Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 28 June 2012

RE: Concern

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, m.o.p 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. m.o.p 03:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 AN/I

Zac, thank you for your valiant support in connection with my complaint. 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. Robert Currey talk 16:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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 :)

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. Zac Δ talk 17:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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). Britmax (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks for clarifying this - I've placed a note on your user page. Zac Δ talk 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Memo

Just a quick memo that I've replied 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 SPI against us. I hope he's ready for a chicken to squat on his face. CycloneGU (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hullo Again

May want to see the latest reply by Atama here. 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. CycloneGU (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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 National Council for Geocosmic Research page yesterday. I decided not to add to the deletion discussion myself because of the COI dispute, but placed a note on Dougweller's talk page, asking if he'd consider a speedy close as he has to similarly pointy AfD's before. Cheers Zac Δ talk 08:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is seen rolling eyes.

Another pointy nom...I've closed it with a recommendation that MakeSense64 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. CycloneGU (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Zac - thank you for stepping in and clearing up a problem with skilled editing, diligent research and sound impartiality. Robert Currey talk 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! My pleasure :) Zac Δ talk 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

AN

Penwhale 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? =) CycloneGU (talk) 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, Zac Δ talk 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. =) CycloneGU (talk) 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 the Julia Parker AfD. 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. CycloneGU (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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 ! :)

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 proposed deletion 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.

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, Zac Δ talk 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I say the following in a perfectly friend tone: your newness to WP stands out above. =) I'll explain:

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 Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion. 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 Brett Ritchie 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. CycloneGU (talk) 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, Zac Δ talk 14:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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.) CycloneGU (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done See my talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Psychological Astrology

Hi Zac, I have been working on the Psychological Astrology page and would be grateful for your critical edits or comments. Robert Currey talk 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 Zac Δ talk 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I'll let you handle this. 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. CycloneGU (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

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. Zac Δ talk 13:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Need some help understanding project category pages

Draft Core Principles Para 2

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 (with crossings out) and additions (with underlines) 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). (mistakenly posted this on your sand box) Robert Currey talk 01:41, 11 August 2011 (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, -- Zac Δ 03:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• 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 Help:Reverting and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback
• You can display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 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. John Carter (talk) 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: here.

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 Astrology 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 -- Zac Δ 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. John Carter (talk) 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. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Aries template

• Please continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Misplaced Pages!

Template created via afc. Geoffjw1978 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The template has been moved to the Template space with the history intact. Jarkeld (talk) 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? Robert Currey talk 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.-- Zac Δ 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? CycloneGU (talk) 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, -- Zac Δ 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR on Astrology

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Astrology. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

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!Curb Chain (talk) 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. Robert Currey talk 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not policy

This is not policy text. Please tread more carefully. Hipocrite (talk) 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 -- Zac Δ 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? Hipocrite (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 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. Hipocrite (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

You're at 3R already on Talk:Astrology; please beware WP:3RR. 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 William M. Connolley (talk) 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 -- Zac Δ 22:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

I am strongly concerned that you have taken WP:OWNership over Astrology, and are using reversion as opposed to discussion as a tool. In this edit, you revert the removal of the bibliography. You may wish to note Talk:Astrology#Bibliography.3F. Please be certain when reverting that you are not reverting against consensus, and if you do engage in reverting, you also engage in discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please stop issuing bad faith assumptions. It's ridiculous to accuse me of WP:OWN 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 WP:SFN). 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. -- Zac Δ 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, your edit summary was not sufficient explanation. But you have now provided an explanation, thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 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 William M. Connolley (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 16:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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 astrology page. Are you able to fix it as I don't dare touch it as it looks like a house of cards? Robert Currey talk 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here 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 WP:AE), 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 here. NW (Talk) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

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! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, your editing of the Astrology 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. -- Zac Δ 18:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For your benefit, I want to let you know WP:3RR does, in fact, apply in that case. The only exceptions to 3RR are reverting banned editors, protecting articles under the provisions of WP:BLP, and reverting vandalism. For example, reverting WP:NPOV or WP:V 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 dispute resolution. 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). Qwyrxian (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 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 most if not all 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. Yworo (talk) 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. Yworo (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 16:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That's how I'd do it. There's a page somewhere about it. WP:ISBN 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. Yworo (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Catherine of Alexandria

Hi Zac. I wondered if you wanted to have a look at a post on WP:NORN 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. Itsmejudith (talk) 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.-- Zac Δ 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. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification

You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 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 -- Zac Δ 05:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Transhumanism?.

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. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Starting a new essay

User:Ihcoyc/The problem of anti-supernatural bias

Your input would be appreciated. Talk page of the subpage might be easiest to coordinate things. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 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 Otium 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.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Astrology magazines

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 the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter 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. Template: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 Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame 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: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Zachariel,

From the discussion on Talk:Astrology, 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 continued use of rollback in content disputes. Please review WP:ROLLBACK, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 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, -- Zac Δ 08:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Just a friendly reminder to watch out for 3RR on Astrology. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 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. -- Zac Δ 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Your recent editing history at Astrology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — raekyt 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. — raekyt 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Z10