@Apocheir: The article assumes too much prior knowledge of the topic to be accessible to non-mathematician like myself. It's extremely heavy on technical terminology and unfamiliar notation; as a non-expert, I find much of the article inaccessible. Where it does explain its terminology, it does so using other unfamiliar terminology and notation, yielding more questions than answers. To be honest, it seems obvious to me that the article is too technical so I'm surprised you're suggesting otherwise.
I came to the article looking to understand why a "geodesic polyhedron" is referred to as such, given that a geodesic is, basically, a 'straight' line on a curved surface, which a polyhedron does not have. I also wanted to learn why it is that geodesic polyhedrons are so often described and illustrated as being "made of triangles", as this article puts it. Why not other shapes? This article (and some other pages I looked at after giving up on this article) talk about the 'triangulation' (apparently in a literal sense) of faces (other polygons), which would seem to suggest that a geodesic polyhedron can be constructed from other shapes and the triangles are only a tool for analysis, but I have no idea if that reading is accurate - I've probably misunderstood. Why "geodesic"? Why triangles? I still don't know. The article apparently assumes I already know, and instead focuses on abstract details.
do you have any suggestions as to how to rewrite the edit i made into notes , that you removed? i think it puts vernacular knowledge which makes it relatable, so that more people can edit it in the future. Literise28 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Literise28: The problem was less how it was written and more than it appeared to original research; that is, it seemed to be some tips of your own which you've gained from personal experience (or from what you've heard from talking to people with experience). Wikipedia is not intended as a place to publish such things. Content on Wikipedia is intended to restate has already been published in reliable sources. (It doesn't always do that successfully, but that's what's intended.) Anything added should be backed up by a reference to an independent publication. More guidance is available at Wikipedia:No original research.
Additionally, "Notes" sections are usually for the {{efn}} and {{notelist}} templates to fill in automatically, rather than appending miscellaneous information to the end of an article manually. It would be better to either incorporate this information naturally into the main text of the article, or use {{efn}} to append the note after relevant text if the addition is too much of a tangent to include otherwise. – Scyrme (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this page is getting hit a lot by IP socks. Would you like me to semi-protect the page? If so, I would recommend starting with a week, but I don't mind protecting it for longer if you wish. Please let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption to this page has become too aggressive for me to wait for an answer from you, so I've semi-protected the page for one week. I'd still like you to respond when you have a moment, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey scryme, I just wanted to thank and apologize for the recent edit of yours on the 'beej mantras' website, I actually am new to this so I couldn't find the correct words, apologies again!
@Toph bai fong: It's alright. The important thing is that when you add new content to an article you should also specify an independent, reliable source that supports what you've added. You should also be careful not to add content in a way that separates the content already in the article from their sources. Add new content after the reference so that it stays with the sentence it supports. You should only add new content before the reference if you got your information from that source. You can find more information here: Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources – Scyrme (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could have made it a lowercase, which I did after the undo when I revised those introductory paragraphs to that section. – Scyrme (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: What is this about? Did I inadvertedly do/say something to you at some point??? Unless I'm mistaken, we've not interacted for ages. I don't recall getting in your way at all recently. – Scyrme (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no offense intended. No, I don't want you to stay away, unless you don't like helping sort out sourcing issues. Skyerise (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again. I was just trying to be cute while avoiding accusations of canvassing. As I wasn't soliciting input on content, only reliability of sources, I believe I was acting within the guidelines, but you know how other editors here can be. I'm sorry it came across poorly. Turns out the other editor was determined to be WP:NOTHERE and has since been blocked. I am waiting with bated breath for their socks. If you'd like to help keep an eye on that by watchlisting Gematria, I'd be appreciative... Skyerise (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: It wasn't, no. I've added it for now since you mention it, but it seems there are plenty of far more interested people working on it who are far more familiar with the history of the article and the lengthy ongoing discussions about it and who probably know more about the topic than I do, so I really doubt I can be of any help.
If you want my opinions:
Witchcraftshould be a broad topic article; if it falls short, then the article needs to be amended rather than moved to some contrived title.
The topic of that article ought to be the history and evolution of that concept as it has popularly/conventionally been understood (I'd avoid "traditionally", per below); that is the only way to reconcile the various differing interpretations of the term which a reader might plausibly expect the article to cover. Whether it's been viewed as harmful or helpful, it can't be disputed that opinions have evolved over time, and it's that development which ties everything together.
Even the historic negative interpretations have not remained static, and modern reinterpretations aren't wholly irrelevant to the broader topic. The modern positive interpretations can't really be separated from past perjorative intepretations; the two aren't wholly independent developments, with the positive interpretations often reclaiming ideas which originated in negative understandings (eg. witches' "sabbats"). The topics are interconnected and trying to enforce an artificial separation is a mistake that will only invite needless arguments.
Readers (and editors) would clearly expect some coverage of neopagan witchcraft at Witchcraft; it's more important that the coverage is concise and relevant to the broader topic. A brief section on "Neopagan witchcraft" is warranted, but I agree that not all material in the existing "Wicca" section is relevant. (eg. The line about a 2 decade old US survey is entirely unnecessary.)
I don't know if it's still contentious or if you've all already settled it, but the more neutral lead paragraph seems better than the previous. The only thing I'd reconsider is swapping "traditionally" for "historically". "It's bad" isn't much of a tradition, and those inclined to view "witchcraft" positively (whether that's neopagans or feminists) may object if they view themselves as in some sense reclaiming an old/ancient tradition. Using "historically" gets the same point across without the same problems.
I hope this is helpful. If I've misunderstood the nature of the disputes or am lagging behind whatever the current issue is, I apologise. – Scyrme (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page got moved back to Nondualism after all. But the lead is still written from the point of view of the previous title, resorting to calling the concept "fuzzy", which is anything but the case. I've proposed a new lead. Made it an RfC since it seems there is likely to be pushback to getting the article back on track and removing the traditions of monism which have mistakenly been included in the article due to the "fuzzyness" of a bad definition. Skyerise (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023
Your edit to Vinča symbols has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: I made a number of incremental edits recently, and it appears that most of my additions have been retained. Was it just that the sentence mentioning "stateless societies" which was too similar or was there more? – Scyrme (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cleaning up the COI in this article but apparently not fast enough for the deletionists. Your opinions are usually well reasoned, so if you also think it should be deleted, I could stop wasting my time trying to fix it! Skyerise (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey, guess what's in DYK today? Also, you might want to stop by here as there's a discussion happening that you might be interested in. Related? I'll leave that for you to judge. Skyerise (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
