User talk:Starcartographer

Starcartographer, you are invited to the Teahouse
Thank you for the invite, I may stop by. - s t a r c a r (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent additions
I've reverted your recent additions to the Pisces article because they were based on unreliable in-universe fringe sources and primary sources. Please read the following policies and guidelines for more information: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR and Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the policies and guidelines you have listed here and will respond to each one directly:
 * WP:V - Not true. Citations I added are certainly verifiable. Did you actually look at them? The sources were published by reputable publishing houses. Several of the authors have Wikipedia articles, certainly an indication of their notability and/or expertise on the subject.
 * WP:RS - Not true. All additions are reliable. These were scholarly and academic, and in the least, serious works/ None are vanity, self published, etc.
 * WP:NPOV - Wikipedia articles I've read must be neutral; the sources can be ordered to contain all points of view, including ones which historically held merit on the subject you don't like.
 * WP:FRINGE - Not applicable per se. Zodiac signs are not fringe at all. Some could say religion is a pseudo science, and thus "fringe."
 * WP:NOR - Not applicable. All the information I added was backed up by citations from reliable sources.
 * I'm going to undo your edit because I believe the reasons you've given me are not substantial enough to delete my citations, or the policy you cite does not warrant deletion. I was very careful with my selection of sourcing before deciding to add citations. I ask that you please read over what you've asked me to, and before any further step is taken you talk to me or ask for a third party for help. - s t a r c a r (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Why have you accused me of edit warring? This is harassment. You deleted content without speaking to me. You didn't write anything on the talk page. I undid your deletion. Please give a reason somewhere. Unless you give a reason to remove cited information, I will add the information back.

A similar user User:Dominus Vobisdu deleted content a couple days ago, asking me to read a bunch of policy. I responded. - s t a r c a r (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you aren't reading WP:BRD, let me quote directly: Please take it to the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.

The reason you have deleted content should go in detail on the talk page. I will respond accordingly. Otherwise, your edits are hostile. I have addressed the policy concerns User:Dominus Vobisdu had above. - s t a r c a r (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "R" does not need explanation, the "B" needs explanation. Please "D" the "B" in the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that my addition of cited information is BOLD? - s t a r c a r (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying your edit was reverted and now you need to discuss it in the talk page before you attempt to restore it. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You have given no reason for reverting it. With your flawed logic, a vandal could delete any content they pleased without any reason, and I would have to discuss it in order to restore it? This is absurd. - s t a r c a r (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Any change to an article without previous discussion is a WP:BOLD change. Thus if you are reverted, it is expected that you will then discuss it (WP:BRD). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi IRWolfie,
 * I added relevant content to the topic, I honestly do not believe this to meet BOLD. If this was a highly contentious topic, something like global warming, I would understand if I had added something exceedingly controversial. What I did was add information related to the astrological beliefs of the sign Picses. I certainly did not create some horoscope, but as a valid, notable, and widely written about topic it deserves coverage.
 * I see no policy stating that adding content with citation falls under BOLD, or any other policy for that matter. - s t a r c a r (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bold applies to any content, even routine things. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems to make it rather difficult for content editors to add citations and information, if a user can simply remove dozens of references and material and not give a reason. That doubles the work for the content editor, and it is bad faith on the editor, while the deleter doesn't have to say a word on why the deletion occurred.
 * I will not argue about the "BRD" thing anymore, if I am at fault I do not see it, but nevertheless, I apologize. - s t a r c a r (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It works ok in practice; you just need to discuss things with people first when you get reverted. Usually something can be ironed out. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the article is better now, more balanced. Thanks to User:InternetMeme. - s t a r c a r (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virgo (astrology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Pisces article
Hi there,

No problem : ) I could see that you were adding well-researched information, and were putting a lot of work into it. It seemed to me that the point of contention was more to do with the context than the information itself: A large number of editors come from a rather scientific perspective, and don't really believe there's much veracity to astrological teachings, so they'll generally remove information that isn't based in science.

To avoid this problem, you might want to add new material within a scientific context, so for instance, use headings such as "Mythology" rather than "History", and write things like "According to practitioners, X affects y aspect of people's personality", rather than "X affects y aspect of people's personality".

Feel free to message me if you need any assistance, and I hope your editing goes more smoothly in future : )

InternetMeme (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there again. You may want to have a look at the Western astrology article. Some of the information you added to the Pisces (astrology) article was more general in nature, so I moved it to the Western astrology article.

You may find that many of your contributions apply to astrology in general, rather than just to Pisces, so you will probably be able to add some good information to Western astrology.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey InternetMeme,
 * Thank you for organizing it as such; it makes more sense and I agree, it will probably draw less scrutiny if there is an apparent separation of myth from fact via sections. I'm going to work a bit more on it tonight, so feel free to drop by at your leisure.
 * Regarding the move of "essential dignities," I suppose it all doesn't have to be there, but I imagined someone reading about it who didn't know much of the history and terminology. It left me inclined to add explanation, but the amount is debatable. Would it be problematic or redundant to add a more concise introduction into the section of planetary associations? I don't want to repeat what belongs elsewhere. - s t a r c a r (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Feel free to go ahead and add more information to the Pisces article. When you've gotten the amount of information to a point that you're happy with, I can sort through it and move the relevant pieces to the Western astrology article, etc'. The main point is that you don't need to worry too much about organizing the information, as I should be able to arrange it nicely and in a way that you'll be happy with. We could leave a brief introductory sentence to Essential Dignities, and cover the rest by placing a link to the main article. You may want to consider adding the bulk of that information to that article. At any rate, I thought I'd wait a couple of days so you can finish off what you're doing (we can always come back to it in future if you find out more stuff).
 * Also, you may wish to cut and paste this section of your talk page to the talk page of the Pisces article, just so other editors know our plans, and don't get on your case again ; ) I'm sure we'll be able to arrange things in a way that everyone's happy with. In the worst case scenario, people may decide that there is simply too much detail for the Pisces article, in which case we might think of making a new article (or expanding the Western astrology article) to covers the beliefs about the stars' effect on people's lives, with a section for each star sign.
 * InternetMeme (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will continue adding more information; I'll ping you in a few days. - s t a r c a r (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I've just had a read of the updated Pisces article, and I wonder, how do you know so much about Pisces? I don't think I've met many people that know as much about anything as you do about Pisces : ) Also, do you have a similar level of knowledge about the other star signs? It would be nice to improve the rest of the articles as well. InternetMeme (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I find astrology very interesting, read about it for years. I do know a good deal about the other signs, and I hope to work on them with the same focus. I've left a message on the Wikiproject Astrology page, but the members seem to be somewhat inactive with the project. - s t a r c a r (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I might start working on Taurus in the next week; not done with Pisces but I could use a refresh. Would you mind copyeditting Pisces? - s t a r c a r (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'm sure once the detractors see the extent and citations of your input, they're sure to appreciate it. As long as it's put in to a "mythological" context, I can't see why they'd complain. I have a question, though: There are a few different subsets of astrology, such as Chinese and Western. Which category is your information part of? InternetMeme (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It is all on Western Astrology, though I imagine a brief mention of the relevance in Chinese astronomy is warranted. I might try to reorganize the sections much later tonight... but I am interested in rearranging Zodiac and that will probably occupy most of my time for the next couple days. - s t a r c a r (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, how're things? I've been kind of waiting for you to reach a stage where the rate of editing of the Pisces article slows down, but you're still going strong ; ) I'll wait until youre happy with things before I do any editing and minor re-arranging.
 * Also, I thought it'd be good to mention that it's important that you keep all of the non-science/historical information within the "Mythology" section, as by putting it there, you somewhat exempt the information from criticism by other editors. They won't complain if it's presented within the context of mythology, you see : )
 * Also, nice work! You've made the aricle significantly more interesting and informative!
 * InternetMeme (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pisces (astrology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Pisces Anatomical Man.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Pisces Anatomical Man.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes
You are restoring a decidedly useless box to an article over a relevant template that actually directs people to useful articles. Can you please justify that. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your input re the Wikipedia Astrology Project
Hi Starcartographer 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) 09:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)