User talk:FraterBrahmael

Welcome!

Hi FraterBrahmael! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Table of correspondences

Dear FraterBrahmael, I'm so very sorry for your work on Table of correspondences, but I had to revert it. At Wikipedia, we only include information that can be verified. This we do by citing sources for any new information added to the article. Moreover, these sources need to be reliable and of a secondary nature. Please take some time to read the policies I linked to. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask them. Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that funny. I spent hours writting all of that for it to be removed.

Not only did everything that I wrote HAVE sources, such as Oswald Wirth's books on Astrology (and the many many books that we receive in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, namely the Ritual Magick Manual) - although not listed in the article... but the article was also WRONG in listing the WUXING under the category of FOUR! Ffs.

Been editing on Wikipedia and filling articles like this for years, usually anonymously, and this is the first time that a long edit I've made gets completely reverted. So of course I'm salty.

I also DID at least quote The Lesser Key of Solomon. How is that not a reliable source?

Should I link tables of correspondences made by people online to prove that tables with more than 7 categories exist?

How many sources should I post for the edit to stay? Clearly 1 isn't enough so I suppose 2 isn't either.

Thanks in advance I guess. FraterBrahmael (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FraterBrahmael,

First of all, perhaps it will console you somewhat to know that your work was not deleted (we normally don't delete any edits here unless they contain copyright violations, libel, personal attacks, etc.), just made invisible to the readers of the current revision. You can find it in the page history, by clicking on the date of each revision (your last version is here; you can edit it but if you save it it will revert all later revisions). You can also copy-paste text from old revisions and put it in the article along with a source.

However, beware: books written by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn or The Lesser Key of Solomon are primary sources, which should only be used for literal quotes or as an addendum to secondary sources. Any info on tables of correspondences in these books should be based on what scholarly sources have written about these books (these are secondary sources). We in our turn write about what scholars have written about these books (this lies at the heart of one of our three core content policies, which disallows original research; see the section wp:psts). Most encyclopedias follow this policy: they're so-called tertiary sources.

In fact, your earlier edit on Microcosm-macrocosm analogy alerted me to the existence of the Table of correspondences article, and seeing that it only cites primary sources and does not make proper use of inline citations, I've been looking for better (secondary, scholarly) sources. I have found only a few, but since that's better than nothing, I was planning to edit the article tomorrow. I will remove pretty much the whole article and replace it with a few well-sourced lines. This is called a stub: hopefully, the article can grow again from there. Note that if I hadn't found any secondary sources, which often happens for popular subjects that are not (yet) covered by reliable independent sources (i.e., non-magicians who write from a disinterested perspective and whose publications are subject to editorial oversight; mostly scholars in this case), the article would have to be deleted because it would have failed what we call notability.

You're more than welcome to contribute to the article. However, I fear that your first-hand knowledge of it cannot just be put on Wikipedia. This is not a judgement on the conscientiousness or accuracy of that knowledge: however learned anyone may be, policy disallows it. If you could find secondary sources on it though, that'd be truly great!

Thanks for your attention, and again, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]