User talk:Ken McRitchie

Welcome!

Hello,, 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! Benon 00:21, 13 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

Thoughts on astrology box design
Hi Ken As someone who recently gave thoughts on the project boxes - would you mind checking this and giving me your thoughts?

Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astrology#Proposed_change_for_astrology_box — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, Thanks. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychological Astrology
Hi Ken, thank you for comments on psychological astrology on the Astrology Discussion Page. I just want to let you know that I am currently editing the Wikipedia page on Psychological Astrology. The page needs serious editing and improved citation and any suggestions or edits would be most welcome. Robert Currey  talk  17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me Robert Currey. I'll have a look later to offer clarifications or suggestions. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 AN/I
Ken, thank you for your 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  16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it seems to be working out and you seem to have a better knowledge of the the more obscure rules and nuances than I do. There is no doubt that MakeSense64 has kept me on my toes and has motivated me to work ever harder, and that is not a bad thing. I enjoy a good discussion and that's why I find astrology so interesting. I've been studying astrology for over 30 years, though I'm not a professional astrologer. To me it's all about dispelling ignorance. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To have editors representing both sides of an argument is important to get a good article about a controversial topic. To label an editor as 'constructive' whenever he agrees with you, and 'disruptive' when he has a different opinion, that does not assume good faith WP:AGF and points to an editor who thinks he is always right about everything.
 * Editing WP should not be about 'dispelling ignorance'. All we are supposed to do is report in a neutral way about what we can find and verify about the topic. That's why editors on all sides of the topic are needed to get a result that represents all sides and thus approaches NPOV.
 * It is of course not making sense that I am being blamed for the problems on the page. I have only put it on my watchlist a month ago or so, and obviously that article has had problems for years already. The recent discussions on the Talk page have only served to burn out and remove most or all editors that are not pro-astrology. The straw poll was flawed..
 * So, editors like Peter Strempel are throwing in the towel, and others including me are now mostly sitting back and watching the parade. This gives some editors what they want, but for how long? A page on WP is never finished and other editors will come along.. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * MakeSense64, The "dispelling ignorance" has a lot to do with verifying the references and including key missing references. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work
Let me know when you're back. Hope your trip went well. -- Zac  Δ talk! 21:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology
I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac  Δ talk! 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Astrology edit summary
Hi Ken,

I just wanted to let you know that there is in fact such a thing as a good faith edit, and in fact, "Revert Good faith Edit by..." is one of two default edit summaries when using WP:TWINKLE to WP:ROLLBACK. Also, the edit summary should comment on the content of the edit, not the previous edit summary used in a change. I would not have reverted you either way, but it's best to use a content based edit summary so that I and others can understand the reasoning for the edit. Thanks. N o f o rmation Talk  20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Your recent editing history at Astrology shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please 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 a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
For continued edit warring, I have notified administrators here despite the warning to not edit war. Yobol (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Astrology. 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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit war. Were all the edit warriors blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to press a point. For the record, here is the clarification, in conformance with WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:PARITY that certain editors wanted to censor from the article:


 * Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to claims that the data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009).

Professor Eysenck in particular was a major contributor to the type scientific factor analysis used in the CPI, which Carlson, a physics student with no background in psychology, used in his famous experiment. This makes Eysenck an authority and his criticism of the experiment and its conclusions worthy of inclusion and the interest of WP users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_models_of_personality "Hans Eysenck (1916–1997) was one of the first psychologists to analyze personality differences using a psycho-statistical method (factor analysis)." Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:15, 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) 16:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing policy to suit himself
I think I've had my fill of Wikipedia - too much twisted and unpleasant stuff going on here, but I saw your comments in the Addey and Houlding discussion and thought you might want to notice that the proposing editor has now edited the WP:Fringe policy guidelines to suit his own argument on what they should apply to. Regards Logical 1 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wolfie essentially closed a [never exploited afaik] loophole that would technically allow a fringe subject to not fall under the purview of WP:FRINGE because the subject itself may be fringe but not specifically a theory. It's clear that the spirit of fringe is meant to apply to fringe subjects in general but it was written only to apply to the theories themselves.  Though I can't imagine an argument that would gain any traction on WP against this idea, after I made this change on August 27 I started a discussion.  Throughout the course of the discussion new wording was proposed and edited in by Wolfie on October 7th, further clarifying my wording; note that the page has 230 watchers and afair there were no reverts of the additions after having had ample time to be considered.  As an aside, note that a new discussion has been started recently by an editor proclaiming that the wording should be clarified even further.  If you have objections you are welcome to join that discussion.  Sædon talk  23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

December 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. ''You know better than to edit war. Please stop.'' Sædon talk  23:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Good luck with your editing. If you need any help in the future, feel free to drop by my page. All the best,

&mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 

FYI
Glancing over, you've misunderstood the purpose of the research on the Barnum effect. You do realise that the papers which look at the Barnum effect aren't trying to falsify astrology? Rather they aim to highlight about a specific form of cognitive bias that is evident in astrology believers where they accept a description of their personality more if they believe it's tailored for them even if it is not. It's not aiming to falsify astrology, but rather look at the confirmation bias. I notice your Mars effect part also appears to rely on Gauquelin's pre-1950s data, you wouldn't be ignoring that the effect isn't detected in later studies which take place in more recent times where doctors record the moment of birth rather than parents, would you? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reading my article. I think we agree that the Forer demonstration does not discredit astrology and only unethical people would try to suggest that it does. This is the point of my article. What is particularly insidious about Forer's demonstration is his failure to consider his own influence over his students. This was not so much a test of gullibility as a test of high stakes survival, a fallacy of authority. The (2009) Cross-cultural differences study goes in the right direction. It looks at other, external factors that influence the Barnum effect, not just the internal sense of what subjects want to see as results. As I suggest in my article, these universally true statements are a necessary part of normal supportive conversation and act as "handshakes" that sets the tone and allows trust between the parties involved. They have nothing to do with a person's ability to recognize themselves and should not be tested as if they do.


 * As far as the Gauquelin data goes, my discussion is based on the objective testing methodology developed by Professor Ertel and others. This methodology, some form of which used throughout the sciences but not used in Gauquelin's early work, requires the athletes to be objectively ranked, in this case according to their citation frequencies. This allows all collected athletes' data to be used. Even you and I could be included in such a study, but of course we would rate in the lowest rank. This was done to eliminate selection bias, which had been the main accusation in those studies. All tests from that point had to use the proper protocol, but of course Benski et al ignored it, which was highly unethical. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forer test
Forer's students were seated in alternate seats for a quiz, which they’d prepared for and will follow their rating of the personality test. They are in a sufficient state of student dread. Thus they are highly motivated to give Forer high approval of all aspects of the DIB test he created, which he administered to them the week before. Forer has touted the DIB on his own authority as being pretty darned good. Oh yes, they each had to sign the approval ratings that they handed him for his DIB test. Can you guess the outcome? I’m not making this up. Read the article, but read it critically. Science or confirmation bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken McRitchie (talk • contribs)


 * What would you make of someone who focusses on the first study and trys to find flaws in it, suggesting that it discredits the whole effect if found but all the while it has been replicated independently multiple times with different methodologies, for example with groups containing individuals who can be distinguished as astrology believers and skeptics (guess who is more susceptible). To quote the Rogers paper in it's capacity as a secondary source; "The Barnum effect is a robust phenomenon, having been demonstrated in clinical, occupational, educational, forensic, and military settings as well as numerous ostensibly paranormal contexts (Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987; Snyder, Shenkel & Lowery, 1977; Thiriart, 1991)" Good luck with that, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your input re the Wikipedia Astrology Project
Hi Ken I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)