User talk:Tehuti-scribe

Welcome!

Hello, Tehuti-scribe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as John Torquil, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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 helpme on this 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Linguistic ''' Geek 08:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of John Torquil
A tag has been placed on John Torquil requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Linguistic ''' Geek 08:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The link I posted is a real contemporary group and was added in order to enhance the page. I do not understand why you wanted to delete it. There are several contemporary Golden Dawn orders who should be listed on this page in order for the page to show who they are and help readers understand the full modern context of the Golden Dawn. I can supply a list of links if helpful. Tehuti-scribe (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You know you do not need to be so aggressive. Just a clear explanation would do. Please cheer up or take a chill pill. Tehuti-scribe (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources
Hi Tehuti-scribe, and thanks for your intention to improve Wikipedia. You'll have seen that I'm keeping an eye on Subtle body, which like many esoteric subjects is not well covered here. However, we need to make sure that the coverage is reliable and neutral - these are central to Wikipedia's mission - so I've tagged the material you added as needing secondary sources.

I'm aware this may itself sound like a bit of bizarre esoteric Encyclopaedica, so a word of explanation might be in order. Let's say we were writing an article about Hermann Melville, and that he had said he was the greatest of all writers, American and worldwide. Now, it might be all right to say "Melville claimed he was the greatest of all writers", but it would definitely not be ok to say "Melville was the greatest of all writers", in Wikipedia's voice, without citing some scholar (not Melville) to that effect. Even if we used the formula "Melville claimed", we'd still need to cite some scholar, because reporting Melville's own claims would at best make him a guy who claimed a lot, without giving the reader any idea what he was really like, had really done, or more importantly what others thought of him and his work.

Got that? Great, so now let's look at Subtle body. At the moment we have basically got "Regardie says XYZ about the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" --- except he's an interested party --- and "Farr says UVW about 'Ancient Egyptian' Esoteric Anatomy" --- except she's an interested party. I hope you see the problem? What we require, therefore, is at least one scholar for each of those two sections, and preferably more than one, who can say "Regardie was largely mistaken about the HOGD, but interestingly remarked that ...", and "Farr largely misprised what the Egyptian sources actually meant; they were talking about ABC ..." or "Farr wished to promote UVW, and thought she recognised these elements in the Egyptian sources ...", or even "Farr brilliantly translated the hieroglyphics, showing conclusively that ...". The point is, readers (and editors) have precisely no way of knowing from the "primary" sources --- Regardie and Farr --- whether what is said is nonsense, scholarly, or something else entirely.

So, if you would like to look out some suitable sources, that'll be great. If not, we should probably remove the sections as unreliable or inappropriate. I do hope this is clear and seems fair to you. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks. I’ll see if I can find something. The problem is a lot of the material was written in Victorian times. The best it may be possible to do is to say that these authors had those theories which are just as plausible (or not) as the Eastern theories already published. Someone has given a rather dubious citation from Crowley there and perhaps your advice should apply to this too? Tehuti-scribe (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh also, the paper in the Regardie book is not his work. It’s just part of the collection. So it’s an anonymous author who wrote this. Regardie just collected the papers. It’s part of the corpus of the Western Mystery tradition. Just as the earlier sections present some of the corpus of the Eastern and Theosophical traditions. Tehuti-scribe (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, the Crowley thing needs a secondary source also. The fact that Regardie just republished the papers still means that a secondary source is necessary. If no decent secondary sources can be found for these Victorian-era activities, that would mean they are not notable and aren't worth mentioning. I think that'd be surprising as scholars have nosed about and discussed most things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

October 2022
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Golden Dawn. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi you made a very aggressive response here. I am not intending to post anything wrong on Wikipedia. I prefer a mature explanation and helpful, educational comments, rather than an aggressive threat as above. Thank you. Tehuti-scribe (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * These are standard warnings. They are designed to escalate as you repeat behavior you have previously been warned about. Just stop adding links and stop writing about yourself, and the warnings will also top. MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Can I not write about myself in my own user page? Why is there a tab for this if we cannot write about ourselves? I’m a genuine supporter of Wikipedia and really would like to get it right and also help it develop. Tehuti-scribe (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't be disingenuous, you are also trying to write about yourself in article space. MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Torquil


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on John Torquil requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)