Hello, Bafuncius! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! paul2520 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please don't revert me again using this excuse. I was the editor who brought the issue up on the talk page, and I now agree with the editor who removed the material, so consensus is now for removal. Also, there are rules about automated translation, and I don't think you are following them. When you use automated translations, you are required to know enough about the subject to correct erroneous translations, and it seems from your comments on the talk page that you don't! Skyerise (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't self-revert your last revert, I'll take you to WP:ANI for misuse of automated translation. Skyerise (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are also violating WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: when there is a main article link at the top of the section, the summary should be no longer than the lead of that main article, and leads are restricted to four paragraphs. You are being abusive and need to self-revert now. Skyerise (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can't win an edit war against two other editors. That's why 2 to 1 wins the consensus. Skyerise (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eastern esotericism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are attempting to canvass multiple editors. You do know that's not really kosher, don't you? Here's the canned warning:

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the RS. I'm going to check each one and edit them. Hades7 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Hades7:, but please answer that question I left in your user discussion page, whether AI was used/is being used or not in your creations. As I've said, soon the community is also going to assess your created articles. Bafuncius (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the creation/redaction of the article. I have four months redacting that article, it's very manual in the main thing (otherwise I supose I could "create" all in one day). My template is a divulgative book on orientalist Western esotericism from a Catholic series (not a scholar relevant source, it's theology-apologetic style, that's why I don't use it a source) but with many non-religious/scholar footnotes, but many are just general, authors, books, etc. So, over this template of religious investigation I'm making a secular and more scholar reconstruction. I'm sure the content and the architecture of persons, trends, etc. is right in general, the authors and books and topics are part de academic study of Western esotericism. I made the research of some footnotes with the clasical Google research, but in the reasearch of comparative sources for trying to discover which could be the not so well cited sources in the book I use as a template I consulted AI, so I think that give me barely related sources (or maybe they were correct but ). What I'm doing now, to avoid this problem is to find better source/quote and put the literal quote as part of the reference, so this way the match sentence-source is clear and there is no way for future mismatches or barely matches. Hades7 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking what happened is not the barely related sources as a result of an online/AI research, because I have read the sources and I'm sure they matched -months of reading these issues- but when I gave the AI the list of the sources and pages that I already had and needed to be ordered in lists and topic conections (the architecture of concordances I made before the redaction of the article, as an algorithmic system), the lines of some references were modified at some point ("hallucinations") in a "broken telephone game" style. Anyway, I'm checking the matching again. --Hades7 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, @Hades7:! Now I understand better your effort and the origin of those errors. I'm glad it's a solvable situation and that further double-checking of the references and texts will be made in the future, to avoid AI hallucinations. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]