User talk:Suomichris

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Suomichris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to do not conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style for articles about Islam. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 03:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

1RR and ISIS
This is meant as a friendly warning. You are aware that editors on this page are subject to a 1RR restriction on this article, aren't you? (See warning at top of edit page.) It means that editors cannot revert other editors more than once in 24 hours. I have lost count of the major changes you have made in the last 24 hours - and I agree with most of them and don't criticize - which means you have broken the 1RR several times over! --P123ct1 (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that, P123ct1—I interpreted the "one revert" as actually reverting (i.e., hitting "undo"), not simply making edits which affect other editors changes. Regardless, though, I'm likely done for a bit. I'm playing with the language in the "Ideology" section a bit, but will definitely post to the Talk page to get consensus before implementing anything there, since it's most controversial that my other edits, which were largely copy editing, clarifying, and removing unsourced claims. Cheers, Suomichris (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Suomichris, there has been quite a bit of confusion about what is and isn't a revert, and I think the Edit notice is far from clear.  After a lot of discussion on this on another page I drew up what I hope is a useful checklist for editors about reverts, which appears on the Talk page here, but remember this is guidance only, as each admin has leeway to interpret the rule as they see fit.  I am afraid edit-warring has bedevilled the ISIS page, and have found the best way to avoid it is to put any major/controversial changes on the Talk page to get consensus first. It can save a lot of hassle.  (You may find some of the earlier discussions on the Talk page both instructive and entertaining in this regard!) --P123ct1 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kwan Um School of Zen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley. 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) 06:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's funny
I had an intuition the article was hard to follow and needed to be more chronological, but I started with the one part that actually really did need to be retrospective! Sometimes you can struggle with a brain teaser of some time, only for someone else to give you a hint and suddenly all the pieces fall into place! Feoffer (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The joys of collaborative editing, Feoffer! Suomichris (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWN
You are making massive overhauls and getting very heated when others edit, getting very WP:OWNy, especially on Neoshamanism. Improve wording and sourcing if your fave sources don't cover it; don't just revert. You are relying too much on the few sources you have added, that not everyone has access to, and using them to add statements, often in WP's voice, that aren't really representative of everyone writing in the field. In particular, the book by Wallis. You are adding a massive number of cites to this book, that is not an academic work, and not available online, and you are not indicating page numbers, yet getting hostile when people aren't familiar with the words you cite. Work with other editors, don't just revert. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've massively overhauled a page that was previously poorly sourced and extremely biased, and am attempting to keep that bias out of the page. However, I am not acting WP:OWNy. The first thing I did in working on Neoshamanism was to post on Talk pointing out that the page was biased and asking for help. No one has "helped" except you. I brought another issue to the Talk page as well, and abided by the consensus there, even thought I disagree.


 * As far as I'm concerned, the constant assertion that the page must match your views, but that you do not need to include sources to validate your views, is much more WP:OWNy than I have done. I have repeatedly asked for sources to help validate the information you want in the article. I even went so far as to go and find a source on my own that included a community voice, based on your feedback, to include in the article because you said the view was important but couldn't point to a source, as well as expanding other information in the article critical of neoshamanism, especially regarding cultural appropriation and the negative impacts on Native peoples. That said, the entire article should not be completely negative about neoshamanism, regardless of your views. It is clear from the sources I've found and included there that there are lots of well meaning people, who are not plastic shamans, and who are practicing these things as a spiritual endeavor—perhaps they're ignorant of the background of where this information comes from, perhaps they're hopelessly misguided, but none of the sources assert that, so you can't continue to insert things like "people claim they're conducting healings" and similar things could equally be applied to traditional shamans.


 * Regarding sourcing, I'm going to reply in-line:


 * "the few sources you have added"
 * I've added 6 new sources, for a total of 23, up from 17, a 33% increase in number of references used on the page.


 * "that not everyone has access to"
 * I don't think I'd even heard the word neoshamanism before I stumbled across this article. Literally every piece of information I've included is something I was able to find the full text of from Google Scholar or Google Books. Again, I own zero hard copy books about this topic. I typically do not include page numbers for digital sources because you can literally search the relevant term and find the information. Please stop accusing me of using secret materials that no one else can access.


 * One other thing about sources: I don't own a copy of the Noel book. I'm suspicious of a few of the claims that it's used to support in the article; However, I haven't touched them. Know why? Because I don't own the book and don't know what it says. Which is what you should be doing if I cite a book that you don't have access to (which, again, I haven't done——assume WP:AGF, which is what I've done with citations to materials I don't have access to, rather than change my wording to match your views and then complain that you don't actually know what the source says because you can't access it.


 * "and using them to add statements, often in WP's voice,"
 * The way that I am writing is indicating what the sources say.


 * "that aren't really representative of everyone writing in the field."
 * Then, as I have asked multiple times on Talk, please point me to these sources so that I can include them. As I said above, everything I have included has been what I was able to pull from the top search results on Google Scholar and Google Books. I don't know about Google Books, but my understanding of Scholar is that it floats up higher impact, more relevant research to the top. So your claim that, by going to Google Scholar and pulling everything I could find from the top of the search results, that I am "not really [being] representative... of the field" is nonsense. Again, if it's true, point me to sources that I can included to make the article balanced, which, as I have said over and over, is my goal.


 * I do not mind a heated discussion, but I do mind you coming in here and accusing me of all sorts of violations of policy and procedure and etiquette that simply aren't true. I am not attempting to own the article, but the impetus is not on me to change my wording because you say something else is true but are unable to back it up. If it is true, find a source. Hell, at this point, just send me the source and I'll do the work of including it in the article or changing my wording, because I'm getting sick of arguing with you. But you can't keep coming in, adding hemming and hawing and hedging that makes anyone who's within twenty miles of neoshamanism look like they're a evil, money-grubbing, cultural appropriator, and when I ask for a source to back up that claim, tell me the impetus is on me to do what you said because you don't like what the sources I found say. Suomichris (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)