) would be to document what Papus's and Waite's narratives about Levi were (just for completeness sake).  No need to give them artificially equal validity, just "here's what they thought since these stories have been influential."  Thanks for the great read and welcome to Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian, thanks for your kind message and the suggestions. If some uncertainties about speficic aspects arise, there is definitely room to refer to more other sources. Most of the respective information goes back to Chacornac, which is why it didn't make too much sense to list much of the later scholarship. A good English paraphrase and extension of Chacornac is McIntosh, who is cited, too. I understand the issue with Bulwer-Lytton, and included a reference to Strube 2016; I almost feel bad about naming this source again, but it just happens to be the most comprehensive study. With respect to the narrative by Papus, I have moved the sentence dealing with Wronski to the previous paragraph to make clearer that this is the very narrative that was mentioned. It's an option to explain the Waite narrative at a later point, so that's definitely something that could be elaborated. --Jjs hd (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)