User talk:SERGEJ2011

Hello and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a
  reliable sources
  .
• No
  sock puppetry
  .
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is
  Wikipedia:Copy-paste
  .
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be

Other content is copied from other Wikipedia articles. You can copy this, too, but only if you meet the terms of the license. Content on Wikipedia, as you were notified above, is not public domain, but liberally licensed. Copying content from one article to the other without meeting the terms is a violation of the copyright of Wikipedia's contributors. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for how.

Please go back to your articles and add attribution for your copied content as described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to bring this material into compliance with our site's policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a usable license for Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, content must be released for modification as well as reuse. If you believe it is a usable license for Wikipedia, then we need verification of it. I'd recommend that you scan the page and email it to the volunteer response team who process and log copyright permissions. If you'd like to go that route, I'll be happy to give you the address. If the page is published legitimately online (that is, if the book is printed somewhere licensed to display it and we can see it there), then that may suffice. Hosting a scan of the page on a personal website would not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid that transcribing it on Wikipedia doesn't really help. :/ Unless we can access it. But plagiarism and copyright are different things, and this is a right restriction that is hard to interpret legally: "provided they have well grasped the thought." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid I don't think that's a usable license, as I mentioned in my last note. "provided they have well grasped the thought" is pretty slippery as far as restrictions on reuse go. But you might want to get a second opinion on that at

WT:CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I need a bit more information here, as I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction in the article and in what you're saying about publication history. Were the letters published in 1919 as at [1] or in 1941 as the article states? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the letters were published in 1919, then they are presumed to be public domain by age regardless of their use in a later book. But looking at the article raises a very important question for me- what makes this book notable? That is, how does it meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books)? You need to demonstrate in the article what makes the book notable, not simply talk about the letters. Even the criticism section is not about the book, but about the letters or the philosophies behind them. If notability for the book itself is not established, the article may need to be deleted entirely or rewritten to reflect a topic that does meet inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed quite a bit form this as it was about the concepts and not the book. This article is about a book. It isn't about root races, Atlantis, past lives, etc. I also removed a 1909 publication you used as criticism. Again, it was not criticising the book which not published until 1913.

The file you uploaded at File:Man_cover.jpg is not the 1922 cover, it is Google Books's new cover for their scan of that edition. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, SERGEJ2011. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the above article was very close to http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/9004485/buddhism_and_science_-_a_guide_for_the_perplexed.pdf, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clairvoyance (book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hello! I think we should use the discussion pages of these two articles:

Thought-Forms (book) or Tulpa. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, SERGEJ2011. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occult or Exact Science? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occult or Exact Science? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronvillain (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am interested in knowing do you work for the Russian Theosophy society? Are you the author of the Theosophy articles you are creating or does your research originate from elsewhere ? Please see current discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard 80.225.32.189 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of any theosophical organizations. Everything I wrote is just mine. Thank you. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just thought I'd mention that when translating articles from other Wikipedia projects, as per

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophers and Philosophicules until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Is Theosophy a Religion? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Theosophy a Religion? until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --tronvillain (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great article creation in "What Is Theosophy?"! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 10:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SERGEJ2011. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SERGEJ2011,

Thanks for creating Theosophy and music! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

Nicely detailed article making connections between a number of areas that were otherwise missing within Wikipedia.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Theosophy and visual arts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not for research essays. This is not a viable topic--it's pure synth.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theosophy and science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theosophy and science until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucifer (magazine), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]