Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 6 July 2012 (→Legal threats: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Legal threats

You are poisoning the well with your suggestions that other editors are making defamatory comments. See Misplaced Pages:NLT#Conclusion_of_legal_threat. Please desist from doing this and refactor your comments on the talk page accordingly. I have also notified Dougweller who warned you about the same thing just yesterday. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)