User talk:OrpheusVVV
October 2022[edit]
Hello, I'm Skyerise. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Aiwass, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not a beginner, you are in error and sources, Crowley himself, have been cited OrpheusVVV (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your edits are not constructive. The lede section is supposed to be a summary. Details belong in the body of the article. Please follow WP:BRD: your changes have been reverted, now you have to gain a consensus for change on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I feel as if your changes are not constructive - even further, deliberately misleading. I am quoting from the actual source - you are not. Crowley is specific in stating that Kelly did not channel this text and to insist otherwise suggests you have an agenda? I am willing to work with you and any review process to get what is actually correct reported. In what way would you include the actual story as opposed to this theory which you put forward as fact? I will revert back and ask others to review. I am a well-known scholar in this field and can even have others chime in. What I am after is accuracy which is something those who run this page care about. OrpheusVVV (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Once again willing to work - in a constructive manner with the end result being historically accurate - and there is no evidence that Kelly channeled this text, and I would hope historical accuracy matters to you and not just someone theory which should be left to the alternative theory section. It's not even a very well supported or well accepted theory. OrpheusVVV (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your edits are not constructive. The lede section is supposed to be a summary. Details belong in the body of the article. Please follow WP:BRD: your changes have been reverted, now you have to gain a consensus for change on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is a longstanding article. If you do not follow the WP:BRD process, and discuss on the article talk page, you will continue to be reverted and then most likely blocked from editing. This is a collaborative process. You don't just get to make arbitrary changes without discussion. No discussion, no changes. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- From what I gather - it would not matter how long the page has stood but rather its accuracy. These communications are me trying to work through the BRD process with you. It would appear your hung up on some formatting issue? If so I am wanting and willing to work with you there - all I ask is that the entry be historically accurate. Stating that Kelly channeled the book is not at all accurate. We have but a single source of first hand evidence and anything outside of that (Crowley's own claims) is conjecture and should be noted as such. That is my goal here. Can you explain to me why you want to push something that contradicts the only evidence we have. There are well over 50 biographies on Crowley - plus his own Confessions as well as other books like the Equinox of the Gods - all of which cover this event and none of which support this claim. If accuracy at all matters to you then this theory should be relegated to just that and not put forward as fact. Again I am a well known scholar in the field - a published author (specific to Thelema) and a Grand Lodge officer - and thereby direct representative of the OTO - which is the body that controls Crowley's estate. In other words I have the credentials to back my ascertains and am clearly trying to work with you so as to provide accuracy in this regard. Please explain why you insist on putting forth this theory as fact? Please work with me and not against me so that we can continue to improve wikipedia. 2601:204:4102:3210:6584:BB0:C34D:E050 (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is a longstanding article. If you do not follow the WP:BRD process, and discuss on the article talk page, you will continue to be reverted and then most likely blocked from editing. This is a collaborative process. You don't just get to make arbitrary changes without discussion. No discussion, no changes. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- You continue to toss out my edits while refusing to discuss the matter or even offer any reasoning for refusing my historically accurate edits. Should I take this as you being unwilling to work with me in any reasonable manner???? OrpheusVVV (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I repeat, article issues are discussed on the article talk page. Not your personal talk page. And new discussions go at the bottom of the page. For "not a beginner", you seem to know nothing about how Wikipedia works. You should do some reading up. It's not up to me to tutor you. Skyerise (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
October 2022[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aiwass. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skyerise (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Your edits[edit]
The real issue is, your edits are completely unprofessional and make the article worse, regardless of the truth of your point of view. Not only do your edits not follow our Manual of Style or our requirements for citations, you can't even paragraph your work properly. You seem unable to comprehend that gnarly details don't belong in the lead section of the article; that the lead section is supposed to be a summary; that if one 'theory' is by far and away the prevalent theory, there is nothing wrong with it being the only theory mentioned in the lead section, with the others only mentioned in the body (see also WP:UNDUE); and so on and so forth.
No editor is required to clean up after you. If you can't edit more professionally, then your edits will be reverted. It is up to you to improve your knowledge and editing skills until your contribution falls within Wikipedia standards.
Wikipedia is edited by consensus. The current article is the result of years of collaboration by multiple editors. When a new editor comes along, any former or current editor of the article may-within our rules-revert your edits, until they either meet all our standards or through discussion and collaboration with other editors of the article on the article talk page, you show that you have a consensus for your changes.
If you need assistance with our guidelines and processes, you can find editors willing to tutor and assist new editors at Adopt-a-user. Hope this helps, Skyerise (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi OrpheusVVV, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)