| Revision as of 19:56, 28 June 2012 editItsZippy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers13,923 edits You have been blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule on Astrology. (TW)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:16, 20 February 2023 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors375,960 editsm Fix Linter errors. | ||
| (62 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| == |
== History of astrology == | ||
| I like the work you're doing It reads well and is very interesting. Thank you. --] (]) 14:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I'm currently on the move (editing from my cellphone), but I'll look into this as soon as possible. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, ] 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank ''you'' (!) -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, and thank you for the civil dialogue, which is refreshing. Btw, I can't remember any WP guideline against trying to work up a lede! —] (]) 18:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Zac, I also like your efforts to improve the History of Astrology article, but it looks like other editors are going to force you to "go slow" with your changes. If you could add your proposed your changes one section at a time, it would be useful to see what specific objections (if any) come up. It'll be well worth the discussion, because the "history of astrology" article is a different kettle of fish than the main astrology article. I'm not a wikipedia expert, but I am a trained historian, so I am looking forward to examining the arguments of various editors regarding the "reliability" of various historical sources as applied to astrology.--] (]) 02:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I've replied on my talk page. ] 03:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Although no trained historian, I agree the historical approach is key here in making a genuinely reliable and interesting article on what can be a fascinating subject. Best, —] (]) 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks to you both for your trouble in making personal comments. Your contributions on the talk page have helped a lot, I think, in hopefully allowing us to create an editorial team-spirt, discuss any issues sensibly and move the page forward. Other Choice, is it OK if I refer to you as OC to save time? Now that other editors are showing an interest in the page, it makes sense to propose any additions or amendments before implementing them and I'll certainly do that. The mundane astrology situation wasn't pre-planned, it just happened, and I tried to fix that situation as best I could after I realised it caused a problem with the redirect. Obviously I used common sense there but confidently believe it resulted in an improvement. Regards, -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== AfD == | ||
| When an AfD is relisted, it does not mean you !vote again. You may note any changes or additions to your previous vote in an entry starting with *'''Comment:''', but not with either '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' (unless you are reversing your previous !vote, in which case your previous !vote should be struck out). In other words, relisting is an extension of the discussion, not the start fo a new discussion. ] (]) 22:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Zac, thank you for your valiant support in connection with my . This is to let you know that I have since seen a more constructive side to this user and being an optimist, I have decided not to take the issue any further for the time being. ] ] 16:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Obviously my mistake there. I realised pretty soon afterwards, tried to revert and explain my confusion but got an edit clash with your post. Then I thought I'd put an apology into an edit summary to explain, but looks like that didn't appear either because I made no text change. Anyway, yes, thank you for that. I understand that you were correcting a mistake with that one. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem. I assumed that you were unfamiliar with how AfD works and assumed that relisting meant that a new discussion was started. ] (]) 23:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit Warring on ] == | |||
| : You're welcome. Misplaced Pages has a lot of problems, and the problem of quoting policy to avoid common sense is one of them (the application of double standards is another). You are more of an optimist than I am, but could change my position if I ever encountered a reason to :) | |||
| Zac, just to be clear, is edit warring. I'm not going to personally revert because I don't currently have enough time to review the edit myself, but you need to review ] again. Re-introducing material which was reverted, whether that material is positive or not, and whether you've posted a message about it somewhere or not, is edit warring. So is and , making it 3 reverts in one day. Some admins would block for that; please be more careful, and rely more on the talk page than edit summaries and gaming reverts. I like a lot of edits you've made to the page, but the way you're going about it is poor. See also ]; we can always wait a day or two for discussion without forcing changes through. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 14:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Glad you re-opened the box for your comment. I like something to remain visible for at least a little before it is brushed out of sight for being the ugly problem that no one really wants to think about. ]] 17:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Jess, as you can see from the talk page other editors are now contributing, working collaboratively and moving forwards with the intention of building an encyclopedia. Let's just do that shall we? You like a lot of my edits and they were made in good faith before anyone else revealed any kind of interest in the page (so there was no one to collaborate with). Now that there is - as you can see from my last talk-page contribution - I am discussing and proposing edits and not making them on my own initiative as before. I hope to improve your view of my approach - please give me the opportunity to do that. The page is better, but still needs work. There is no reason why an article of this nature can't be something that every contributing editor takes enjoyment in developing I hope I have not alienated you too much. I will keep your comments in mind. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::In a ] situation where you changes are reverted, the standard procedure is to take things to the talk page, and not re-insert your changes again until there is agreement. ] (]) 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == merge was the result == | |||
| ==Four tildes in edit summaries== | |||
| I've noticed you sign edit summaries with four tildes. These are signed automatically and you do not need to add four tildes to them. If you do the software just adds four tildes to the end of the summary (see your watchlist). ] (]) 08:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Belated thanks for clarifying this - I've placed a note on your user page. ]] 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The result of the recent AfD discussion ] on Mundane Astrology was merge to Astrology (or optionally History of Astrology). Add a section to ] and work from there, then when it's a decent size a discussion can reach a consensus on the issue. The current text does have several issues. Mostly the basing sections off items which don't have a necessarily clear link to the topic. For example, some of Ptolemy's text looks like it applies to Astrology in general rather than the specific subtopic. ] (]) 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Memo == | |||
| : Not unless you read it with your eyes closed. There is nothing on that page which is not directly relevant to the topic. The article refers to the second book of the Tertabiblos, which is only about mundane astrology, and as the article says, the most important source of principle and technique. | |||
| :I read the policies and made sure I was following the advice given when someone wants to redevelop an article like this. The result of the process was applied to that old content; not this new content which doesn't have any of those past issues. You did the wrong thing - nothing prohibits the redevelopment of a page in this way. That's one of the reasons why the history of the page is kept in-tact, to allow future redevelopment. It's inevitable that page has to be recreated - of the 633 articles associated with the astrology project it is one of only 14 rated to be of top priority. I'll leave it to you to consider. If you think I broke a policy then I'll take it up on an appropriate board when I have more time. Or you could check the policies yourself, and use your common sense.-- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Links for my own future reference: | |||
| ::::Mundane astrology talk page - ] | |||
| :::: of the content I developed. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is already consensus on this issue to merge it to Astrology and work from there and then consider a re-split off. Consider that we currently don't have anything in the main article dedicated to mundane astrology. ] (]) 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Just a quick memo that I've to that message you told me about. I have picked up on the hint that he thinks you and I are the same person and even challenged him to file an ] against us. I hope he's ready for a chicken to squat on his face. ] (]) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mundane is one of many branches of astrology - others that are on equal standing in modern astrology include ], ], ], ], and ] - then a host of others of others of less standing, all of which have their own pages and are not explained on the main astrology page. I agree there should be something on the main page to summarise each of the main branches, but no more than a caption on each with a link to its daughter page would make sense. Did you read what I wrote above? The consensus opinion was applied when a page with a great deal of content (without references) was reduced down to a couple of sentences of text. It's illogical to argue that policy stands in the way of the potential for this page to be rebuilt with better quality references. You said the content doesn't look relevant to you, when it is entirely relevant to the topic. Since that criticsm doesn't apply, whose interests are you serving by doing what you did? Do you want this page to be prohibited because it offers another potential exposure to the details of a fringe subject? As you know, you are able to undo your own action. If you would prefer me to take the responsibility and revert you, I am happy to do so if you will avoid accusing me of edit-warring for it. ] is one of the top three branches of astrology according to the WP astrology project. where that page is shown as being one of only 14 determined to be of "top importance" -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 09:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== DRV == | ||
| I notice that you opened a case at DRV. That for articles that have been deleted, and is the wrong place to appeal a merge. The appropriate procedure can be found at ]. ] (]) 03:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| May want to see the latest reply by Atama . That would be something for either you or Robert to do if it's of interest. Let me know if you go ahead with it, I'd be interested in observing and commenting where I can contribute. ] (]) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Great Zimbabwe == | |||
| : Thanks I have just read that, and the reply. Weekends are difficult but I will try to find some time for this. Thanks, BTW, for having your eyes open and noticing the situation with the Julia Parker page - I didn't give that one as much notice as the deletion request he made for the ] page yesterday. I decided not to add to the deletion discussion myself because of the COI dispute, but placed a note on ], asking if he'd consider a speedy close as he has to similarly pointy AfD's before. Cheers ]] 08:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed your involvement with the "WikiProject Alternative Views". For some years now, I have been waging a horrendous struggle regarding the origins of '']'' - and I'm wondering if it might qualify for inclusion in that category? If so, how do I add it? ... > Essentially, there are two 'rival' theories for the origins of the ancient civilization associated with that drystone 'temple' > namely, the 'Shona' theory - and the 'Semtic' theory. I have made some progress in efforts to obtain some mention of the Semitic theory, but it is still very much an uphill battle, with only very occasional support from other editors. --] (]) 19:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Is seen rolling eyes.'' | |||
| : Hi DLMcN - the project shows my name in the list but doesn't show that I only joined the project a couple of days ago, so I've had no experience yet in how that project works. But I would suggest that you add your article to the list of articles given ], and start a new section ] to give a brief account of your concerns and the problems you are facing. | |||
| ::Another ] nom...I've closed it with a recommendation that ] be barred from AfD creation. It won't go anywhere, however, but keep all the info on his pointy AfDs, you may need it at AN/I eventually. ] (]) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I know very little about your subject and have no bias in any direction, which is sometimes useful when you want some honest feedback on whether the editing process is being conducted according to Misplaced Pages policy. If I have understood the talk issues correctly, it looks like you are someone who has expert knbowledge of the subject and is frustrated by the inability to reference your own work. There is no strict prohibition against this, so long as your work is deemed to be notable and influential on the subject; and you are careful to ensure you don't act in a way that suggests a conflict of interest in the article. However, to be allowed reference at all it has to be shown to present a notable view - which means you have to be able to show that other authors have made reference to your work. Unless or until you are able to do that, it won't be possible to use your own work, no matter how expertly informed it is. If there are other issues, make a note on the project as I suggested and I'll keep an eye on things from there. I see you have been getting advice from Dougweller. He is a much more experienced editor than I am and I have noticed that he tends to give good, reliable advice. Regards, -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many thanks - I've added "Great Zimbabwe" in "Alternative Views". I won't rush into launching a discussion in its Talk-Page, but will keep that as an option. --] (]) 06:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) ... I've now added some background information in that Talk-Page. Thanks, incidentally for looking at (and improving) the Great Zimbabwe article. --] (]) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, Zak, for your remarks in the "Alternative Views" page ... I have actually been quite busy in "Reliable Sources" - have you seen the lively response at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_possible_Semitic_civilization_in_ancient_Zimbabwe ? --] (]) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| :::Hi there - bit busy right now but will take a look later this evening or tomorrow. Glad you are getting some feedback and hope it is proving useful. More later -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 15:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Zac - thank you for stepping in and clearing up a problem with skilled editing, diligent research and sound impartiality. ] ] 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Thank you! My pleasure :) ]] 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] 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. | |||
| == AN == | |||
| 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 template from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] requested to remove the simple pipe links and make them more obvious as to what they are. I went through the first few paragraphs and make changes that I believe better illustrate your points, including changing the list of exasperated users (which I see we're both on) into a list. Can you fix the rest of your post after that point? =) ] (]) 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks so much for what you've done there - really appreciate that. I'm about to make one last post on WP for today and then I have to go out, but will pick it up again tomorrow, or later tonight if I can. My post is a breif comment, but I want to ensure everyone realises that you are completely neutral, and understands that you were aware of my complaint to Dougweller when you took the initiative on the speedy AdF close. It's difficult, because on the surface it's not obvious why that AdF was as pointy as it was, but I don't want to write more than one or two sentences, so as not to derail the more important focus of the complaint. Uninvolved editors are going to struggle to appreciate how long and enduring these pointy tagging and deletion problems have been, unfortunately. Cheers, ]] 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just a quick point. It's AfD standing for "Articles for Deletion". I also corrected this in your post earlier. =) ] (]) 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::As you have yet to reply, I will interrupt my brief hiatus to the cosmic extremities of the galaxy to use my superpowers of creating the comments your comments could look like (sorry, been watching Old Spice ads) to edit this post. It has been brought to my attention (even if merely by a chance look and my extreme scanning abilities) that a certain Derek Parker has appeared at ]. It may be nothing to be concerned about, but I just thought this might be something to keep an eye on. Obviously his !vote in any debate would be discounted, but he is not attempting to !vote, so I presume that all will remain peaceful and no civic incivilities shall occur. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must head off to my starship for a peaceful rest. I will be back when it feels like August 2 to me. ] (]) 05:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification of Arbitration Enforcement == | |||
| ::: HI CycloneGU. Thanks for correcting my spelling of AfD! I've been posting too much, too quickly, and it's amazing to me when I look over my earlier posts and find spelling mistakes that were invisible when I first posted them. :) I've looked over my AN post again - to be honest, I don't think it will help to expand any more of those links. It could make my points more difficult to follow, to cut into an example of every point. I see the links as like references (fine to follow if the reader wants to, but disruptive to insert straight into the main text). What you did earlier is helpful, but my inclination is to leave it as it is now, and hope that the overall point is made clearly enough for the proposal to get strong support. There are so many points that could be linked to, that I deliberately wanted the links to remain discreet within the complaint so that the point of the complaint didn't get lost in too many words. But it's also a 'detach from the situation' thing for me - as someone who has been involved, I don't want to get more involved with that unless required to. I have to trust that good sense will prevail within the WP community, and if not, then I suppose I just have to deal with that ! :) | |||
| I have requested arbitration enforcement due to your continued disruption of astrology articles. Please respond . ] (]) 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just took another look at the Julia Parker thread. I don't have any contact of Derek Parker as an editor here, but it looks sensible that he doesn't try to vote - not that I would see that as a problem personally though. I spent most of yesterday working on a biography that was within a few hours of a deletion deadline, and it makes me wonder why these questions of notability are raised on biographies that are clearly about publicly known individuals who have made regular appearances in the media and, as in the Parker case - written a host of books. I'm not a deletionist on WP. The reason I value this project is because I remember how I once struggled to get access to obscure information in the past, to me it's more important that the information is reliable and robustly referenced by independent sources. But anyway, spurred by your comments I just checked the policy on ] and it says this: "If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the *proposed deletion* tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed". This comes as news to me - I thought these things rested on a majority 'keep' vote. Will raise this on the page to see if there is a reason why it doesn't apply here. | |||
| :The result of the AE thread can be found . ] (]) 18:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * article in your user space can be construed as a violation of your new topic ban, it's '''broadly construed''' and the mirroring can be interpreted as you still being involved in the topic.... — <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Raeky is correct. Topic bans extend to user space. Sorry, but you're not allowed to edit anything astrology related any where on Misplaced Pages. Since this is probably your first topic ban, I'll assume good faith that you didn't know this. ] (]) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: BTW, that page also says that once a deletion request has been removed, the page cannot be put back for deletion again. That is what happened with the NCGR page, which was relisted twice in quick succession by the same editor, even though the initial problems were rectified. So your speedy keep action appears to be even more justified than I had realised. Best wishes, ]] 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, these mirrored astrology articles are still there. Is anybody going to delete them, since these mirrored articles are no longer on wp. ] (]) 08:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I say the following in a perfectly friend tone: your newness to WP stands out above. =) I'll explain: | |||
| ::::You can put them up for ]. Article space isn't meant to be a place of indefinite storage for articles in progress. ] (]) 11:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the *proposed deletion* tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.'' | |||
| ::::That's not in reference to AfD. That's in reference to '''proposed deletion''' (or PROD - as in being poked I guess). See ]. PROD tags stay on articles for 7 days as a method to propose deletion. If no one removes them, it is agreed that there is no objection to deletion and an admin. will delete the page (see ] for a recent one I have seen it with, and I would have removed it had I known about it; it went to AfD 6 minutes after being restored and wound up kept for what will be obvious reasons). If removed, they cannot be replaced (it's been done to me tho. after removing one...) and the matter HAS to go to AfD. At AfD, it must play out unless speedily closed for a valid reason, then it's closed by an administrator after 7 days (they may extend if no consensus) in the case of delete or a contentious issue, or can be done by anyone with an obvious keep who knows what they're doing (I've closed the odd discussion). AfD tags removed from the article can be summarily replaced by anyone noticing it, but often the nominator is watching the article and restoring it. ] (]) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thanks again for the friendly filling-in! There is soo much to learn here isn't there? More complicated than chess :) Luckily I didn't make an issue of that anywhere, since I had a few doubts I knew what I was talking about anyway. Instead I looked at the Parker page again and decided to try to help fix it. Just can't see how the argument about poor notability on that one can hold. Well, we'll see - one thing I have learned is that WP will go where the consensus of opinion lies, regardless of what I think myself. That's not a bad thing. Also, I'm discovering more and more that there is a good spirit of generosity in the editors here, which wasn't what I experienced initially - just lately I've had a lot of helpful direction from other editors who point out little things I hadn't understood. I'm always surprised when complete strangers take the trouble to do that. Cheers, ]] 14:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Gee, Zak, it looks like you're getting the same bum's rush that every one else has gotten who tried to bring Wiki's astrology articles into the 21st century. Wiki is deeply hostile to astrology, which is based directly upon what you will find in Diderot's Encyclopedie, of 1750. (Those opinions have never been re-examined, not in 260 years.) For his part, Diderot based his authority on French monarchism, which was absolute. You should read Diderot's original article on astrology. It's available in English and it's on line. It is shameful. | |||
| Got your comment on my page. For reference, it's often better to start a new section unless your last discussion IS the most recent section; I almost missed the thread. For my own sanity, I'm going to move it to the bottom when I comment. Give me a moment to catch up. =) Also, I play chess. I'm on a horse. (Damn, the Old Spice thing again.) ] (]) 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Which came out of the 30 Years War, which was the result of the Reformation, which was an attack against Church corruption that got combined with the Church's own laissez-faire attitude towards paganism in general. So far as the Church was concerned, witches and pagans and such like did not exist and we did not need to worry about them. The Church had, in fact, co-opted all of this centuries earlier, by making pagan gods into saints and local shamans into priests. | |||
| {{done}} See my talk page. ] (]) 16:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Luther's people, by contrast, were determined to see evil everywhere. Witches. Astrology. Superstition. All these things which were not right and which God decreed had to be put down. | |||
| == Psychological Astrology == | |||
| The "Enlightenment" of 1650 came hard on the heels of the 30 Years War, and, notably, in Paris, as opposed to the devastated Germany, whose culture was largely lost. The Encyclopedie was an effort to use the power of the press to define the world in absolute terms, which the Church had never dared attempt. Wiki is a close copy of that Encyclopedie, it has many of the same goals. It is using the power of the internet to achieve political, not scientific, ends. | |||
| Hi Zac, I have been working on the ] page and would be grateful for your critical edits or comments. ] ] 22:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi Robert - just finishing off a last post and then I need to take a wiki break for a couple of days. But will be more than happy to take a look soon as I can get some other projects off my desk. Cheers ]] 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Which is to say that, right at the very beginning of modern "science", there was a list of approved and disapproved topics, and no amount of evidence has changed things since. It is Wiki's clear intention to drive astrology back into the stone age. It is my clear intention to not let them, which is why I was eventually banned even from my own user page. When I deleted all my cookies I found I was no longer restricted, but I am unable to sign my posts. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| I'll let you handle ]. I'm on my way to bed and you know more about it NEway. May wanna provide details answering all of his statements right there instead of just saying it's all in past discussions. I recommended answering each line directly below that line with examples specific to that line. ] (]) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 15:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediate== | |||
| : Hi CycloneGU - I was finishing off some edits and then I intended to comment again. But I see that the ban has been enacted now, so I suppose it's not worth commenting further. Some of the arguments are very twisted and selective, but I was interested to hear the comment about Chinese astrology not being featured on the astrology page. I only got involved in that page (in a talk page discussion) at the end of June, and then he followed a few days later. Since then I've contributed to that page a lot and followed all the discussions. He has never once proposed that Chinese astrology is being ignored and ought to receive some coverage. It makes me wonder if he had an issue about this from the start, which explains why all his input has been so negative and disrutive. The page is essentially about western astrology but it's a fair point that it could briefly mention Chinese astrology (along with other systems) and include a link to the page on Chinese astrology. Not sure why he didn't simply make the suggestion.In any case the whole page is being worked over so I'm going to keep that one in mind. It's not the case that astrologers of one system show disrespect to those of another, or rivalry between them as someone might assume following this situaion. | |||
| As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination). For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.] (]) 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Anyway, a good result. My only concern is that I don't believe this is the editor's only account. Your contribution has been very helpful and I think the result of it will be that WP improves its pages related to this theme significantly now that a massive time-wasting factor has been brought to a close. Thanks for ensuring that it got a close. ]] 13:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Re: Need some help understanding project category pages == | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| {{Tb|Stepheng3}} | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692071653 --> | |||
| ==Draft Core Principles Para 2== | |||
| == Nomination for merger of ] == | |||
| HI Zac, I have set out a draft proposal for para 2 of core principals - see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Robertcurrey/draft-sandbox3. You are welcome to edit, if you can make deletions <s>(with crossings out)</s> and additions <u>(with underlines)</u> so others can follow the changes. I hope I have kept to the gist of your original post. I have not put in notes or citations at this stage (and you or anyone else is welcome to do so). | |||
| ]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] (]) 01:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| (mistakenly posted this on your sand box) ] ] 01:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 01:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi Robert - added my suggestion below yours, based on your text. Sorry, didn't have time to add markup so I placed it below to keep it separate. Cheers, -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Rollback == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello, following a review of ], I have enabled ] on your account. Please take note of the following: | |||
| *Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including ] and ], some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution | |||
| *Rollback is only for blatant ] | |||
| *Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority | |||
| *Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator | |||
| *Please read ] and ] to get to know the workings of the feature | |||
| *You can test Rollback at ] | |||
| *You can display the {{tlx|User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox or the {{tlx|Rollback}} top icon on your user page | |||
| :If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. ] (]) 14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Astrology categories == | |||
| Feel free to fire away regarding category questions. I acknowledge, FWIW, that the subject could still use a lot more content, and better developed content, if you're thinking about additional articles, and also acknowledge that I am far less than perfect myself in such matters. But, yeah, ask away. ] (]) 20:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi John - thanks for getting back to me. The problem has been resolved now because Stepheng3 answered what I wanted to know - details are on the Astrology project discussion page: ]. | |||
| : Basically, I wanted to update the categories so I could design an astrology info-box that navigated through them. I've done something now so you can take a look at how I've used the category list on the main ] page (top menu box). Chris Brennan has recently reopened the astrology project and I am trying to help update and improve content as best I can, but there are many problems and a few editors - feels like the wind is whistling down once busy streets. Anything you can do at any time will be a big morale boost. Currently, most editors I have got to know are working on the main Astrology page. Just a handful - but at least a little pulse is left there :) Cheers -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have less time to spend on the project in general than I used to, given external considerations sometimes take me out of areas of easy net access, but I can do what I can myself. In general, though, as a general principle, maybe one of the best ways to ensure quality of content is consult the extant reference works and other general, preferably academic, overviews which deal with the subject, and structure content more or less in accord with them, acknowledging differences and any changes which may have taken place since they were published, and try to use the sources they indicate as references for citations, given their apparent high regard. This won't resolve all questions, by any means, particularly on newer subjects, but it might help a bit. ] (]) 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Taking a Wiki break == | |||
| Hi Zachariel, I'll be away for a sojourn in India. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work with you editing astrology articles. I'll be back in a couple of weeks. ] (]) 17:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Aries template == | |||
| <div style=" | |||
| border:solid 1px #57DB1E; | |||
| background:#E6FFE6; | |||
| padding:1em; | |||
| padding-top:0.5em; | |||
| padding-bottom:0.5em; | |||
| width:20em; | |||
| color:black; | |||
| margin-bottom: 1.5em; | |||
| margin-left: 1.5em; | |||
| width: 90%; | |||
| ">] '''], which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.''' | |||
| * Please continue making quality contributions to ]. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can ], and don't have to post a request. | |||
| * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{feedback link | |||
| |page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation | |||
| |text=leaving us some feedback. | |||
| |plain=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| Thank you for helping Misplaced Pages! | |||
| </div><!--Template:Afc talk--> Template created via afc. ] ]<sup>''L ''</sup>] 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The template has been moved to the Template space with the history intact. ] (]) 13:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Solar Ingress Dates== | |||
| Zac, There appears to be a lot of arguing and editing of the 'correct' start and end dates for 'each zodiac sign' in pages involving the signs of the Zodiac. Since the solar Ingress varies from year to year, I propose that all these dates should be either quoted as a range of dates based or the earliest possible dates in the West and latest date in the Eest or a midpoint date is calculated and agreed and always used with a footnote clarifying how it works. What do you think? ] ] 21:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: On the pages I have edited I inserted the comment"(sometimes the dates vary slightly)". I don't think we need to do much more than that but if you do then I'm fine with you doing it. The dates in the info box are calculated by some sort of formula and I don't understand how that works. Overall I don't think there should be too many dates according to too many systems, that would be confusing IMO.-- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Cursory Observation == | |||
| I notice that MakeSense64 has not edited since the topic ban went into effect. How have things been in the astrology category lately? ] (]) 17:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I think it is what would be called "normal" :). It feels good to be able to work on page-content rather than waste endless time in attempts at dispute resolution that go nowhere. There's a lot of work to be done on the astrology pages so it has to be beneficial to have a period of calm. Things are quiet at the moment, with a lot of editors away, but there seems to be a good sense of everyone working in the right direction and rebuilding content on reliable source material. Little chips here and there, but it's slowly coming together. Would be good to have it in pretty good shape within ther next 5/6 months. Thanks for showing an interest, -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR on ] == | |||
| ] Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of ]  after a review of the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others and avoid editing ].<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware, the ] states that: | |||
| # '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.''' | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing without further notice.'''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> Cheers, ] (]) 03:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : It is innapropriate for you to place a 3RR notice on my talk-page when it is not relevant. Please explain why you think I have exceeded three reversions. | |||
| : In addition, be aware that the reversions I have made were not to enagage in edit-warring (which is why I have ceased comment and decided to stand back for a while). My interest is that of an involved editor protecting content that has been collaboratively developed by a group of editors who have surveyed the subject critically, invested good time into the article, and striven to meet all appropriate policies. Your non-constructive changes have removed highly relevant and firmly substantiated content without good reason, so please read the warning above and apply it to yourself. I have also drawn your attention to the policy statement given on the talk-page, and suggest you adhere to that to avoid any further waste of your time. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 03:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == More specific RfC on astrology == | |||
| Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: ] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ] (]) 13:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The reformulated RfC is a new RfC, not a continuation of the other one, which was closed because it was not specific. Do not move. ] (]) 14:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You are welcome! I try to write descriptive edit summaries to help readers know why I made edits. I noticed that itwas a good article and even a featured article candidate. I am surprised the article had read the way it did. Let me know if I can help further on other articles or this article as well!] (]) 03:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mechanisms Section== | |||
| Zac, thank you for your message about the proposed improvements to the mechanism section. I would much like to contribute to your excellent work, but I am unable to do so due to limited on-line opportunities while I am away on business. I will be back early next week. ] ] 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Not policy == | |||
| is not policy text. Please tread more carefully. ] (]) 20:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm treading carefully. Please do the same. It's not for you to reword the warnings and policies that have been applied specifically to that page because of its controversial nature -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I suggest that you need more global exposure to the wiki. Have you considered editing pages unrelated to your professional interests? ] (]) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What a suggestion - do you think I am making money out of this? The pages are related to the subject I have good, reliable knowledge of. No, I don't have an interest in editing pages that I don't have a good, reliable knowledge of. Just can't manage the enthusiasm needed to edit pages that fall outside my own interests. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I suggest that if you intend to lecture me about what editors are and are not permitted to do, you actually get exposure to what editors are and are not permitted to do. Until such time as you have such exposure, I suggest you tread far more carefully before you accuse me of violating policy again. ] (]) 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Actually I gave you a friendly note, rather than the template warning of disruptive editing that ought to be given when editors ignore page policy and change referenced text significantly without consideration of consensus (as this page requires). Thank you for your suggestion though; I'll give it the attention it deserves. There obviously won't be a problem if your proposed edits are sensible ones. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| You're at 3R already on ]; please beware ]. More, you appear to be reverting to your preferred text with a spurious reason - viz, that it is long-standing and pre-dates your arrival at the page. that isn't true; you changed it yourself: please see the article talk page ] (]) 22:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Oh as if I would advise you to check the history if I had any rememberence of inputting into that text myself. So what I said "wasn't true" but it was a mistake based on not remembering something, not intentional deceit. Of course, you will see the situation as you wish to. I do know about 3RR, and that 3 does not equal more than 3. I have said that I am ruling myself out of that discussion - what I did was done in good faith, but am more than happy to leave this for other editors to decide what makes best sense overall. Cheers -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverting == | |||
| I am strongly concerned that you have taken ]ership over ], and are using reversion as opposed to discussion as a tool. In edit, you revert the removal of the bibliography. You may wish to note ]. Please be certain when reverting that you are not reverting against consensus, and if you do engage in reverting, you also engage in discussion. ] (]) 12:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Hipocrite, please stop issuing bad faith assumptions. It's ridiculous to accuse me of ] when that was my first edit for 6 days, and was a simple, necessary reversion of an edit which removed the entire bibliography. As explained in my edit summary, the bibliography holds the source text details. (Just go to the first reference of the page and click the author link to see how it links to the bibliography for source text details, following ]). This list was originally labelled 'sources', but someone decided to change it without prior discussion. The bibliography details need to be incorporated into the references if the citation style applied to the page is to be changed. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: No, your edit summary was not sufficient explanation. But you have now provided an explanation, thank you ] (]) 14:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Out of courtesy I am happy to respond to questions that I am made aware of, if I can help with a problem, but please be aware that until the negativity of the current editorial activity ceases I won't be following the discussions of that page on a daily basis. This situation here, where I am accused of trying to own the page, for making an obvious restoration of essential reference information is an example of editors being discourteous and disrespectful where there is no need to be. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If you're reverting and edit you really ought to take the trouble to find out if someone has recently added a carefully-labelled section on the talk page about the issue. Given the bad atmosphere there, that is only due diligence. Expecting people to come ask you is not acceptable. Blaming others for your discourtesy is also unacceptable. There is quite enough trouble on that talk page without adding to it ] (]) 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you feel the need to continue this, carry on as you will, but I won't be responding again. I expect no one to come and ask me things, just like I don't go making issues out of nothing on other editor's talk-pages, or looking for reasons not to restore an essential bibliography which gives the information that most of the pages references depend on. William, if you can't take the trouble to see how the references are made redundant by your removal of the entire list of sources, then you are not well placed to criticize me for reverting and explaining the reason in a brief but self-evident edit-summary. Being accused of ‘ownership’ for my bothering to rescue essential reference information is as discourteous as it is ridiculous, and since the only talk-page comment I have made today is to politely explain why the information needs rebuilding if the bibliography is deleted, then it’s just as ridiculous for you to suggest that I am adding to trouble on the talk-page. Far from trying to 'own' the astrology-page, I am exercising my editorial right to have less to do with it than I have in the past – specifically because of nonsense situations like this. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{Tb|Rothorpe}} | |||
| ==Template== | |||
| Hi Zac, a couple of editors on the astrology talk page are asking about the formatting of the template that you put up on the ] page. Are you able to fix it as I don't dare touch it as it looks like a house of cards? ] ] 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==] == | |||
| As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the ] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to ]. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad ], described ] and below. | |||
| *Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. | |||
| *The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. | |||
| *Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. | |||
| *Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently ]), or the Committee. | |||
| These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. | |||
| Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. | |||
| This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC on ] == | |||
| Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: ]. Thank you! ] (]) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == 3rr violation == | |||
| You have violated the 3rr rule by reintroducing the McRitchie source to the article for the fourth time. Please stop edit warring, and get consensus for any additions, deletions or reversions at the talk page first. Failure to do so can result in a block. ] (]) 18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Dominus, your editing of the ] page today has lacked all semblence of integrity and rationality. You know full well that I am not edit warring (just as I was not edit warring before, having only made one editorial input on that ocasion - you however ''were'' edit-warring by repeatedly reverting another editor's text). The 3RR rule does not extend to the sensible protection of important passages of collaboratively agreed and reliably referenced text. Whole sections are currently being ripped out of the article without good reason or editorial agreement. It seems the eagerness to remove non-derogatory text has even inspired some editors to endorse removals of passage of text before they can even be bothered to read them fully. I should not be blocked or banned for acting in the interests of WP by preventing this destruction of content before other editors get the opportunity to review and comment. | |||
| ::With regard to the McRitchie source - the comment itself should stay even if the ref goes, or at least be considered separatly, because I added the ref; the content existed beforehand. I concede that issue is a sensitive one and feel any concern about that ref should be directed at me, since I elected to place it iun spite of McRitchie's own resevations. Having put myself out to offer an explanation on that, you should allow the necessary time for other editors to review and comment. That is the place for the discussion, not here - if there is agreement that the reference should go, despite the explanation I have put forward, then there will be no resistence from me for someone else (who has not issued ad hominem attacks on McRitchie) to remove it. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 18:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::For your benefit, I want to let you know ] does, in fact, apply in that case. The only exceptions to 3RR are reverting banned editors, protecting articles under the provisions of ], and reverting vandalism. For example, reverting ] or ] violations are not exceptions to 3RR. Now, if someone was wholesale removing content with no discussion and no edit summaries, that might be vandalism, but it sounds like there is discussion here. If you're having problems, consider using ]. Lastly, please note that you cannot require users to consult you specifically about any given part of the text; if the consensus of other editors is to remove something, it can be removed (again, seek dispute resolution if you can't get consensus). ] (]) 15:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Thanks for your concern. Not sure if you followed what was happening on the talk-page and the recent events that had set a backdrop of tension, but there were some complicated issues going on and the matter wasn't straightforward. Calm seems to have been restored so to go into them now probably wouldn't be constructive. I'm hoping myself and others will be able to take some time off from debates about unneccesarily contentious issues and spend that time developing good quality, non-controversial content. That seems to be the will of most editors from what I can see now. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 13:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Replacing ISBN with search of worldcat == | |||
| This is not a correct thing to do. The "ISBN" keyword automatically creates a link on Misplaced Pages that allows the user to search multiple sources, including Worldcat. | |||
| Also, you did not even mention that you were doing this in any edit comment. You made other minor changes ''after'' making this ''major'' change. So I've had to revert <s>most if not all</s> some (see below) of your changes because due to edit conflict I was unable to back out only this change. Sorry. You should absolutely discuss on the talk page before making a decision to do such a thing. ] (]) 15:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| OK, I've managed to restore all your changes to the article ''except'' those to the Works cited section. Any changes made there besides the change to the ISBN field will need to be redone. ] (]) 16:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It will be much easier for me to revert your change and then revert the ISBN entries manually once I have clarification from the FA reviewer that this is required. I changed them on my understanding of the instruction given by the reviewer - I now see you have noticed that. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, of course. That's how I'd do it. There's a page somewhere about it. ] probably (yup). There are so many policies, guidelines and features it's impossible to know them all. I find that searching for "WP:WHATEVER" goes a long way toward finding these details. ] (]) 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Zac. I wondered if you wanted to have a look at a post on ] about the above article. Editors are needed who aren't going to be dragged into a debate about "what kind of Catholic are you?". (I assume that, like me, you aren't any kind of Catholic.) If you can give an uninvolved view about sourcing, it would be appreciated. This is genuine BTW. ] (]) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Not for me. Please don't assume I'm not any kind of Catholic - why should this matter anyway? You have made too many assumptions lately, leading to published statements that are not true (like suggesting I vote-stacked/canvassed, and the statement you just made about the astrology project having an involvement in the FA request). You admit to spending hours tracing my contribution history, and then appear as someone who is presenting an "independent" review of an article I have nominated. I would ask you to back off a little from what is starting to feel like wiki-hounding. Be certain that your deletions of content I attempt to develop are well supported and the reasons for blanking content that I have referenced are properly justified, because if it is necessary for us to engage in dispute resolution we should do that.-- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 02:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your post on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome== | |||
| I hope you get some responses from your post, which was appropriately worded. I have been involved a bit with getting a couple of articles to FA, and in both cases it took a huge collective effort at the end. ] (]) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom request for clarification == | |||
| You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at ] - ] - ] 20:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks - I'll take a look and add a comment soon. I certainly hope we do get some clarification on this -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 05:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ]. == | |||
| I'm curious to see what happens to a big rat's nest of fringe ideas that are actually based on fiction. For now, let's just stand back and see what, if anything, happens. - ] - ] 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{tb|Yworo}} | |||
| == Starting a new essay == | |||
| ] | |||
| Your input would be appreciated. Talk page of the subpage might be easiest to coordinate things. - ] - ] 06:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == I hope to be as constructive an editor as you are someday == | |||
| Seriously. I have been looking at comments at ] and decided that there is too much belittling of editors in a backhanded sort of way that seems to be talking down to others. I have started a Village Pump discussion on this . Please feel free to weigh in. I can't seem to see past my own bias on the subject of rude replies.--] (]) 12:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Category:Astrology magazines== | |||
| ''']''', which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. -- ] (] - ]) 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == GOCE May mid-drive newsletter == | |||
| {| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); {{border-radius}} {{box-shadow|8px|8px|12px|rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 )}}" | |||
| | <span style="font-size: 110%;">'''] ] mid-drive newsletter'''</span> | |||
| <div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div> | |||
| <div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">]</div> | |||
| <hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" /> | |||
| '''Participation''': Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. {{j|]!}} | |||
| '''Progress report''': We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. | |||
| '''Hall of Fame''': GOCE coordinator ] was awarded a spot in the GOCE ] this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: ], ] and ] | |||
| {{center | |||
| | ''']''' | |||
| <small>To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from ]. Newsletter delivered by ] (]) 14:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC) </small> | |||
| }} | |||
| |} | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0270 --> | |||
| == Rollback == | |||
| Hi Zachariel, | |||
| From the discussion on ], it has come to my attention that you have been misusing the rollback function. On the talk page, IRWolfie warned you about using the rollback feature for reverting in content disputes. Despite this, I see of rollback in content disputes. Please review ], which lists when rollback is appropriate - "reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with" is not one of the legitimate uses of rollback. | |||
| If you persist in using rollback for reverting good-faith edits, an administrator may remove rollback from your account. —] (]) 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for taking the trouble to explain and warn me. It wasn't deliberate, even though it happened twice. I've been outside of the editing process for a while and haven't got used to things again yet because the interface has changed. Wasn't sure how to undo two simultaneous edits in one go so I could make a change that fixed the problem, and thought I'd be able to leave an edit summary if I did a certain sort of rollback. The first time it was done quickly, the second time I stared for a bit, but then ended up doing the same thing. I did give full reasoning on the talk page beforehand though, which seems to have got a lot less attention than this :). But I will watch this and rediscover the use of roll-back through obvious vandalism. Thanks, -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 08:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Heads up == | |||
| Just a friendly reminder to watch out for 3RR on Astrology. {{mdash}}] (]) 14:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for the reminder (I am aware), but I'm also aware that some editors are removing content without giving appropriate reasons. I would appreciate it if you left a note of your reasoning on the talk page where the content has and is being discussed. The use of the box is explained there and I don't understand why you would argue that the inclusion of a clear and defining medieval statement on how astrology was differentiated from astrology "muddles things". Hence, until some logical reason is given for the removal of the content, it's not illogical for me to persist in reinserting it and asking for explanation from anyone who quickly deletes it without proper talk-page explanation. Hope you understand that. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Another warning about edit warring on Atrology == | |||
| Don't edit war. It is YOUR responsibility to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first and get consensus. ] (]) 03:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: You are the one who edit-wars and makes a farce of any editors attempt to provide reliable information. You take out reliable information that is well cited, with every change explained in the edit summary, and you just wipe out everything as if these academic sources don't exist. Quite pathetic. What a state of insecurity must exist in your mind. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Quote == | |||
| I've pasted a quote of yours here . The thread is about whether Richard Tarnas represents the views of most astrologers. ] (]) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2012 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::And for the record Raeky, note that I have not undone or changed "another editor's work—whether in whole or in part". I added a tag, as necessary, to show that false information was presented. As noted in talk, one appropriate reference was all that was needed to substantiate the content. No one can support it or verify it - it is false, it is not even synth (synth at least draws from the comments of published works). It is just a lie presented as fact. I acted appropriately in tagging the problem - did you act appropriately in removing the tag? No. Tags should only be removed when the unreliable content is removed, substantiated or appropriately edited. Having more editors acting innapropriately than the one who acts appropriately does not constitue legitimate consensus 18:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given your talk page history, 1RR is probably appropriate, and given this latest bout, be surprised if an admin doesn't take notice. — <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ] at ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the ] first. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)</div>{{z10}}<!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
Latest revision as of 19:16, 20 February 2023
| This is Zachariel's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
History of astrology
I like the work you're doing there. It reads well and is very interesting. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you (!) -- Zac Δ 14:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and thank you for the civil dialogue, which is refreshing. Btw, I can't remember any WP guideline against trying to work up a lede! —MistyMorn (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Zac, I also like your efforts to improve the History of Astrology article, but it looks like other editors are going to force you to "go slow" with your changes. If you could add your proposed your changes one section at a time, it would be useful to see what specific objections (if any) come up. It'll be well worth the discussion, because the "history of astrology" article is a different kettle of fish than the main astrology article. I'm not a wikipedia expert, but I am a trained historian, so I am looking forward to examining the arguments of various editors regarding the "reliability" of various historical sources as applied to astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although no trained historian, I agree the historical approach is key here in making a genuinely reliable and interesting article on what can be a fascinating subject. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both for your trouble in making personal comments. Your contributions on the talk page have helped a lot, I think, in hopefully allowing us to create an editorial team-spirt, discuss any issues sensibly and move the page forward. Other Choice, is it OK if I refer to you as OC to save time? Now that other editors are showing an interest in the page, it makes sense to propose any additions or amendments before implementing them and I'll certainly do that. The mundane astrology situation wasn't pre-planned, it just happened, and I tried to fix that situation as best I could after I realised it caused a problem with the redirect. Obviously I used common sense there but confidently believe it resulted in an improvement. Regards, -- Zac Δ 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although no trained historian, I agree the historical approach is key here in making a genuinely reliable and interesting article on what can be a fascinating subject. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Zac, I also like your efforts to improve the History of Astrology article, but it looks like other editors are going to force you to "go slow" with your changes. If you could add your proposed your changes one section at a time, it would be useful to see what specific objections (if any) come up. It'll be well worth the discussion, because the "history of astrology" article is a different kettle of fish than the main astrology article. I'm not a wikipedia expert, but I am a trained historian, so I am looking forward to examining the arguments of various editors regarding the "reliability" of various historical sources as applied to astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
AfD
When an AfD is relisted, it does not mean you !vote again. You may note any changes or additions to your previous vote in an entry starting with *Comment:, but not with either Keep or Delete (unless you are reversing your previous !vote, in which case your previous !vote should be struck out). In other words, relisting is an extension of the discussion, not the start fo a new discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously my mistake there. I realised pretty soon afterwards, tried to revert and explain my confusion but got an edit clash with your post. Then I thought I'd put an apology into an edit summary to explain, but looks like that didn't appear either because I made no text change. Anyway, yes, thank you for that. I understand that you were correcting a mistake with that one. -- Zac Δ 22:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. I assumed that you were unfamiliar with how AfD works and assumed that relisting meant that a new discussion was started. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit Warring on History of Astrology
Zac, just to be clear, this is edit warring. I'm not going to personally revert because I don't currently have enough time to review the edit myself, but you need to review WP:EW again. Re-introducing material which was reverted, whether that material is positive or not, and whether you've posted a message about it somewhere or not, is edit warring. So is this and this, making it 3 reverts in one day. Some admins would block for that; please be more careful, and rely more on the talk page than edit summaries and gaming reverts. I like a lot of edits you've made to the page, but the way you're going about it is poor. See also WP:DEADLINE; we can always wait a day or two for discussion without forcing changes through. — Jess· Δ♥ 14:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jess, as you can see from the talk page other editors are now contributing, working collaboratively and moving forwards with the intention of building an encyclopedia. Let's just do that shall we? You like a lot of my edits and they were made in good faith before anyone else revealed any kind of interest in the page (so there was no one to collaborate with). Now that there is - as you can see from my last talk-page contribution - I am discussing and proposing edits and not making them on my own initiative as before. I hope to improve your view of my approach - please give me the opportunity to do that. The page is better, but still needs work. There is no reason why an article of this nature can't be something that every contributing editor takes enjoyment in developing I hope I have not alienated you too much. I will keep your comments in mind. -- Zac Δ 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- In a WP:BRD situation where you changes are reverted, the standard procedure is to take things to the talk page, and not re-insert your changes again until there is agreement. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
merge was the result
The result of the recent AfD discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mundane_astrology on Mundane Astrology was merge to Astrology (or optionally History of Astrology). Add a section to Astrology and work from there, then when it's a decent size a discussion can reach a consensus on the issue. The current text does have several issues. Mostly the basing sections off items which don't have a necessarily clear link to the topic. For example, some of Ptolemy's text looks like it applies to Astrology in general rather than the specific subtopic. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not unless you read it with your eyes closed. There is nothing on that page which is not directly relevant to the topic. The article refers to the second book of the Tertabiblos, which is only about mundane astrology, and as the article says, the most important source of principle and technique.
- I read the policies and made sure I was following the advice given when someone wants to redevelop an article like this. The result of the process was applied to that old content; not this new content which doesn't have any of those past issues. You did the wrong thing - nothing prohibits the redevelopment of a page in this way. That's one of the reasons why the history of the page is kept in-tact, to allow future redevelopment. It's inevitable that page has to be recreated - of the 633 articles associated with the astrology project it is one of only 14 rated to be of top priority. I'll leave it to you to consider. If you think I broke a policy then I'll take it up on an appropriate board when I have more time. Or you could check the policies yourself, and use your common sense.-- Zac Δ 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Links for my own future reference:
- Mundane astrology talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mundane_astrology
- Diff of the content I developed. -- Zac Δ 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Links for my own future reference:
- There is already consensus on this issue to merge it to Astrology and work from there and then consider a re-split off. Consider that we currently don't have anything in the main article dedicated to mundane astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mundane is one of many branches of astrology - others that are on equal standing in modern astrology include natal, horary, electional, psychological, and medical - then a host of others of others of less standing, all of which have their own pages and are not explained on the main astrology page. I agree there should be something on the main page to summarise each of the main branches, but no more than a caption on each with a link to its daughter page would make sense. Did you read what I wrote above? The consensus opinion was applied when a page with a great deal of content (without references) was reduced down to a couple of sentences of text. It's illogical to argue that policy stands in the way of the potential for this page to be rebuilt with better quality references. You said the content doesn't look relevant to you, when it is entirely relevant to the topic. Since that criticsm doesn't apply, whose interests are you serving by doing what you did? Do you want this page to be prohibited because it offers another potential exposure to the details of a fringe subject? As you know, you are able to undo your own action. If you would prefer me to take the responsibility and revert you, I am happy to do so if you will avoid accusing me of edit-warring for it. Mundane astrology is one of the top three branches of astrology according to the WP astrology project. See here where that page is shown as being one of only 14 determined to be of "top importance" -- Zac Δ 09:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is already consensus on this issue to merge it to Astrology and work from there and then consider a re-split off. Consider that we currently don't have anything in the main article dedicated to mundane astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
DRV
I notice that you opened a case at DRV. That for articles that have been deleted, and is the wrong place to appeal a merge. The appropriate procedure can be found at WP:NDDD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Great Zimbabwe
I noticed your involvement with the "WikiProject Alternative Views". For some years now, I have been waging a horrendous struggle regarding the origins of Great Zimbabwe - and I'm wondering if it might qualify for inclusion in that category? If so, how do I add it? ... > Essentially, there are two 'rival' theories for the origins of the ancient civilization associated with that drystone 'temple' > namely, the 'Shona' theory - and the 'Semtic' theory. I have made some progress in efforts to obtain some mention of the Semitic theory, but it is still very much an uphill battle, with only very occasional support from other editors. --DLMcN (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi DLMcN - the project shows my name in the list but doesn't show that I only joined the project a couple of days ago, so I've had no experience yet in how that project works. But I would suggest that you add your article to the list of articles given on this page, and start a new section on this page to give a brief account of your concerns and the problems you are facing.
- I know very little about your subject and have no bias in any direction, which is sometimes useful when you want some honest feedback on whether the editing process is being conducted according to Misplaced Pages policy. If I have understood the talk issues correctly, it looks like you are someone who has expert knbowledge of the subject and is frustrated by the inability to reference your own work. There is no strict prohibition against this, so long as your work is deemed to be notable and influential on the subject; and you are careful to ensure you don't act in a way that suggests a conflict of interest in the article. However, to be allowed reference at all it has to be shown to present a notable view - which means you have to be able to show that other authors have made reference to your work. Unless or until you are able to do that, it won't be possible to use your own work, no matter how expertly informed it is. If there are other issues, make a note on the project as I suggested and I'll keep an eye on things from there. I see you have been getting advice from Dougweller. He is a much more experienced editor than I am and I have noticed that he tends to give good, reliable advice. Regards, -- Zac Δ 01:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks - I've added "Great Zimbabwe" in "Alternative Views". I won't rush into launching a discussion in its Talk-Page, but will keep that as an option. --DLMcN (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) ... I've now added some background information in that Talk-Page. Thanks, incidentally for looking at (and improving) the Great Zimbabwe article. --DLMcN (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zak, for your remarks in the "Alternative Views" page ... I have actually been quite busy in "Reliable Sources" - have you seen the lively response at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_possible_Semitic_civilization_in_ancient_Zimbabwe ? --DLMcN (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there - bit busy right now but will take a look later this evening or tomorrow. Glad you are getting some feedback and hope it is proving useful. More later -- Zac Δ 15:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zak, for your remarks in the "Alternative Views" page ... I have actually been quite busy in "Reliable Sources" - have you seen the lively response at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_possible_Semitic_civilization_in_ancient_Zimbabwe ? --DLMcN (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Advisory Panel on Astrological Education for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Advisory Panel on Astrological Education is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Advisory Panel on Astrological Education 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 template from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Notification of Arbitration Enforcement
I have requested arbitration enforcement due to your continued disruption of astrology articles. Please respond here. Skinwalker (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The result of the AE thread can be found here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mirroring an astrology article in your user space can be construed as a violation of your new topic ban, it's broadly construed and the mirroring can be interpreted as you still being involved in the topic.... — raekyt 19:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Raeky is correct. Topic bans extend to user space. Sorry, but you're not allowed to edit anything astrology related any where on Misplaced Pages. Since this is probably your first topic ban, I'll assume good faith that you didn't know this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, these mirrored astrology articles are still there. Is anybody going to delete them, since these mirrored articles are no longer on wp. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- You can put them up for WP:MFD. Article space isn't meant to be a place of indefinite storage for articles in progress. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, these mirrored astrology articles are still there. Is anybody going to delete them, since these mirrored articles are no longer on wp. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Raeky is correct. Topic bans extend to user space. Sorry, but you're not allowed to edit anything astrology related any where on Misplaced Pages. Since this is probably your first topic ban, I'll assume good faith that you didn't know this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Gee, Zak, it looks like you're getting the same bum's rush that every one else has gotten who tried to bring Wiki's astrology articles into the 21st century. Wiki is deeply hostile to astrology, which is based directly upon what you will find in Diderot's Encyclopedie, of 1750. (Those opinions have never been re-examined, not in 260 years.) For his part, Diderot based his authority on French monarchism, which was absolute. You should read Diderot's original article on astrology. It's available in English and it's on line. It is shameful.
Which came out of the 30 Years War, which was the result of the Reformation, which was an attack against Church corruption that got combined with the Church's own laissez-faire attitude towards paganism in general. So far as the Church was concerned, witches and pagans and such like did not exist and we did not need to worry about them. The Church had, in fact, co-opted all of this centuries earlier, by making pagan gods into saints and local shamans into priests.
Luther's people, by contrast, were determined to see evil everywhere. Witches. Astrology. Superstition. All these things which were not right and which God decreed had to be put down.
The "Enlightenment" of 1650 came hard on the heels of the 30 Years War, and, notably, in Paris, as opposed to the devastated Germany, whose culture was largely lost. The Encyclopedie was an effort to use the power of the press to define the world in absolute terms, which the Church had never dared attempt. Wiki is a close copy of that Encyclopedie, it has many of the same goals. It is using the power of the internet to achieve political, not scientific, ends.
Which is to say that, right at the very beginning of modern "science", there was a list of approved and disapproved topics, and no amount of evidence has changed things since. It is Wiki's clear intention to drive astrology back into the stone age. It is my clear intention to not let them, which is why I was eventually banned even from my own user page. When I deleted all my cookies I found I was no longer restricted, but I am unable to sign my posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.119.52 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Zachariel/sandbox
User:Zachariel/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zachariel/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zachariel/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Mediate
As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination). For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.Kmt885 (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for merger of Template:Ast box
Template:Ast box has been nominated for merging with Template:Astrology sidebar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Izno (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Psych-ast
Template:Psych-ast has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Medislast
Template:Medislast has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)