Hello, Skyerise,

Just because it has been years since a User page was last edited and the editor has departed from Wikipedia, this does not make their User pages eligible for a CSD G13 stale draft page deletion. If you look at Wikipedia:G13, you'll see that there either must be 1) Userspace with an {AFC submission}} template or 2) Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text. Neither of these conditions are true for this page.

I imagine that there are hundreds of thousands of old user pages exactly like this one but unless either of these conditions is present, the only way forward to delete this page is to nominate it at WP:MFD. If you want to propose a solution to all of these musty, abandoned User pages, I encourage you to bring it up at the Village Pump because you are not the only editor who would like to see them gone. They just aren't eligible for CSD G13. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Skyerise,

Just a reminder that any type you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notification of the deletion tagging on the talk page of the page creator. It's an important step in the deletion processes on Wikipedia.

This process is made easier if you use Twinkle because once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post these notices for you. If you don't use Twinkle, you'll need to use a template or write a message yourself. Please remember to do this talk page notification in the future if you plan on tagging any pages for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: the article was created in 2007 and the user had a total of 3 edits - in 2007. Do you really think they are going to read it? Skyerise (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you also going to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM after the revert? There is no target or likely target for that item on the page. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Philoserf: Source was added during the revert. Revert+found Hayward. Skyerise (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I missed that. Perfect! —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections. It is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oria 6 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing contributions to articles merely because they are unsourced. Half of Wikipedia would disappear under that burden. For instance, in that same article, there are 5 other roles which have no citation in just the first paragraph alone. The linked Wikipedia article itself verified the role. As noted in [Unsourced Content removal], the contribution should only be removed when it is doubtful a source could be found. In this case, a source could be readily found on IMDB or numerous other sources, so, per Wikipedia guidelines, the "Citation Needed" tag should be used and the contribution should not be deleted. TroubledSenior (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@TroubledSenior: sorry, standards are higher now than when that was written - and it's just an essay, not even a guideline, much less policy. Just somebody's opinion with which I disagree. Just provide sources. Period. It's not a burden, you're just lazy. You make work for other editors and honestly what you add is of little value. There is no hurry here. We are way more up to date than a print encyclopedia, we're not intended as a 'current resource' for film or sports, there are plenty of other sites for that. We can wait until an experienced and conscientious editor adds it with sources. You'll find I am not the only editor with this attitude: your other unsourced edits have been reverted by other editors. You want your additions to stick? Cite them - properly. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable oversight. And your time. It is appreciated!
My comments below are merely with an intention to learn and improve my own editing skills and help me to contribute to Wikipedia better.
You had highlighted 3 concerns in the article
1. Confused Terminology.
Duly noted. And thank you!
I still feel using the word "enlightened states" in the sentence is closer to what is being conveyed in this context. So wondering if we could retain it?
Note: However, it will no longer be linked to Enlightenment in Buddhism.
2. The two Theses as sources
Doctoral Thesis: (external link). I was of the opinion that this was a reliable source (scholarship), because it is a doctoral dissertation and was academically peer reviewed by three entities:

Prof. Yi Wu (external link); Prof. Janis Phelps (external link); Dr. Sastry from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University.

I had also checked earlier that CIIS was an accredited University. But just noticed that the psychology department is not. Does this make the source a bit weaker/invalid? Could it be used as a supporting citation? Please share your thoughts on this

3. With regard to MOS issues (Unsupported Attributions)
Agreed. And thank you!
Will do a re-look and attempt to fix them shortly.

Thanks again for your valuable feedback

Oria 6 (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The doctoral thesis in question

Info about the school is duly noted. Thank you! Your time, patience and your recommendations are also appreciated. What you say makes a lot of sense, especially with regard to citing the said doctoral thesis as a reference to scientific study or claims of psychological benefits.

I am wondering if you feel it is ok to use it as a source when defining/describing theoretical concepts. Especially since it is a secondary source and has gone through multiple reviewers? Would this be ok? Or would you still advise to avoid using it completely?

Oria 6 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand how annoying it must've been. Humblest apologies! Oria 6 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Books links are only permitted if they are direct to page – is that in policy somewhere? In my experience there are lots of page-free Gbooks links in reference templates – I've added plenty myself, since I find pasting a Gbooks URL into the editing toolbar a very efficient way of generating a reference – but of course a practice being common on Wikipedia doesn't exclude it being forbidden! I see that they don't add much to a reference that already contains a correct ISBN, but I don't think that they take much away from it either. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001:: they don't add anything and suggest we prefer Google books over other sources which are reached by clicking the ISBN number. But we don't prefer Google. There was a ruling on it at one point. If I find it I'll let you know. Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001:: Here it is: WP:GBOOKS. Skyerise (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I could have looked there before asking you. Pedantically, though, unless I'm missing something, that page doesn't say that non-page-linked Google Books links are forbidden, just that page-linked ones are permitted. The linked essay makes a good set of arguments for avoiding Google Books entirely, though, which I will bear in mind. Thanks again, Wham2001 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001:: In any case they are not protected from removal unless they have page numbers, since it's just an extra click through the ISBN to find the same page. Skyerise (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I don't believe we've ever directly interacted, but I know your username from having handled a number of SPI cases you name has cropped up in - first and foremost, I want to say how sorry I am that we are not better able to defend editors like yourself from harassment or that nature.

So, on to he matter that brought me here. I noticed this thread at ANI; while I'm not familiar with the specifics, I wanted to give you some thoughts about the generalities. There are certain LTAs who I have dealt with many times: they keep coming back, under different accounts and/or IP ranges. Some of them have behavioural tells, and you get a feel for them after a while. Without wanting to go too far into the specifics, can I just say that the role that most admins take most seriously is to protect contributors from harm; if we recognise an abusive user, we often block before any abuse has taken place. This will often involve information that can't be discussed openly. Please can I ask that you accept that, whatever your personal disagreements with the admin in question, you accept that we don't block accounts without good reason, and the reason might sometimes not be obvious? Any blocked user has the option to appeal, in which case an uninvolved admin will review the situation - checks and balances do exist. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for your words of support. It's difficult to deal with some of these LTAs. Glad the inner workings allow you do do more than you can say. I can appreciate the reasons for that. Thanks, again... Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

For this edit. Never knew about WP's best-kept secret of WP:CONTEXTBIO until now! Will come in very handy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: It used to be called something else, but it still exists! Very useful for making sure the correct nationality is on the article, without extraneous qualifications... Skyerise (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Website is here. I'm not at all sure about it. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Looks good to me. I checked services, they are not a self-publisher. There is another entry in Worldcat which gives a museum as the publisher. [1] I think this is pretty typical for art books: they are nominally published by a museum, but there is usually a real publisher behind that... In any case, it's in libraries (as long as we use the Konst-ig entry). [2] My primary concern was we were promoting a book that could only be bought: if it's in libraries, that's another matter. Though I'll be perfectly happy if we decide it should be removed. Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point about libraries. I know little about artbook publishing! Doug Weller talk 13:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be tricky to figure out how legit they are... Skyerise (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I reckon this here is a dang fool edit y'all made. - Don't call me shorely (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Don't call me shorely:: heh heh! Skyerise (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster also says a hot dog is a sandwich, which is complete lunacy. But go ahead with your fun nonsense, making a Wikipedia article sound backward because it's about Appalachia. Why stop there? Throw in some words like "tarnation" and "bodacious", too! - Don't call me shorely (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A hot dog is clearly a taco. I see we Appalachians will have to create our own Wikipedia, like this one. Skyerise (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's time to take a break and back away from the sock you're fencing with. This is really uncalled for, and some of the edit summaries you've been leaving with regards to them are really unnecessary. Maybe step away and take a breather. I'll request their talk page be locked for you. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tony Fox: I have two words. "Eight months." Can't they block his IP address or contact his provider? Skyerise (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I noted that you called them out as a sock; is there an active investigation that you can report this to? I haven't dealt with SPI in a while and I'm a little rusty (five years off will do that), but I know contacting the provider's generally a non-starter, and it usually requires a lot of disruption for range blocks. Best thing to do is just revert, block, report, ignore, from my experience. (And don't redirect people's talk pages to pictures of dicks. That's definitely frowned upon.) Tony Fox (arf!) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tony Fox: He really digs in when the sock report is closed but not archived. There's a window you can't file a new report, or at least I don't know how to - I've tried to reopen them to add a user before and it just gets archived anyway... He seems to be a sysadmin for some large corp - in any case he has an extensive IP range at his service - apparently too broad to be blocked. As for frowns, duly noted. Skyerise (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It helps if you also ping the CU when you add another user to an SPI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Thanks! Noted. Skyerise (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise - The ANI report about this was removed due to the filing user being blocked for sock puppetry. However, this fact does not excuse you from your behavior. You should know much better than to engage in behavior even close to this toward other users - even vandals, sock users, long-term abusers, anyone. When I first previewed the diff from the ANI discussion, I thought that this was an edit by an LTA (because this is normal LTA behavior), and I was very surprised to see that it came from someone who has been here for a few months shy of 13 years and with ~86,000 edits. The only reason I'm not blocking you over this is because I want to talk to you and give you an opportunity to wake up and put a full stop to it. This is malicious behavior and is absolutely unacceptable; please do not engage in this kind of behavior again. This is your only warning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Skyerise! I noticed that you moved the page Holly Williams (British writer) to Holly Williams (writer) and Holly Williams (Australian journalist) to Holly Williams (Australian journalist). I wanted to let you know that in a very recent RM, the consensus was unanimously against these moves, as the journalist disambiguator can be applied to both the British & Australian individuals. Thus, you may want to reverse the moves. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 07:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: We do not over-disambiguate. They are correct. "Can be" doesn't count. We only add the nationalities if both dabs use (journalist). Start two WP:RM's if you think they are wrong. The person who added the nationalities moved them w/o discussion and I just moved them back. They made a big effing mess by adding the nationalities to all three. They didn't fix the links to the articles: they can use WP:RM this time. You'll find they can only be moved back by someone with the proper permissions, and I don't have those permissions. Finally, the nomination was withdrawn prematurely when only three people had opined. That's not a consensus even if it's unanimous. We don't honor any opinions in a withdrawn proposal. It's simply not binding in any way until it is closed by an uninvolved editor. It wasn't. So so sorry. Skyerise (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Note, the British columnist is actually best known as a critic. So Holly Williams (critic) would actually be a better dab for it. I'm actually in the newspaper business. A correspondent is a 'journalist'. A critic is a 'columnist' or 'writer': a 'staff writer' if employed or a 'stringer' if freelance. Skyerise (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

On top of that, the critic is actually Welsh. Let's finish with the musician, then we can open an RM on the two writers. Okay? Skyerise (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Do not make an edit like the one I just had to remove at ANI again. If you do, you will be blocked for 2 months for feuding. It is unwise to make a disruptive edit in an ANI thread about your disruptive editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to head off any attempt to find a loophole or test the boundaries: do not refer in any way to that user's prior username, anywhere on WP, including your reply to this notice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Okey dokey. You know you're just proving my point. Skyerise (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Skyrise, Thank you for taking time to provide valuable suggestions on the article Pranahuti (yogic transmission). You had mentioned the following major concerns: 1. verifiability & reliability of references
2. vague phrasing and weasel Wording

Would you be able to take a quick look again and see if these concerns have been addressed?
I have included one reference that may not be reliable, but have supplemented it with a ^{[citation needed]}. Wondering if that would work.

Oria 6 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

For the article Magical organization:

You added a citation needed for "Some organizations in the list below claim to have been founded earlier. In the list, they are sorted to the first verifiable appearance."

To satisfy this, should I find one source of which century they first appeared for every organization, or is it the clumsy statement itself that is the issue?

Thanks for your help anyways, not just on this article, but overall. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Omnissiahs hierophant: Hey, I didn't write the article, I'm just watching it. I put in all the cite tags. It's not my responsibility to cite it. Some things I might cite, but I'm really more of an organizer, I improve the structure of the article with what's already there. Eventually, I just take the uncited out. Skyerise (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I get that. Your edit history reads like the vacuum cleaner of wikipedia :) I found the article and realized it was severely incomplete, which was why I just added the remaining major groups. Anyways, the original question is pretty much moot now when you reorganized the article completely. It is a somewhat interesting topic, and one of the weirdest pages on wikipedia :D! Finding sources for this will be somewhat fun, probably. It will take some time for me though! If you feel you want to delete it go ahead! I will be careful to only add sourced stuff · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Omnissiahs hierophant:: Well, I do also write articles in other fields. In this one I am mostly composing a whole from bits and pieces of other (mostly) well-cited articles. Eg. Astrotheology, Renaissance magic, and Ceremonial magic (merged the old "Magick (Thelema)" into that, so it's not actually gone). Anything well-cited gets preserved. The standards were really much lower when these articles were written, and the authors seem to have left Wikipedia or perhaps are simply no longer interested in magick. Time... Skyerise (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey. I am gonna NOT focus om this topic of magical organizations, and not do what I said I was going to do. To be quite honest, the topic just makes me sad and depressed. The reason I began doing it was basically that the list was severely incomplete, and I basically have some sort of OCD to complete stuff and answer unanswered questions. And wikipedia is an amplifier for that. Plus, you seem to be doing quite a good work at this anyways :) Sorry for spamming, bai! · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Omnissiahs hierophant: Oh, was that IP you? IP editors don't get cut any slack and when they revert established editors, established editors get pissed off. All the lists have been moved to the talk page; if you want them in the article, write a bit of prose and add a citation. Otherwise you are just making work for other editors, who haven't agreed to cover your ass. Skyerise (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not angry or anything :) Chill. But whatever, seems liek you don't remember it anyways, so i guess i rly didn't matter. Thanks for your edits :D · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Omnissiahs hierophant: I think you didn't understand what I wrote, but no matter. You may find the new body of light of interest. Still expanding it. Skyerise (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand what you wrote about. No, "that IP" was not me. I basically always edit under this account. What I meant was what I wrote, nothing else. And I agree with what you wrote about not adding unsourced stuff, you are right about that. See you around, maybe! :) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Unarchiving for now. Skyerise (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

• A problem that some Buddhist articles have is that three or more languages, each with different scripts, are relevant which leads to multilingual clutter in the lead. {{Buddhist term}} solves the problem for many articles but on some, particularly texts, it's not applicable. I was thinking that perhaps an {{Infobox Buddhist text}} could be created as a more specialised version of {{Infobox book}}, perhaps with collapsible lists for localised titles and transliterations similar to how {{Infobox Chinese}} handles various transcriptions and loans into Korean, Japanese, etc. The existing {{Infobox book}} is poorly optimised for Buddhist texts, so a new infobox would be better. It would allow the leads of articles like Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sūtra to be decluttered a bit. What do you think? (Btw, this isn't a compromise I'm suggesting re: Sanskrit removal; it's just an idea I had after looking at Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sūtra again recently.)

Assuming you like the idea: you're more familiar with source literature than I am, so I wanted to ask what sort of fields would be especially helpful (besides multiple titles in different langs/scripts with transliterations)? Author and date are obvious. Tantric class could be helpful for some articles. What else? – Scyrme (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Let me think about that... Skyerise (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  ... Hello? – Scyrme (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230 Online events: New: Women in the Ancient World | British Overseas Territories Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (second month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anderson Museum of Contemporary Art 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson Museum of Contemporary Art 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.

PigeonChickenFish (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, List of medicinal mushrooms, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (t · c) buidhe 12:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Greenland and the Faroes | Women in music Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (third and last month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

On June 6th you added 3 harvnb cites to this article with this edit. The problem is that the Four temperaments article does not use the harvard cites - now the article is throwing 3 Harv errors since the cites aren't pointing to any references. If you would fix the issues (maybe converting those 3 cites to regular cite webs/books/whatevers?) that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235 Online events: New: Alphabet Run: A to B | Baltic States Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's Good Article Editathon: July 2022 – Women and the Environment Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Wikipedians who listen to roots music has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239 Online events: New: Alphabet run: C and D | Indigenous women | Refugees | Comedians, Comics and other Performers Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration focus on UEFA Women's Euro 2022, August 8–21 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241 Online events: New: Alphabet run: E and F | Women writers and their works Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Request for help: Participate in preparations for our trend-setting contest in November Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Skyerise, Frank705 has newly created a Shatkarma category, which he evidently thinks replaces the Kriya category (which would overlap with it). He has made category edits to numerous pages, so there'll be a mess if he's going to edit one way and the rest of us another... Basically the categories need to be discussed and agreed before he goes much further. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Yup. Skyerise (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

May I ask why you thought it proper to delete this? As far as I can tell, I provided relevant information with enough backing. Is there more I should do to make it suitable, or can you tell me reasons for why it should not be there, so I can do better? I will look for a reply here in a few days, unless one reaches my talk page first. PMLawrence (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@PMLawence: You have to supply a full third-party citation (see WP:CITE). It also looks like irrelevant trivia. Skyerise (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Skyerise,

Thanks for your scrutiny]. However, it now unclear from the layout that the text is actually a quote. We need the large quotes? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That is all dependent on your browser and window size. It's set to and should indent the blockquote, It does for me. This is how the MoS says to do blockquotes: no quotation marks, no big quotes. Skyerise (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can you fix the written below the main photo of the Amhara people page.

When I press on “Gabi” it take you to a bounce of random options. How can it take me straight to the Gabi clothing page?? Tamart0290 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Why did all the page got deleted by the user Yonas J?? Why?? Tamart0290 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

From their edit summary, they think you might be a sockpuppet evading a block? You'd have to ask them to be sure. They should file a report if they are going to revert you on that basis... Skyerise (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Skyerise the picture of a man in a Gabi at Amhara People shouldn't be used for that article. The uploader and his/her subsequent socks deviated from the source file, and couldn't prove the ethnicity of the individual in the picture. It was nominated for deletion a while ago at commons for not properly attributing to the source. The source doesn't say the man is Amhara, but a villager in Amhara which is not the same. YonasJH (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please have all discussions about article content on the article talk page. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244 Online events: New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi @Skyerise: If your putting this back in, your need to source it. scope_creep^Talk 09:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I was a student of Brame's. My summary is essentially accurate and described in the listed sources, so it is not unsourced. It is simply without footnotes. Unfortunately, the sources are in storage at the moment. I'll see what I can get access to locally at the University library, if you could just tag the section with the need for footnotes... Skyerise (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

By definition there should be sources available for it, otherwise you dont add. I think its contingent on established editors that if they visit an article and its missing sources, you add them to the best of your abilty, but you never add unsourced content back in. It is a complete violation of WP:V and that is consensus. It may be accurate but that is not the point. I don't know what you mean the sources are in storage? That sounds kind of odd. Oh, are talking about his artefacts, possibly, after death? scope_creep^Talk 15:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Books owned, stored elsewhere. Long-distance move not completed. Skyerise (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Eg [3]. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Says the man who wrote "I'm not going to show good faith here." just three days ago at WP:RSN. Skyerise (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because of comments such as that one and others. Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read my Talk:Arica School comment on your bold move to merge that article with Oscar Ichazo in June 2021. I would like to discuss reversion/undo, for reasons similar to what I just wrote in Talk:Jack Kornfield. The organizations they founded are each about 1/2 century old, outliving the founder in Ichazo's case. Your claim that the individual has "much higher name recognition" than the organization does not seem an adequate justification for a unilateral merge, even if it were verifiable.

Are you aware that there is almost no biography information on the Ichazo page at present? This is surprising in light of the fact that reference 1982b begins with Sam Keen interviewing him for Psychology Today -- page 6 includes significant information recounted by Ichazo about his background. See my discussion of WP:ABOUTSELF on Kornfield's Talk page. Thanks. Martindo (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Organizational_article_merged_into_Biographical_article Martindo (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247 Online events: New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Skyerise, I appreciate your work to clean up this article. I've tried to address some of the shortcomings by adding references. What do you think it will take to be able to remove the banner? I also intend to upload a photo. Avm1 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Avm1: There are 38 citations. More than half of them are to the subject's works, so no: the article still relies too heavily on primary sources. When more than half the sources are independent secondary sources, then we can discuss removing the tag. Skyerise (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. You have reverted an edit that I made on the article Kali Puja. I think this was done in error, and if not, I would like you to clarify what I did wrong.

Your edit summary said you reverted "unsourced additions" and "removal of sources." As you rolled back multiple edits, I'm not sure which of these is in reference to my edit, but either way, it is mistaken. I expanded on some information that cited the source by McDermott and Kripal, and all of my additions were based on this source. And I did not remove sources; rather, I removed an unnecessary explanatory footnote and replaced it with a regular reference.

I believe that your reversion has been inadvertently unconstructive. My edit had removed several sentences of unsourced information (which you have now restored), and included some minor copyediting. You also removed changes by user Starlights99, which seem constructive. If you do think it was the right decision to revert my edit, you should, at least, restore these changes.

Vigilant Cosmic Penguin (talk | contribs) 🐧 20:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Any edit may be reverted and the burden falls on the editor making the change to show that they have consensus for the change. Please discuss article content and edits on the article talk page. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there please be patient and see the result of others attempts before reverting their edits. Egeymi (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Egeymi: Don't remove tags until the problem is completely resolved and you won't cause that issue. Fix first, remove tag second. Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I know the process, no need to repeat it. It was a different process so it took longer time. --Egeymi (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop removing google book links and read WP:GBOOKS again. Nowhere does it say only links with an isbn are allowed. Thank you. Hypnôs (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've had to revert this article. Per WP:NPP article review, the article references aren't of a sufficint quality to remain on Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:REFB which is a small tutorial on how to create in-line refs. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Then take it to AFD. It has never been process to turn an article into a redirect without discussion. The discussion never happened. Skyerise (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Can you stop putting tags in that don't apply to you. Editors who write articles and put tags in at the same time, is considered disruptive practice. It is very poor work. If you don't a section don't a empty section tag yourself. That is for others to decide. scope_creep^Talk 13:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

No. That's how I work. The tags are for me, not anyone else, so I can keep track of what still needs to be done, as I have a poor memory and can get interrupted at any time. But thanks for your undue interest. Skyerise (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep:: now if you'd like some unsolicited advice in return, don't you think it's about time to withdraw your deletion nomination? Skyerise (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Coolio. Will do. I think I went too quick there, in reviewing it. Sorry. Its in much better condition. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep:: Thanks! I think its shaped up quite nicely. Skyerise (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll known next time. That is is withdrawn. Sorry about that. scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

—¿philoserf? (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

	Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.
	Hi Skyerise, Thank you for all your contributions during the year. You work on interesting topics! May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health. Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927 Netherzone (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 Online events: New: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Geofocus East Asia Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2022 See also: Editing For Effie collaboration with the Smithsonian, January 8 & 9 (global event) Tip of the month: De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)