User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2024

Shiva (List)
Hi @Skyerise I saw you changed my change to category back to the page - I also tried to see best way to show not just two countries before changing it to category since it included the pages. Wanted your thoughts on that. Asteramellus (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * typically, the links at the top of a section should be to articles, not categories. The differnece is, the lists tell where the temple is within the country by state and village. Categories can't do this, which makes them inferior for the purpose. You could put the category in the see also section, though. Or you could make List of Shiva temples and reference the two existing lists as sublists. Skyerise (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise that make perfect sense. I think will go with See Also. I think making a list page, and then referencing the two existing list pages would not be quite readable for wiki user. Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See List of Buddhist temples for an example. It's got multiple sublists. Skyerise (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise oh thanks so much. This is really very helpful. In general, I found Hinduism related list pages and categories quite unorganized and random. I can definitely use this sample to organize things, as time permits. Asteramellus (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of the Hinduism articles are a mess. Many Indian editors make rather poor edits, with incomplete sentences, bad grammar and capitalization, and no sources. Even worse are those who want to "correct" a cited article to represent the beliefs of only their particualar subsect, ignoring or removing cited information about the full range of beliefs. It's an uphill battle! Skyerise (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, then there's the long-term vandal whose only goal is to add himself to the list of Mahasiddhas! Skyerise (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of blade materials for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of blade materials 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/List of blade materials 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 until the discussion has finished. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Kitten!
 Chaotic Enby has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}. Giving a kitten to both you and Mychemicalromanceisrealemo so everything gets a bit more gentle, I know ANI can easily get pretty tense!

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I love kittens! Skyerise (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

template:rp question
Hi, I noticed your edit summary. I don't see any indication at template:rp that it has been deprecated, was that a recent discussion/rfc? Could you link to it? I don't use rp often but have on occasion so I'm curious. Schazjmd  (talk)  14:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I got this from a discussion at Talk:John Dee, where it was asserted that it falls under the deprecation of inline parenthetical citations made in 2022. "And it's better than "antique" ways of doing this like which is a form of (partial) inline parenthetical referencing, the entire class of which was deprecated in 2022 as too much confusing clutter for readers." See that talk page section (near the bottom) for details... Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Witchcraft in North America
Hi. I just saw this. Which citation did it break? Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Just select your version in the history and scroll down to the refs section: there is a big red error message. "Cite error: The named reference Kilpatrick was invoked but never defined". Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yaweh to God to Yaweh
Hey I saw you revert my edit, would you like to talk about why you did so before we make a talk page on the Revelation page. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also just noticed you undid the hulegu edit I did, that would be even more interesting to know why you did it. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Same reason in both cases: I thought the article was better before. Strangely, neither paragraph is sourced. I don't see the point of making unsourced changes to unsourced material unless you provide a citation to show that you made it more rather than less right. Skyerise (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries
Please keep your edit summaries civil and focused on summarizing the change you are making. Regardless of whether you are right, something like  to an edit summary falls short of our civility standards and the quip did not improve your edit. If you feel the need to say something like this or shout at people, it may be a good time to take a short break before continuing. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, didn't see this until just now as I had done exactly that. Skyerise (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Request
Greetings, I found you frequently editing on articles I have edited and was curious if you would mind to check out the article(s) Iblis and jinn. I am not sure about the second one, but I am confident that at least to Iblis article could pass a GA. However, I would like to have a second opinion before submitting it, because I realized it is sometimes hard to have a grounded opinion if you work on one article for too long. No preassure though VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Illuminati
Saw your recent edit at our Illuminati article… where you removed the statement that OTO uses “Illuminati” in its degree/hierarchy structure, with an edit summary saying “this is untrue”. However, according to both our article on OTO, and the organization’s own webpage they do (it’s their VIII degree). Accordingly, I have reverted your edit. Discuss on the article talk page if you have further concerns. Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also saw your follow up edit… thanks, that’s fine. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thesis
one of the articles you are removing is NOT a thesis, but a research paper by a known scholar:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4

I suggest to read articles before editing. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your last RfD edit
I reverted this edit because it removed several comments by other editors. You probably want to reapply the change to your own comment. Nickps (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Vishal
How? What wormhole in your mind makes the connection? Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!   Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Similar editing style, removal of sources. I can't remember if Vishal added links to Exotic India, but I suspect a review of his edits will show that he did. Looks like he'll just get himself blocked again for disruptive editing, so thankfully we don't have to do that search to justify a SPA. Skyerise (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Zorastrianism
The User with the questionable sources is kinda spamming the talkpage now. To reach a consensus, there is now a poll on how to decide on this matter. Maybe you want to participate in it. Do not bother reading through all the comments made, it is messy. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * wow that really did blow up. I've thrown my 2 cents in at the talk page. I've never really known how to deal with that kind of prolific argumentation before and try to avoid it, but it's really very simple: any editor arguing at length from sources is engaging in original research and they need to be strongly told to present sources which summarize those arguments and draw the conclusions, because we cannot accept the research or conclusions of any individual editor. Skyerise (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeh, it is frustrating. By the way, maybe you might give me a hand and keep an eye on jinn in return? I am afraif I get a temporal ban if I revert again. Speaking from experience, admins do rarely look who did the first illicit change. Two editors, famous for low contribution and ignoring talkpage discussions as well as not reading their own sources, insist on claiming that belief in jinn is an Islamic dogma, and want this in the lead section. Since jinn in Islamic termonilogy is neither an entity, but a descriptor, and that the entity jinn is not limited to Islam, the dogma is explored in the corresponding section. However, these two users fail to read the talkpage or choose to ignore it and insist on keeping adding the source because "hey I got a source so I insist on adding it". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Bald ambition
Vanity Press: howw exemplary. But it's exemplary: most of the fuzz around Wilber is on a sub-academic, bloggish level. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Get your quantum woo in integral form! Skyerise (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Did you read anything of Wilber? His basic problem, apart from misrepresenting his sources, is that his transpersonal stages are not structural stages, nor stages; he tries to unify different categories. I took SES again yesterday, to see what he wrote the about transpersonal development, and suddenly realized that what he's actually writing is this myth about ordinary man growing up to become God-like: some sort of Hero's journey, akin to anthroposophy and a host of other systems. That's why Wilber has such an appeal, why he is so hard to simiss for some, and why he has no serious influence in the academics: myths can't be tested. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  03:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

On REFVAR discussions
This discussion grew a bit, maybe you'll find it interesting: Talk:Jill_Ovens. Hopefully, you won't have to use Rfcl. I found it strange that an admin told me twice to self-revert, IMO I was no-brainer-right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * - yeah, it shouldn't end up with such long discussions. Even though I prefer, if I come across an article which consistently use ref tags, I conform to that, even though I don't like it so much. Or if that's the predominant. Really can't stand the  method though, or page numbers tacked on with . Skyerise (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Active
How can you be so productive? Extremely highly gifted with an ever-active brain? (Serious, interested question, no punch whatsoever intended). Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm probably editing Wikipedia to avoid doing something else. Or maybe I have OCD. Or maybe it's those citation tools I finally installed that make it obvious that half the sources in an article aren't cited. Or maybe a combination of all three. Also, I tend to "fill in blanks" by adapting material already present in other articles, so maybe productive in terms of lots of little edits, but less so in terms of actually writing content. Or maybe its Dzogchen. Skyerise (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Dzogchen? I'll keep it on a combination of whatever what. For me, it's keeping myself busy, and an excuse to study. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way. A very productive Wikipedian that I highly respect. NV (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of expansion tags
I am happy to expand Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, but I dislike the use of expansion tags, preferring expansion requests on the talk page instead. Expansion tags tend to do nothing and sit in the article for years, while requests on the talk page have a tendency to attract more interested editors who are willing to make changes. I realize our opinions about how to use tags and the talk page might differ. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * yes, I get that. However, I mostly place tags for myself. Typically, within a month or so I will replace the tag with a little more material. If someone else also does some expansion, that's ok too. Skyerise (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your expansion. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be using or adding "in popular culture" sections, as those are mostly deprecated in practice. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to the bit about Pullman being removed. Skyerise (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Publications section causing errors
Thank you for your edit, and more particularly your edit summary, at Aleister Crowley. It enabled me to fix articles mentioned at Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_23. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * you're welcome. Some change recently made should be reversed, since currently "Publications" is the preferred heading for an author's works. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it Trappis the monk's harv errors script you use? I'll drop them a line. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * yes. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)