User talk:Aquirata/archive/2006-05

= May 2006 archive of User talk:Aquirata =

Welcome!

Hello, Aquirata, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! The El Reyko 09:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

3RR Violation
You have violated the 3RR rule on page Objective validity of Astrology by reinserting the Scientific basis of astrology for the fourth time in 24 hour. 3rr rule applies to reverts in whole or in part. I shall allow you time to delete this section before reporting this violation. If you do so you will no longer be in violation. Jefffire 13:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As you can see the entire article has been reorganized and spell-checked. It was not reverted, which is what you have done on several occasions without warning, despite disagreement with your change on the Talk page. The scientific basis of astrology section has been long standing, and the onus is on you to prove that it doesn't belong there. As I have said several times, I will support a reword, even a move as long as a place for it exists. It is an important part of astrological research and should be kept within Wikipedia. Your attempt to delete it is inexplicable in light of policies:
 * "Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible." Aquirata 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are in direct violation of the 3RR by reinstating the material. It is irrelevent that it is part of a larger restructuring. Delete the section at once or you will be reported. Consider this the last warning. Jefffire 14:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said on another page already, the edit history of the article speaks for itself. Please feel free to report the incident, especially if you wish to highlight your actions that are in direct conflict with Wikipedia policies.
 * How is your expedition going? Oh, and by the way, a belated, warm welcome to my page! :) Aquirata 16:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reread the 3rr page and it seems that we were both in violation. However my error was based on my misunderstanding of the policy, whilst yours was in full knowledge. Such error on my part will not be repeated however your attitude to this gives me great concern that you will repeat it.


 * As a final note, please pay good attention to this metawiki policy . I think it would help you to take it to heart. Jefffire 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Since you are the guest here, I will let you have the final word. :) Aquirata 10:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Seymour
Aquirata, the problem here is what to do with Seymour. Would you agree to splitting off Seymour to a stub article under the heading "Electromagnetic Astrology" or maybe "Physical Astrology"? The latter might also include Landscheidt, Nelson, and Brown among others. It could have a link from Objective Validity. Let's get out of this cycle. Piper Almanac 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is becoming apparent that moving may be the only answer that would satisfy all parties. I'd prefer to see an article on Theories of astrology or Proposed mechanisms for astrology to keep it as general as possible. We obviously don't need an article on one particular book, so it's best to provide a home for all material the existence of which is questioned on other pages. Aquirata 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Why not consider taking the issue regarding NPOV to arbitration? Policy says that discussion of policy is the way forward, but no-one is willing to engage. I'm sure that many have read through previous discussion and still have questions, so citing previous discussion is not the same as engaging in conversation.

I would not bring up a specific complaint regarding pseudoscience, after all, you're more than happy to discuss it in the appropriate place, if only someone would have the courtesy to do so. --Iantresman 10:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion - I will look into what the options are. Aquirata 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)