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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pointing-out instruction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: You are incorrect about this article. Some years back, the chaos magicians and the anti-fringe team together produced the bulk of the current article. It appears to have been a real food fight. Then they both got bored and they eventually all stopped watching the article. It accumulated a lot of cruft, which I removed after being attracted to the article to intervene in long-term vandalism.

In point of fact, the article is firmly based on academic sources, namely: Otto (cited 8 times), Siepman (8), Urban (8), Duggan (5), and Woodman (2), as well as a smattering of others cited once. Yes, there are also primary sources cited sparingly, backed by the academic sources or used as examples of what those sources describe. If you knew the topic and the sources, you'd have seen from a quick perusal of the citation list (not the works cited list), that this is a robustly cited article.

If you don't know a topic, then you should actually read the article and check the sourcing as you go so you can put more finely-considered inline tags where you find problems. Top tag-bombing is not helpful for long-standing, well-cited articles. Please refrain from such unrefined behavior. Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I did not write any of the article. I am not a practitioner of or believer in Chaos magic. The article is simply on my watchlist for anti-vandalism purposes. But I'll probably take it off now. Maybe you could take over my anti-vandalism role on this article? Skyerise (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Skye, I appreciate you seeing my point of view on the Grayzone article. I see that you edited a couple of times and you were reverted. I created an RFC, request for comment, on the talk page, where I request a debate on the first sentence. People will have around 30 days to comment and vote "yes" or "no" on my RFC question. In the meantime, I won't be editing the article again at all until the RFC is officially closed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Fischer, A., Schneider, P., "The dramatick disappearance of the ⟨-ick⟩ spelling", in Text Types and Corpora, Gunter Narr Verlag, 2002, pp. 139ff.

Skyerise (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Numerology is considered a pseudo-science.

Reverted by you: statement requires citation.

Cambridge defines the word pseudo-science: "A system of thought or a theory that is not formed in a scientific way."

You don't need a citation to use a proper definition of a term. If you read the excellent wikipedia article about pseudo-science (as it was linked), Numerology fits the definition very clearly.

Also, who would be considered a reliable source on whether numerology is a pseudo-science or not? I mean, anyone with a basic scientific education could pinpoint the issues with numerology for it to candidate as pseudo-science. You can cite me, if you want.

Or, for the fun of it, cite this 1933 professor calling it bullshit: https://www.jstor.org/stable/15626

That's a published journal right there!

You may re-revert the changes again, since the article on numerology needs clarification that it is pseudo-scientific. Dysp (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dysp: I don't dispute the fact. But you must supply a citation when you add it. Nobody else has to do it for you. But sure to use the same citation style as the article currently does, and be sure it's a full citation. Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

He was born in Argentina, moved to Greece, represented Greece. He is 'Greek' for our purposes. Your edits are vandalism. GiantSnowman 15:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Have you even read WP:CONTEXTBIO? Since you are using a prohibited construct ("X-born Y") I assume you have not. He must be either Argentinian or Greek. And typically we require a citation for naturalization before changing the nationality from the birth certificate. Lacking that, it is assumed is his playing as an Argentinian expatriate. Skyerise (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. You do not have a clue about football. Please stop editing. For soccer players born in one country but who played another, the way that it is displayed at Kontogeorgakis and Kenneth Paal is standard. GiantSnowman 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Now raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football - next stop after that will be ANI, asking for a block. GiantSnowman 15:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Paal - there are already sources on the article which confirm both nationalities, e.g. this, this, see also this... GiantSnowman 15:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONTEXTBIO. Every biography should start with the subject's birth nationality unless their immigration and naturalization into an adopted country can be cited. The nationality should be their most recent citizenship - not the country they play for. He's an Argentinian playing as an expatriate unless shown otherwise. Skyerise (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a guideline only and says "should usually". At WikiProject Football we have different guidelines. Please respect them. GiantSnowman 15:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources you list are not WP:RS for change of citizenship. You need a news article that directly addresses the immigration, not a sports profile. This is relevant for both the lead sentence AND the categories. Skyerise (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No, they are reliable sources which confirm the player is Surinamese. Furthermore, you cannot represent a country without being a citizen of that country, basic FIFA eligibility rules. GiantSnowman 15:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Then the dual citizenship variant of WP:CONTEXTBIO (example: Arnold Schwarzenegger) should be used to avoid confusion. Skyerise (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, that is not how we write articles for footballers. We have no obligation to follow that example and it is not practical. GiantSnowman 16:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you are not properly informing the reader who is unschooled in the details of football rules. You are also edit warring, well past your third revert. Skyerise (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not the case. The start of MOS:NATIONALITY says In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident Spike 'em (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it's supposed to be there where possible. We prefer a single nationality. If they are alive, it should be their current country of residence, assuming they are citizens. Another acceptable option is the nationality they held when they first became notable, especially if they have significantly more professional experience there than in their new country. Skyerise (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are becoming POINTy and disruptive. Not only do you appear to be targeting articles I have recently edited, for which I would appreciate an explanation, but you are clearly ignoring the sources on the articles which confirm the full DOB, and also WP:INFOBOXREF. GiantSnowman 19:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

All you have to do is add the footnote. Geez. Lazy ass editor. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please. GiantSnowman 19:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated reverting without correcting the issues is hardly civil. Take your own advice. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read INFOBOXREF. GiantSnowman 19:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Then put it in the lead sentence. Many, many football articles put it in the infobox. Skyerise (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I dispute the claim anyway; respectfully, you do not know a lot about football.

You'll see that today's FA Matthew Quay does not have the DOB cited in the infobox, and not directly in the prose; I am sure it is mentioned in many of he sources, however, and editors have shown some WP:COMMONSENSE... GiantSnowman 20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, you don't know much about biography of living persons policy. Skyerise (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No issue whatsoever with edits like this by the way. GiantSnowman 20:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's up to the restoring editor to add the citation, per WP:BURDEN. So let's try this again. Skyerise (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No; repeatedly removing verifiable and sourced content, just because there is not a direct citation in the infobox, is disruptive. GiantSnowman 20:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So is identity theft. We have good reasons for our policy. To prevent Wikipedia from being sued. And the footnotes are so it's clear the info is cited and verifiable, so members of the BLP project can quickly see that. Have you no sense of teamwork? I don't know where the citation is, you do. Stop reverting and just add the citation. Sheez. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not familiar with that one, but I had already run CU since that whole sequence of posts was so odd and smelled like harassment. I found nothing, though; thanks for letting me know there may be more than meets the eye. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chaos magic you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Chaos magic you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Chaos magic for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have noticed experienced editors deleting the state name in the infobox yet it still appears in WP:USCITIES after the city name. Can you enlighten me on the apparent contradiction? Cheers Fettlemap (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fettlemap: See Austin, Boston, Dallas, Houston, New York City, Raleigh, Seattle, etc. The guideline doesn't actually state anything about it. Perhaps the state name should be removed there to match what is actually done. Skyerise (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, the general understanding I picked up was that larger, recognizable cities were the exception to the rule. It appears there are conflicting opinions on this practice. Thanks for your response. Fettlemap (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fettlemap: seems one thing they have in common either an article title w/o a state name or a redirect from the city w/o the state name (which Asheville has). Though Portland, Oregon vs. Portland, Maine.Skyerise (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 Online events: New: Gender studies | Health | Dance | Alphabet run S & T | Books by women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Women in Red is supporting Every Book Its Reader through our Books by women event. Tip of the month: When writing about a book, check WP:NBOOK for notability, then see MOS:NOVEL, WP:NONFICTION or WP:POETRYSTANDARDS for guidance. 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) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Given that EB advocates for explicitly stating which languages are studied in a given paper, and given that she advocates against giving the English language any default status, I would think it would make sense to have a link here, but this is not the hill I will die on Jasy jatere (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jasy jatere: Well, at least add a link to English language rather than English. The latter is a dab page. It's a reasonable argument. While I won't remove it if you re-add it, other editors are likely to. Skyerise (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I wanted to revisit our earlier conversation regarding infoboxes. The current state of Ninhursag's infobox is, to me, both incomplete and even misleading. A person should, at a glance, gain the basic information about her family. However, simply listing Šulpae, Enki, and Enlil as her consorts, without the context that Šulpae was widely regarded as her consort throughout most of Mesopotamian history, while Enki and Enlil were only attested as such in isolated traditions, gives the wrong impression that the three were of somewhat equal status as her consorts. I'm fine with not having citations in the infobox, but I do not believe that removing such important context counts as "details", it's fundamental information that should be front and centre when one opens the page. Numerous other articles, including many dealing with Mesopotamian deities, include such information in the infoboxes because varied traditions often resulted in genealogical inconsistencies, which makes simply writing them down without context rather deceptive as a result. I hope we can agree on this one. The Wikia Editor (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wikia Editor: Details go in the article body. The infobox is not the place for explanations. Make the explanations where it can be done in complete sentences. That's it. You've confused the purpose of the infobox. If it needs to "up front and center", put it in the lead section. The footnotes go directly to the relevant section! Or didn't you notice that? Skyerise (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The footnotes don't solve the issue. This is important context that renders the infobox misleading without it. It should also be noted that you seem to be the only one imposing this "rule" regarding infoboxes. Just on the topic of Mesopotamian deities, Anu, Inanna, and Ereshkigal all contain additional context in their infoboxes, which simply works better in my opinion. Another example, completely unrelated to Mesopotamia, the article of Julius Caesar features both citations and includes the years in which he held his various offices and was married. If we followed your method, Caesar's infobox would simply list his office titles and spouses with no additional information, which would be quite silly. An infobox is supposed to provide a very basic understanding of the subject, which the current one simply doesn't. If you still don't agree, perhaps you'd prefer adding footnotes, something like this: Enki^[a]. The Wikia Editor (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wikia Editor: The definitive guideline is WP:INFOBOX. It's best to have discussions on the article talk page, so you can get WP:CONSENSUS from other editors. Per WP:BRD, if you are reverted, you should get consensus on the talk page for your change. Discussing it on my talk page is unlikely to change my mind. Seeing whether other editors agree with me or you is how things are done around here. You can solicit a third-party opinion if none of the regular editors respond in a day or two. Hope this helps. Skyerise (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Very much agreed. I don't wish for us to argue, and majority consensus will hopefully provide a swift resolution. If a third party opinion is needed, I would recommend HaniwaEnthusiast, since they've been responsible for creating a large number of articles about Mesopotamian, Hurrian, and Canaanite deities, so they're quite experienced in creating infoboxes related to them. I appreciate the help and advice, and hope we'll both be satisfied with whichever way the infobox ends up being. The Wikia Editor (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"(actually, electrical telegraphy was indeed the first use of electrical engineering and is mentioned as such in Electrical engineering)"

Although the wikipedia article "Electrical engineering' claims " Electrical telegraphy may be considered the first example of electrical engineering"

the reference Roberts, Steven. "Distant Writing: A History of the Telegraph Companies in Britain between 1838 and 1868: 2. Introduction". Using these discoveries a number of inventors or rather 'adapters' appeared, taking this new knowledge, transforming it into useful ideas with commercial utility; the first of these 'products' was the use of electricity to transmit information between distant points, the electric telegraph

Does NOT state that.

Surely EE was was active well before this.

DGerman (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have nominated this article to be merged into the Emily M. Bender article. I've deleted your tag, as I argue that this makes no sense; you could as easily argue that the article could be merged into Gebru or Mitchell's page, or all three. Clearly, doing the latter makes no sense.

The article exists because the paper, and the arguments it makes, is now notable in itself, as it clearly meets the WP:GNG as shown in the given cites.

I ask you to reconsider your addition of the merge notice. — The Anome (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a category for Category:Research papers. Why not? Skyerise (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

If there's a better place to merge it, that should be determined on the article talk page. Skyerise (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Skyerise, you've left me a message about 'edit wars' for reverting your change once, when it consisted of the unilateral deletion of multiple sourced remarks of a public figure. You're the one wiping thousands of characters before immediately sending me Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png - so who's the one really at war here? - Tzaquiel (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tzaquiel: You're misreading the diffs. I'm removing one paragraph. We don't cite legal actions to dockets, we cite them to news reports. However, you are edit-warring with other editors, by the count of your reverts. So slow down. Skyerise (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The lede is badly written as is, it implies that the central and southern portion starts in the Catskills, which it doesn't, it makes no sense as is. Dubyavee (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: Yes, the "central region" of the Appalachian Mountains starts in the Catskills. See the definition of the central region in Appalachian Mountains#Regions, which clearly says so ("from the Hudson Valley", specifically mentioning the Catskills). The northern region of the Appalachian Mountains is north of that, up through New England and into Canada. The northernmost city in the Appalachian cultural region is Oneonta, New York, but the range extends eastward. See also the map of the Southern Tier region, which is all included in cultural Appalachia. Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: I think I fixed the problem. Too much was said about the mountains making it a bit confusing since they are not the topic. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

But the ARC definition, which people use more than the geological definition, begins "central" at the WV border on south, so that is confusing to many readers.That is how I interpreted it when I read it. Dubyavee (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, there is a north, central, and south in the cultural region as well, and they don't line up with the geological. I think my edits have clarified that. Though I'm afraid someone will complain about not explicitly mentioning Maryland or the Virginias. Skyerise (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Babalon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273 Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y & Z | LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | Women in Music Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green: June 2023 GA Editathon event page Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023 global campaign The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article. 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) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

What, pray tell, is the WP:EL problem about which you're concerned? XAM2175 ^(T) 20:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

External linking is not permitted from the text of the article. Links must be in citations (however, that link does provide verification of anything, since it only links to the front page of the site, not the specific data needing sourcing), or in the external links section. Skyerise (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For a start, the External Links guideline (not policy) says External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article in the lead and 2: With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article at WP:ELPOINTS. Neither of those are blanket prohibitions. Secondly, I would have thought it was exceptionally obvious that that particular external link was placed in the article as a form of citation, however imprecise the link actually was (in a sense it's closer in spirit to WP:PAREN than it is EL). Converting it to a redlink helps nobody; the website is almost certainly insufficiently notable to actually merit an article. If you come across something like that again and don't have the time or ability to provide a proper citation, at least wrap the link in ref tags so that the purpose is more clear.

Also, it would have helped if you'd given your original edit an edit summary actually indicating your concern re WP:EL. That wasn't at all apparent from article needed. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You repeatedly reverted my edits where I specifically marked unsourced passages in the text. And you did this with misleading comments, pretending that I added unsourced material rather than what I actually did, which is marking the existing material as unsourced. Here's your latest revert: [1] I strongly suggest you stop such disrupting reverts. If you did it in good faith, please take a careful look at my edits again, and compare them against the sources listed, as well as the lack thereof. If you disagree with anything, please discuss first. cherkash (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cherkash: Grumpy, grumpy. I misinterpreted your edit the first time, because you removed the source that was provided. Looking at it closer, it should never have been allowed to be added. I must have been traveling. That kind of BS should just be removed, not tagged with three tags (one at the end of the para would have been sufficient). Also, please see WP:ASPERSIONS. If you can't be civil, please don't post on my talk page. You didn't even take the time to look at my subsequent edit before posting your knee-jerk reaction! Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You reverted not once, but twice. First time could be considered a simple mistake, second time was not so easy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, the reason I left the paragraph mostly intact, is that some sources corroborate this account, just not at this level of detail - hence it's plausible the statements were factual, while simply lacking proper sources. So it's better to keep it tagged as challenged for a while rather than removing it right away. cherkash (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cherkash:: and I'm allowed to revert more than once. Don't come over here and tell me otherwise. Use the article talk page to discuss content related issues. You edit your way, I'll edit mine. Understand? I don't want you posting here anymore. And I am allowed to say so. Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want, but this doesn't make your comments very civil or done in collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I came here with a hope you made a simple mistake (maybe even same mistake twice - which is ok if done in good faith). Given you clarified your reasons, and I clarified my rationale behind the edits, I'll go ahead and restore the paragraph you removed - with the appropriate tags marking its unsourced parts. If it stays unsourced for a while, let's remove it then. Let's give someone more knowledgeable about the topic a chance to source it. cherkash (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cherkash: You wrote "Your authoritarian ways" - but it was you who came here and started to try to dictate how I edit with your first rude comment. I've restored the section, so there is now no reason for you to copy it. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, a requested move of Witchcraft has been initiated, but I don't know whether the discussion should be listed at wikiprojects, nor how to do it. Do you, or could you help out? Many thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Esowteric:, well, I see a bot notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Not sure if the bot will eventually notify the other projects, but if it doesn't, that notice is neutral, so long as all the listed project are notified. Skyerise (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the user about this, but an edit being minor isn't by itself a reason to revert it. If the edit seems fine otherwise, and it seems to be in this case, it can stand. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury:, yeah, I should have just made a dummy edit to bring it to other editor's attention rather than reverting but I was distracted and didn't restore it. Skyerise (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Please be sure to add appropriate AfD templates to pages and user talk pages. I almost didn't see that you had nominated List of dive bars at AfD due to lack of notification. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, had a preview and thought I hit save on the page but must not have. Skyerise (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're not too busy or looking for a diversion, take a look at Mythic humanoids regarding Talk:Mythic humanoids § Organisation and categorisation. It's a neglected corner that could use some attention. No worries if you're busy or not interested; I'm not in a hurry. – Scyrme (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

diff thanks; that's the level of discussion I prefer. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Skyerise,

thank you for all the work you have been doing and all the help. I really appreciate it. Is there a way, to send you a message, where other people cannot read it? Thanks in advance. Hanumandas (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure that I have an email this user link on the tools menu... not sure whether it actually would get through my spam filters, tho. It requires you to have an email address registered which might reveal your identity and for the same reason I am unlikely to reply... Skyerise (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will write you, maybe you will read, no need to reply. I might take a break in editing for some time due to unforeseen external circumstances. @Alalch E.: Hanumandas (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Witch (archetype), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick catch on Mahasiddha.

He needs to be blocked; he's been trying for literally years to get this fellow Lokesh into the list of 84.

He's a sockpuppet; I'm going to try to get him permablocked as such. He's not just a sockpuppeteer; he uses deceptive edit comments, such as "fixed typo". That is, he's also a vandal and a disruptive editor.

So I've reported the account as a sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lokeshsiddhar MrDemeanour (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: he's a sock of KOinfinite (talk · contribs). Skyerise (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I remember. 2021; I thought he went back further than that. I've updated the sockpuppet report. MrDemeanour (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your thread here, and thought I'd send you something that helped me better understand the phenomenon. This video has a neat description of magic, witchcraft, and witch hunts in one context where a lot of sources exist, 15th-17th Century England. It's a quite engaging lecture, entertaining and informational, and the professor points to quite a few books on the subject which I keep telling myself I'll read one of these days. Anyways, hope you find it helpful. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Skyerise, We have been attempting to correct the reference issues that you flagged with templates at Raymond Benson. We have added new citations from web articles and interviews and are genuinely trying to make this author's page work within Wikipedia rules for citations. If it looks better, please remove the templates. RBinPerson (talk. We are not professional Wiki editors and hopefully are doing this correctly. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Brian Cutillo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please allow me to finish creating the page -- or at least wait until I take a break and swap out the "WIP" temple with an "under construction" temple -- before either drive-by tagging or performing your own edits. The edit conflicts are quite annoying and it is impossible to tell whether or not it should be merged before the page is actually created. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've only recently looked at the pages you've edited, Ceremonial Magic, Crowley, Charles Henry Allan Bennett. Super interesting and super cool. Also, they are just very thorough and professional looking. Nice work! You're an inspiration! Javier F.V. 01:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212 Thank you so much! I really needed the encouragement right now. Your work is also appreciated. I know I object to only a small portion of what you do. I support and agree with the bulk of your edits. Apologies if I have reacted too strongly on occasion... Skyerise (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey no worries and no need to apologize. I know my edits can often be hasty, so I appreciate having you there to make me a better editor! I am working on it! Javier F.V. 01:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hoodoo (spirituality), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjure.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 11:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Skyerise (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was wrong to call another editor a "jerk" and will apologize to them. Skyerise (talk) 11:44 am, 7 November 2023, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

I'm just looking into this. I notice the block rationale refers to this page (where there seems to be disagreement about blocking Skyerise) which in turn refers to this thread (where there seems to be more of an agreement that a block was necessary).

What I do know is this:

• Skyerise has done a lot of constructive work on Wikipedia.
• Skyerise has a tendency to get involved in disputes on a semi-regular basis.
• When Skyerise gets involves in disputes, she has a tendency to be abusive to the other party.

With all that said and done, I am going to try something else. It seems the root cause of the problem stems from Skyerise edit-warring with people, and so I'd like to exchange an unblock with a one revert rule restriction. I assume Skyerise knows what 1RR means, so I'm not going to spell it out here, but if this sounds like a route forward, we can discuss it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator has agreed to the 1RR restriction, I am unblocking now and logging that in Editing restrictions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, Serial Number 54129 has asked if the semi-protection of your talk page can be lifted? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The one thing I'll say is that's some very rosy glasses you got if that was "asking"  :) but I withdraw my comments. Life's too short, and I blooming like the editor Skyrise. So no need to get into a lava over it; I've struck/rolled back my comments. Good luck with the unblock SR, and R333, who has an appointment catching up with WP:PROT :p ——Serial 18:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 I don't understand the long protection but maybe there's a good reason. @Ritchie333 I'm happy with a 1RR restriction. I agree Skyrise has done constructive work. But as we all know, that's not enough. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for Skyerise's response before seeing what to do about the protection.

Skyerise, I assume you know what 1RR is, but just for clarity, it means that you may not make more than one revert per page per 24 hours, or you can be blocked, aside from clear and obvious exemptions such as blatant vandalism that are summarised at WP:3RRNO. As this block was intended to be for a month, violating the 1RR restriction is likely to face heavy sanctions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait, did this really just happen without consent of the blocked user? I hope Skyerise has no objections; it would else not be a valid unblock condition. Specifically, if Skyerise simply doesn't edit at all during the original block duration, there's also no restriction on their future editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. I don't think it's really up to Skyerise to object to any restrictions; after all, just about every blocked sockpuppet objects to their being blocked. Or do you think you'd rather see a consensus for this at WP:ANI first, in which case - we can do, it's just I hoped I could get a quick and easy resolution that saw Skyerise editing productively that we could all live with. I can't find the thread now, but when I proposed the same thing for Winkelvi (some years before I finally indef blocked him) the options on the table were that he agreed to 1RR or he didn't agree, in which case he got indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with any unblock condition, and we don't need an ANI discussion ... if the blocked user agrees. That's the policy requirement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I think what ToBeFree is getting at is that you seem to be about to unblock Skyrise on the assumption they accept those unblock conditions. They may not. They have already worn over half their time; they may well be whistling, "We don't need no unblock conditions" [insert good bass], knowing that in another couple of weeks, they can return to editing without a 1RR around their neck. I know what I'd choose. Another block in the wall (part III)  :) Happy Friday, everyone! ——Serial 17:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Serial Number 54129 – this is almost what I mean, with the exception that "to be about to unblock" is in the wrong tense ([2], [3]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh for crying out, loud *facepalm* yesterday?! Without agreement?! ——Serial 19:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I think, for now, we should just wait and see if Skyerise comes back and has a response. If she doesn't agree to the 1RR restriction (which I guess policy would imply that the "deal's off" and she'd be reblocked) or time goes past that where the block would have expired, we can look at options then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems reasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

At my request the block has been reinstated as I didn't mean to be suggesting an unblock without agreement to 1RR would be ok. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Gee, I get busy with real world stuff and things go weird here. Thanks @Richie333: for the unblock (however temporary and unnoticed). I am happy to agree to 1RR for the remaining block term, if that's what you are suggesting (it's not clear). However, I do not agree to an indefinite 1RR; I'll wait out my block if that's the deal being proposed. Skyerise (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Intriguing explanation; could you enlighten me a little bit more on this distinction? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: There are many, both in the goals and the results of practice. I refer you to The Treasury of Precious Qualities by Jigme Lingpa (Volume 2, I think). He explains that liberated being may or may not have taken the Bodhisattva Vow. Those who do not only attain "personal liberation", which is equated with moksha. Only those who take the Bodhisattva Vow and actualize it go beyond that to attain Enlightenment. Enlightened beings choose to reenter samsara to help other being; liberated being choose to abandon samsara and other beings entirely. I've attended shedra: there are fairly detailed descriptions of the differences in the relevant texts. There are many other distinctions, the one I've mentioned is simply the most prominent. Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In re Qliphoth, are you actively working on that? The section is completely empty and I see absolutely nothing on that guy's page that appears to discuss the qlippoth. Can you justify keeping that empty section? Ogress 22:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ogress: It's on my list of things to work on. The qliphoth are one of the major components of his books, especially Nightside of Eden, but he is probably the one modern occultist who has written the most on the matter, and his omission is a serious deficiency in the article. Skyerise (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)r

OK. Another question, why is this page at qliphoth, it isn't qlifoth but qlippoth, we should move it. I have no idea how it got misspelled. Ogress 22:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ogress: You're right! I didn't even notice! (As for the reason, I suspect some Western occultist made that mistake and the original creator of the article simply followed suit. Probably a Crowleyite...) Skyerise (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I never asked for move privileges, do you have them? Ogress 22:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ogress: me neither. I manually moved the dab page and set up a {{db-move}} request. Skyerise (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You deleted the adjective "prominent" in the introduction to the Bucke article, regarding the man's stature. Not a big-deal detail but, with all due respect to you, I do wonder why. ? Especially in the context of Canada back in the 19th century. After all, as the article informs "In January 1876, Bucke became the superintendent of the Asylum for the Insane in Hamilton, Ontario. In 1877, he was appointed head of the provincial Asylum for the Insane in London, Ontario, a post he held for nearly the remainder of his life. In his work with asylum inmates, he was a reformer who encouraged organized sports and what is now called occupational therapy."

Did you take into consideration the time & place of Bucke's career? Not sure if you're aware, but a leadership appointment in a provincial institution like that conferred prominence in a field — Ontario was, and largely still is, Canada's bellwether province.

I didn't "undo" the change. And I'm not sure your decision is worth instigating an argument over, but it does seem a little odd to me.Joel Russ (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joel Russ: There is no need to "wonder". I cited WP:PEACOCK in my edit summary: 'prominent' is a word of empty praise unless backed by a citation. Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, Skyerise. So you didn't feel the quote (in the main bio section) from Peter A. Rechnitzer's book-length biography of R.M. Bucke is a reference that would justify the adjective? The quote is accompanied by a standard citation.

Respectfully, I'd think that given the historical context, it isn't a peacock term in this case.Joel Russ (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joel Russ: Respectfully, WP:LEAD is clear that the lead sentence should start with nationality followed by profession, without any subjective descriptions or opinions. It is not the place for individual reactions to the subject, which are subjective, vary from biographer to biographer, and are typically recounted in a "Reception" section, where each opinion should be attributed to a specific source. If a subject is indeed widely and verifiably regarded as "prominent", it generally should be introduced no earlier than the second paragraph. It is not considered a "defining feature", and would require citation to a third-party overview source which notes that it is a predominant opinion about the subject. Skyerise (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. A 'prominence' is a 'rocky outcropping'. I consider the word 'prominent' to be one of the most misused words on Wikipedia, one which is almost never supportable with reliable sources, and thus "puffery" as defined in WP:PEACOCK. Skyerise (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Skyerise, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

★Trekker (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed, you have deleted bunch of organisations from list in article "List of amateur radio organizations". Why would you choose this path and depleting knowledge pool instead of finding sources on the internet for existing organisations and adding them to the list... DelphiColor (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@DelphiColor: Because Wikipedia is not a directory. List articles should be lists of articles, not external links. If something is notable, write the article first. Skyerise (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).