User talk:SERGEJ2011

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello SERGEJ2011, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Man: Whence, How and Whither has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your addition to K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits, esp K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater
As you've not responded, I've raised your edits at WP:FTN. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello SERGEJ2011, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've been notified above about our copyright policies and am concerned that you have continued copying content from other sources without properly indicating source.

Some of this material seems to be public domain and can be used as long as you comply with Plagiarism, which means indicating clearly what you have copied and from where.

Other content is copied from other Wikipedia articles. You can copy this, too, but only if you meet the terms of the license. Content on Wikipedia, as you were notified above, is not public domain, but liberally licensed. Copying content from one article to the other without meeting the terms is a violation of the copyright of Wikipedia's contributors. See Copying within Wikipedia for how.

Please go back to your articles and add attribution for your copied content as described at Plagiarism and Copying within Wikipedia to bring this material into compliance with our site's policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound like a usable license for Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, content must be released for modification as well as reuse. If you believe it is a usable license for Wikipedia, then we need verification of it. I'd recommend that you scan the page and email it to the volunteer response team who process and log copyright permissions. If you'd like to go that route, I'll be happy to give you the address. If the page is published legitimately online (that is, if the book is printed somewhere licensed to display it and we can see it there), then that may suffice. Hosting a scan of the page on a personal website would not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid that transcribing it on Wikipedia doesn't really help. :/ Unless we can access it. But plagiarism and copyright are different things, and this is a right restriction that is hard to interpret legally: "provided they have well grasped the thought." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid I don't think that's a usable license, as I mentioned in my last note. "provided they have well grasped the thought" is pretty slippery as far as restrictions on reuse go. But you might want to get a second opinion on that at WT:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I need a bit more information here, as I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction in the article and in what you're saying about publication history. Were the letters published in 1919 as at or in 1941 as the article states? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the letters were published in 1919, then they are presumed to be public domain by age regardless of their use in a later book. But looking at the article raises a very important question for me- what makes this book notable? That is, how does it meet the inclusion criteria at Notability (books)? You need to demonstrate in the article what makes the book notable, not simply talk about the letters. Even the criticism section is not about the book, but about the letters or the philosophies behind them. If notability for the book itself is not established, the article may need to be deleted entirely or rewritten to reflect a topic that does meet inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited whence, how and whither, a record of clairvoyant investigation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mercury, Ulysses and Monad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Man: whence, how and whither, a record of clairvoyant investigatio
I've removed quite a bit form this as it was about the concepts and not the book. This article is about a book. It isn't about root races, Atlantis, past lives, etc. I also removed a 1909 publication you used as criticism. Again, it was not criticising the book which not published until 1913. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-published ebooks
Please be aware that for a book to be used as a reference or listed in further reading, or even linked to in External links, it needs to be a third-party published book, and must also be available in libraries. We do not promote self-published books. For more info, see WP:SELFPUB. Yworo (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Undue reliance on a low-quality source
Extensive quotation from an unpublished dissertation, where there is extensive published biographical material, as in the case of Helena Blavatsky, constitutes undue use of a single source. I have removed most of these but retained some of the content in non-quoted form, with appropriate references. HGilbert (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Google books covers are not the original covers
The file you uploaded at File:Man_cover.jpg is not the 1922 cover, it is Google Books's new cover for their scan of that edition. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism and Theosophy copyright problem
Your addition to the above article was very close to http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/9004485/buddhism_and_science_-_a_guide_for_the_perplexed.pdf, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited How Theosophy Came to Me, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adyar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Clairvoyance (book) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clairvoyance (book) 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/Clairvoyance (book) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thought-Forms
Hello, I see you've started the article Thought-Forms (book). There's already a Thought-Forms on the same book, but this was redirected a few years ago, for reasons that are unclear to me. A 2007 AFD for a third article on the book at WP:Articles for deletion/Thoughtform resulted in a strong "keep", yet a few years later Thoughtform was merged to Tulpa after what looks to me like a very brief discussion, which ought to have been a second AFD before merging. Bit of a mess, this. May I therefore suggest that we therefore unredirect Thought-Forms, and merge your (well-sourced) re-write there? We can then also retarget Thoughtform there, to the correctly spelled (and oldest) article. Thanks, Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! I think we should use the discussion pages of these two articles: Thought-Forms (book) or Tulpa. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Webster Leadbeater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adyar ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Charles_Webster_Leadbeater check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charles_Webster_Leadbeater?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Occult or Exact Science? for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occult or Exact Science? 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/Occult or Exact Science? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronvillain (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hey, I am interested in knowing do you work for the Russian Theosophy society? Are you the author of the Theosophy articles you are creating or does your research originate from elsewhere ? Please see current discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard 80.225.32.189 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not a member of any theosophical organizations. Everything I wrote is just mine. Thank you. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Translation
Hi there. Just thought I'd mention that when translating articles from other Wikipedia projects, as per WP:TFOLWP there should be a notice in the edit summary along the lines of  That presumably applies even if you wrote most of the original page yourself, given the CC BY-SA licensing. --tronvillain (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christos ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Esoteric_Character_of_the_Gospels check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Esoteric_Character_of_the_Gospels?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Philosophers and Philosophicules for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philosophers and Philosophicules 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/Philosophers and Philosophicules until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Nomination of Is Theosophy a Religion? for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Is Theosophy a Religion? 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/Is Theosophy a Religion? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. --tronvillain (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Theosophy and music
Hello, SERGEJ2011,

Thanks for creating Theosophy and music! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theosophy and visual arts


The article Theosophy and visual arts has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Wikipedia is not for research essays. This is not a viable topic--it's pure synth."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Theosophy and science for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theosophy and science 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/Theosophy and science until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lucifer (magazine) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucifer (magazine), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Lucifer (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)