User talk:Oria 6

June 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sufism have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Sufism was changed by Oria 6 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.865516 on 2021-06-03T15:07:38+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to P. V. Sindhu. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:S. V. C. Aiya has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:S. V. C. Aiya. Thanks! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: S. V. C. Aiya has been accepted

S. V. C. Aiya, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your article

Well, you should know that there is a lot wrong with your article and if you don't fix these things, it's unlikely to stay in its current form.

1. Confused terminology - Buddhism defines enlightenment very specifically, it is not a synonym for self-realization and according to Buddhists cannot be achieved with non-Buddhist methods, so the use of the word enlightenment, especially the link to Enlightenment in Buddhism was simply not appropriate. I've replaced the term with 'self-realization', which is what is usually used by non-Buddhist Indic traditions.
2. Use of Master's and and Doctoral theses as references. These are not considered reliable sources. Sources should primarily be published books and journals. The fact that somebody's thesis is available online is not 'publication', which implies an editorial process not actually done for such works. I've removed these sources.
3. Much use of passive voice, "it is said" without saying who said it, "it is believed" without saying who believes it. This is called weasel wording and implies that the statements following it aren't actually known to be true, they are rather being weakly asserted, as if someone saying or believing these things somehow makes them so.

The article needs more work from someone who knows the subject, or its likely to have all the weaselly statements removed, leaving only the direct and supported assertions (if any). That is, if you don't want the article gutted over the next few years, you'd better work on correcting issue #3. Skyerise (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable oversight. And your time. It is appreciated!

My comments below are merely with an intention to learn and improve my own editing skills and help me to contribute to Wikipedia better.

With regard to the 3 concerns in the article

1. Confused Terminology.

Duly noted. And thank you!

I still feel using the word "enlightened states" in the sentence is closer to what is being conveyed in this context. So wondering if we could retain it?

Note: However, it will no longer be linked to Enlightenment in Buddhism.

2. Theses as sources

Doctoral Thesis: (external link). I was of the opinion that this was a reliable source (scholarship), because it was a Proquest published doctoral dissertation and was academically peer reviewed.

I had also checked earlier that CIIS was an accredited University. But just noticed that the psychology department is not. Does this make the source a bit weaker/invalid? Could it be used as a supporting citation? Please share your thoughts on this

3. With regard to MOS issues (Unsupported Attributions)

Agreed. And thank you!

Will do a re-look and attempt to fix them shortly.

Thanks again for your valuable feedback

Oria 6 (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all your improvements! On the doctoral thesis, thing is, first, CIIS may be accredited, but its a kind of viewed as an 'alternative views' school; and the topic of psychology shouldn't even come into this. If it does, if your point is to make claims about benefits - you'll bring the pseudoscience and fringe police down on you and the article will most likely end up deleted or merged with Pranayama or even summarized in two sentences in the wrong place in Yoga. Consensus is always changing, but right now Wikipedia is very conservative about such claims. Best you use sources that describe the practices accurately, studies of the systems of spiritual belief/religious beliefs/yogic practice. I understand that the practice may have effects - but studies on effects that are psychological or medical are going to need to come from journals. The aforesaid police will argue whether the journal is reputable enough to be used. If there were such sources, and I don't think there are yet, even then the material would best not be mixed into the article, but confined to a section at the end about Western psychological or medical studies. Basically for something like we'd want philosophical background, history of the practice, basic description of how the practice is done, perhaps a summary of the differences in views about it between different schools or sect, Western analyses of how it fits into whatever relevant Western theoretical structure of what they think is going on, and then finally any psych/medical research, if any. That last part won't survive if its based on even slighty questionable sources.... Skyerise (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Info about the school is duly noted. Thank you! Your time, patience and your recommendations are also appreciated. What you say makes a lot of sense, especially with regard to citing the said doctoral thesis as a reference to scientific study or claims of psychological benefits.

I am wondering if you feel it is ok to use it as a source when defining/describing theoretical concepts. Especially since it is a secondary source and has gone through multiple reviewers? Would this be ok? Or would you still advise to avoid using it completely?

You can use a doctoral thesis, with care, for basic information, but it does seem surprising that nothing better is available. That is often a warning sign that the information is not widely accepted.

You will see that I've removed an image from the article as it didn't appear neutral; and further that the article text as a whole appears doubtfully neutral, not least because it does not say straight out that claim xyz comes from Sahaj Marg while claim abc comes from Somebody Else. Skyerise has basically picked you up on this in a different way, pointing out that the use of passive voice ("It is said", etc) could be read as WP:WEASEL-ishly avoiding attribution for some reason, most likely that the information would be seen as sectarian. We must instead be visibly, obviously, and studiously neutral, all the time. Attributing claims to named sources, rather than risking having them look as if they are in Wikipedia's voice, is a key way to avoid the problem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you! Oria 6 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ref tags and formatting

Please stop destroying my formatting work. There should be no line breaks before or after a ref tag, that puts spaces before and between the superscripts. Also, you should never need to add <br/> tags. Just leave a blank line between paragraphs, A paragraph should be a single line of text - it should not have line breaks between sentences and ref tags go inline. Let the interface wrap the lines. Skyerise (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, we only capitalize the first word of a sentence and proper nouns. Things like 'yogic transmission' and 'spiritual master' do not get capitalized. Nor should prana, center, shakti or any other concept be capitalized. We call these "Occultist Capitals" and it's extremely bad form. Skyerise (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If you put all those line breaks in again, I won't bother fixing them. I will revert all your changes for bad formatting. You are expected to know or learn and follow our style guidelines. Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand how annoying it must've been. Humblest apologies! Oria 6 (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Effects of meditation, you may be blocked from editing. The section you added on "heartfulness" is just fictional nonsense and quackery. There are no good WP:MEDSCI reviews to support it. I have removed the section again, and ask that you engage on the article talk page to explain your thinking. Please do not edit war, WP:WAR. Zefr (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Zefr,

Your deleting the whole section was not obvious to me. So I requested a discussion and reinstated it. Wikipedia:Content Removal.

I would appreciate if you show a little understanding and not start with threating to block access. If you think the section needs more to bolster it, you can always point that out. Whether we are aligned on that or not, is a different matter. And I take exception to you calling it "fictional nonsense". Lets be respectful to each other. As if the world around us isnt already violent enough. Oria 6 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@zefr. A while ago, I had posted relevant information in defense of the content, on the article's talk page. I am assuming that your concerns have been resolved. Oria 6 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hello Oria 6: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

—¿philoserf? (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)