User talk:Bohemian Alchemyst
Help me!
 | Please use the {{help me}} template appropriately. The {{help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. |
Please help me with... Hello!
I've just joined Wikipedia and put quite considerable time into making List of occultists more academically credible. One of the contributors to the page has rolled this back to the page it was before which was acknowledged to need reform. Is there anything I can do about this? I don't know what the rules are but I can't imagine that ownership of pages is something which is tolerated here?
Thank you for any help you can offer. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are engaged in a content dispute and the proper place to discuss your disagreements is Talk:List of occultists. This is not an appropriate use of the {{help}} template, sorry. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
First Warning
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of occultists, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Don’t make ground breaking changes without extensive discussion at the talk page. This is your first warning. Celestina007 17:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Changes
You may not make such ground breaking changes as you did at the List of occultists article without first seeking consensus at the talk page of that article. If you continue this disruptive editing I’d see to it that you are blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia or to abide by the spirit of consensus & collaborative editing. Celestina007 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm going to get a more experienced editor here to check over my edits. You clearly feel ownership of that page despite its poor condition and I think an experienced Wikipedian checking over my work would be the best way forward. Thank you for making me feel welcome. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bohemian Alchemyst, no I don’t feel like I WP:OWN the article, I did not create it, although I should say that I have made significant contributions to the article I do not feel like own it. What you did was wrong & contacting the most experienced of editors wouldn’t change a thing. If you are going to make such bold changes, you have to first seek consensus on the talk page of that article first & when significant contributors to that article “okay” your changes then you may go ahead to make those changes anything else is disruptive editing which if you continue would invariably land you a block. You are a new editor, barely 7 hours old. How about study some of our policies, guidelines & essays before jumping into areas where even experienced editors tread with caution. If you have anymore questions leave me a message on my talk page. Celestina007 18:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Celestina007:, one point of clarification: In the absence of a specific local restriction, there is no general requirement for any editor, no matter how new, to seek talk page permission before making changes of any size as long as they comply with the core content policies. Be bold, the normal editing cycle and "anyone can edit" still have some meaning, after all. If another editor objects and reverts those changes, as in this case, then the edit-war prohibitions obviously mean the changes should not be re-instated without talk page discussion. That is exactly what Bohemian Alchemyst should have done after you reverted their changes and what should take place now. They especially should not have accused you of vandalism and I can see how that would have been upsetting. There is, however, no "Mother may I?" prior permission requirement. So, Bohemian Alchemyst, please take these revisions to the talk page and try to work out Celestina007's objections civilly there. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. However, if you want to talk about "upsetting" can we take a moment to think about how it feels to take the time to open an account and put three hours of work into making a page that's riddled with subjective, unprofessional data, something closer to encyclopedia standard and then having that reverted by the only person who has contributed to that page in months? I have a doctorate in history, with a specialisation in the role of the occult in the history of ideas. I have already contributed meaningfully but instead I feel like I've wasted three hours. I doubt that I'll be contributing any further given the unfriendly, possessive experience that this has been.Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Celestina007:, one point of clarification: In the absence of a specific local restriction, there is no general requirement for any editor, no matter how new, to seek talk page permission before making changes of any size as long as they comply with the core content policies. Be bold, the normal editing cycle and "anyone can edit" still have some meaning, after all. If another editor objects and reverts those changes, as in this case, then the edit-war prohibitions obviously mean the changes should not be re-instated without talk page discussion. That is exactly what Bohemian Alchemyst should have done after you reverted their changes and what should take place now. They especially should not have accused you of vandalism and I can see how that would have been upsetting. There is, however, no "Mother may I?" prior permission requirement. So, Bohemian Alchemyst, please take these revisions to the talk page and try to work out Celestina007's objections civilly there. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bohemian Alchemyst, no I don’t feel like I WP:OWN the article, I did not create it, although I should say that I have made significant contributions to the article I do not feel like own it. What you did was wrong & contacting the most experienced of editors wouldn’t change a thing. If you are going to make such bold changes, you have to first seek consensus on the talk page of that article first & when significant contributors to that article “okay” your changes then you may go ahead to make those changes anything else is disruptive editing which if you continue would invariably land you a block. You are a new editor, barely 7 hours old. How about study some of our policies, guidelines & essays before jumping into areas where even experienced editors tread with caution. If you have anymore questions leave me a message on my talk page. Celestina007 18:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bohemian Alchemyst, new users sometimes do have negative initial experiences and this project does a poor job of helping new users understand the rules of the road before their first edit. The decentralized nature of the project and its editing environment makes it difficult to give everyone the necessary training wheels and I apologize for any contribution I've made to your frustration. I cannot tell you whether sticking around is worth your time. I can say that there are two general options: either you feel this information is important enough to be shared despite a poor welcome and you continue or you feel that the editing environment is so toxic that it exceeds your tolerance. That's a personal decision and I won't presume which is applicable to you. On the good news side: your effort isn't lost or wasted. it's still there in the page history and can be retrieved at any time. If you want to continue the discussion on what a professional version of the page would look like, the Talk:List of occultists page is where it needs to take place. Can I assume that this discussion was your initial attempt prior to registering? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're a good egg Eggishorn and you've put some calming, thoughtful questions to me here. Thank you for that. Yes, I made that comment last night and then, seeing that the page had had little meaningful activity and asking myself why I was asking someone else to do what I could do, I opened an account and made the edit. I thought editing a list page would be a good way to begin before moving into broader, essay based articles. The difficulty with "the occult" as an area of research is that it attracts a lot of pet theories, a lot of vagueness and a lot of people who should be grounding themselves in proper logical analysis before venturing off into this material. It's that way IRL and I think it will be that way here too and my tolerance for it isn't plentiful. I will think over your points before putting my time into writing here. Thank you again. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Eggishorn, you are correct there isn’t any “Mother may I” required. Yes! What the new editor should have done & like you have rightfully said was to either discuss it with me or take it to the talk page of the article as even a different editor advised them to. Bohemian Alchemyst, putting in three hours of work & seeing it go up in flames is a result of, like I earlier said “jumping into areas even experienced editors tread with caution” if you did your due diligence by reading some fundamental policies governing this collaborative project before editing articles you wouldn’t have been in this situation. The article in question has undergone serious changes over the years by very experienced senior editors who have brought it to its current state & you a newbie with little to no experience calling it “a poor state” is a very bold statement & I’d like for you to point out to me what, what & what makes it a “poor state” seeing as almost all entries there are backed up with WP:RS. You may also be unknowingly POV-PUSHING by trying to shape the article exactly how you (as an individual) want it to be/appear, so that’s something you might want to check out as well. Albeit Eggishorn is somewhat correct. In my opinion Any ground breaking changes/drastic changes should pass through the TP of that article. Minor edits might be overlooked but a total overhaul & restructuring of the article should be first discussed at the article’s TP. Thanks for your time. Oh! Lest I forget, this is an optional question of which you may not answer obviously, Do you have any background in Occultism? Celestina007 19:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Do you have any background in Occultism?"
- Eggishorn, you are correct there isn’t any “Mother may I” required. Yes! What the new editor should have done & like you have rightfully said was to either discuss it with me or take it to the talk page of the article as even a different editor advised them to. Bohemian Alchemyst, putting in three hours of work & seeing it go up in flames is a result of, like I earlier said “jumping into areas even experienced editors tread with caution” if you did your due diligence by reading some fundamental policies governing this collaborative project before editing articles you wouldn’t have been in this situation. The article in question has undergone serious changes over the years by very experienced senior editors who have brought it to its current state & you a newbie with little to no experience calling it “a poor state” is a very bold statement & I’d like for you to point out to me what, what & what makes it a “poor state” seeing as almost all entries there are backed up with WP:RS. You may also be unknowingly POV-PUSHING by trying to shape the article exactly how you (as an individual) want it to be/appear, so that’s something you might want to check out as well. Albeit Eggishorn is somewhat correct. In my opinion Any ground breaking changes/drastic changes should pass through the TP of that article. Minor edits might be overlooked but a total overhaul & restructuring of the article should be first discussed at the article’s TP. Thanks for your time. Oh! Lest I forget, this is an optional question of which you may not answer obviously, Do you have any background in Occultism? Celestina007 19:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're a good egg Eggishorn and you've put some calming, thoughtful questions to me here. Thank you for that. Yes, I made that comment last night and then, seeing that the page had had little meaningful activity and asking myself why I was asking someone else to do what I could do, I opened an account and made the edit. I thought editing a list page would be a good way to begin before moving into broader, essay based articles. The difficulty with "the occult" as an area of research is that it attracts a lot of pet theories, a lot of vagueness and a lot of people who should be grounding themselves in proper logical analysis before venturing off into this material. It's that way IRL and I think it will be that way here too and my tolerance for it isn't plentiful. I will think over your points before putting my time into writing here. Thank you again. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bohemian Alchemyst, new users sometimes do have negative initial experiences and this project does a poor job of helping new users understand the rules of the road before their first edit. The decentralized nature of the project and its editing environment makes it difficult to give everyone the necessary training wheels and I apologize for any contribution I've made to your frustration. I cannot tell you whether sticking around is worth your time. I can say that there are two general options: either you feel this information is important enough to be shared despite a poor welcome and you continue or you feel that the editing environment is so toxic that it exceeds your tolerance. That's a personal decision and I won't presume which is applicable to you. On the good news side: your effort isn't lost or wasted. it's still there in the page history and can be retrieved at any time. If you want to continue the discussion on what a professional version of the page would look like, the Talk:List of occultists page is where it needs to take place. Can I assume that this discussion was your initial attempt prior to registering? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not relevant in the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about rationally observable fact rather than noetic apprehension. A complete grounding in what is known should precede dealing with the unknown. In order to get that grounding, absolute precision in knowable facts is desirable and that is why standards on Wikipedia should be much higher.
"The article in question has undergone serious changes over the years by very experienced senior editors who have brought it to its current state & you a newbie with little to no experience calling it “a poor state” is a very bold statement."
Perhaps if they'd spent more time opening a book and doing legitimate research than editing Wikipedia they'd have a better article? Experience in editing Wikipedia does not make a person more knowledgeable on a given subject. It just means they've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia, often writing things that they like to read but which are wrong.
"I’d like for you to point out to me what, what & what makes it a “poor state”"
Where do I begin?
1. There's no definition of terms; the word "occultist" is being used to cover multiple categories of activity, some of which have actually got nothing to do with the occult. 2.There's no precision in the terms applied to historical figures; people are called things like "mage" and "sorcerer" without those terms being defined. Why are some called "mage", some "wizard", some "magician", some "sorcerer"? What are the differences in those terms? Why? I wrote you an academic definition in the intro which then made sense of attributing titles like "alchemist" to figures and, when I had the time, my next step was to develop that and cite real sources for those changes rather than the unprofessional websites that are currently used. You've rejected that. 3. People are included on this list that have nothing to do with the occult. One example: Plato's philosophy has been an important influence on occultism but that doesn't make him an "occultist". I would challenge you to ask an academic expert on Plato what they think of his being described as an "occultist" and observe the response that you get. In fact, go over to the Plato page and add him to the occult category and see what happens. Go on. I dare you. 4. Mythical figures are mixed with historical figures with impunity. 5. The list is full of factual inaccuracies; Marsilio Ficino was dead before the 16th century started and yet he's listed in the 16th century. What was that you were saying about "very experienced senior editors"? So senior that they can't get a date right? There are so many such inaccuracies that I cannot find the time to mention them all. I put them right in my edit of that article but, again, you've rejected that.
I spent time writing the basis of a good quality, non-speculative article on occult personalities. With proper sourcing and definitions it could have been the basis for a First Class article. You have made it clear that you like the page as it is, sloppiness and all. You are more willing to own this page than I am, therefore you can have it. I should be thanking you; if my edit today had been met with "thank you" I might have spent more time on this website but you've given that time back to me and I can spend it more productively, perhaps creating articles of the sort that are cited by Wikipedia rather than arguing with occultniks about why good academic standards are important. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)