User talk:MayoPaul5

Your Behaviour on Talk:Astrology
The way you are currently behaving on this page is completly unacceptable. The talk page does not exist for you to vent your frustrations that astrology is considered a superstition, nor for you to make straw man arguements about science and scientists. Unless you have something useful to contribute to the article, and can do so in line with wikipedia's civility guidlines there is no reason to be there. Jefffire 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) - Unacceptable behaviour??? I have been very patient with you Jefffire, despite your increasingly evident far-from-neutral POV. I have made it plain that I really don't mind how people see astrology - superstition or otherwise, yet somehow you extrapolate from this that I am frustrated about it! If this is how you go about your scientific work, I dread to think what warped results you might come up with. As you clearly don't know what my view of astrology is, I'll tell you. In my view (and those of all the people I know) astrology is not considered a superstition either within the astrological community or by the general public (nor by the relatively few scientists I know). A rather poetic language, yes; a science or pseudo-science, no; an art-form, maybe. Now you have spoken to me, I realise that there is at least one person in the world who thinks it is a superstition, and no doubt there are more. Ok, fine, I really, genuinely don't mind what you (or anybody else) thinks. Your beliefs fall into my "So-what?" category; I have no desire to persuade you away from whatever you choose to believe. But if (as seems to be the case) you imagine you can wear me down with your tirade and force me to adopt your beliefs, think again.
 * 2) - As pages are supposed to be edited by those with expertise on the subject (which I do have in the field of astrology), I have, quite reasonably in my opinion, asked you to say that you have some expertise - or even any knowledge of astrology at all. As you have signally failed to respond to this polite request (I wasn't even asking for proof - simply your word) then I think I can be forgiven for assuming you know nothing about astrology (after all, it does require at least five years assiduous full-time study to start to get the hang of it). If that be so, strictly speaking you should not be anywhere near the astrology page in an editing capacity. This conclusion is fair, reasonable and defensible on the evidence of expertise you have presented so far (none).
 * 3) - As for your "Straw-man" accusation, as I recall this was a deceptive technique explicitly adapted (from conjuring) by debunkers to facilitate attacks on astrology, psychism and whatever else the debunkers disliked. I totally repudiate any suggestion that I would adopt such deceptive techniques. I might be a bit of a joker sometimes, but I am not a deceiver (like that CSICOP shower of debunkers were proved to be) and strongly deprecate your inference that I am.
 * 4) - As you will see from the few edits I have made on the astrology article page, they have been minor and defensibly neutral. I have left the skeptics and debunkers comments untouched even though I strongly disagree with them, as they fit in with editorial guidelines. So please stop trying to push me off the page simply because I do not hold the same views and beliefs as you do. MayoPaul5 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am mostly critical of the way you are treating your fellow editors on the talk:atstrology page. Comments like I was just winding you up are not conductive to a collaborate project. I came to this page after editing some of the other pseudoscience pages because I understand the mindset and the reasons why people believe things such as this. What I lack is a knowledge of the intricacies of astrological theory, which is why we need experienced practicioners. It is important that the article contains such information and it is important that it honestly appraises the accuracy of the practice. In short, what I want is a good article, not a battleground. Please be more civil to fellow editors in the future. Jefffire 15:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! A reasonable comment at last! Clearly you are, after all, looking to discover the facts and not just your own prejudices. Therefore I'll forget your insults and go straight to the heart of what you ask. Astrology is not a pseudoscience, so your experience with these topics will not help here. It is a language, and you have to learn to talk it first before any level of comprehension is possible.


 * Glancing through yours (and like-minded) comments on the astrology:talk page, one thing that strikes me very plainly is that you discuss testing things that are guaranteed to produce null results. Concrete example: one contributor talks of testing Taureans for stubbornness. This would be a totally ridiculous thing to waste time and money on, because Taureans are probably no more stubborn than anyone else, regardless of what you might read in many astrology books (which, sad to say, are often written by authors who are also amateur astrologers as a sideline). Stubbornness is a negative characteristic - many stubborn people would not own up to it if asked. The majority of people are liars nowadays, so asking them about themselves will give slewed/inaccurate results. Levels of self-knowledge also vary enormously. All the fixed signs are reputed to be equally liable to tip over into stubbornness when in a negative state, though some other type of negativity may be preferred by many actual individuals of those signs. Only the whole of a birth chart is of any use whatsoever in determining which way they would go - to the best of my knowledge no useful results can be gained by analysing just one part of a chart in isolation, except as a theoretical exercise in learning astrology.


 * The nearest you can get to defining a "Taurean who is liable to be stubborn", is that they must also fit many other astrological criteria and have the attitude for it. Attitude is one of several non-astrological factors that cannot be safely ommitted from consideration. But even if I had a stubborn Taurean (or from any other sign) in front of me, I would probably not tell them they were stubborn, however true it might be, unless it was essential within the context of the appointment.


 * The intricacies of astrological theory cannot be contained in a hundred thick books, let alone one tiny article in Wikipedia. Maybe one day astrologers will get it all into a computer in some kind of effective form, then it will be very easy for anyone to test for accuracy. The efforts so far vary from poor to lamentable.


 * As for the "belief" in astrology (or religion or science), I don't recommend it any more than you would, I'm sure. Anyone who believes in any kind of system of thought is liable to be led by the nose by unscrupulous types, sooner or later. Somebody once said that "...to get a good person to do good things is easy; to get a bad person to do bad things is easy, but to get a good person to do bad things, for that you need religion". You could probably make an equal case for any belief system. I'm aware that some people do believe in astrology, but I always strongly discourage it. The attitude I recommend is common-sense plus a healthy skepticism - i.e. not the kind of paranoid skepticism that can only ever produce one result - failure of comprehension. MayoPaul5 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glab that you are willing to consider being more civil on the talk tage but your recent additions of So run away like a good boy. When you grow up, come back and talk.. are uncivil, although I appreciate that you have since promised not to repeat them. It was not my goal in the talk:astromony page to be percieved as insulting you or to be percieved as an adversary, but rather to advice against the confrontational attitude which you appear to have taken from the outset and I am sorry that my comments have been interprated as something other than they were intended. It is my hope that this whole incident will just be an unfortunate minor blip at the begining of your wiki career. Have a great time and stay cool while editing. Jefffire 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comment - almost (but not quite) friendly, and thank-you for your good wishes. My intention on astrology:talk was never to be confrontation, simply to prod, so I'm sorry my comments were misinterpreted. Hopefully if you've now abandoned your tight-lipped disapproval and out-of-hand dismissal of the subject (e.g.: "This is a superstition until proven otherwise") and are willing to look at it a bit more open-mindedly, then prods like that won't be needed. Now then, what about addressing the substance rather than pecking away at the form? MayoPaul5 10:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire - tell me you didn't stir up Lundse to take the action indicated in the following section and I'll believe you. MayoPaul5 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never encountered this user before. Jefffire 16:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hooray! That is the first straight answer I've got from you Jefffire! Progress indeed. Slightly spoiled by the fact that the last edit by Lundse on the astrology page was only 11 days before your first entry. Nonetheless, I accept your word as I said I would. MayoPaul5 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using talk.astrology as a soapbox. Jefffire 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll use it for what I like, same as you Jeffire. You may not say much, but you say what you like. Anytime anyone who has the knowledge wants to discuss something astrological rather than scientific or pseudo-scientific, my comments will rivet to that topic. Until then, the conversation is bound to wander between all the different soapboxes. Before either of us came on the scene I think your brethren had successfully frightened all the astrologers off the page, as astrologers are mostly very gentle people who dislike hassle and arguments. I'm not typical in that respect. MayoPaul5 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Using wikipedia as a soapbox is a violation of wikipedia policy. See | Wikipedia is not a soapbox if you don't believe me. You agreed to abide by the rules when you signed up. Jefffire 17:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell all the debunkers on their soapboxes then, not just me. Otherwise I may start imagining that you are still on some kind of witchhunt Jefffire, which is probably also against wiki policy. You already made one false accusation against me (trolling) and did not correct it. It was too trivial for me to take further, but I won't forget it. Now you follow up with further statements that are unevenly applied, therefore unfair. If you really believe I'm soapboxing any more than the other debunkers (i.e. not including you), make a complaint and see if it sticks. My motive has been to stimulate debate, which my comments have done, albeit of a variable quality and often with no relevance to the topic - hardly surprising when I'm debating with people whose knowledge of astrology could be written on the back of a postage stamp. If people ask me a question or accuse me of something, I feel bound to reply out of politeness or self-defence if I have the time. If that's soapboxing in your book, so be it. And what I read when I signed up said there were no rules, only policy guidelines. MayoPaul5 18:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs don't make a right. That's not policy but it certainly applies. Jefffire 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes you are so cryptic as to make not much sense, J. However, I do appreciate you owning up. All that's needed now is to put it right, whatever the "policy that applies" is, and to what. MayoPaul5 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that making a soapbox to protest a soapbox isn't a good idea. Jefffire 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal page
Hi, I came across your personal page Paul Mayo, and I think it belongs to wikipedia as a user page and not an article as it is self-biographical and (probably) non-notable. Head to Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Mayo to give your say in this.


 * My professional colleagues seem to think I'm notable (there are only about 150 of us in the UK, so we mostly know each other rather well), but I guess that doesn't really count when debunkers are the ones who are voting. MayoPaul5 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Notability is measured from the average encyclopedia-goer, methinks. Will someone look up your name other than your aquientances and clients? And BTW, wikipedia has a policy on sourcing claims, which pretty much makes the whole project skeptci/debunker according to your standards... Lundse 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also added your Jeff Mayo and Mayo School of Astrology, as they seem equally non-notable. I am of course willing to be shown wrong, there may be other reasons than your affiliation with them why you would add them to wikipedia and I urge you to let us know them at the vote page. Lundse 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "...other reasons than your affiliation with them..."? Lundse, scientists are not supposed to base their actions on pure assumptions, surely? Where is your evidence that I am affiliated to them? On your user-page you claim you don't assume things are true until proven (words to that effect). However, here you have clearly based an action on an assumption with zero evidence and zero proof. You either need to rewrite your user-page, or re-think your attitude and look before you leap. I am NOT IN ANY WAY affiliated to them. MayoPaul5 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I accept that. I made an assumption. It was based on the fact that you have the same surname and is the sole contributor to all the pages, so I maintain it was a valid (if incorrect) assumption. Regarding my skeptic standpoint, I had some evidence and made an assumption - now I have new evidence and maybe I am being naive, but I actually believe you and have changed my opinion - its a science/skeptic trick I know... Lundse 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need to believe me Lundse - simply ring the Principal of the College and ask her. She may know of me, but will be able to confirm lack of link to me. The number will be on the Mayo School website.


 * Read and deleted, I will be happy to have further discussions on validity and notability on the relevant pages. Lundse 07:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal repair
Thanks, glad to help. NawlinWiki 19:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Gunter, not Gunther -- DUH!
Hello: I semi-fixed your ridiculously egregious error on Gunther Sachs' Wiki page, except the actual page that you started isn't correct because, per this guy's website, it's Gunter, not Gunther (there is no 'H'). Move the page when you get a chance, unless someone else gets to do it first and laugh like I did. So much for basic proofreading, spell checking, and error-checking...please pay more attention from now on. Your blatant tendency to overlook critical details gives astrology a bad name. --64.12.116.12 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey! How are you? I haven't seen you around in a while and I just wanted to say hi. I didn't know you were a programmer! That's so awesome. I'm into technology as well, although I'm a far cry from programming (although I aspire to). Physics, software, and astrology... you must be pretty Uranian, huh? I hope you're doing well. Stay in touch! :) Sam 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Astrological associations
Astrological associations, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Astrological associations satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Astrological associations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Astrological associations during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello MayoPaul5! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Dennis Elwell (astrologer) -
 * 2) Hazel Courteney -

Nomination of Jean Elliott for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean Elliott 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 Articles for deletion/Jean Elliott 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 good 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. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jean Elliott


A tag has been placed on Jean Elliott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Roy C. Firebrace for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roy C. Firebrace 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 Articles for deletion/Roy C. Firebrace 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) 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicholas Campion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas Campion 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 Articles for deletion/Nicholas Campion 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) 21:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles E. O. Carter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles E. O. Carter 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 Articles for deletion/Charles E. O. Carter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.  Velella  Velella Talk 00:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeff Mayo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeff Mayo 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 Articles for deletion/Jeff Mayo& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.  Velella  Velella Talk 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hazel Courteney


The article Hazel Courteney has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Promotionally-toned article, very old but has never been well sourced. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or a more specific guideline such as WP:NJOURNALIST. A WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage about the subject, and only occasional material by the subject."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Melanie Reinhart for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melanie Reinhart 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 Articles for deletion/Melanie Reinhart until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)