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]

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]

Classical theism

Hi there, thanks for your work on this article. I noticed you expanded the "Islam" section today, but it doesn't seem like the information you added is mentioned in the reference. Seeing as I just promoted it to GA the other day, I was wondering if you might be able to clarify that? MediaKyle (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle: oops, sorry I got distracted and forgot to add an additional source. It's been added now. Skyerise (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes now that I see the other source, I suppose I could have figured that out. Thanks! MediaKyle (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplying 'Further reading'

Hi Skyerise, a tidy article does not have a mass of Further reading books. Refs are useful if they support the text and not useful when they don't. If any of those texts are any use, please use them for new facts inline and cite them (and they should be in Sources, or directly inline). If not, they're just decreasing the article's quality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I don't have to edit according to your opinions or to your timetable. They improve the article because they contain significant coverage of the topic, including analysis, publication and other historical details, etc; therefore their inclusion is increasing the article quality, despite your pessimistic attitude. Please leave my work alone. I will expand the article using the sources I've added as further reading when I have time, and there is no valid reason for your complaint. Further reading is useful in and of itself, and my additions conform to all relevant policies and guidelines. You're the one adding misattributed quotations based on misread sources, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here! We've been through this before: this is how I work, and there is nothing objectively wrong with it; your subjective opinion is irrelevant, as is your personal sense of what is "tidy". Skyerise (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, and you work backwards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... calming down, sorry: I had simply forgotten how you work. The thing that is wrong is what 9/10 editors do, which is to add the 'Further reading' and push off, leaving one article after another in a more unbalanced state than before. Had I recalled that you like to build up the FR section and then work systematically from that, I'd not have come here: that is a valid approach, with the minor disadvantage of "camouflaging" itself as the 9/10 pattern of cruddily building up FR (and often External links too). (Also, of course, though it doesn't matter a tuppeny damn what one editor prefers, not confusing me with "camouflage" every time may save both of us from repeating this altercation when I have forgotten about it yet again. Or perhaps, of course, you have now so scarred the event into my single synapse that I'll remember you are the 1/10 exception.) So, my apologies, you do good work. I'll leave you to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look

You and I inevitably will end up interacting a lot on Wikipedia, just by definition of where we're editors. I think we could both do well to keep in mind that the other means well as an individual and just wants the best for Wikipedia in general, because there's no way in hell we don't end up as two of the primary editors on a bunch of topics considering our overlap. I think you may find a perusal of some of my uploads to Commons enlightening, as it were, considering what you seem to perceive my biases as.

But either way, I am seriously not trying to pick a fight with you or remove your contributions from Wikipedia. I clearly do have issues with some of your editing, but I don't think that needs to devolve into animosity. If we actually got along we could probably do some serious good to the articles we're both interested in, for what it's worth. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck: Look, you gut an article I've contributed significantly to, then immediately stalk me to my latest contribution and nominate it for deletion. Consider yourself lucky I haven't brought up this behavior at WP:ANI. I'm not interested in hearing your self-justifications on my talk page, so please keep your discussions with me off my talk page and on the talk pages of the articles involved. Skyerise (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I and other editors gut an article you'd contributed to after it was brought to WP:FTN, and you haven't raised an objection to the removal of that content in a manner that was able to convince other editors, since I'm not the only person involved in that. I didn't "follow" you anywhere, what I was trying to point out above is that you and I edit in the same domain; we will inevitably run into each other. But you're not entitled to preserve articles in a particular state and multiple editors raised WP:SYNTH concerns and multiple editors raised WP:RS and WP:NPOV concerns across the two articles we're talking about, so trying to make this out to be me having an issue with you is definitely odd.

By all means, take it to ANI if you want. I know I've messed up in this process, I'm 100% willing to own up to that. If sanctions are warranted for me then sanctions are warranted for me. I legitimately don't have a problem with accountability on Wikipedia, even when it's me who needs to be held accountable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck: You have me completely fucking backwards. I have no affiliation with the Golden Dawn and no interest whatsoever in promoting them. I don't even know how to respond to these repeated and completely off-base accusations. I have no affiliation with the Golden Dawn, and I have zero interest in promoting whatever modern groups claim to be a continuation of something that from my historical perspective was disestablished in 1903. I am however a Vajrayana practitioner for 40 years, and am doing my best not to appear like I am promoting deity yoga. Apparently that is working, else you'd not have gotten me completely backwards. I started with the Golden Dawn only because their concept of godform dumbed the concept down to its bare minimum, allowing for an easier introduction to the topic. Sheesh. Skyerise (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely "go fuck yourself". If you had just owned up to it when questioned at ANI, you probably would have just gotten a stern warning for it. Instead you chose to deny and give a thoroughly unconvincing "it was just for emphasis" claim. Given this, it's clear it'll happen again if nothing is done about it - hence, you're blocked. The length of the block is due to the fact that you have been blocked multiple times for personal attacks and incivility over the last nearly 15 years. Consider this a final chance - civility is not optional, and further incvility once this block expires will guarantee the next block will be indefinite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skyerise (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My explanation on ANI is entirely truthful. I'm a linguist and like to present how I am saying something, not just words on a screen. I was in a hurry, or I would have used italics instead of caps: Goofy. (And for the editor (@Zanahary:) who asked why at ANI, to which I am unable to reply: because it has a more dismissive tone. That may in itself not be admirable, but it also doesn't warrant a three month block.)

It is unfortunate and regrettable that @Warrenmck: misinterpreted my emphasis as an acronym, but I didn't even notice that it could be combined with the first letter of the word to form an acronym for that phrase. If I had noticed that, I'd have switched to italics. I apologize to said user (who has been pinged here) for any discomfort caused by that oversight, but the way they interpreted my comment was simply was not my intent. Skyerise (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is not remotely believable. Please either own what you said or come up with an unblock that doesn't come off as a literary WP:NOTTHEM. Star Mississippi 01:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Added note: I acknowledge that I have had previous blocks for incivility, but I would also acknowledge that they were deserved. When I've reached my limit with an editor, I don't try to hide my incivility: my previous violations were unambiguous. I'm not shy about it: if I'd wanted to say "go fuck yourself", I'd have spelled it out exactly as quoted, rather than implying it. Skyerise (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skyerise (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh gee, shucks, of course that's really what I meant; and of course I'm sorry and pledge not to do it again. The first part of the previous sentence is a lie. Skyerise (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Before reading this appeal I would never have believed that so much insincerity could be conveyed in so few words. Well done. Declined. Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Skyerise, I'm sure you're frustrated, but this... is not going to get you anywhere good. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise, yes, thinking before posting or at least quickly changing something after posting should be encouraged. If you were wrongly accused of saying something you didn't ("go fuck yourself" instead of a metaphor for "silly") then you have a right to emotion, but not to keep it in visible space like in your second unblock request. Not a good look, and kind of goofy. A question I've raised elsewhere but you can't answer because you are confined to this page: I can't find any use of either GooFY or even 'goofy' on the internet or in Urban dictionary for a substitute for 'Go Fuck Yourself', can you? If not, please add it to the Urban Dictionary so the next time somebody uses it we know what we're talking about (should it be accredited to anyone, I don't know how UD works). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the instructions say I can't remove an unblock review until I am unblocked. So there's that. In any case, I've got a good start on a new novel, instead of frittering my time away improving Wikipedia articles and getting almost zero appreciation for my work. But as they say, no good work goes unpunished. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: here's a stray thought: "First they came for English Qaballa, but I did nothing because I wasn't a qaballist. Then they came for Divine embodiment, but I did nothing because I wasn't a theurgist. Then they came for Divinity, but I didn't object because I don't believe in God. Finally, they moved Deity to Ty, to remove the evil of DEI, leaving us with only a Demiurge. But by then, it was too late." Skyerise (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(removed some stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Let's assume Skyerise is telling the truth. Star Mississippi just told Skyerise that their explanation will never be believed! Assuming again that Skyerise is telling the truth, how are they supposed to appeal the block? Apparently the only option is to tell porkies! Tewdar 18:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tewdar their explanation is nonsense, but also It is unfortunate and regrettable that @Warrenmck: misinterpreted my emphasis as an acronym, is "I'm sorry you're offended" when multiple admins "misinterpreted" it. AGF is not a suicide pact. Skyrise is welcome to put together an unblock that addresses what they said and it will be reviewed. Star Mississippi 18:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block rationale is even more nonsense. I'm more convinced by Skyerise. In fact, I strongly suspect that there are 'multiple admins' who think this block is total bullshit, but are keeping quiet for whatever reason. Tewdar 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't bother pinging me because I turned it off. Tewdar 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Skyerise, they can be quite temperamentfull, but gfy is not their style - way to vulgair. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want this to be considered gravedancing, however, this topic seems to still be making waves. But, just so the record is clear: Yes she actually does has a history of vulgarity when frustrated, which makes this quite believable. In one of her previous blocks, one of the contributing reasons for her block was that she told me to "fuck off" after I posted a normal edit warring warning for 4 reverts[1]. Just10A (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 3

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skyerise (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand how my comment was interpreted and why it caused offense, especially given the context and my editing history. While “GooFY!” was meant as a dismissive remark—not an acronym—it was clearly a poor choice of tone and presentation, and I regret posting it. I take responsibility for how it came across and for not addressing the misunderstanding more respectfully. I recognize that impact matters more than intent, and that I need to engage more constructively, especially in areas where collaboration can be challenging. I’m committed to editing civilly and working in better alignment with Wikipedia’s expectations moving forward. I’d appreciate the opportunity to return to editing with that in mind. Skyerise (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC) As further evidence of my sincerity, I suggest that a one month TBAN from religion topics wouldn't be out of order, since most if not all of the instances brought up at ANI are on related pages. I am happy to voluntarily submit to a limited TBAN as long as it isn't interpreted so broadly that it includes articles in areas of philosophy outside philosophy of religion. Skyerise (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline following the revocation of your talk page access. It's implicit in the re-block issued by Floquenbeam that any appeal to UTRS will need to account for your conduct on this page after your initial block. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Divinity

added a link pointing to Dualism

Theophany

added a link pointing to Theos

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued feuding while blocked, including references to now-deleted personal information whose only purpose is to intimidate. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to go thru UTRS to try to convince an admin there that you will stop referencing other editors' deleted personal info (whether it was previously on-wiki or not). There was no purpose to that except to try to embarrass/silence/annoy someone. The fact that it used to be public is not a reason to bring it up out of the blue. And all of this continued feuding while blocked. If a UTRS admin is convinced you'll stop - or think this was a bad block - they do not need to run it by me before restoring talk page access. Also, the other section I removed is not something we allow blocked editors to do. That is one reason most editors try to avoid being blocked, so they can participate in content discussions. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be 100% clear, this block has nothing to do with the original 3-month block for incivility. Undoing this block does not have anything to do with undoing the first block. I would anticipate a UTRS admin undoing this block if/when they're satisfied that the issue of deleted personal info has been resolved, and restoring the previous block, back to the status quo ante. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]