This is Zachariel's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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)
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)
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)
The result of the recent AfD discussion Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Advisory Panel on Astrological Education is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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)
I have requested arbitration enforcement due to your continued disruption of astrology articles. Please respond here. Skinwalker ( talk) 15:29, 16 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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination) [1]. 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)
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 Wikipedia
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is Zachariel's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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)
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)
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)
The result of the recent AfD discussion Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Advisory Panel on Astrological Education is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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)
I have requested arbitration enforcement due to your continued disruption of astrology articles. Please respond here. Skinwalker ( talk) 15:29, 16 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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination) [1]. 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)
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 Wikipedia
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)
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)
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)
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)