User talk:Skyerise

New or unregistered users may comment at User talk:Skyerise/IP comment page.

This editor is a
***Senior Vanguard Editor***
and is entitled to display this
**Duranium Editor Star**
with the
Neutronium Superstar hologram.

Archives:
2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Nota bene: I quickly weary of editors who spew ALPHABET SOUP all the time, and when I am tired of eating ALPHABET SOUP, I like to remind them that WP:IAR ("ignore all rules" for those who like me dislike SOUP) is policy, while most of the SOUPs being sloshed around are merely guidelines. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Castaneda revert

Hi,

You reverted my citation in Carlos Castaneda yesterday because his books are not a reliable source. I agree that they are not reliable for stating that the facts within them are true, but the paragraph I was adding the citation to was not stating facts, but rather only stated that Castaneda said certain things, with explicit attribution to him. Cannot a book that was undisputedly written by someone be a reliable source for stating that he said what is written in it?

10x

ERG EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EntropyReducingGuy: In an article about the book, yes. In an article about the author, no. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10x EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mariann Budde

On 27 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariann Budde, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that US congressman Mike Collins called for Bishop Mariann Budde (pictured) to be "added to the deportation list" after she urged President Donald Trump to "have mercy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mariann Budde. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mariann Budde), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,815 views (1,734.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Hermetic Studies

Hello Skyerise! There is a new article on the Institute for Hermetic Studies.

Notability is not established and it needs a major cleanup re promotional tone etc. Wonder if you would like to lend a hand?

Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: I'll look into it when I get a chance, but it seems pretty hopeless at first glance. Skyerise (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: Yeah, pretty hopeless. I removed all the promotional external links and AfDed it. Skyerise (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and cleaning it up a bit! It might be semi-notable, but I just don't know where I should even start looking for sources. Afd was probably the right choice though. Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GAR for Religious responses to the problem of evil

Hi there. I'm currently doing the good article review for the above article, and I noticed you seem to be quite familiar with religion and theology so I thought I'd reach out in case you might like to take a look and provide feedback. Other than a couple "Who?" tags and a "Which?" tag I added this morning, I'd say the article is in pretty good shape, but we might benefit from the opinion of someone better educated on the subject than I. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Author or writer?

Hi Skyerise, I notice that you changed Colin Wilson and John G. Bennett from "author" to "writer". To my thinking, while all authors are writers, not all writers are authors; and authors usually like to be known as authors. What's your rationale? Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric: our categories and templates all use the word "writer". In general speech, one says someone is a writer. The use of author is usually followed by a specific work: "author of ...". Some editors think "author" sounds more prestigious, implying publication, but that usage runs afoul of WP:PEACOCK. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. check my improvements to List of occult writers. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdjieff - Nationality

Thank you for your input onto the Gurdjieff page which now reads much more coherently than before and thankfully places the issue of his nationality into a proper context without conveying the impression that he was ethically Russian (which he was not). Londonlinks (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Roberta Hoskie have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:: Now you are edit warring. Whether or not something is promotional should be determined by consensus on the talk page if an editor disagrees. That's standard WP:BRD and I will thank you to stop edit warring and start a discussion. Skyerise (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: No it doesn't. Philanthropy sections are generally unaceptable on Wikipedia by long established consensus. The reason for is because there was a document about it about 4-5 years that discussed how they used to promote the subject in way that had no bearing on how notable the person actually was. What happens is that an BLP article is created, some kind philanthropy, has it recorded, PR agency shows up, it ends up on Wikipedia. There has been conversations about many times about this. Being philanthropic is not a notable event. It doesn't anything. It is a common occurance. When it appears on Wikipedia is give a false veener of respectability that doesn't necessary exist and promotes the subject in a unnatural manner on a BLP. The reader sees the person as a philanthropist leaves them with the wrong impression. Unless its somebody like Bill Gates who is doing a career its not acceptable. So do not add it back in. As a NPP/AFC article reviewer and I go through this process all the time. I've done it hundreds of times. Folks want to promote their subject. They see the sources, they think its cool, lets add them it. It not really. I will template you and you will go to WP:ANI. That is all I can do. ~~I know your an established editor I respect and don't like doing it, but~~ I have the job to do as well. But I'm not having junk promo muck on Wikipedia on a BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: it's not clear to me why you think you can determine that unilaterally without taking to the article talk page, which is standard procedure. And now you are making threats? Standard procedure to to maintain material in an article if any editor objects to removal. This is clearly stated in WP:STATUSQUO: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion.", and refusal to take your issue to the talk page when requested is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE: "Fails to engage in consensus building". Skyerise (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to block either or both of you, but the edit warring needs to stop. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I have opened a discussion on the article talk page, which Scope creep should have done the first time I requested it in an edit summary. Skyerise (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Its not been determined unilaterally. Its old. Why would you think that. I think its because you never came across it before you think its suddenly brand new. Have you actually looked what work WP:NPP and WP:AFC does. I check every article that is saved out of AFD that looks promotional. When I've got time. I have long experience of editing BLP's. I would never say something like " A person returned me my lost money, my busines helped him improve his life". That is what your sayuing. That is a clear promotion. Its break the Terms of Use. I think I'm going to take it to WP:ANI. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Where you will be asked if you engaged in discussion on the article talk page, which you have so far refused to do despite having been requested to multiple times. Standard bold, revert, discuss process. Skyerise (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had a conversation here. You opened the talk page at 10:07 when I still writing the last comment. I'm handing it over to admin. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing ANI will tell you both is to work out this content dispute. Either that, or a WP:BOOMERANG. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: We open these discussions on article talk pages because no consensus can be determined on an editor's talk page. It takes a third (or more) editor of the article to determine consensus. I am happy to follow consensus, but you are evading actually finding out what the consensus is by refusing to hold the discussion on the article talk page. So whine to ANI all you like, you are in the wrong here with respect to process. @331dot: which is exactly what I am trying to get Scope creep to do in the correct venue, the article talk page. Skyerise (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism borderline Negationism

Hello, as you are a accomplished editor I was wanting your opinion to do with a question that I have burning in the back of my mind when it comes to the deeper understanding of sutra and dharma does revisionism become negationism when it comes to not attributing current enlightened explanations of a certain exponent to past masters or current ones that are still having to preform our stuck in various degrees of traditional dogma. Interested in your feedback and dialogue. 🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's helpful to think of Dharma as a river — always flowing, always shifting — while Sutra is like the stones that once marked a key turning in that river. To say “the river no longer flows through those stones” may be true, but to say “those stones were never part of the river” — that’s negationism. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your reply, striking with the water analogues here is my offering. When I walk through a river the banks change the direction.ie the parameters (Dharma and sutra) The stones are like a filter, the more stones as the stream progresses the more clarity. To me this is what is ment by the student becomes better than the teacher.To not honour this is almost against nature. What you say is true only in its pure form. but in this case we have the view of merit, this creates attachment in the form of future outcomes. There seems a wide spread revision on many Buddhist pages that have a motive of retelling a story in a way that was no there untill recently for this merit. 🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional Dharma views, an enlightened teacher isn’t someone a student can "surpass", since enlightenment is complete and not comparative. Even when students realize deep truths, it’s seen as the fruit of the teacher’s transmission, not as something greater. Merit, too, isn’t necessarily a source of attachment — when rightly understood, it’s dedicated for the benefit of others. And while interpretations of Dharma do evolve over time, Wikipedia articles need to reflect what reliable secondary academic sources say, rather than personal views or experiences. Skyerise (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A translation problem the word would be clearer than better. I remember being in Dojos after the war, Many Sensei were very nationalistic. The students are no so much anymore. Thankyou again for your time, So in reference to a source, when it comes to what a sensei has said I am finding that there is a lot of retrovision happening at present that does not include reference to a current source of influence. As I am in agreement with the fruit and enlightenment principal by not honouring in the present then I foresee a kind of negationism of influence happening in the future and the merit that should be accrued by one lineage being acquired by another that have achieved a lesser stage of enlightenment from the fruits of the four Noble truths. This is about being in the right place to do good for others. Look forward to your reply and thankyou for your time once again.🙏🏼 Foristslow (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]