User talk:Nathanael Bar-Aur L.

Thanks for your edits on the tarot card pages
I'm someone just figuring out how the whole system works, and just thought I'd say thanks for starting to fill in some of that information. Thanks. :) --BigCow 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure ;) if you want I can fill up on the other cards too. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would make me a happy Panda. I've compiled a list of notes for myself based on stuff I've read and my own interpretations, I may send it to you to see what ya think of it. My initial exposure to the whole system was Quest for Glory IV actually, and seeing references in things like The Red Violin have piqued my interest, have my first deck ordered from Amazon.--BigCow 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous link
Your recent edit to Guyana included one or more links to the page Chinese which  disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Guyana to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. RussBot 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Astrology articles
Just wanted to say that I am so glad to see another editor involved with keeping uncited changes from taking over these series of articles. Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These articles certainly need the upkeep. They seem to magnetize personal opinions! :) Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What software are you using?
Almost every astrology software I've tried had the major asteroids in it. Try Astrolog, it's pretty much the default astrology software. Or if you already are, you select the objects you want included in Settings > Object Settings. See also...

IdLoveOne (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's just it, you have to elect to add them, which means that the designers of the programs and websites did not find it appropriate for them to be inserted by default. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Popularity isn't everything. Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, it took them a while to gain the status they have now as full-fledged planets, it certainly wasn't easy for tinier-than-the-Moon Pluto to get the respect it has now. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And now these have entered consensus. Ceres has not, and the article must point to the status and current consensus of its use, with proper sources as per Wikipedia policy. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you checked the Asteroids in astrology page? There you can find some links with more information, citations and web sites about Ceres. I've been studying astrology for about 4 years now, not much, but I think the observing planetary transits and natal placement is a better (and more mature) way of learning what a planet does than relying too much on books and popular consensus. IdLoveOne (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems you are not considering basic Wikipedia policies in your edits, like Verifiability and No original research, or in the case of my edit you reverted, Neutral point of view. This kind of approach is unbefitting here, but unfortunately in the astrology articles it sometimes feels like I am the only one that cares. I urge you to please cite more sources (inline sources) in your edits. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In cases like these, I like to make sure the article is fair and that both or all viewpoints are represented (see the Ceres section now) or otherwise the one I feel the apparent facts hint at most strongly. I WILL NOT recognize a popular opinion (or one of slightly more popularity) as fact, especially when I have research that might indicate otherwise. Things like that are what caused the Salem witch trials and they only provide a secure feeling of truth, not the actual thing, which BTW is what I think you are looking for instead of what Ceres truly does. In matters of opinion, people should have the known facts presented to them so they can come to their own conclusion, not just the way one or two people want them to see it (but then, this is my own opinion). If you did your own research, you might discover something no one else is even aware of yet. IdLoveOne (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not discuss breaching Wikipedia Policies. I am not looking for anything but preserving the rules here. No original research is no original research. My personal opinions and observations I save for myself. I am not a reliable source as per the requirements of wikipedia, and neither are you. You can open your own website to discuss your personal research. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't use original research on Wikipedia, but I do tend to cite the sources of my statements, this is acceptable according to No_original_research and No_original_research


 * Maybe you should consider this too, since you care so much about maintaining Wiki policy: Ignore all rules. IdLoveOne (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Magician card
Thanks, we were in edit conflict and you beat me to it. I will take a look at more when I can, but this is a busy time of year for me.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. I'm too overzealous sometimes :) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. It's just I promised to do it myself and didn't want you to think I dropped the ball.  Thanks again.  Professor marginalia (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Boil
Just saw your edit on Aries, what does 'boil' mean?Doug Weller (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant boil down to. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Taurus physical types
Hello, here are my written sources for my Taurean description: The body type is usually robust or can be lanky which is what Linda Goodman says in her famoue book "Sun Signs"; whereas the Grecian nose and Rubenesque body for females comes from Talila Stan, a brilliant Israeli astrologer whose book is entitled " Cast Your Own Horoscope". Now for the part about the swan neck-well those are my words taken from another physical description of Taurean women which I got from Alan Oken's "Complete Astrology" in which he states that the women are "beautifully proportioned with wide shoulders revealing a well-formed, arched neck. They are extremely graceful in their slow movements and exude airs of deep sensuality, amazing drawing powers, and tremendous magnetism". Now doesn't that sound like an apt description for these famous Taurus women: Lucrezia Borgia, Anne Boleyn, Lady Hamilton,Catherine The Great,,the Grafin von Konisgmarck, Empress Eugenie of France,Eva Peron, Koo Stark,Italian singer Anna Oxa,models Linda Evangelista, Leaticia Casta,actresss Michelle Pfeiffer, Anne Parillaud, Uma Thurman, Penelope Cruz and the singer/actress Cher? All Taurean women.jeanne (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, thank you :-) I am adding those references to the article. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nathaniel, two other very typical Taurean women would have to include Bianca Jagger and Barbra Streisand. I notice you list modelling as a suitable career. That is true; Taurus women are easily the best-dressed in the zodiac.They are chic and strangely enough for such a conservative sign, their clothes are quite avante-garde but of the finest quality. They prefer fabrics soft to the touch such as silk, velvet, cashmere, chiffon. You should add a list of famous Taureans to the article. I note that you are a Taurus. I've got two sons who are Taurus plus a sister! It is an underrated sign and has probably produced some of the most influencial personalities in history, who have strongly impacted mankind for good or evil. Scorpio does not even come close!jeanne (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Shiny!

 * Thanks! :-] Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

templates
The date syntax is:, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT.


 * I understood that the new structure is . I have seen bots change the old  to the aforementioned structure. Which one is it then? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of list

 * Nathaniel, why did you delete the lists I put on famous people born under Aries, Taurus and Gemini? Today I was to list Cancer. I think a lot of readers would be interested in seeing such lists. Perhaps they could be restored and cut down to size?--jeanne (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne, I removed the material because there is a policy on Wikipedia that asks that people don't make lists of people that are not famous for being associated with the list's topic (in this case being of a certain sign). For example the Aries celebrities are not famous for being Aries people, but for being musicians, artists and politicians. This is the policy I am talking about, you can read about it: WP:NOTDIR.

This kinda makes sense, because there are too many "celebrities" in the world, and one person's famous guy is not famous in the eye of another. This means that a list of famous people of a certain sign may be never-ending. You can soon see the addition of thousands and thousands of people that you and me would not even consider famous or even interesting. This will easily overload the article with trivial information, instead of focussing on the more interesting discussion of the actual sign and its natives :-)

This issue has also been discussed on Gemini's talk page and on Aries' talk page. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. I included a lot of historical figures on my lists, whereas someone else may be only interested in sports personalities or rock stars. You are right- it could end up the length of a phone directory, with names being constantly replaced by others.--jeanne (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)--jeanne (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to add a list like that on the hebrew Wikipedia but it caused a mess and was removed :-) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Astrology and the Jewish religion

 * I notice that you are an Israeli. Nathaniel, I would like to ask you a question. How is astrology regarded in the Jewish religion? We all know how astrology fell into disrepute following the Reformation and the so-called Age of Reason, but what does Jewish teaching say? Do the rabbis denounce it or just simply ignore it's existance? I am curious, because when I lived in America the best astrologers I personally encountered were Jewish. Then there is Linda Goodman and the astute Israeli astrologer Talila Stan. Perhaps the ancient Hebrews learned astrlogy from the Persians?--jeanne (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm the best source for information about it. I dislike religion in any capacity as I consider it interfering with the pure spirituality I seek and believe in. I did undertake some Kabbalah courses and found that Astrology is often used in Jewish mysticism, even though conventional Judaism has a rather negative opinion of it. The approach to Astrology, as well as to the more controversial Tarot cards, really differs from Rabbi to Rabbi, so it depends on the dogma of the day --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift response. I've never studied the Kabbalah but that could explain the excellence of so many Jewish astrologers. Weren't the Templars also influenced by the Kabbalah? Personally, I've managed to blend religion with my occult studies and practises. For me there has never been a conflict of interest. I often discuss astrology with my priest and once I read his palm!--jeanne (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's wonderful that your priest has an open mind like that. I actually prefer Christianity to Judaism, just because I am a great believer in the holiness of self-sacrifice. The only thing I took from Judaism was "love thy neighbour as thyself", although it is seldom practised here, and I guess is also very close to the philosophy of Christianity. On the other hand I'm not sure the religious labeling helps bring humanity together. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But Christianity and Judaism are closely linked. Jesus was a Jew as were all of his disciples. Do you think the Magi were astrologers? I do.--jeanne (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are still fundamental differences. Christianity is more Neptunian in nature, Judaism is Venusian at best, seeking balance of giving and getting (also symbolised by the star of david). To the best of my knowledge there are no significant martyrs in Judaism, therefore there are no role models and no inspiration for people to get beyond their little selves. I see way too much hatred here, and it is often endorsed by the local religious figures. Did you see Israel's chart? Pretty harsh stuff --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Judaism and the Jewish people were ruled by Capricorn and Saturn. I knew Christianity was Neptunian. Isn't Israel a Taurean nation? And the Arabs are Sagittarius if I'm not mistaken. (Pluto is currently in Sagittarius now, as I'm sure you are aware! It's interesting that Catholics prefer the New Testament, whereas Protestants prefer the Old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Talmud the first Six Books of the Old Testament? Isn't King David much revered by the Jews as well as Abraham? David is one of the most popular names for Jewish boys in America.--jeanne (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Judaism also has Saturnian qualities, but scarcely any Neptunian ones, and I consider Neptune (on its positive side) to be the ultimate bridge to God. The Talmud is actually a collection of material by Jewish wise men, and not part of the Old Testament, and yeah these people are revered in Judaism :-) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the Holocaust Neptunian? I read that in Debbi Kempton- Smith's book.--jeanne (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Holocaust itself was, in a way, but never the people. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you would consider Christians to be Neptunian? How about Catholics and Protestants? Catholicism is probably closer to Neptune with Jupiter influences as well, whereas Protestantism is a mixture of Saturn and Mercury, wouldn't you say? Would Islam be Mars or Pluto? Buddhism is obviously Venusian. Zorastrianism is probably Mercury. Hinduism and Mormonism I haven't figured out yet. The latter could have Saturnian influences. Wicca is obviousy lunar as is probably the Anglican church.--jeanne (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not proficient in religions and especially in the forms of Christianity, although I would say of Islam that it may well be somewhat Neptunian, but in a more Plutonian fashion. The word "Islam" means "submission" (to God) which is a rather Neptunian thing, however its extreme inclinations, obsessiveness and sentimental-ruinous overreaction is also Plutonian. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at Israel's chart. Sun in Taurus, Moon in Leo, Libra rising. Mars in 11th house (danger from friends), and Neptune in the 12th but close to the ascendant(Holocaust). Capricorn on cusp of the 4th house. (The Jews are said to be ruled by Capricorn). Very interesting. Israel needs to worry about Leonian countries.--jeanne (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Leo Image Source Problem?
Hello! How did you mean that the "typical Leo" image I put in at Leo (astrology), and that you deleted there, was "not what the source says"? Did you know that my organization contributed the photo to Wikipedia Commons (see my user page)? I am the source. EmilEikS (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The source issue was addressed to the date change that I reverted at the same time. Concerning the image, there is no proof that most Leos look like that, thus it is conflicting with Wikipedia's verifiability policy - Verifiability. If there was a research that shows that most Leos do look like that then it may have been relevant, but obviously most Leos don't look much like each other. Bill Clinton looks nothing like Schwarzenegger or Obama, and none looks like the person in that picture. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the "source" complaint. Could you please help me by explaining it in layman's terms? I don't know what date you changed nor what you mean. The reason for the picture, which I hoped might be obvious, is that (1) the model is trying to look as much as possible like a lion and (2) is posing with the kind of astrological poster that was typical all over in the late 1960's and early 1970's when astrology was in a real heyday in Europe and America. The days of the musical Hair etc. The photo has astrology "written all over it" so to speak. I thought it might well illustrate the popularity of the subject in human culture, at times, stretched even to the point where some sun sign natives even will try to emulate the sign symbol. This is the only one of the 88 photos we have donated to Public Domain through Wikipedia Commons so far (link on my user page) that has been removed from the article it is intended for. If you would consider reinstating it, perhaps with a clearer caption of your own, I would really appreciate that. Thank you for all the good work you do! Sincerely, EmilEikS (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At the same time I reverted your edit I also reverted a change somebody else made to the dates of the sign. This part had nothing to do with you.
 * This is just not the place for this kind of image. The Leo article discusses specifically how Astrology views this sign. The picture does not elucidate this point in anyway. Just because somebody tries to look like a lion doesn't mean it should be included in the article. It only distracts the readers, which is what the Wikipedia policy asks to avoid (eg. WP:OFFTOPIC). I hate reverting other people's contribution, but there are policies in Wikipedia that are meant to insure a level of quality for the articles. You can also consult Wikipedia's Village pump about this. Have a good day, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Happy Holidays to you and your family.--jeanne (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very sweet of you. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a happy new year --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi Nathanael. A lot of your edits, if not all, seem to involve edit warring on sources. Can you explain this? I would like to remind you of Edit war, which applies, as well as 3RR, which applies to everything but "simple vandalism", poor sourcing not included. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All my edits are inline with Wikipedia consensus. The issue reported has already been discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have asked for administrator checking out the issue and nobody told me I was out of line . SotosfromGreece keeps inserting material that in not inline with WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV and is making personal threats. He has been approached by a third party but has chosen to "clean up" his talk page instead of replying to the issues raised there. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to come to Nathanael's defense here. He is only reverting disruptive IP's, IP's that are removing valid sourced material on the grounds of IDONTLIKEIT. If more people watchlisted these article Nathanael wouldn't be in this situation. Instead he is left to monitor several high profile articles and keep them clean. Ideally Nathanael should be requesting semi page protection on these articles. — Realist  2  02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Realist. Nathaniel and you are both doing excellent work on the article. As usual, IPs are coming along and removing sourced text because it doesn't go along with their personal opinions as regards to Taurean traits and physical descrptions.--jeanne (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Major Arcana
Nathanael, I am sure you must be aware of Crowley's treatise 'The Book of Thoth' however it might benefit from a re-read regarding the alchemical implications of The Magus, Art, The Star, etc. Crowley devoted quite some thought to certain major arcana cards from an alchemical perspective in his work. The Magician of Rider-Waite therefore became more of a divine juggler with Lady Frieda Harris' pictograms and symbols reflecting Crowley's insights. True - one could pour through copies of 'Equinox' ad infinitum but I think the aforementioned treatise might help. Just a thought, en passant.Ernstblumberg (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

astrology
some months ago(better said in 2008) a lot of information was available about astrological signs. as i observed the main contributor were you. there were maid a lot of vandalisms around there, people which don´t agree with astrology , and bla bla bla. Isn´t it supposed that wikipedia is a free encyclopedia were you can write anykind of information, while it has a source and it´s somesort reliable?(a lot of people have written books about astrology)

anyway, what i would like to say is : i somesort apreciate your works and currently i´m browsing the history of all those pages ,just to rescue that information.

--1c33y37 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Dihydrotestosterone.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dihydrotestosterone.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Leyo 14:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Brain.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Brain.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Entry on "Emptiness"
In n. 14 you refer to a US psychologist to support quotes on eating disorders, but in searching the info you provided, I can't find any article written by her. Did you take the quotes from an oral presentation? Can you please provide more info to source the quotes, which as title, date, etc. Thanks.Dalancer (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)