User talk:EagleEye

Re scientifc astrology
I've commented at Talk:Theodor Landscheidt. I'm suspicious of the concept, since it sounds like an attempt to rescue astrology. If it has value, you might want to attempt to start the article William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghulam Ahmad
NOTE: Time to bring this discussion on your talk page.

Hey Riztech, maybe what you need to do is be proud of people from Kashmir, rather than trying to bring everyone down. I think if you had studied the history of Poonch you would know, also I suggest that you purchase the book Unique and Everliving, it is available in the library in New Zealand and Australia or you can buy it online. EagleEye 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I was born and raised in Poonch and I know the true history, there are people like Sabaz Ali Khan and Mulli Khan who re real heros of Poonch and then there are people like Ghazi-e-Millat Sardar Ibrahim Khan who made the histroy. I am not bringing anyone down from history books but correcting the errors made in it. riz 02:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riztech (talk • contribs)

Mundane astrology
Hi, I have reverted your additions to mundane astrology for two reasons: 1. the wording you added was WP:POV (e.g. "amazingly") and 2. Blogs are not considered reliable sources on WP. You may also want to read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE to get an idea of how WP treats the subject of astrology. Thanks (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, please don't use blogs as either sources nor in the external links sections. Also, per WP:BRD please discuss on the talk page. (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

External link sections throughout Wikipedia include blogs as sources, which can also be external links from Wikipedia. There are many numerous links to blog sources in Wikipedia. For instance, the Washington Post, New York Times and other organizations have blogs that are directly linked as external sources along with many others on Wikipedia. The page you reverted back to in the External links has a yahoo community discussion page and two other blogs as external links. Also, this page is encyclopedic topic on Mundane Astrology which has not been associated with 'pseudoscience or 'fringe,' as that reference by you is considered POV. If you are to include words like these in the subject matter then please provide verifiable sources that are balanced and unbiased. The section on Modern Prediction includes a modern mundane astrologer and is appropriate to the topic. Before you revert again please avoid POV using terms like pseudoscience and fringe as it goes against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Thanks.Eagle Eye 22:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, that other articles violate policy is not a reason for this article to violation policy. This is not my opinion, it's all spelled out at WP:SPS and WP:ELNO and at this point what you're doing is considered spamming, so if you don't want to stop I will simply make a report at the correct noticeboard and you may be blocked from editing.  Secondly, the terms "pseudoscience" and "fringe" are exactly how wikipedia treats astrology and this isn't a new approach, as the arbitration committee specifically ruled that astrology was generally considered a pseudoscience.  You also seem to misunderstand POV when you claim that another editor can't refer to something as pseudoscience.  WP:NPOV means that articles must represent sources according to their prominence and it doesn't apply to talk pages.  Once again I will revert your change and if you revert again you will be close to crossing WP:3RR which is pretty much a guaranteed block.  Saedon (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

To use the terms "pseudoscience" and "fringe" is not an approach, it is clearly POV by Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest you familiarize yourself with POV. Some people do not think Astrology is fringe or a pseudoscience while others do. That discussion is quite appropriate to have. But because an editor can refer to any subject - including astrology - as one or the other does not mean anything to an encyclopedia. All views must contain verifiable sources that exist on this topic. If you are to revert then please do so without POV and please add sources, references and external links on the topic. Thanks Eagle Eye 22:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia considers astrology to be a pseudoscience. As I mentioned, there was an arbcom ruling that specifically dealt with it.  Don't let my red links fool you, my old account had 7000+ edits and I am well aware of WP policy.  I don't know what RSs you're requesting, are you saying that I need an RS to remove the addition of a blog link?  Because that makes no sense.  Are you saying that for me to refer to astrology as pseudoscience on a talk page I need to have a source?  Well no, that's not the case as nothing on a talk page with the exception of WP:BLP statements need to be sourced.  Arbcom specifically ruled "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."  You can read the case and familiarize yourself with policy on the matter here. Saedon (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is used on Wikipedia to discuss the particular topic. If you are to include a critical section I have no problem with that at all and would add to it as well. However, you must reference and source. There is a page on Pseudoscience on Wikipedia that is appropriate for your interest, such as astrology, but to say that is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community is POV. For instance, global warming climate change by mankind is also considered to be a pseudoscience by some but considered real by others. That is entirely appropriate to state on pages. I suggest that you join the Talk Page rather than to violate Wikipedia's policy on revert wars. If you are to add to the topic, then please do so with verifiable sources. Thanks Eagle Eye 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are fundamentally misunderstanding this topic and your example of climate change is indicative of that. Anthropogenic global warming is only considered a pseudoscience by people who aren't educated in climate science and what the public thinks about the issue is totally irrelevant as we don't assign weight to non-experts on WP.  If 99% of the population considered global warming a pseudoscience and 99% of climate scientists disagreed then our article would still present global warming as fact because our articles represent scholarly consensus, not public opinion.  It is not a POV violate to call astrology a pseudoscience, I don't know how many ways I can explain this to you: ARBCOM - the highest "court" on WP - has ruled that astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience and there are plenty of source to back the claim up, many of which can be found on the main astrology article.  When arbcom says X, and EagleEye says Y, guess which opinion carries more weight?  Speaking of weight, you might also want to read WP:UNDUE as it further explains how WP deals with subjects like this.  I see you've had an account here for a number of years but it doesn't appear as though you've done much editing, so please try to understand that I am an established editor and I am telling you that you are misunderstanding policy. Saedon (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I am an established editor too. I do not understand what you mean by that? I am asking you again not to revert war as that is against Wikipedia policy. If you are to add to the topic then please do so without POV and comment on the topic without POV. Your comments above are POV. If you want to add to the article then please do so with references and sources on the subject and please add to the talk page. Perhaps we can make the topic better but it is already a top rated Wikipedia subject. If we can make it better then all the better for Wikipedia. Thanks Eagle Eye 22:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I haven't added anything to the article, all I have done is remove your addition of spam.  I would not consider 34 edits to make you an established editor and the reason I point it out is because you very clearly do not understand how WP works on many levels.  Per WP:BRD you are supposed to discuss after you are reverted, but instead you edit warred your additions into the article and crossed WP:3RR.  My comments are not POV, how many times do I have to point out that it is an established wikipedia policy that astrology is to be referred to as a pseudoscience.  Do you not understand what ARBCOM is?  Saedon (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And what is your point? The article page exists. If you consider it to be a pseudoscience then what is your point, that Astrology should not exist on Wikipedia? Again, you continue to revert without adding verifiable sources and references and not understanding the meaning of external links. There is no 'spam' on this article. Spam, as I understand it, is an email problem like junk mail. I have no problem with a critical view being added to the page as long as it is well-written and referenced. You have not added anything to the article but simply revert. Please follow the guidelines. Thanks Eagle Eye 23:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point of pointing out that it's considered pseudoscience was simply to correct your assertion that WP doesn't treat it as such, that is all. The main point of this is that you are adding blogs as either an EL or a source.  Since you're obviously not going to read the policy, let me just quote it for you here: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"  That is plain as freaking day, it literally could not be more clear.  Do you understand now? Saedon (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, but external sources can be blogs. In fact, there are blogs and community pages on the Mundane Astrology article that are listed as references. I did not add those but there are many such examples on Wikipedia "plain as freaking day" as you say. Still, I don't appreciate you being rude to me for editing as I am a Wikipedia editor like you. The main point is that a critical section is a good idea but you are going to it as POV that is not appropriate. Just because you or anyone else either believes Astrology is a pseudoscience or is not a pseudoscience is NOT the point of the encyclopedic article. It is appropriate to discuss and leave it at that for the reader to decide. Also, blogs are becoming more source-oriented by the day, so for you to speak of a blog like it is a diary of a person is ridiculous. Many blogs are entire sites full of verifiable sources and references that are also given by Wikipedia as external links. That is entirely appropriate. Eagle Eye 23:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs can be used as source in very limited circumstances and this is not one of them. That other articles may also violate policy and that this article also violates the same policy is not an excuse too add to the problem (see WP:OSE).  I am not talking with you about a critical section, please stop bringing this up.  The issue here is that you are violating policy by using a blog as an inappropriate source.  And no, wikipedia absolutely does not "discuss it and leave it at that for the reader to decide."  We don't present a "fair and balanced" take on an issue, we report only what reliable source say in proportion to their prominence.  I don't know where you've picked up all these misconceptions about WP but my advice is that you forget everything you think you know because most of it has been plain wrong.  Saedon (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So we are all wrong and you are right Saedon? This talk page is for this discussion, but you have not added anything to the article. Moreover, your reverts do not assume Wikipedia's policy towards editors. If you have something to add to a critical section to the article then discuss that as articles can always be improved. Moreover, I am a professional editor and writer so please do not talk to me as if I am stupid. All you are doing is being rude to another Wikipedia editor and causing trouble where there is none. Eagle Eye 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP policy that says an editor has to add something to a page in order to enforce policy regarding spam. AGF is another policy you don't seem to understand as AGF means that you assume that other editors are here to help and this is what I assume of you.  However, good intentions do not compensate for a lack of WP:CIR. So while I believe you are here to help, I don't believe you are actually helping.  I am not causing trouble where there is none, I am attempting to correct a policy violation on your behalf and I have spent a lot of time trying to explain to you how exactly you are violating policy and I have pointed out which policies you have violated. You seem to think that our rules don't apply to you and that is simply not the case. I don't care if you're a professional writer, that doesn't afford you any special treatment here.  I'm done arguing this with you. I will wait until an admin has blocked you and then either myself or the admin will restore the page.  Saedon (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

While you "wait" - I continue to remind you that the reverts you made include at least two blogs as 'references' which you did not edit at all. Also, you continue to insinuate that I violate Wikipedia's policy which is not something I did, or would do intentionally. This is a community Saedon and not your personal playground to go around squealing when you think someone has done something wrong and yes, you are arguing, but what you are not doing is adding anything of value since you only want to get a Wikipedia editor blocked for doing what all Wikipedia editors do and that's improve articles. Please do not message me again since all you want to do is to cause trouble. I suggest you learn more about Wikipedia's community rather than to go around threatening editors while NOT assuming good faith according to Wikipedia guidelines. Eagle Eye 23:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * With regards to your comments on Talk:Mundane astrology, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia has policies, certainly. Policies against using blogs to support claims regarding the prediction of the Fukushima earthquake. Policies against using words like "Amazingly enough, and to the astonishment of worldwide seismotologists, Theodore White also accurately predicted the exact magnitude of Japan's historic earthquake before it happened". And more to the point per WP:NPOV, and particularly Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ, any article on astrology must make it clear that astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience. I suggest you read the section entitled 'Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience (2006)' on Talk:Astrology - Wikipedia policy on the subject is clear, unambiguous, and strict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any comments on the Talk: Mundane Astrology page that were there. In fact, I started the discussion on the talk page. Any removal of the discussion violates Wikipedia policy. Regarding using blogs as sources, again you will find blogs with references and sources throughout Wikipedia - sometimes as external links and sources. That is quite common on Wikipedia. Do you actually read Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Also, there are blogs listed as references on the Mundane Astrology article that I did not add but that you reverted back despite your objection. Also, you (or someone of the anti-Wikipedia community) removed external links relevant to the article as well as the discussion on the Talk Page. Also, the section on Modern prediction names Theodore White as a modern mundane astrologer. There is no rule which says that the word "pseudoscience" has to dominate any article on Wikipedia as you suggest - as that is POV. If it is to be then, as with any such ideological claim, it must be supported by verifiable sources and references that you did not add by the way, which Wikipedia policy also makes to be quite clear, unambiguous and strict. If you are to seek arbitration on the treatment of pseudoscience then you must reference with verifiable sources as with any claim, otherwise it is considered POV - be it individually or by group-think. Your comments are ideological and do not add to a critical view of the topic. Wikipedia editors add to improve the quality of articles however your additions to date have been zero - except to complain on what it is 'generally considered' as if that should be the topic of the entire article. I suggest you write a new article on pseudoscience that is referenced with verifiable sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines.Eagle Eye 01:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already pointed out the relevant policies concerning astrology articles - they are absolutely clear, astrology is 'generally considered pseudoscience', and any articles on the subject must reflect this. I'm not the slightest bit interested in your opinions on POV, 'group think' or anything else. If you want to write about astrology on Wikipedia, you will have to conform to policy, end of story. Your opinions on 'POV', 'group think', or anything else are completely irrelevant - and yes, I did improve the article - I removed the rubbish you added to it. I suggest you stop macking personal attacks on people who disagree with you, and read the relrevant policies. If you can't conform to them, go elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior is being discussed
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saedon (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My behavior? I consistently asked Saedon to discuss on the Talk Page rather than to revert without adding any content, sources or references. His reluctance to even begin to discuss and improve upon the article but to merely revert is negative to Wikipedia. One of the reasons why Wikipedia is becoming more controversial and less of a good source is because of bad editors, which drives good editors away and lowers the quality of Wikipedia articles. There are sections to add to the particular article including a critical section, which I support. Moreover, the section which mentions the mundane astrologer Theodore White is appropriate since it is found in the modern section of the article. I see no problem with that and am confused as to why Seadon has problems with the mention of a modern mundane astrologer to the section. The external links section include links relevant to the topic. Also, Seadon reverts back to the same article that he himself complains about and leaves in the external link section with at least one 'blog' in the reference section along with a yahoo community page on another? So it is odd that he complains about this but reverts to the same material mentioning blogs as sources? I see no problem with external links on the topic since it is stated that they are external links with relevance to the topic, quite common on Wikipedia.Eagle Eye 02:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you bothered to read the policy pages relating to astrology I have repeatedly pointed out to you? Your edits contravened policy. They were therefore correctly reverted. If you want edit Wikipedia, you will have to conform to policy, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem, this is patently and easily verified as false. I first asked you to discuss on talk at 21:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC) on your talk page, you didn't start a thread on article talk until 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC) and all you did on article talk was bring up a criticism section and expansion of the article, which I said was fine as long as it wasn't sourced to a blog.  You then attempted a red herring by claiming that I shouldn't revert you unless I've added to the page and it just derailed after that.
 * Secondly, there's nothing to discuss. Your blogspot blog will never, ever, ever be considered a reliable source for the material you attempted to add so what exactly would you like to talk about?  How you don't have to follow policy because you don't think the policy makes sense or doesn't exist or what?
 * Lastly, I removed the yahoo link and other blogs at least 2 revisions ago so I don't know why you're still hampering on about that. I warned you over and over again that you would be blocked if you kept reverting but you didn't listen, so please when you come back don't attempt to re-add anything sourced to a blog and don't edit war in the future. Thanks. Saedon (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the policy. Your comment 'end of story' suggests a closed mind - not an open one. Nothing I have added violates Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and my content adds and edits did not contravene policy in any fashion or form. Moreover, I repeatedly asked for discussion of the article on the Talk Page ( and when I started it, it was removed twice without reason) so how does that contravene Wikipedia policy? One of the reasons why my bosses at the New York Times have problems with Wikipedia as a source is because of the problems Wikipedia has with learning the difference between objective reporting, sourcing and editing without ideology, which Wikipedia is supposed to be against. I am a supporter of Wikipedia, its guidelines and polices, very much so, but the problem some of you have is that you do not trust the reader enough to be able to be clear as a digital encyclopedia while allowing bad editors to revert repeatedly in bad faith without discussion on talk pages, while also not conforming to the policies they shout so loudly about in blaming others. It's a sad shame, but know that less links to Wikipedia for sourcing will become the norm in the future should Wikipedia not root out the ideological editors who make adding content to Wikipedia more of a chore than a joy in sharing knowledge.Eagle Eye 02:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the way our encyclopedia works then you are welcome to start your own webpage and make it to 5th place in Alexa rankings. However, as long as you are editing WP you either follow our rules or not, and if not then you get blocked, it's really that simple.  No one here cares if you think it's "closed minded," and yes you did in fact violate policy (hence why you're blocked).  The fact that you can't see how adding a blog as a source contravenes our policy which specifically says not to use blogs as sources is truly mind boggling.  My advice is that you never become a lawyer, and if you ever get arrested don't try the "well officer the thing is that murder isn't actually illegal and just because I killed the guy doesn't mean I broke the law." defense because it will work just about as well as it did here. Saedon (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for your advice. Did I? You started this right out of the gate being hostile and you began a revert war. Being dishonest about it along with your assumptions are anti-Wikipedia as Wikipedia does not belong to you - it belongs to the community. You also seem to not know how to use the Talk Page either Seadon. The talk page is used to improve the article. Moreover, I strongly suggest that you learn how to source and reference and what the meaning of 'external links' mean in the English language. I did not add the blogs as references or sources - except in the External link section, which is appropriate. Learn what sourcing and referencing means because you obviously are confused. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia that links out to additional sources on the internet. There are several sources as links on the mundane astrology page. I did not add them but you reverted back to them repeatedly which shows your dishonesty because you blamed me but then reverted the content I added? I had nothing to do with that so why do you blame me. What's your problem man? Adding content, sources, references and links on the topic only serves to expand and improve the article. Those who Revert based on ideology and POV tend to be hostile, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, "making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to good editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia, thus fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above." This new talk page is to discuss the quality of the article with well-written, concise additions by editors with references and sources along with internal and external links that the reader can go to if they choose. The addition of a critical section should also improve the overall quality of the articleAs for your last comment on ever becoming a "lawyer' because "murder isn't illegal?" What is your point? I do not understand what you are saying since I did not break any law to begin with. You most likely are spending way too much time "editing" articles on Wikipedia which do not conform to your singular point of view. That's a bad editor and bad for Wikipedia. Yet, you will not discuss on the Talk Page with other Wikipedia editors showing good faith, which is what you are supposed to do. If anything is 'mind-boggling' it is that. Eagle Eye 02:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There there isn't a big enough in the world to express my astonishment at your inability to grasp simple aspects of WP.  I'm done "discussing" with you.   You either understand the bottom line now or you don't, but it's not worth my time either way.  Have a nice day. Saedon (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. It doesn't matter that Wikipedia is digital. See WP:RS. Blogs are almost always inappropriate for use as sources. Just because it can be linked to does not mean it can be used as a reference.
 * 2. According to WP:NPOV, astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience. Neutrality does not mean giving undue weight to an unscentific perspective.
 * As an obvious example, in this edit, you use unacceptable sources to present mundane astrology in such a way that it gives credence to it as an accepted scholarly study, when it isn't one. I count four other individuals that are calling your edits into question and I am apparently the fifth - perhaps consider that it's you who needs to address their editing, and not everyone else. WilliamH (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

William, if that is the case, then any article on Astrology would then not be able to exist on Wikipedia according to your logic? If Wikipedia gives credence to astrology then it must certainly be a topic worth having articles on, yes? I do not see your point. If something is labelled a pseudoscience then just how can it exist in the first place? Wikipedia should, using your logic, remove any and all references to astrology because it gives credence to it as an 'accepted scholarly study" when you say that it isn't one? What about the many tens of thousands of scholarly studies of the topic including those in the Library of Congress, the British Library and university libraries around the world? Not to mention here on Wikipedia? Is that what you are saying? And, Saedon, I now understand that it is "not worth your time," but when I am unblocked because of your actions I will certainly file a complaint about you since you obviously do not know how to conduct yourself in good faith without coming off as rude, assumptive and a know-it-all. You could have easily helped me to shape up the article in question and we could have worked together on it. You avoided the Talk Page for discussion so you do not know how to work with other editors without issuing insults, being rude and creating conflict right out of the gate. But now, I can see that you are a bad editor with POV and good faith problems, luring other Wikipedia editors so you can then go and complain to an administrator to block someone. I learned this the hard way Saedon, but will take it like a man. I doubt that you will be a gentleman, a professional and apologize because of your comments that talk down to a grown man as if he is a child or something. You have not helped me at all, but made this a very unpleasant experience with your words tagged with 'have a nice day." Being helpful, polite and considerate does not cost you a thing. Thanks, William as I will remember this as a hard lesson to avoid the bad editors since Saedon was not helpful in the least. I hope that there are others on Wikipedia as editors who show good faith and appreciate a discussion on Talk pages so as to improve articles on Wikipedia. I will learn who to avoid since obviously they have serious POV and ideological issues and do not seem to know how to edit properly as well as to discuss and work on improving articles on Wikipedia. I prefer a healthy community and healthy discussions and debates to make articles on Wikipedia better. Thanks for the instruction on POV bad editors. I will remember it and who to avoid in the future. I apologize for anything I may or may not have done wrong, but I ran into some bad POV editors who did not help me or discuss the article with me in good faith. Eagle Eye 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's best to post complaints as soon as possible so if you'd like you can go ahead and post your complaint on this talk page and either me or someone else will file it for you at WP:ANI. Now to be fair, your complaint is entirely without merit and you're personally attacking me, so chances are that you will only increase your block length per WP:BOOMERANG but it's no skin off of my ass either way.  Saedon (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned after reading your comments Saedon, of both you and Andy, you both are POV editors - See: Re EagleEye

'''"You'll probably be better off ignoring EagleEye, while s/he is blocked at least. If s/he can't conform with policy, and refuses to listen, there will be a longer block soon enough. I've removed the linkspam from the article, and tagged it for POV and lack of inline sources - probably best to leave it for a day or two to see if there is any response from Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology - if there isn't, it can probably be AfD'd or stubbed - I'll see if I can find any half-decent sources that might actually justify an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah I'm in the middle of telling him that I'm done with the discussion. Let me know what you end up doing with the article. I'm tempted to remove the "Houses and Signs" section as well because it just never seems right to have a list of astrological beliefs represented by one astrologer's opinion when there's no reason to believe his opinion is any more accurate than anyone else. Thoughts on that? Saedon (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Well, if we actually knew who it was sourced to, that would be a start. But yes, you're right, this is an endemic problem with astrology even those who believe in it can't seem to agree on what it is they believe in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)"'''

If this is an endemic problem, then why not discuss on the Talk Page (that's what it is for) rather than to join forces to 'tag' it as POV when both of your comments are POV from your perspective? I did not put in what you call 'linkspam' nor did either one of you enter into discussion. I started one on the Talk Page and it was removed both times. How is that participating in a discussion and "being done with the discussion" when one has not even taken place? Ignoring right from the get-go is not behaving in good faith with a Wikipedia editor. Neither of you - Saedon or AndyTheGrump - have added any content to the article from what I can discern and there are plenty of references and source materials to do so in a balanced way. And again, no discussion has taken place, just having an editor blocked after you both wrote and behaved in a manner that is not of good faith. How does that qualify as both of you being able to opine and add to a discussion that you will not have on the talk page to start? Why not work with editors in good faith, according to Wikipedia policy? What is wrong with that? Neither of you have brought any proof to your argument, nor have you participated with any writer/editor on the article to improve it. You then state that you are tempted to "remove" things without any discussion stating contents as 'beliefs' without first adding verifiable sources and references to back you up? You break Wikipedia policies and guidelines, are rude, insulting, get an editor blocked but will not work together in good faith? Then you lie and say that I "refuse to listen?" When and where did I do that? What kind of shenanigans are you fellas trying to run here? Shameful is what it is.Eagle Eye 04:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's not my logic at all. The fact that something has an article does not mean it is scholarly accepted. Take Holocaust denial. This is a fringe view. You'll note the article explains what it is, a history about it, who does it, etc. You'll have a reasonable understanding of it after you've read it, but you won't get the impression that it is a legitimate scholarly perspective. It is fundamentally important that Wikipedia does not give undue weight to theories with no acceptance in the scholarly mainstream. Such theories must not be presented as more than they are.
 * Alternatively, look it at a different angle. In the edit you made, a core contention is that Theodore White used astrology to successfully predict the earthquake. Did he? Right, that needs a reference. Remember, blogs are not acceptable. Anyone can start a blog, there is no measure of editorial control. As I said, just because it's on the internet does not mean it can be cited. We need reliable sources: individuals, institutions, publishers with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. WilliamH (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I will wait to post my complaint since I am blocked. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia by my understanding William. However, I did not know that Wikipedia was only open to those with a "legitimate scholarly perspective." I didn't know that. I added the content from the references and contents in the real world. Blogs and websites are acceptable as 'external links' and many blogs in media are well-referenced and sourced. Regarding what you call 'editorial control' - that is a misnomer. There is no such thing. Editors easily reference with reliable sources that emanate from a wide variety of multiple paths - including blogs. We are not talking about children's blogs, or silly 'personal blogs' either. There are news blogs, science blogs, economic blogs, etc., that serve as reputable sources with references that are not from what you call a "legitimate scholarly perspective." That is not the sole precursor of whether something is true or valid - especially on Wikipedia. You should know this, or anyone would not be able to add content or edit any article on Wikipedia unless they were doing so only from a "legitimate scholarly perspective" as you say. Tell me, how do you define "legitimate scholarly perspective when it comes to writing and editing on Wikipedia articles? Is that a strict requirement? I work for the New York Times and should know how to source material, reference and I know how to fact-check. I've done it tens of thousands of times. And for your information, the Times does reference and source from blogs. Wikipedia does as well on topics with external links that are relevant to the article topic.Eagle Eye 03:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is patently clear that you still do not grasp the reasoning why you are in error; at best you don't understand it, and at worst you are ignoring it. Wikipedia is open to those that do not misrepresent unaccepted theories as fact.


 * You wrote that Theodore White used astrology to successfully predict the earthquake. The source you used is a proponent of a fringe theory. This is unsatisfactory. We must not present astrology as a mainstream scholarly accepted theory for the same reason that the article on Earth does not suggest that the world might be flat. An article on the earth where it is implied or stated that the earth might be a flat plane as some fringe theorists think would be colossally stupid. We do not give undue significance to perspectives that don't deserve it. WilliamH (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I Googled the information and found it verifiable from multiple sources. And, you seem to not know that astrology has very many scholarly articles that are too many to count. Whether anyone would consider it "fringe" is personal, that is a "belief." What you and your rhetoric are saying here is actually POV according to Wikipedia's own rules and policies because you hold a definition of "fringe" that is not well-defined. Anything could be labeled "fringe" according to the personal belief system of anyone - including yourself. For instance, atheists consider an article on God to be a "fringe" belief from their point of view even though tens of millions of people believe in a God. But where is the veritable source to prove conclusively that there is a God? Does that prevent it from being a Wikipedia article? The same goes for Astrology. The same goes for any topic. Tens of millions of people believe in astrology, God, black holes, heaven, hell, etc. and others do not. But that is not the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that references to as many sources as possible if the reader should want multiple viewpoints on any topic to choose from. That is always the best way to proceed. I do not care if a person believes in God, or in Astrology or not, or if something is considered to be a 'fringe theory' or not. For instance, black holes were considered to be "fringe' in science and at one time so was 'quantum mechanics'. What was called 'fringe' often becomes evident. But it ultimately falls on the reader to decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe on any topic. Anyone who tries to tell the reader what to believe is POV and violates Wikipedia guidelines and policy and dishonestly acts as a censor and gate-keeper. That presupposes that the bad POV editor has the last word and is the law on any topic when nothing of the sort can be true. An encyclopedia provides as much information as possible for the reader to cover the topic from as many points as possible, but does not tell the reader what to "believe." You should know that William.Eagle Eye 04:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we must have a scientific point of view, I'm saying that we have a neutral point of view, not to give fringe theories undue weight, such as by giving credence to them by referencing proponents of them. Multiple view points yes, giving undue weight to the fringe ones no. I hold a definition of fringe which is that while astrology has followers, it is generally considered pseudoscience and must not be presented as anything more, as defined by Wikipedia NPOV policy, as you have been linked to here. It's pretty clear that you're just going to walk right back into the behaviour that got you blocked in the first place though, so this is really a waste of time. Good luck. WilliamH (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it curious that rather than to discuss the topic - as Wikipedia encourages - you would associate it with bad behavior and then call it a "waste of time"? Are you saying, William, that you are not willing to learn anything new if it does not fit into your own point of view? How can that work on a digital encyclopedia? Is it now a crime to discuss or debate a topic without getting emotionally involved and running scared while casting blame when you could learn to edit properly by discussion, teamwork and debate? What problem do you have with multiple points of view? That is very un-American you know and plain in error by Wikipedia standards. An encyclopedia must have as many views as possible. That is why encyclopedias are so large. And I have no problem with that, nor should you if you want to be a Wikipedia administrator and editor. Again, I Googled the information and found it verifiable from multiple sources. And, you seem to not know that astrology has very many scholarly articles that are too many to count. Whether anyone would consider it "fringe" is personal, that is a "belief." What you and your rhetoric are saying here is actually POV according to Wikipedia's own rules and policies because you hold a definition of "fringe" that is not well-defined. Anything could be labeled "fringe" according to the personal belief system of anyone - including yourself. For instance, atheists consider an article on God to be a "fringe" belief from their point of view even though tens of millions of people believe in a God. But where is the veritable source to prove conclusively that there is a God? Does that prevent it from being a Wikipedia article? The same goes for Astrology. The same goes for any topic. Tens of millions of people believe in astrology, God, black holes, heaven, hell, etc. and others do not. But that is not the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that references to as many sources as possible if the reader should want multiple viewpoints on any topic to choose from. That is always the best way to proceed. I do not care if a person believes in God, or in Astrology or not, or if something is considered to be a 'fringe theory' or not. For instance, black holes were considered to be "fringe' in science and at one time so was 'quantum mechanics'. What was called 'fringe' often becomes evident. But it ultimately falls on the reader to decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe on any topic. Anyone who tries to tell the reader what to believe is POV and violates Wikipedia guidelines and policy and dishonestly acts as a censor and gate-keeper. An example, here is what Saedon wrote that is clearly POV - "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations." Now, Saedon provides no evidence of this, he gives no source, no reference at all - but clearly writes content immediately as an ideological POV with what is obviously little to no knowledge of the topic itself. He does not prove his comment "makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems..." nor does he names those problems. He also does not prove that it is not considered a "science" by some, nor does he prove that is shows "no concern for the evaluation of competing theories," as he added in the content, nor does he list them either. Can you explain how that is neutral because I would like to know. That is a bad Wikipedia editor. He does not want to learn about the topic, obviously shows little knowledge of the topic, but provides straight-out ideological POV by means of a label (pseudoscience) while also using the word "science" as a monolithic term - but does not provide substantial proof, sources and references of his claims - only opinion. How is that neutral. Can you please explain? This is why Wikipedia gets a bad name from bad POV editors with an axe to grind. That presupposes that the bad POV editor has the last word and is the law on any topic when nothing of the sort can be true. I read the policy on neutral points of view and agree with it, but what you are saying and what this Saedon added to the article violates this - '''"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view."''' So, from this, Wikipedia is clear as a encyclopedia provides as much information as possible for the reader to cover the topic from as many points as possible, but does not tell the reader what to "believe." Already the article has greatly declined, is poorly written from the original, badly sourced, poorly referenced and attempts to tell the reader what to think with POV all over it. This is exactly why the New York Times and other professional news editors are increasingly reluctant to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source when it should act as an open encyclopedia with wide views that are well-sourced without ideological POV. Notice that Saedon does not use the talk page but gives an unbalanced and POV ideological viewpoint all over the article and is poorly written to boot. He would not be able to work as an unpaid intern at the Times. If anyone should be given time off to cool down his behavior it is Saedon. Eagle Eye 05:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are wasting your time. Wikipedia doesn't operate in the way you would like it to. There are plenty of forums etc that do. If you want to convince people that astrology can predict earthquakes, you will do better to argue your case there. We aren't going to change policy arrived at over years of debate just to suit your views concerning what you think we ought to be doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to work as it states - not as your POV wants it to. I donate money to Wikipedia because I believe in its purpose. It is bad POV editors with axes to grind like you who make me not want to give Wikipedia any more money. If you are to argue the topic then do so on the Talk page where you can work with other Wikipedia editors in good faith to improve the topic rather than muck articles up with shoddy writing, even worst editing and POV opinion all over the place. You are not Wikipedia - WE all are. I suggest you re-examine Wikipedia's guidelines & policies closely because you are violating them. It has nothing to do what I 'think' (and who is this "we" because Andy the last time I checked you do not own Wikipedia, or do you?) but what Wikipedia states. So please stop avoiding the policies with words like "you are wasting your time' because if that is the only argument you have, then you have a very weak argument to begin with. See you when my block is over. I don't like POV bad editors who cite Wikipedia policies and then turn right around breaking the very same policies they hawk while coming off high and mightier than everyone else telling other Wikipedia editors that they are doing it. Do you think that we are all stupid or something? Eagle Eye 06:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " Do you think that we are all stupid or something". No. Not everyone, just you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I figured as much, since your comment is yet another violation of Wikipedia's polices of civility and working in good faith. You do know that that is exactly what you are not doing? It is people like you who will ruin Wikipedia and you probably do not donate any money either so you are not invested in making Wikipedia a healthy community that seeks to expand knowledge - not contract it with ideological riff raff that has no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia. But your words are here for all to see and we will attend to that in good time. You should be ashamed violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eagle Eye 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 02:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Extend block
Just to let you know, I'm asking on WP:ANI that your block be extended indefinitely until you demonstrate that you understand policy and will adhere to it. If you have a response that you'd like on the report you can post it here and I or another editor will move it for you. S Æ don talk 06:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

✅ Thank you. I understand Wikipedia policy well and will adhere to it. But I will not participate with POV bad editors. They are very bad for Wikipedia. I am learning more about the process but am not happy with the particular POV editors who break Wikipedia guidelines and policies while threatening an editor with an "indefinite block" but have not shown any civility, or teamwork with another Wikipedia editor unless they are part of their gang. There should be no gangs on Wikipedia. I donate money to Wikipedia as well, but this experience today has made me doubt whether to give any more money to Wikipedia and I have plenty to give. I would prefer help from a qualified Wikipedia editor who is honest, not-POV and is a good and balanced editor; however, at this time I am rethinking if to support Wikipedia at all considering the lack of help from the POV editors who participate in no discussion on the Talk page, but name-call, personally attack and insults with violations of Wikipedia policies I have endured today. It has left a sour taste in my mouth so I will just gather up all the violations of Wikipedia policies by means of the users and their comments in the meantime. But thank you for letting me know. Eagle Eye 06:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard
Just to note, your name came up here. 86.** IP (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)