User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2021

Are you back Skyerise? I need help with the Our Lady of Medjugorje Page and many pages that are directly related. What do you think? Are you up for the challenge? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm kinda health challenged at the moment and that's probably too much of a project for me at this time. Might be months before I edit again in any case, very sporadic these days... Skyerise (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please take good care. Know you are missed here. Is there an editor that you would recommend? I hold you in high esteem.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, is there any evidence from independent sources that Rigpa Wiki has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS)? On its own, the fact that its policy page says that editors must have solid background and must email the wikimaster to create their accounts is not sufficient to classify Rigpa Wiki as more than a self-published source. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Sam van Schaik, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I was able to very quickly find several published decent-cited papers and several books that he published. The lack of notability is not obvious and should be done via AfD. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 04:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tautomers: The issue isn't whether he's written papers. The issue is that it's a BLP with no independent sources. And there are no sources because he's not notable. Skyerise (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

comment Regardless, it's not immediately obvious to me if he meet notability guidelines. Sometimes poorly sourced articles are actually ok and just need work. If it weren't for the fact that I saw as many publications and book as I did, I wouldn't have been as apt to deprod it. Prod is supposed to be entirely uncontroversial. I know it can be frustrating and feel weirdly insulting to have something deprodded (I get it), but ultimately, doing it AfD changes little. It's ultimately about accuracy and process. Afd just takes a little more work and time is all. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 04:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tautomers:. It's okay, I've been here over 16 years and know my way around AFD, it's just been a while. Skyerise (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment Ha! I've been editing for like, a week. I still have a metricton to learn. Mostly learning as I go. I've found this place (re. the user/editing space) to be oddly... curt and terse, so I try to soften things a little so people don't get mad. My appologies if that came across as patronizing. Not my intent whatsoever. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 04:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tautomers: I didn't take it that way. I appreciate the kindness. Welcome to the project! May it be auspicious for you! Skyerise (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

And feel free to ask me questions when you're uncertain. Skyerise (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed your poll getting removed and I attempted to caution the user against that, getting a less than ideal response. I am not sure if you saw my comment because it was removed. In short you are welcome to start the poll, the other user is not allowed to remove it.

If you do decide to return it and they remove it again let me know and I will remind them that they do not own the article talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I should also point out that even if you put the poll there, people do not have to participate in it, and it is not going to determine consensus. It will be mostly for informing discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC:, we'll see. Skyerise (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You rudely instantly removed my list of Decans according to Ptolemy, the Egyptian Astronomer from Alexandria, and as described in his Tetrabiblos, within seconds of the edit and before I even had a chance to add as reference the online edition of Tetrabiblos showing these. The reference is published by Erhard Ratdolt, Venice, 1484. First printed Latin edition of Tetrabiblos based on Egidio Tebaldi's 13th-century Latin translation out of Arabic. See Biblioteca Virtual del Patrimonio Bibliografico; See http://bvpb.mcu.es/es/catalogo_imagenes/grupo.cmd?posicion=1&path=11003376&presentacion=pagina See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabiblos Please revert.

@Boffobugger:, 1) you put it in the wrong article, it belongs in Decan (astrology). 2) You need to add the specific source when you add the material, not later. Fully specify the translation, publisher, date, and the page number(s). Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You already touched on the lack of sources in the article, but I added some more issues to the article's talk page about the material used currently in the article being mostly based on a singular non-academic source and the problems that come with that. Idk what to do about it but at least the citing of non-existing manuscripts could be fixed or something. Pari Sarcinator (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pari Sarcinator: WP:SODOIT. But remember, it's really hard to prove a negative. If the existence of a manuscript is cited, then it can't be removed but only countered with another cited opinion. Skyerise (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait until I have read Carlos Gilly discussing the different manuscripts before I'd do anything of the sorts, as so far I only know of Scholem as a serious scholar discussing different manuscripts and he did not list these manuscripts in Wolfenbüttel but also doesn't mention the ones in Dresden and those certainly exist ( https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/65720/15 and https://archive.org/details/CabalaMysticaAegyptiorumEtPatriarcharum-1750 ). I am pretty sure Dehn just tried to cite the existing Codex Guelferbytanus but even aside from the existence of the "Codex Guelfibus" which no index of the library in Wolfenbüttel knows about, his work really isn't one that conforms to any academic standards and by his own comments about footnotes etc. clearly doesn't aim to and hence also doesn't conform to what I would perceive to be encyclopaedic standards, but I'll try and collect academic sources on this stuff before I change anything in the article. Pari Sarcinator (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello - I reverted your blank-and-redirect of Varṇamālā, and instead sent it to AfD – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varṇamālā – which I think is more appropriate. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You might find a read of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Lagoo sab interesting. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Thanks. I guess it's a good thing that my talk page is semi-protected, then. Skyerise (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of axial precession, I dispute that Regulus is no longer in tropical Leo. The Proffesor (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Proffesor: well, you're wrong. It made that transition in November 2011 and is now at 00 Virgo 06. Many articles were written about it at the time it happened, and it seems you didn't even bother to do a Google search before deleting content. That's careless. Skyerise (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Skyerise,

This category has existed for 8 years, why did you empty it? If you believe it should be deleted, the proper step is to nominate it for deletion at Categories for Discussion and present an argument your fellow editors can consider. Right now, it's been emptied "out of process". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: So sorry, but the category page clearly stated that it was for both secret societies formed in the United States and those formed elsewhere that were also active in the US. That's not "American", nor is "America" a country, and the supercategory is "Secret societies by country", not "Secret societies by nationality." But feel free to create a tree-structure for that! And I was completely in-process per WP:BOLD. Skyerise (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Side channels. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Side channels until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Inanna has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Apocheir (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In this diff, you reverted my edit for not having a citation, but I didn't add extra uncited content to the article; I added two wikilinks - one to the crucifixion of Jesus, the other to the Second Temple - changed "all blood sacrifice once and for all" to "the need for all forms of blood sacrifice" as I thought it sounded a tad more neutral, and changed "the Christ's sacrifice" to "Jesus' sacrifice" per MOS:ISMCAPS.

I know I changed the wording, but I fundamentally didn't add extra content or change the meaning to my understanding, just changed some of the wording, so I'm a bit puzzled at this message you left on my Talk page, because if citing things was an issue, I'd have expected a cn tag added after my changes. Any help? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ List of books related to Buddhism (2nd nomination): I think that perhaps the space after the slash isn't supposed to be there. You probably know this process better than I do, but the link from the actual page List of books related to Buddhism appears not to work. Pathawi (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: yes, the space is not supposed to be there but as I don't have redirectless-move privileges it can be worked around by prepending a '_', which I've now done on the article page so the link is live now. Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for listing the list for deletion. I'll post comments soon. Pathawi (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You might wish to take your concerns to Talk:Sophie (musician), starting a new discussion. We had previous discussions about this, visible at Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 2. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, while reviewing the edit history on Dudjom Lingpa after an edit of my own, I noticed your 2021-09-19 suggestion to split the Nang Jang section out to a separate article. I thought you might therefore be interested in this old AfD discussion that resulted in the merge and redirect into Dudjom Lingpa from the previous Nang Jang article, which does not by itself meet the criteria for inclusion in enwiki. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 21:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kgf0:: yes, I came to the same conclusion. It's actually a notable work but there certainly aren't sufficient sources in English to support an article. Skyerise (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

	Bring on the cheer!
	Hi Skyerise, May you have a bright and beautiful holiday season filled with biscochitos, tamales and the festive lights of luminarias. Have a happy and healthy 2022! Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)