User talk:Theodore7

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Theodore7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

I'm glad you liked the welcome! If you need anything, feel free to drop by. By the way, please type four tildes (~~~~) after your messages on talk pages. It generates a signature showing your username and a timestamp, which will look like this: Theodore7 09:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to be of service. :) Sango123 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology Types & Forecasting the Weather

Would like to know who is a professional astrologer, and interested in talking more about reaching consensus on this page rather than leaving the entries to those who present obvious negative POV that is not neutral, but clearly biased on the applied science. Theo 13:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I have left a reply for you at the Talk:Validity of astrology page. I'm not an astrologer myself (more of a I Ching person), but I am not at all hostile to the practise. I have a lot of respect for scientists & the scientific method, but I also see that many make a new religion out of it and fail to see its inherent limitations, if that makes sense. Cheers, --Fire Star 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi FireStar, yes is does make sense. I also left a reply on that Talk Page. One of the major problems conventionalist scientists have is that they lack the intruments to weigh and measure the influences of the planets relative to the Earth. What they do not yet get is that judicial astrology - not "sun-sign astrology" - is the oldest science on earth and includes astronomy, which is the technical side of astrology. Astronomy is not meant to have a philosophy and yet they attempt to do so. Moreover, what is very interesting is that many do not believe in astrology, but I've been forecasting the weather for years using astro-meteorology and been very accurate - over 90 percent - and this perturbs some conventional scientists who do not study scientific astrology (openly) but see its amazing results. Many become cynics - which clouds judgement, and others who claim psuedo-science and laugh it away spend an awful amount of time on the subject. If its so funny then just chuckle and be on your way. But, you know, they seem to want to stick around and make sure no one else believes anything. That is suspect, don't you think? What on earth could conventional scientists be scared of? Theo 18:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Chinese make a strong connexion between weather and astrology (far beyond the obvious "It is winter so it must be cold" type). Unfortunately, the vast majority of their stuff remains untranslated. Myself, I'm also an amateur astronomy buff with a nice 750mm f5 Newtonian reflector, so I watch the moon cycles and local weather closely for observing purposes. I have noticed a correlation to weather dramatically changing immediately upon the full moon or new moon. Nothing systematic, just a trend I've noticed since I've been using the telescope. Of course, our no original research policy prevents me from mentioning anything like that in an article! ;-) Cheers, --Fire Star 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Fire Star, the weather changes accord to the gravitational cycles of the Moon relative to the Earth - known for centuries by judicial astrologers of nearly all cultures. The perigee cycle - from Full Moon to New Moon - brings the Moon closer within the Earth's orbit. These are also closely aligned with the northern and southern declinations of the Moon, in the tropical signs indicated, shows the type and strength of precipitation, among other effects, on the weather. For judicial astrologers, forecasting the weather is Astrology 101 - the first thing learned and the most easy function to perform using astrological principles - or, mathematics. Theo 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Magi

Hi, Theodore7. I was just wondering why you removed the info you did from the article on the Biblical Magi. It seems like the traditional names given to them would be useful, as that's pretty basic information and might be one of the more common things people would look up the article to learn, and second paragraph of section 1 does mention that they are not named in Matthew's account, so if that was the issue with that line, I think it's covered. Also, pointing to the Constantine disambig page doesn't seem any more helpful than the page for Emperor Constantine I - unless that's the wrong Constantine, in which case, which one should it be? Thanks! -- Vary 02:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vary - actually, that was a mistake. I was working on that and then I couldn't get it reverted back because I was blocked at that time and no matter what I did, it just didn't go through. I thought no changes were made. I left the tradtional names, and didn't get to Constantine, but will take a look again at Matthew's account. I did not have any issue with that line whatsoever. Re/Constantine, you know, that is a very good question. Which one is it? I will take a look if you will too. I didn't spend much time at all on it and glad you sent me a message. Get back to me. I'm going to take a look but would prefer it if you would revert it back to where it was when you worked on it. Thanks.Theo 04:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vary - I took a look and need your help on the section. Is it in your revert? Let me know. I will check out the right Constantine. I have a reference book on this particular era. Please remind me, ok? By the way, good references, and additions to the Magi history by you. That stuff is hard to find - on the Magi - and it looks like a lot of good work there has been done. My edits were minor - very - and were small additions. I'd like to know more about your knowledge here, because there isn't much on your talk page, I just added material on mine if you want to take a look. Theo 04:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to the Constantine page was added very recently - it pointed to a disambig before. When I saw it had been removed, I figured it was because someone disagreed with said edit. But, I've looked at Powell's articles, and he always says simply 'Constantine', rather than Constantine I or II or whatever, and that usually means Constantine I (the great,) and anything after II would be too late, anyway, so I think that Adam Bishop's edit was right.

If the changes were unintentional, I'll go ahead and put them back. And you don't need to look at Matthew's account, that's fine - I've checked, and the article is correct on that. They aren't named, but the popular names given them are still important, I think.

I didn't add anything at all to the article myself, actually - it's been getting a fair bit of vandalism recently, so I've had to do a few reverts on it, and have it on my watchlist. -- Vary 05:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vary, yes, me too. Especially on the references to astrology. Someone out there thinks they can undo thousands of years of history on this subject by using POV and vandalism on this subject matter. Just unbelievable. Thanks for the reverts on the material. Theo 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology

"Astrology and astronomy were once the same discipline and many famous astronomers practiced as astrologers."

This is a myth Theo.

Response: I suggest you study your history - because it is FAR from a myth. There are plenty, and I mean PLENTY - of materials out there that proves that this is a fact. Try starting with reading the "Tetrabiblos" to see that of course astrology/astronomy were ONE - how can you as a serious student even suggest such a thing as it being a myth?

"Astrologers maintain that the cosmos of which the Earth is a part, runs in cycles and definite patterns that have been observed for thousands of years to have effects on the Earth. In fact, those practicing astrology learn at the start that astrology is a very serious study of cycles and mathematical patterns in time. They apply mathematical aspects such as the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, and opposition to form complex calculations between celestial objects in their movements amongst the constellations relative to the Earth's position and the regions of time and space where a person is born to forecast potential future events. Free will is a given in true astrological practice, but is within the principles of universal laws - not outside of it."

The vast majority of astrologers in the world today don't believe that the planets and stars literally "effect" anything per se. The general consensus seems to be that it is more of a matter of synchronicity, or that the planets are mysteriously reflecting circumstances without there being any direct causal influence. Also, not all traditions of astrology use the major 'Ptolemaic aspects' of cojunction, sextile, square, etc. In modern Indian astrology they only use the whole sign opposition and certain special aspects for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Then of course you have other traditions of astrology which don't use aspects at all, so its misleading to imply that all astrologers use aspects. Also, you talk about "their movements amongst the constellations" which is only applicable to sidereal astrology, and not to tropical western astrology since Ptolemy established the vernal point as the primary reference point in the 2nd century.

Response: Study the techniques of tropical and sidereal astrology. This is NOT an valid argument. It is just about the "seasons" and the "constellations" due to the precession of the equinoxes. That is all. Question: how the hell can you conduct astrology WITHOUT using the aspects? Are you a serious student? What is mathematics for - nothing? Give me a break.

Also I object to this rather subjective statement that "Free will is a given in true astrological practice" because this is an issue that is constantly debated within the astrological community itself, and to state that 'only true astrology' in not fatalistic is completely biased. Different astrologers have different opinions about the subject, and who are you to say that the only real astrology is that which is free-will oriented? This is what I am talking about when I say that this is not NPOV.

Response: Free will is a given in astrological practice as it is in real life. I practice astrology - professionally - and by experience know this to be TRUE. Free will within the laws of the universe is a given. Suggest you gain more years of practical astrological practice under your belt before writing on the subject seriously. Experience and the gained knowledge counts for much.

"Judicial Astrology, the oldest form of classical astrology is an applied science not to be confused with "sun-sign astrology" - the popularized entertainment form of astrology that spread in North America in the early 20th Century."

What does this mean? Judicial astrology is simply a demarcation to separate the specific interpretive art of astrology from what was termed "natural astrology" in the classical and Medieval period. Sun sign astrology would still fall under the heading of Judicial astrology though because it is an attempt to ascribe meaning to the position of a celestial body at a person's birth. While it is true that this is an extremely simplified form of tropical natal astrology and that it doesn't accurately represent horoscopic astrology, that does not mean that it does not have some basis in it to some degree.

Response: This statement by you indicates a serious lack of knowledge of the subject. Suggest you study extensively because of the copious materials out there. Try taking a visit to Europe where you can spend time actually reading some of the original materials on astrology - because then you will have more knowledge to add to your studies.

"True classical scientific astrologers, do not separate from the science of astronomy, the scientific study of outer space and the applied sciences of astrology."

I'm currently studying Hellenistic and Vedic astrology which originated in the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE respectively, and I can attest to the fact that this is not an accurate statement to make. I suspect that this notion originated with a misreading of Ptolemy by some modern astrologers, but even he separates his books on astronomy and astrology. Even within his major treatise on astrology he makes a distinction between the calculations that are needed in astrology and the actual interpretive part of the subject.

Response: Hellenistic and Vedic astrology is judicial astrology practiced by the Greeks and the Indian cultures. Try not to confused the cultural/religious prespective of those cultures with astrological techniques. These are "techniques" that vary according to the cultural era of practice. At your age, how can you even be qualified to state that there is a "misreading of Ptolemy?" You are not an astrologer yet - but a student of astrology. There is a difference.

"Known as "judges of the heavens" - judicial astrologers rank among the most well-known astronomers, mathematicians and medical doctors in human history..."

I have never once heard this term "judges of heaven" used by any astrologers either modern or ancient and I seriously doubt the applicability of that title to astrologers in general and to this article in particular.

Response: That is the meaning of "judicial astrology" - judicial, meaning a "judge" and astrology referring to the study of the "heavens." If you haven't heard of it means that you have not reached this level of study. Any serious astrologer with knowledge knows the history of judicial astrology.

"...and include such names as Hippocrates, Copernicus, Nostradamus, Brahe, Johann Kepler, Galileo, William Lilly and Isaac Newton..."

While it is true that Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo were all astrologers in addition to being astronomers, and actually still have birth charts cast by them as well as some delineations, it is not an accurate statement to make that Newton was an astrologer.

Response: Really? Then you truly have much more to learn. Newton studied and practiced astrology as well as alchemy.

While he was clearly into alchemy and he would have had to of known a bit about astrology in order to carry out certain alchemical experiments, this does not mean that he was actually an astrologer and we have no evidence to substantiate that claim. It actually appears that he was quite hostile to natal astrology, although he appears to have believed in some quasi-astrological sort of things due to his Christian beliefs, such as comments being warnings from God. This is accepted by all historians of astrology at this point. For example, see Nick Campion's book Astrology, History and Apocalypse.

Response: he was hostile to "astrologers" who did not view the planets and stars with their own eyes. Of which there are quite a few who do not to this day. Moreover Chris, you seem to be picking gnat sh__ out of pepper here and you've got more to learn - MUCH MORE. I suggest you do that rather first before making changes on this subject. You are too young yet to make such absolute statements - particularly on astrology.

"Claudius Ptolemy, the Second Century A.D. judicial astrologer who is considered the father of western astrology"

This is just flat out inaccurate.

Response: How is THAT so? Ptolemy's work - even to this day - is required reading for most western students of astrology. Have you read, and studied the Almagest and the Tetrabiblos?

"declared that prediction of events was only possible through the union of two factors: first, correct mathematical calculations of the positions and motions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. Second, a prophetic spirit derived from God by which their configurations can be correctly interpreted by certain inspired human beings known as judicial astrologers."

You appear to actually be drawing on material from Nostradamus, but attributing it to Ptolemy. I’ve read Ptolemy and from what I can tell he said nothing of the sort.

Response: Of course he did. I suggest you re-read Ptolemy and stop wasting my valuable time with your long statements based on your lack of knowledge. I am an experienced astrologer Chris, and a teacher and I do not enjoy being lectured by a student who obviously has a lot more to learn. You are only in your early 20s and you dare to say that you've already gained the knowledge to make such bold statements?

"Today, judicial astrologers are rare due to the false popularization of sun-sign astrology"

Actually, there is quite a large astrological community in the world today and it appears to be growing. In light of that, I find this to be a peculiar statement.

Response: Yes, I am one of those judicial astrologers - with over two decades of experience and going into my third decade. Still, considering the vast number of "astrologers" in the world today, there are few constellational;, classical judicial astrologers as opposed to the past.

"It is said that nothing forecasted by a judicial astrologer should ever be taken lightly due to the seriousness and many years of practice to become a judicial astrologer. The average span of learning and astrological practice is over 20 years to reach the qualification level of judicial astrologer."

Ahem...

Response: Ahem, what? You express a lack of serious astrological knowledge and should know better.

"Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry - mathematical techniques invented by judicial astrologers."

I would like to see a source to back this up.

Response: If you do not know that these mathematical techniques were invented by astrologers Chris Brennan - then I suggest you back way, way up and start your astrological studies over. This clearly is a fact and the sources are out there easily for you to find. Jeez. Are you kidding me?

"Serious astrologers maintain that those who practice astrology without years of experience are not astrologers - but merely students."

I don’t buy this.

Response: as a "student" yourself - that is clearly obvious. There's nothing for you to "buy." But, if I catch you reading one chart as as "professional" Chris, when you clearly are not yet a professional astorloger - I will report you. This is a SERIOUS science and clients come to a professional with serious issues and you are not yet qualified - considering your statements here that show your lack of astrological knowledge - to be able to practice professionally. Put your time FIRST. Studying astrology is NOT the same as practicing in the real world. Understand? You are still a student. Don't go out there pretending to be a professional astrologer when you are not one yet. There's enough so-called "astrologers" out there who are not professional and give this science a bad name. These are the pseudo-scientists that I hate. They are lazy and don't want to work hard. it takes many years to become a professiona. And,I spent many, many years studying before actually reading professionally and you should do the same.

Conclusion: I really don't like psuedo-skeptics. The way I see it, a true skeptic is someone who is even skeptical of their own skepticism and thus they are more able to approach any subject from a truly neutral perspective. Psuedo-skeptics tend to just attack things right away due to prejudices and misconceptions about subjects. Its really annoying when someone is just attacking you all the time and making stupid assumptions because they haven't taken the time to research the subject that they despise so much. I think that this is even worse though, because this is essentially the exact same thing except that its focused in a more defensive manner. I think that this is even more destructive though. Although I can see that from your perspective you are trying to defend astrology, in actuality you are doing more harm than good because you are doing it in a way that is very hostile and inaccurate in places, and ultimately you are giving astrologers a bad rap because of this kind of aggressive behavior. I don't know if you are going through bad transits right now or what, but please, stop this madness and work with us here instead of trying to fight everyone.

Response: I am not fighting anyone. And, just who do you think you are to make such conclusionary statements on Astrology? You are a STUDENT Chris, and NOT a professional, experienced astrologer, or a teacher. You have a long way to go depending on the honesty and hard work you are willing to put into the subject. Moreover, I knew some people connected with Kepler, and some are very good instructors, but however, do not confuse your studies on Greek astrology with the entire knowledge of astrology. There is so much more to learn. Yet, you have the gall to write as if you are an experienced, professional astrologer. How dare you make such a statement that is rude, subjectly and clearly in error. The only "madness" here Chris is your assumption that you are professional in this science yet, when you are NOT. That is aggressive behavior my friend, and you have no right going around in your early 20s claiming that you are an experienced astrologer when you clearly have not reached the professional level as yet. As for going "through bad transits" - I suggest you read your OWN chart ONLY and not the charts of anyone else professionally until you have gained more astrological experience. Try astro-meteorology - forecasting the weather first - as this will sharpen your ability greatly by using an ephemeris right. It is the first thing learned by those studying judicial astrology and astrology in general and I started at the age of 10-years-old. I am now in my 40s. If you must make astrological assumptions Chris - while stating them as fact - please do so in your own studies and not on a Wikipedia subject page. You have much, much more to learn - especially on astrology in general. Forecast the weather to test your ability to read transits and to forecast for human beings. Do this and become expert at it before making predictions for real people in the real world. Theo 22:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hell no. Thats it. I was trying to be polite with you, but now you are going to try and talk down to me just because you are older and you think that you know more? That doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to the history of the subject, which you obviously haven't studied. You say that your "experience" and "knowledge counts for much", but you obviously haven't been studying too hard when you can make such blatantly inaccurate statements like "Ptolemy is the father of western astrology" and "Newton was a practicing astrologer". I know 14-year-old kids who know more about the history of astrology than you do, and that is pretty sad when you are trying to pretend that you are some great scholar of the subject.

Response: Again, experience and knowledge means quite a bit Chris. And, if you truly have been studying astrology as you say that you are then you would already know this. As for 14-year-old-kids who know more about the history of astrology than I do - I seriously doubt this. I am a scholar, great? I do not say so. I have taught and teach on the subject, and write on it as well. I have more than 21 years of experience Chris, and do quite well because I worked hard on this science. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 It is charlatans like you who continue to give astrology a bad reputation because not only are you almost completely ignorant about the history of the subject, but you are overtly arrogant about your ignorance and you flaunt it around. 

Response: Supposition. Suggest you reduce your ego-level, because as a "student" of astrology you have lots more to learn. You do not know me at all to make such statements. If you are going to call a professional astrologer a "charlatan" then I suggest you back it up with evidence. Be careful here Chris, because now you are writing things that are libelous because it is now in writing. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep talking about how you are a "professional" and a "teacher", but you aren't even aware of the simplest of historical facts about the subject.

Response: How would you deduce that? Prove it. Theo

You haven't written any books, and I doubt that you have any certification with any of the schools or organizations.

Response: That you are aware of. Supposition again and quite in error.

Basically, you are a 40-year-old nobody who knows less about the subject that you supposedly practice than some 21-year-old kid. 

Response: This statement proves that you will not become a professional astrologer. You show no respect, and think that your knowledge is equal to that of a practicing professional. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How very sad for you.  If you would just stop talking trash and trying to force your opinions and your faulty articles down other people's throats for one minute, then you might learn something and you might be able to actually change things around here to some degree.  But of course you wont, and so eventually all of your contributions will amount to nothing.  Way to go Theo.    --Chris Brennan 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  

Response: Suggest you take that very poor attitude and put your energy into actually becoming a professional. No one is trying to change anything around here. You assume way too much Chris. You make subjective statements, have made factual errors in astrological history and practice, and then go on to state that articles written from knowledge and experience are faulty. I've written many times on astrology, have lectured, taught and have a thriving client practice. I suggest you back off and spend your time studying rather than being rude and assumptive - very bad thing for an astrologer to do. My contributions are my own and made by me on my own and will amount to nothing less and nothing more. The contributions on Wikipedia is to expand knowledge, not restrict it Chris, and before you go on being rude about someone more experienced than you - take a step back and realize that there is a long way to go before you can practice professionally with the statements you've made here. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Theo, Astrology is nothing more than superstition, and vandalising a bunch of articles by sticking the words "astrologer and" before the subject's profession will not change that. I've backed out your changes on the hippocrates article, and will be watching for similar shennanigans on other articles.

Response: Using the word vandalism to support your POV is not enough for you to suggest that astrology is superstition - especially considering by your words here that you haven't studied the science to support your claims. I suggest on Hippocrates that you find out why then that he stated that a physician who does not practice astrology before treating a patient is a quack and not a doctor." I also suggest that you first study the science rather wasting time on opinions that are not supported by the historical facts. Theo 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology is not, never was, and will never become a science, no matter how emphatically you insist otherwise. You have some need to promote it, apparently, but please refrain from damaging unrelated wikipedia articles to do so. If you want to talk about Hippocrates and astrology, then I suggest a section at the bottom, along the lines of, "although a great contributor to medicine, Hippocrates was nevertheless susceptible to many of the superstions of his day, such as the belief in and practice of Astrology".

Well then, I guess then if you say so - it must be so then, huh? Suggest you read Hippocrates own words on the subject before making decisions for him, ok? Theo 10:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One thinks that rather than dredge up dead scientists and philosophers who used or believed in astrology, as well as a few living crackpots, it might be best to find a current professional astronomer, cosmolgist or astrophysicist who belies in or uses astrology. (And not that nut Hoagland, although precisely what discipline other than his own he thinks he follows is beyond me). Oh, yes, I forgot, I'm a cynic (actually, I'm a skeptic, but I'm sure that's just a simple matter of semantics). Jim62sch 20:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Astrology Page

If you are to make revisions on the Astrology Talk Page, then please at least source materials before entering POV on the page. This continues to be done and violates Wikipedia NPOV. The outline on the Astrology Page is for knowledge and expansion and is not a personal college paper, nor for those who have limited or no astrological knowledge to enter in the subject matter. Thanks.Theo 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits

You should read Wikipedia:Minor edit. Nobody would call [1] a minor edit, and many would consider it deceptive for it to be marked as such. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Bunchofgrapes. That was a free addition saved over a week ago. When sources are added to the that page, I add them. What do you suggest I do after additions, delete them?

I am afraid I am having trouble understanding you. The diff I showed you involved the addition of a great deal of text to the article, including new sections ==Introduction==, == Astrology & 20th Century Expansion==, and == Judicial Astrology: Astronomers, Mathematicians and Prophets ==, and == Mathematics and Core Principles ==.

I do not understand what you mean by "That was a free addition saved over a week ago." Are you saying you simply reverted to an old version? If so, I realize that, but that certainly doesn't make it a minor edit. I also cannot understand "When sources are added to the that page, I add them." That page? What page is that page?

Please enlighten me in a more clear manner. Thank you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Bunchofgrapes, I'm not the only newbie who, when editing material on Wikipedia - is immediately "attacked" with assumptions, direct accusations, and whatever, rather than honest intentions. I added material, and continue to use the Talk Page. That's it. I take good advice, and read and learn more about Wikipedia and the copius advice on matters that arise throughout Wikipedia. As for the additions, yes, as you know, they are linked, and relate to the same subject, which as with Astrology, have many branches. Suggest you discover that Astrology is not one monolethic subject, and is directly connected to many subjects: such as astronomy, mathematics, etc.Theo 01:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, all I was trying to say is this: if your edits aren't minor (and "minor" means typos or things like that), don't mark them as minor. It's very simple. Now you know. Cheers! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So, a typo is not a "minor edit?" What is a minor edit then? Theo 01:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, clarified my ambiguous sentence above. Fixing a typo is a perfect example of what makes a minor edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Was worried there for a minute.Theo 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

File:CandyCane.JPG

A candy cane for you!

Hi, Theo! I hope you have an enjoyable and relaxing winter break as well. :) Take care, Sango123 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You too Sango123. Learning more to become a better Wikipedian. Thanks for your great advice and even-handed perspectives.Theo 01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

benjamin franklin

Theo, I reverted your change because:

• you reverted WilliamKF's change
• you added something about astrology in a sentence which is mostly about science and technology. all I did was move your mention of astrology to the end of the paragraph.
• I moved your reference to "Poor Richard Improved" after "Poor Richard's Almanack", to which it is related.

Your comment in the history makes no sense. I know Franklin wrote Poor Richard's; that's why I added to reference to it. Did you even look at my change? I didn't take out any of your astrology stuff; I mostly just moved it around. I even added to it, to back up your assertion about astrology with a link to Poor Richard's. Pfalstad 03:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I added that because Franklin practiced astrology as a science. He wrote on, predicted, and used astrology in weather forecasting. He used a scientific ephemeris to do this, and this is applied science. Astrology is also not "stuff" and Franklin himself would take you to task on the usage of the word in connection to applied astrology. my "assertion" is based on Franklin's own works; from him - a primary source.Theo 03:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nostradamus

I couldn't be bothered getting involved in this dispute (I try to avoid one of the editors in the conflict, anyway) but I couldn't help but notice yourself and some others arguing that he is "considered by some" to be famous in the lead paragraph. Surely it's accepted fact, rather than POV, that he is famous - to say this isn't to take any sides, but to say some believe him to be famous just sounds odd. elvenscout742 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Elvenscout. It reflects much of the narrow-POV in versions by PL. Clearly, most people have heard the name "Nostradamus" - yet, this person's particular brand of POV cannot even allow for that! It sounds more than just "odd" - it just indicates an inability by some to even get anywhere near neutral in their own personal biased views.Theo 00:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment style

Hi, I'm making the same request to you I did to PL: please don't break up other people's comments on talk pages (see wikipedia:talk page guidelines#formatting). It's a style familiar from Usenet and email, but it effectively turns what should be an open discussion into two-way conversation. (I'm looking at your exchanges with PL and it's hard to make head or tail of.) It is much more helpful to split replies to different points by numbering within a paragraph, or different paragraphs, or even subheadings. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice

I reverted your edit on science and added an explanation to the talk page. From skimming your user page, I gather you have the right mind set to successfully work on Wikipedia, although your ideas are controversial. Your problem seems to be that you are doing things that you could easily get away with around here if you were pushing mainstream science. But you are not, so if you want to make an impact I advise you to be extra careful to actually do what everyone should be doing (but few people do), in particular:

• Use a clear and unambiguous writing style
• Never lump together no-brainers and potentially controversial edits into one
• Be rigorous in quoting sources, and use the best quality sources you can find (peer-reviewed history journals might help, for instance)
• Mark controversial edits clearly as such (your edit summary in science, for instance, should have contained the word "astrology")
• Avoid interpretation (like calling mainstream scientists "conventional thinkers") and focus on verifiable facts

I hope you will stick around. WP needs editors who challenge convential wisdom. Just play by the rules, even if others don't. Good luck. Algae 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks Algae.Theo 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kepler

I've reverted your recent edits to Kepler. While I appreciate you point about the importance of astrology, this article was already clear about it being a significant part of Kepler's professional work. Many of the people in the article (Tycho, Galileo) were also astrologers, but in the context of this article "astronomer" or "astonomer/astrologer" are fine concise descriptions the way they are, and should not be simply replaced with "astrologer." Replacing "Lutheran mathematician, astrologer and astronomer" with simply "astrologer" is the kind of edit that requires discussion and consensus. I hope you will try to contribute something substantial (and sourced) to Kepler article, but please visit the talk page to argue your point before making any more such changes.--ragesoss 14:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the edit that was reverted is better since my last addition. Thanks.Theo 04:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Science

I've reverted your edits on Science. I appreciate your interest in this article, but you should cite your information from a reputable scientific source. Please do not simply add your information back into the article. Revert wars are unproductive and waste Wikipedia's resources. --huwr 05:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added sources. My interest in the article is the same as yours I hope - honest, direct, and without the conventional view posing as THE view. I disagree with this. There are more points on the circle than one. I would suggest that what you call "reputable scientific source" is POV subject to those who would cause revert wars - something I abhor, but which seems to be rampant on Wikipedia due to some who think re-writing history using POV and picking "sources" that fit into their own POV is reputable. I disagree. The history is there, and suggest it be added in a neutral manner, yes, but not when it is subject to one's POV and there's plenty of that going around on many topics. Thanks.Theo 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you have reverted it back, undoing 3 weeks of other people's work. This is unhelpful behaviour. Please stop it. --huwr 10:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for reverting Saturn

Reversion

Hexagon at Saturn's pole: I can't see it on Cassini images, and you haven't provided any sources for this observation. Even if this has been noted elsewhere, it is hardly striking.

I suggest you look harder. Cassini was not the only probe sent to Saturn, you do know this?Theo 10:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Galileo as Italian Astrologer: There's no need to note it in the Saturn article, and even then, he's considered an Astronomer.

By whom? Galileo was, foremost, an astrologer. It took the Vatican nearly 400 years to apologize to him for practicing it. Suggest you give the man a break too, ok? I also suggest you read his astrological works before going around stating what he is considered by, and by whom. Let history speak for itself and let's avoid the POV that wants to avoid astrology like it is a sickness. Read the history, and let the facts speak for themselves, ok?Theo 10:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope you're not headed for another 3RR.

Wikipedia has been having technical problems - suggest that it get fixed since one edit turns into more than one because of the Wikipedia is having Technical problem page coming up when an article is being edited.Theo 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

JamesHoadley 05:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Listen, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game, ok. Suggest you find your images of Saturn's north pole. As for Galileo, other astrologers/astronomers are noted for their nationality/culture (see Copernicus, Brahe).Theo 05:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, if you make the claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence. That after all is how science operates. As for Galileo being an astrologer, he was certainly more than that, so your wording is misleading. Assuming he was an astrologer - that needs to be hammered out in the Galileo article before being quoted elsewhere. kwami 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Galileo was an astrologer? Are you serious? Please, get real and study the history first. Obviously, you have a preconceived notion about how "science operates" and your statements here indicate a conventional view that is not the ONLY view of science. Jeez! Assuming Galileo was an astrologer! You get your own evidence on Galileo being an astrologer. How old are you?Theo 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My dear Glaucon, he who asserts must prove. Do so. Jim62sch 20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That works both ways.Theo 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you cannot discern who has asserted. Simply put, you did. In fact, you give the impression of being the Rush Limbaugh of astrology and other related pseudosciences - big on bluster, short on proof, full of venom and puerile insults. Moreover, this little habit of crowing "look it up yourself" is certainly not what one might expect from someone who claims to be a writer, my dear Glaucon. Jim62sch 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your impression is in error Jim. My knowledge on these subjects is not "bluster" and I suggest you review your own comments for "puerile insults"... as you throw out these one-liners yourself. As for "the little habit of crowing look it up yourself" - I mean it - it is called research - try it. And the history is there. Suggest you replace your POV with checking facts, and opening your eyes, rather than asking someone to think for you. Think for yourself by allowing your mind to be open, and free, skeptical, by all means, but without the "puerile insults" you use yourself but see in everyone else who does not share your un-informed POV.Theo 10:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I have seen the light, any (alleged) POV that does not agree with yours is uninformed. Okey-dokey. As for the rest, I stand by what I said. Another aside, I'm well aware of what research is, but you don't seem to be aware that any true scientist will show his proofs, not merely spout off alleged factoids devoid of any reference. Once the scientist has done that, the process of research via a peer-review begins. Jim62sch 11:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

history of mathmatics

Sorry to doubt you but I was ignorant of the connection between astrology and the early history of mathmatics before now. David D. (Talk) 05:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ok David, at least you are honest enough to say so. That's light years better than some who want to rewrite history to fit their own POV.Theo 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• You are aware that the light year is a measure of distance, right? One would hope that someone professing knowledge of the stars would know something about the distances between them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 05:56

Obviously Brian, you seem to know much about light years, but very little on good manners. Suggest you begin there first and remember that snobbishness, rude comments, and a poor overall attitude is not akin to being an honest writer, or scientist. If you must be rude, I suggest you not write to me because I am busy, and yes, light years away from your unprofessional, and immature comments. Try being a good Wikipedian.Theo 06:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

)

Algorithm

Your changes to algorithm have been reverted. While they are correct, the fact that al-Khwarizmi was a astrologer is already mentioned in his biography and not very relevant in the algorithm article. Cheers, —Ruud 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with Ruud here. al-Khwarizmi's work as a mathematician is germane to the topic of Algorithm. His work as an astrologer is not. /* Pradeep Arya 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) */

I suggest you read Boyers' History of Mathematics, and realize that al-Khwarizmi's main work was as an astrologer - which means that he was a mathematician. Suggest you study the facts of the history and not your POV.Theo 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure to which POV you are referring, please elucidate. That said, I seem to understand you saying "astrologer equals mathematician". Even if that were true in al-Khwarizmi's time, it certainly isn't true in our time. We need to write Wikipedia for people to understand it today with the way they use language today (not as language was used in al-Khwarizmi's time). /* Pradeep Arya 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) */

I reverted your most recent changes to Algorithm, please see Talk:Algorithm. /* Pradeep Arya 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) */

Look, up until the 19th century many if not most scientific and historical figures believed in astrology. Why? Because they were ignorant of the truth (no, this is not POV, this is simple fact); they were ignorant of cosmology, they were ignorant of astrophysics, genetics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc. (Yes, yes, Newton believed in astrology, but he was a man of his times and a little nuts toward the end). Al-Khwarizmi's astrological beliefs are irrelevant to his work as a mathematician. He is not remembered (by most) for his astrology, but for his mathematics.

Furthermore, what would be far more impressive would be if you were to find a living leading scientist in any field of real science who believed in astrology. The past is nice, and those who refuse to study it are doomed to repeat it, but the present is pretty damned important as well as, to use a trite saying, the present is the future's past. Jim62sch 22:11, 9 January 2006

(UTC)

Let me answer this way: people who have a "problem" with astrology - often, and I mean OFTEN do not know that astrology is a science. Many who are detractors have not studied it, nor practiced it, and when they "offer" their views, it is from a state of ignorance, not knowledge. Moreover, every time a bridge is passed, more so-called "qualifications" come - such as your statement aboce that says to find a "living leading scientist in any field" as if this is going to cover every scientist on the planet. Get real. I suggest you actual show some knowledge of scientific - not "sun-sign" - astrology to be able to hold an intelligent, informed conversation, or debate on the subject, rather than standing as a statue on your single point-of-view, making assumptions stated as fact on a subject you have not studied to be able to offer an intelligent opinion. Suggest you take your own advice about the past - you should study it, and what you will find about serious astrology will open your eyes, and perhaps your mind, that is, if you are honest enough as a scientist to put your preconceived views aside and practice "science" as a verb, rather than a dull noun. Explore, openly, and discover and perhaps the truth will set you free.Theo 11:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The truth has already set me free. Scientific astrology is an oxymoron. And one little note about me, I'm a skeptic in the true sense of the word. I look into an issue quite extensively before making a decision as to its level of validity. If you wish to believe in and practise astrology you are more than welcome to do so -- it's your right as a human. But don't try to sell me on it and don't assume that I know nothing about it.

Not trying to "sell" you anything. And, I can only assume what you know about astrology from your writings here. If you profess knowledge of it, then, by all means, say so, and let's talk about it. I am quite versed in it as well, and practice it professionally, and teach on the subject. So, please, offer your knowledge of astrology here. It is very welcome.Theo 11:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You also obviously missed my point regarding finding a leading scientist who believes in astrology. Jim62sch 11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As for your other statement Jim, I would have to respectfully disagree. Quite a bold statement to say that these historical figures were ignorant of the truth. What truth are you referring to? Re/ Al-Khwarizmi - suggest you actually read his many books before making such loose statements as astrology being irrelevant to his work. How is that so? Mathematics is critical to astrology - not secondary to it - but primary in caluclations of the celestial bodies relative to the Earth. There are scientists who also practice astrology. Belief is not required. As for the "past" - in many other areas - it is called history - and it is relevant.Theo 04:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not that bold of a statement, really. There is a large gulf between what is known today and what was known even 100 years ago. Ignorant in this sense merely means that they did not have this information at their disposal, not that they were benighted.

Yes, mathematics is critical to determining the position of celestial bodies, and yes many Arab mathematicians used math primarily to assist them in determining the dates of specific events related to Islamic celebrations, but it is the math that has made its impact felt on the world not the why or how they developed it.

Well, that sure is one way of saying it. I disagree. The Islamic astrologers did much, much more than use math to assist them in determining dates of events related to their celebrations. They forecast the future using astrology, improved stellar calculations by applying Hindu astrological mathematical techniques, algebra, trig, and named many of the fixed stars we continue to use today. Algebra was applied as a shorthand by astrologers, to shorten the lengthy calculations they made in developing ephemerides. Many planetary calculations involved numerous variables, and algebra was a way to cut down on the mathematical work. These Hindu, and Arabic astrologers also wrote extensive, and I mean extensive, astrological treaties. These texts were written after the fall of the Roman empire, and during the Dark Ages of Europe. They were later translated into Latin, and disseminated throughout the western world. This led to the Renaissance, and the re-emergence of astrology in Europe, where leading lights such as Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, etc., took the lead in postulating the nature of the cosmos, and defining universal laws. Remember, the Age of Reason, or "rationalization" of science is fairly recent, and led only to defining that which can be weighed and measured, but I do not state here that this is the only "proof" of anything. Love, for instance, cannot be measured, or weighed, but, it does exist, does it not? Or, when I ask you: do you love your wife, or your mother, or your children, and you answer, "yes" and then I say, "prove it" - well, this is the same kind of stance conventional science has taken with astrology, and many other subjects it claims are things that cannot be proved by them. I disagree with this view, since rationalization is only one form of investigation in science - not THE only form. Just because the last 100 years has shown a huge leap of technical advancement, via the use of machines, to weigh, and measure, and calculate, does not allow for a philosophy of it to dominate and determine what "science" is - or to use one philosophical form of "scientific evidence" to state conclusively what is real and what is not real. I reject that view. Remember what Shakesphere, (Francis Bacon) another astrologer, by the way, wrote, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Theo 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, speaking of bold statements, we have this: "There are scientists who also practice astrology". Who? Are there leading scientists along the lines of a Hawking, or a Shirakawa, or a Witten, or a Kohn, or a Rao, etc., who practice astrology (and yes, a belief in astrology is a prerequisite for practising it, just as a belief in a religion is a prereq for practicing the religion).

I purposefully did not use the word history, as an item from the past is not history until it is studied.

As for any influence that celestial bodies might have on us, I note that the computer you are sitting in front of has a greater gravitational effect on you than does Jupiter. Besides, I view astrology the way I view biorhythms and religion: one is free to believe whatever one wishes if it in some way provides them with a sense of fulfillment. Just don't try to claim that the basis for the belief is factual.

Well Jim, I suggest that perhaps you might want to take a look at what you think the defintion of "astrology" is. I am as hostile to those who practice astrology as a silly game, as I am to those who state such "facts" on scientific astrology without direct knowledge of the subject themselves. Both are in error. In fact, Jupiter's magnetic effect on the Earth is second only to that of the Sun, which is, as you know, a giant magnet with a plasma core. We see this from the space weather and how ions, protons, electrons, seriously impact the Earth's atmosphere. At least the U.S. Navy takes it seriously enough to monitor space weather. Moreover, as your must know, there is quite a stir going on about Jupiter & Saturn's north poles. The solar system, fixed stars, and planets have a direct influence on the Earth - and I suggest that just because conventional science does not have the tools and instruments yet to "prove" this - does NOT make these effects any less true. That is the problem with "science" as it is practice today. Moreover, I would like you to understand that the hexagon image on Saturn's north pole is REAL, and as well, the image on Jupiter's north pole - both emit powerful radio and X-ray emissions. Saturn's north pole contains a perfect hexagon. Are you aware of the Meson Octet? I suggest that science, as practiced now, conventionally, is seriously setting itself up for failure due to closed minds. On your view of astrology - suggest you actually monitor the daily transits of the planets and fixed stars relative to the Earth and make observations before believing ANYTHING. Remember, the Sun, Moon, etc., do not require anyone's belief to have an impact on the Earth. Belief is personal - first, add to your knowledge, observe from a neutal point of view, and gather as much information and knowledge as you can before setting your "beliefs" in stone - especially on the subject of serious astrology Jim.Theo 11:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you've used Newton's laws on gravity to explain this, yes? Of course, as far as a reason the earth goes around the sun, poor old Newton has been discarded, but the rest of the theory, regarding the diminishing effect of gravity (the weakest by far of the four forces) based on its distance holds up pretty well.

As for the rest, sorry, but it's just too silly to take seriously. Even if the hexagonal shapes were real, what would they mean? As for the mysterious electro-magnetic emmisions, the sun does the same thing. So does the Earth. The point? As for monitoring the transits of the stars and planets, all that would do is to prove to me that the earth does indeed rotate, that's it. Jim62sch 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Please read up on WP:3RR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. —Ruud 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violating the three revert rule on Algorithm and Astrology. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --BorgQueen 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be nice if some Wikpedians would actually use the Talk Pages rather than iniating revert wars. Also suggest BorgQueen, that you not play "favorites" concerning violations of 3RR. Sugget again, to you, that you check to see what technical issues may be happening before jumping the gun. Also, again, I request that Wikipedia's technical page problems be addressed during edits, as one edit turns into three when the save page button in activated. This is the second time this has happened; however, presumptions are made. Suggest that checking the technical issues precede blocks of users. Ask them what is happening, remind them of the 3RR policy, and email users about possible technical probles. This would cut down on the blocks, save time, and highlight technical problems such as the frequent Wikipedia Technical Problem page appearing after the save page button is pushed. This has happened several times already, and I request that it is addressed. Thanks.Theo 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like the last time you made this strange excuse, Theo, the facts do not back up your beliefs. (A pattern?) Go look at the history of the Algorithm page. You made four reverts, not in a matter of minutes or seconds, but over the course of 19 hours. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would suggest that indeed, I am not engaged in reverts since several others made instant reverts - much earlier than 19 hours. Moreover, I noticed that you did not ask here what the page looked like, and if, indeed there are Wikipedia Technical Problems and a page that exists that does pop up. Suggest that if you are to be respected for administration, that you at least make the attempt to also check it out, rather than using the accusary tone as if I am making this up. I am not.Theo 15:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is surely on the cutting edge of Wiki technology here, a single button click allowing a user to violate 3RR in two different articles over the span of 19 hours. They should really patent this thing. Remember, "It's not a [technical problem], it's a feature!" /* Pradeep Arya 12:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) */

"some Wikpedians would actually use the Talk Pages rather than iniating revert wars"

Yes, I agree. But I am not initiating anything of the kind. I am new to Wikipedia, and just taking notes on who is - and have already a few names on the list after only one month. Newcomers see much POV since one cannot assume that they are here to start "revert wars" they never heard of a month ago.Theo 15:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I placed the Mathematician / Astrologer section on the Algorithm talk page. Some Wikipedians were trying to use the talk page (i.e.: me and many others on Algorithm). No "revert war" took place; rather one Wikipedian violated the 3RR and was properly sanctioned by BorgQueen for doing so.

BorgQueen, that you not play "favorites" concerning violations of 3RR

There was only one Wikipedian who violated the 3RR. Kinda makes it hard not to play favorites, doesn't it? (In the way that my favorite brother is also my only brother.) BorgQueen handled with situation with speed, accuracy, and tact. You should thank your lucky stars such a considerate admin handled this, there are some others who would not be so forgiving.

Wikipedia's technical page problems ... one edit turns into three

Bologna (patent nonsense), for reasons given by Bunchofgrapes above. (In short: One edit turns into three spaced over 19 hours?)

remind them of the 3RR policy

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a babysitter, please take some responsibility for your own actions. Suggest you use astrology to predict when you might be in danger of violating the 3RR.

Theo, I had sympathy for you. That's why I put Mathematician / Astrologer on the Algorithm talk page and requested protection for Algorithm so you'd get your fair shake even though I disagreed with you. However, my sympathy has been exhausted; shirking your responsibility and blaming BorgQueen, blaming Wikipedia's technical problems, blaming the good faith editors at Algorithm, is too much for me. Suggest you take a good long look in the mirror. /* Pradeep Arya 12:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) */

First, I never asked nor desire "sympathy" and question what you mean by "shirking responsibility." Moreover, I suggest before your presume - and you are presuming much - that you first ask, rather than making such general, sweeping statements, and personal posts, regarding encyclopedic edits. I do not enjoy, nor like assumptions, while questions are not first asked to gain a response that may be counter to what was presumed prior to writing such statements as you have above. As for taking "a long look in the mirror" - I advise you to please avoid POV on such historical figures as Al-Khwarimi, and check the facts, which can, and have been sourced, that may be opposite to your POV. Perhaps this may be "what is too much" for you. Try to keep your personal assumptions off Wikipedia and this Talk Page, and advise you ask first before assuming. Thanks.Theo 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion seconded. There is more to be learned by looking inside than by looking outside. Jim62sch 00:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That is also an assumption. All views are not the same. Suggest you discover this before deciding that one size fit all.Theo 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that all external data must be internalized and analyzed before reaching a decision the onus of the decision-making process is therefore placed upon said internalization, thus I think my point stands up pretty well. Jim62sch 01:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More Wikipedia policy

Do not remove messages from your talk page (see WP:UP). —Ruud 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Theo 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Posts of a 20-year-old Know-it-All

Theo, on Talk:Algorithm you said the following to R.Koot:

Or, does it bother you that they were Hindus, and not western Europeans? Is that it. That Hindus discovered the value of zero, and algebra, etc.? Does that bug you?

Please apologize to R.Koot for that. He hasn't said anything that would indicate he's bigoted against Hindus. Remember: Assume good faith. Please apologize to him.

I would assume that works both ways, yes?

Stop playing games, this is your last warning. Read Wikipedia policy. Try me one more time, and you will see.Theo 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ok I'll try. Dear Theo, please sign the comments you leave on my talk page. —Ruud 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Thanks for the reminder.Theo 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hindus discovered algebra? Forgot a few steps in the history, eh? Jim62sch 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. However, if you have something to add; then it would be nice to know since the historical data on this is extensively sourced, and cited. Add your knowledge and source, by all means.Theo 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See [Algebra, history].

BTW, the following is a threat: "Stop playing games, this is your last warning. Read Wikipedia policy. Try me one more time, and you will see.Theo 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)". You might want to rethink it and soften the tone a bit. Jim62sch 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This was not a threat: it was a direct statement to stop playing games, and means just that. I am a writer, and if I wanted to "threaten" a person - I would be much more direct than this. I have repeatedly, kindly, asked this individual to several times before, and using the words "please" and "kindly" did not take to him. He did not comply - on several occassions. So, I used stronger language. Prior to this, I used softer language, and tone, and suggest that the individual involved take heed to my requests to not bite newcomers. I will again use softer language, as you requested, and will again soften my tone; however, it would help if you would remind the user as well, then I believe the situation he started will cease, and the game of biting newcomers will stop. Sometimes, when attacked without reason, we newcomers bite back. Theo 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for butting in - you may wish to consider that the fact that a more direct threat can be made does not necessarily mean that "Try me one more time, and you will see." is not a threat. A veiled allusion to unpleasant consequences can indeed be taken as threatening. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was ticked off. I am human, and don't like "head games" being played with me. Strong language yes, but not without provocation. I dare anyone to be more patient, and to practice this in the real world as theories sound nice, and wonderful, but anyone with any sense knows that to corner someone is asking for trouble. If he backs off, then ok, but the harder language was needed; however misplaced, and I apologize. Suggest that if a man apologizes that the other man do the same. So, let's see if this happens, since I have reached out. Sometimes, we newbies have to bite back. We have teeth too you know.Theo 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

New User

Well, you've gotten my goat. Good job. Advice:

1. Stop edit warring. That means if you find yourself wanting to revert back to an older version of the article that you preferred, don't.
2. Stop attacking people for being young, ignorant, inexperienced, or whatever. Focus on the edits, not the editor. That includes focusing on your own edits, rather than your own credentials.

When you tell people that you shouldn't have gotten a 3RR because it was a software glitch (something you have claimed twice now, and in both cases you had four reverts on two separate articles over more than 10 hours), it makes me think you are being dishonest. The first time you claimed it, I showed you the diffs, showed you how they were spread out over hours, not all at once like a glitch might cause, and you seemed to understand. Then, a couple days ago, you went on another revert war, and, once blocked, again claimed it wasn't fair because it was a software glitch. You could see where that would get me thinking "maybe he now knows that's not true; after all, I explained it to him before. He's a smart man. Maybe he's telling tales to garner sympathy." If I'm wrong about that, sorry. But in any case, you are edit warring, and complaining that the 3RR blocks are unfair is wrong one way or another. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, just because I may be "smart man" does not mean I am lying, or making things up. I did have glitches when I was editing a page, and I made the mistake (more than once) of pressing the save button, because I thought I was going to lose the addition I wrote - that's all. You know, I did not know what "revert wars" were, or "edit warring" - I had no idea, and had to find out by reading other's talk pages, and Wikipedia pages on it. I've been accused of a lot of things that I am NOT doing, and as a new user it is frustrating because some people just jump to conclusions. To me, this makes their own editing suspect, because, if they do not assume good faith from the start, perhaps they are also doing POVing on articles. From what I can gather after only a month here; it seems like I just ran into some people who have staked claims on articles, and are rather nasty when anyone comes along - especially a newcomer like me - and adds, edits, or even uses a Talk Page. I may be smart, but that does not mean I am a liar, a plagiarist, a racist, pro-astrology, a bad writer, a bad editor, a revert-war monger, telling tales, etc., - and more - I've been accused of more things in the last month than in all my four decades on this earth! It is just amazing. I am human, and new to Wikipedia, but not stupid. I can see territories being staked: and it is disturbing. Now, we've got the Inquistiion. You know, as a veteran journalist, right now, I would not use Wikipedia as a sure reference, seeing my own brief experience as an editor. There are people here who won't cite sources, attack, falsely accuse and on and on. As a newcomer, it makes me question if I want to remain as a Wikipedian. I gave money to the cause after joining up, but things are really getting out of hand. And you know, I do assume good faith, but it is a highway, you know, and some of the people I've encountered here, well, they sure have some strong POVs and "revert war" a lot for people who claim they don't. So, ok, I will take your advice. Could've used it sooner from you... it would have made a difference, but right now, well, I just don't know about Wikipedia.Theo 13:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Theodore, you have over 700 edits to various articles since 13 December 2005. That's 700 edits a month (about 1 an hour), about the same amount that I have done in 18 months. You are not a new user, sir, and constantly claiming that you are is beginning to look little silly. We all make mistakes ([2]), some worse than others. huwr 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you follow Jimbo Wales's advice to "be bold" and cease with the numbers crunching. I highly doubt that I've done 700 edits, and despite your "claim" that I am not a newcomer, suggest you ask first. I just joined Wikipedia a month ago. I suggest your comment is the one that may look "silly." Assume good faith, or do not seek to make comments like the above at all, sir.Theo 19:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, two comments: 1. While you yourself state that you joined Wikipedia in "autumn 2005" (which brings a question to the claim of being a newbie), the fact that you have stated repeatedly that you have used Wikipedia for research for quite some time would indicate that you are likely well aware of Wikipedia's guidelines. Given both facts, it seems that you may be overplaying the "newbie" card.

2. "Be bold" doesn't mean to wreak havoc and step all over everyone else. Nor does it mean that it is OK to belittle others with comments like "Suggest you follow Jimbo Wales's advice to "be bold" and cease with the numbers crunching". Given that you are in the midst of an RfC, a little humility might go a long way. Jim62sch 23:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Greater than 700: [3] --huwr 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing Advice

I'd like to offer some editing advice, for your kind consideration. Please take what you like, and leave the rest.

In a debate, is supposed to argue forcefully for one's side. Providing your sources, illustrating your reasoning, and explaining why you think you're right. In debate-style forums, like the newsgroups, some blogs, and other places; this is exactly the right approach.

On Wikipedia, these activities can be detrimental to your position. The reason is, everybody working on the article needs to agree to a position before it'll be released as the "live" version. Anybody (you, me, Jimmy Wales) throwing out something that isn't agreed to by everybody working on the article is quickly reverted.

The trick on Wikipedia is very simple: Convince those who disagree with you to write your position for you. If others write your position for you, there is a very good chance it will reach consensus. So the question is this: How to convince others?

1. Try to keep cool at all times. Antagonizing your opponent (as one might do in a debate) will only make it harder to convince them (as one must do on Wikipedia). If somebody attacks you or plays games with you, take it in stride and keep cool. Ironically, not biting back makes them respect you more, and makes it easier to convince them.
2. Take article text in small steps. If you throw out ten paragraphs, it's quite likely that somebody will disagree with something in there. If you throw out one sentence, you'll find that some will agree and others will need to be convinced, but you've narrowed down your target (ah ha! this is the fact I need to convince John of)
3. Ask more questions than you make statements. The importance of this cannot be overstated. In order to convince somebody, you need to know what they are thinking. If you're not a professional mind-reader, asking questions is the only way to understand what somebody is thinking.
4. Take discussion in small steps. Theo, in talk pages, you in particular write huge paragraphs sometimes. People find it difficult to read and follow all you have written. Don't worry, you can discuss every single point to death; the editors will still be here. Just make sure to keep each edit small and readable. If you feed somebody "more than they can chew" then you'll never be able to convince them.
5. Be willing to go the extra mile. Likely you'll need to reference sources that others have not read or do not know about. You'll need to take the time to post the relevant material to the discussion. If they can't see the source, they can't judge if your proposed version is correct or not. You can't expect them to go to the library or look on the web. The goal is to convince others, and sometimes that'll mean going to extra mile to put the actual text of your source in front of their eyes. Yes, it is more work; but they will appreciate and respect your effort to provide the source text, and that makes it easier to convince people.

Ideally, your discussions should go like this:

• I'd like to change the sentence "blah persnickity" to "persnickity blah". - Theo
• I'm not so about that, "persnickity blah" is pretty POV. - Some editor
• What leads you to believe that "persnickity blah" is POV? - Theo
• Well, it doesn't seem very well sourced. - Some editor
• Here's a relevant section from "The Blah of Persnickity" by Mr. P. Snick, "blah blah persnick blah, blah snickity blah blah". Is that a good enough source? - Theo
• etc...

You probably won't win every time. But by keeping it small, keeping it simple, and keeping it cool; both sides can learn and appreciate the other. Work not to modify the text, work to convince the other editors to do it for you.

Just my 1 Indian Rupee... —Pradeep Arya 14:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A request for comment regarding your actions can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theodore7. Please understand what a request for comment is: It's not a formal procedure from which blocks could arise, but rather, it is an open part of the dispute resolution process which encourages comment from users not involved in the dispute. It is generally encouraged that editors against whom a RfC has been written should write a response defending their actions on the appropriate place on the RfC page, and if there is consensus against the editor's actions, it is considered wise to heed that consensus and alter one's behavior so that it is acceptable to the rest of the community. If there is consensus against an editor and the editor continues his behavior, especially if the behavior is quite possibly against Wikipedia policy, the next step is a request for arbitration, which is an official process and can result in action taken against the disputed editor, including blocks. Please read up on your RfC and Wikipedia policy, and feel free to approach me with any questions you might have. —BorgHunter (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Hi Theo, could you possibly take a moment (I realise you've a lot on your hands at the minute) and say at Talk:Nostradamus whether you're OK with my Roadmap? I'd like to make the structural changes I proposed; further revisions you might want to do/propose (re your existing concerns) may be easier and certainly no harder after that. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a read. Thanks for the invite.Theo 11:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your RFC

Crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theodore7

Hi, Theo, I see that you are commenting on your RFC right now. I was going to move some of your comments to the right place — i. e. to your own section, "Response" — but I see from the timestamps that you may well still be editing in there, and I want to avoid edit conflicting you. The thing is, though, an RFC isn't like a talkpage: each section is intended for a particular user or users, and experience has shown that if people interject comment and rebuttals in the other sections, the whole thing will soon become impossible to follow or make sense of. That's why the format is pretty strict. Please note where it says "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" at the top of the page. Please write in "Response" only, that section is yours exclusively. The best thing would be if you moved all your comments there yourself, so that you get them organized the way you want them. I think you'll find it works just as well — better, IMO, since it means that your section also will not shredded by interjected commentary — and you can always label different parts of your text "Response to X", Rebuttal of Y", or whatever. For threaded discussions, there's also the RFC talkpage. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 13:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

I didn't know that Bishonen, thanks. There's a lot to learn as a new Wikipedian. I appreciate the help.Theo 13:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already moved the comments, assuming you stopped editing. If you get an edit conflict, you should be able to retrieve your changes by using your browser's back button. Cheers, R.Koot 13:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Was not sure where to move them. Thanks for the help.Theo 13:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now moved the rest of them, I sincerely hope correctly and thoroughly, and labelled them as to what they refer to. Theo, do please check that I didn't mislay anything. Also, now that the comments are all together, you can see what a long response they make, with quite a bit of repetition. That could be rather counterproductive, IMO. If I were you, I'd consolidate them, boil them down. People would be the more likely to read them, I think. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 15:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree, but seeing that the "charges" against a newbie like me seem quite long, considering I've only been a Wikipedian for a month - I would suggest that people refer to Chris Brennan's own Talk Page, and the archived Nostradamus Talk Page to get a taste of what I've had to endure in just 30 days. I suggest the ring-leaders perhaps take a Jumbo Wales course in being good Wikipedians - it seems they seem to believe they have a "claim" on the "truth" and hide behind such terms as "consensus" and "POV" - which is odd, considering their actions against this newbie in just a single month. Thanks for the advice, I will do my best to see what I can do about consolidation. Thanks again.Theo 17:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read

I've responded to you at Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers. Cheers, Melchoir 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Melchoir. After this past month, I've learned to take note of those on "campaigns" themselves, and of course, the "revert war" mongers who just love to attack Wikipedia newbies. But,of course, since I am new, and just found this out: now I've been attacked for mentioning it even - to the point of now "milking it." No wonder Wikipedia is gaining a reputation among us journalists for not being a steady reference for publishing articles on topics, etc. With some of the crews operating here, and what I've recorded so far, I've got quite the article myself with just a month of experience under by belt as a Wikipedia newcomer.Theo 19:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, I've read the RfC on you, and a couple of the relevant talk pages. It seems you have a lot to contribute, so let me give you a little more advice on how to make it work:

• The larger an edit, the more likely it is to be reverted. This is simply a psychological observation. It doesn't matter whether you technically do one big edit or twenty small edits in a row. If the watchers of an article feel it is changing too quickly for them to understand, they'll slam the brakes on. It's practically instinctual.
• After an edit is reverted once, people will feel much more justified in reverting a similar edit in the future. This ties in with the above rule; if you want to reintroduce a controversial change, it has to be gradual.
• Small edits are also more productive on talk pages. There's really no way for half a dozen editors to carry on a rational debate on five topics at once in a linearly formatted talk page, and it only gets worse if everyone writes an essay.
• Other editors are generally much more conservative with old articles, while they will allow radical changes to new articles. I don't know who proposed the creation of Judicial astrology, for example, but it was a good idea.
• A certain level of double standards is absolutely necessary to the current functioning of Wikipedia. Many of the oldest articles around here are generally believed to be correct, even though they are totally unverified. Of course, this is a huge problem, and we're all working on it. It's a difficult phase in the life of the project, and that's the context in which you're entering. It doesn't help that the website's popularity is growing exponentially, along with the amount of pure vandalism we receive. The upshot: new contributions, including substantial changes to old articles, are more strictly required to cite their sources than before.
• Speaking of which, if you read Wikipedia:Citing sources, there is no strong consensus on how to do it! Probably the most popular choice is described at Wikipedia:Footnotes; that's the style you'll see in the majority of articles that are featured on the front page, such as today's article, War of the League of Cambrai. It's also the style that some editor(s) have rather clumsily applied to Astrology. I see that you've been protesting that your edits are sourced. If you add footnotes to your edits, you won't have to describe the sources on the talk pages; they'll be right there for everyone to see. From a more pragmatic view, other editors are extremely reluctant to remove a sentence that has a footnote marker right after it.

Well, I've written too much myself! Melchoir 21:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, you have not written too much yourself. It has been very helpful. I suggest that many of those on my RFC would read these as well because, according to the principles & guidelines - they surely have not been practicing any of these styles. This "revert warring" thing is quite common from my experience. It seems that some of the editors I've come across in my short time here don't follow these rules at all; and confuse their right to edit with another editor's right to edit as well. Many do not source at all. It's amazing. Sourcing is not easy, because it requires a person to have done some reading - extensive reading on subjects - and the most capable are journalists who have to source every day in order to publish. However, some of the editors I've come across, and who complain about Theodore7 really do not like to source at all.Theo 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Our Agreement on Algorithm

Hehe, Theo, you posted your comment to my user page instead of my talk page; whoops. I moved your comment to the right spot and responded. —Pradeep Arya (Talk | Contrib) 12:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pradeep.Theo 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Rod Review

I removed your reference to Asclepius in Rod of Asclepius as a god of the "greek pantheon of the zodiac" and replaced "pantheon etc." with "mythology." I see you have some impressive credentials in terms of astrology, but I do not think that Asclepius has a really coherent place in the zodiac if we approach him from the understandings of classical Greek mythology. Let me know what you think. KrazyCaley 08:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear KrazyCaley, I reverted back to the reference; however, if you have a better way to write it up, I'm sure others would be welcome to it. I certainly would. However, there is a direct link to the Rod of Ascelpius to the Greek zodiac and does have a direct relationship to astrologers, and astrology, and not just the classical Greek mythology, as seen by some in these times. The article can be improved, but I think your point is valid, in that a treatment of Greek mythology and its direct relation to their practice of astrology, as well as the Rod of Ascelpius, and its astrological meaning, could be merged quite well here.Theo 08:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I will leave your revert up while I do some research. Perhaps you could point me out to some astrology references? KrazyCaley 08:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. I have some sources I will get to you. In the meantime, this Rod has a very interesting history. Most astrologers were physicians, and by the time of the Greek golden age, the Rod was also known to be carried by astrologers with medical knowledge. The connection to the zodiac was to the stars in the constellation OPHIUCHUS, THE SERPENT HOLDER. Ophiuchus was known as Serpentarius, the Healer, or also, as Asclepius, the son of Apollo. In Greek astrological lore, he learned the healing arts from Chiron, and is shown holding his stick where a serpent coils. Asclepius served as physician on the ship Argo, and was so skilled in the healing arts that myth has it he was able to bring patients back from the dead. You know the myth, that Asclepius was hit with a thunderbolt, and placed in the skies as Ophiuchus. In astrology, the Rod of Asclepius was used to define astrological knowledge, and the healing arts, and in judicial astrology, Ophiuchus is associated with all aspects of healing using astrology to define the times, dates, causes and cures of illnesses. Try Fixed Stars, by Bernadette Brady, for more on this. There are other sources. I will send more your way. However, I like your ideas on more references to the classical Greek mythology as well associated with the Rod; perhaps a more comprehensive paragraph, or more, could be added here as well as thr astrological connection?Theo 09:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Opened up a talk page on the article. I think the best thing to do would be to leave the opening paragraph with standard references from Greek mythology, and some more details on its traditional mythological roots, since that's the context in which most people are likely to know about it/approach it (rather than the astrology context), then have a big section to educate readers on its astrological importance and the derivation that you tell me of here. KrazyCaley 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I am reacting to your edits on Judicial astrology, but it applies elsewhere as well. I appreciate your providing sources, but you should realize that simply listing a bunch of books that presumably support your opinion is not a proof (especially if others quote sources that contradict your statements). For starters, especially for controversial claims, it would be nice to mention a specific book and page number. Also, understand the scope and bias of your sources: You may use a book by astrologers to support a claim that astrologers believe theology came from astrology. However, if you want to present this claim of origin as a generally accepted fact, you need to quote other sources – books on the history of theology, for instance. Algae 09:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My sources are not a "bunch of books" nor "suuport" my opinion. They are well-referenced books citing historical fact, and are verifiable. I will continue to cite them. I suggest that others cite sources to support their edits as well; since I seem to be the only one citing sources at all. I consider attempts to smear articles with POV, not open, or encyclopedic, and will continue to add edits, and cite numerous sources. As to citing page numbers, yes, I will not only cite sources, but page numbers as well considering the "bias" of those who continue to cite no source to support their edits, but sure seem to have lots of POV, and un-supported edits to add to all things related to astrology - a rich, historical subject with a long, long history, and plenty of sources to boot. I can also cite non-astrological sources as well - and will do so with more vigor. Suggest you remind others to cite sources as well rather than complaining and reverting to non-sourced versions. Thanks.Theo 09:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Hi, your comments haven't been deleted. They have been archived and can be seen here: User talk:BorgQueen/archive1, along with my reply. I hope this solved your misunderstanding. Regards, BorgQueen 09:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, it was User:R.Koot who asked you not to delete comments from your talk page, not me. If you have any objection or protest please discuss them with him from now on. I would appreciate if you check the history of your talk page more thoroughly so you wouldn't mistake my comments with someone else's. Thank you. --BorgQueen 10:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Usually, aren't archived pages "achieved" after being on the Talk Page awhile? Or have I missed something? Do you mean to say that recent comments on a Talk Page can be achieved immediately? I didn't know that.Theo 10:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you find a message irrelevant or inappropriate you are usually allowed to archive it, unless it is a vandalism or "blocked" warning, or essential to some discussion going on. In the case of Astrology, it is clear that the version you don't like is sourced, along with footnotes. And please remember everytime you revert the whole thing back to your version, you are removing other additions done by other users as well (for example, images, charts, etc). I suggest you don't revert the whole thing back. Rather, it would be appreciated if you make your changes step by step, adding footnotes - this is more likely to be accepted by consensus, and other editors and admins already pointed this out to you, I believe. Thank you. --BorgQueen 10:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the version that is sourced. I will look again since the last time I checked, it was not. As for reverting back to this version, well, I do make changes step-by-step, and in concert with sources that I cite. Thanks.Theo 07:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? You make changes step-by-step? here is an edit you made 21 minutes after making that comment. Go have a look at the diff. It's huge. Here is another one, six minutes after that. Another enormous change. Let's see about those sources you cite. here we have a change to astrolabe a couple hours after that, introducing some new information... I don't see any sources... What you say you do and what you actually do are disturbingly different. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, Bunchofgrapes - ALL edits are saved. How is an edit, or a revert a bad thing when that is the very purpose of Wikipedia? Moreover, you are not an expert on astrology as I am; yet you use the very fact that any Wikipedian can edit a page as an "attack" on another Wikipedian. Why? I can introduce new information based on my expertise, and can, and do cite sources. What I've noticed about you is that you jump the gun, rather fast for an administrator, complain, attack, and assume the worse without even first asking, or participating yourself in good faith. Any Wikipedia edit is a revert, and all edits are saved. Moreover, I change the pages I am working which can be easily reverted themselves. Describe "enormous change?" I find your behavior as a Wikipedia English administrator to be counter to what Wikipedia is all about. So, what you say, and what you do are very much disturbingly different. It makes no sense. What is your problem? I ask this because you are not helping, but hurting. What have I done to you to deserve such hostile, rude, and bad treatment from you Bunchofgrapes? What?Theo 10:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the subjects I edit are inter-related. You seem to be taking things personally, and I request that you try not to. Secondly, the introduction as written on Judicial Astrology is not factual - I corrected this, and added sources. Third, the edit on Astrolabe was minor and the article is growing. I had to walk my dogs - so sorry if it didn't meet your clock-watching on me. If you want a particular source, be patient enough to wait for it. All edits are saved, so how is a revert illegal? I don't understand what your point is Bunchofgrapes. Perhaps if you showed some patience - and some knowledge to support your claim - and quit with the stopwatch - then perhaps you may indeed see even more sources being added. Suggest you first learn this before reverting - and ask first. Is it common practice for a Wikipedia administrator to "revert war" - because I have seen you take part in this several times. You seem to just go out of your way to pick on newcomers. Do you find this appealing? I do not. You say you don't have any interest, or knowledge on the subject? So, you are reverting because you don't like me? A person you do not know? You have not met me. You do not know me whatsoever. I suggest you please stop with that if you are to add anything that is positive. As for some edits taking place some minutes after another: what are you doing, holding a stopwatch or something? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and editors can edit the last time I checked. As for the "enormous change" - define "enormous." It was an addition to the article I wrote, and added onto with others. Moreover, Bunchofgraoes, I am an expert on astrology. Are you? It seems you are making bad judgement calls on a subject you are not versed on, and making claims that are false, and accusatory. You do not even dare to ask first. You just assume, and then state it as fact. Try not assuming malefic intent, and actually read the additions first - because they last time, you just reverted. Right after I saved the page - you instantly reverted. Why is that? I am also a professional writer, and editor - so, what I write is not going to be the exact carbon-copy of anyone's writing. Merging "styles" - even with two writers, takes time - but here - you want to force it immediately. As for "enormous" change - please, lower the dramatics. I am a member of Wikipedia, and a editor, and can write expertly on this subject. Also, I ask you to please end your accusatory tones as if I and others do not have the right to add to Wikipedia articles. I suggest you continue to look for the sources I've included since I am strict in doing so. Sourcing, Bunchofgrapes - means that you know what you are writing about, and can cite them because you've read those sources. I have. I teach on the subject of astrology, and am quite familiar with the sources I cite. By the way, I would like to see your own sources Bunchofgrapes, since you have a habit of complaining when others source, but I have not seen you source. Thanks.Theo 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BoG, the cites you provided are pretty representative of what I've seen from Theo. Essentially, he wants to insert astrological "facts" into every article he can, and his edits tend to be massive. Jim62sch 21:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And, what is wrong with "facts?" Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not the provision of cynical treatments. Various views are welcomed, with sourcing that are veriafiable. Define "massive" since it seems one can easily say something, but then should prove it as well. An encylopedia contains facts, and from what I've seen with your own edits on the Nostradamus page - you seem to avoid many facts on this particular subject. I could not use your edits on this subject with my students' own needs to research this topic for class. Again, please define "massive" since you bring it up - then prove so before making such absolute comments without proof to back up your claim, and your assertions on what I "want" - how would you know what I want? You have not asked - yet presume as if what you just wrote is true. It is not. Suggest that before you make such comments that you ask if you have questions, and in a manner to receive an answer - rather than answering the question for me. Thanks.Theo 04:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Just FYI, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors, and there is no policy or guideline against the use of profanity, except where it falls into the category of personal attack, harrassment, or similar. Of course, people who often communicate with profanity usually have a hard time not crossing the line into personal attacks, so the idea that it should be avoided has some merit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since the use of profanity on Wikipedia and within its community ususally is done by those with little other means with which to express themselves rationally, honestly, and with proper use of the English language to express themselves in a lucid manner. such as has happened on Talk Pages; which I maintain should respect decorum in communications. Nonetheless, irregardless of any policy for or against the use of profanity - the fact that students, and young children use this resource should be noted, and editors reminded of their responsbility to avoid the use of profane words in the Wikipedia community. Thanks.Theo 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Look at this edit of yours. You edit summary is "added more source material." But that's not what your edit is, rather, it is a reversion to your preferred version of the page. (Which includes bad material like "Francis Bacon (Shakesphere)".) That just isn't acceptable. Work to build the page in a consenual fashion; stop reverting; stop using dishonest edit summaries. At least say "revert, and added more source material" in your edit summary: be honest. As long as you continue to blindly revert to your version, I don't need to know anything about judicial astrology to discern that you are not editing in a manner that is helpful to Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this could happen if only nit-picking - such as what you are doing here - can cease, and good writing, and editing can continue. If you are to seek "honesty" Bunchofgrapes, then please do so by monitoring your own actions. You make a lot of accusations that are not true; and then consider "reverts" as hostile. I started this particular article, and welcome additions from others in the Wikipedia community. However, your additions are POV, and NOT again - not sourced. I again ask you to also cite sources Bunchofgrapes if you are to edit with your point of view - which, by the way, is not "neutral" nor written in a manner based on knowledge of Judicial Astrology that from my view is not helpful to the Wiki-Page in question. You do an awful lot of of complaining Bunchofgrapes, and instant reverting while accusing others of things that are common to Wikipedia - writing, and editing, and - sourcing. I suggest you then also please add your knowledge of astrology, and judicial astrology before your own particular reverts. Please source. Consensus does not mean to agree of POV, but to source materials that relate to the subject at hand. If you have knowledge of this subject opn astrology and its related subjects, then, please, by all means, add your knowledge, and not your personal point-of-view. Please cite sources. Thanks.Theo 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in Astrology. I've never made an edit to an astrology page that wasn't undoing vandalism or one of your usually-dishonestly-labelled blind reverts, as far as I can recall. My only interest is to encourage you to stop edit warring, an occupation I fear may be futile. When you revert back to an older version like that, you throw away work others have done in the meantime. It is wrong and disrespectful to the others who are editing the page. Most of your edits add very little, other than to go back to a previous version. That's not editing, it's revert warring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It shows in your reverets - that you have no interest - which is why I asked. Also, Bunchofgrapes - Editing, and writing is an ongoing thing, and I do not consider my additions, with sources, I add, to be "wrong" or "disrespectful" to anyone. I know how to edit, and how to write, and am not "revert warring" as you claim. You presume, and you are wrong. I cannot, and have not "thrown" away anyone's work. I write, edit, and continue to source. I would suggest you re-read Jimbo Wales for more on what Wikipedia is about. I did, and am am applying his policies and guidelines in my writing, editing, and citing sources. Thanks.Theo 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I second Bunchofgrapes' comments. Most of your own comments and actions, Theo, suggest that you don't understand what you are doing or what others are saying. Bunchofgrapes points are obviously and provably correct, while your wild assertions are not. I used to take the time to actually provide evidence, but I learned in the mean-time that in your case, it is a waste of time. Too bad, really, I tried to help you out for a long time. Algae 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Help me out for a long time? I've been here a short time, and you haven't helped me. Quite to the contrary, you've made false assumptions, and accusations, and my own comments as "wild assertions" without pointing out what is "wild" about my comments. I also suggest that perhaps you may want to consider that I just might know what I am doing as a writer, and editor since I can write, edit, and cite sources, and have done so for years in published newspaper articles as a reporter - reporting hard news on a wide variety of subjects. You make statements here, but don't take the time to then justify them with facts. You also do not give me the opportunity to hear you "provide evidence" as you say - so, I find it hard to believe Algae that you would assert that it is a "waste of time" considering you've haven't done it yet, as far as I can remember, and I haven't been a Wikipedia member for a "long time." Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, because, you haven't tried to "help me out" for a "long time" since I haven't been here a long time. What I see is some people "covering up" their recent initial hostility to Wikipedia newbies - with claims of "trying to help" when if your earlier comments are viewed - show the opposite. I haven't heard from you except when you complain, accuse, assume, and "second" things that are based on Wikipedia principles I am following. Re-read your own comments to me. Is this what you call "helping me out?"Theo 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Hi, Theodore. After looking (incredulously) at your latest contributions, especially the deceptive edit summaries and the reverts far back in the history at Astronomy and Judicial astrology, I have determined to block you for 24 hours for egregious edit warring. Please edit more constructively when you return, or I'm afraid you may be looking at a longer block. Bishonen | talk 12:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Again, I dispute not only the behavior of some here, but the block for "edit warring" as well. I have done NO such thing. What do you mean" deceptive edit summaries?" Prove this assertion. I would appreciate that if you are to make accusations, that you also prove these accusations. I add edits, I write on edit summaries, and I cite references & notes as sources. What is "deceptive" about that? I did not break any rules, and your block Bishonen, is typical of the type of behavior newcomers to Wikipedia have been experiencing. Moreover, it seems the more I apply Jumbo Wales' guidelines & principles - the more it seems to draw out those who think particular topics are their sole domain with POV. You have not defined, as well, what the term "edit constructively" means. Does it mean to agree with POV that is not cited, nor sourced? I request the block be removed as I've not broken any rules.Theo 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm hard-pressed to take this filibuster in good faith. What do I mean "deceptive edit summaries?" I mean the deceptive edit summaries exemplified and described by Bunchofgrapes in the section immediately above. Did you not see them? Bishonen | talk 15:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

Block extended

After conferring with User:BorgQueen, who appraised me of some new circumstances, especially that a 48-hour block in the past had failed to affect your editing methods positively, I have blocked you for one week. This can be seen as a compromise between my 24-hour block and BorgQueen's indefinite block. Compare your individual block log here. Bishonen | talk 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Again - it is obvious what is happening. My editing methods follow the rules. I am a professional writer, and have edited over many years. I am quite aware of those who claim to be neutral, but who "revert war" and fail to cite sources that are verifiable, while then complaining loudly when newcomers like me join Wikipedia, and edit articles. I've contacted Jimbo Wales, since it seems that the more I apply his principles, the more some here think that these principles are not real, or applicable. I suggest that they are - including Wales' guidelines on not biting newcomers - which many in the RFC ignored outright - even using it to attack newcomers, along with several principles that newcomers have learned to apply. This block is unwarranted and is not justified. I continue to edit, I cite sources, and use the Talk Pages. I have been subject to profanity, rudeness, and "revert wars" by many with POV, and ulterior motives that their own words will bear out. It seems that some like to start fights, be cynical, complain, etc., but sure do not like to cite sources, nor to keep their POV off Wikipedia encyclopedic subjects, and, consider edits by newcomers as if they were born yesterday, and not either very knowledgable, or expert in their respective fields. Again, the "extended block" and the orginal block was unwarranted. There was no reason for it - I broke no rules, and yet, the silliness continues. This is one of the major reasons why some journalists and newspaper editors I know tell their reporters to be wary of Wikipedia. Don't think that they are not watching, nor unaware. Some of you are doing great damage to Wikipedia with such clique behavior and should be aware that others are watching, and recording events as they proceed.Theo 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have taken the RfC on you to the ArbCom. —Ruud 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The relevant ArbCom page. Algae 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that while you are blocked, you can communicate with ArbCom members via email; for instance you could send them a statement for the RfArb. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, while you are blocked you may still edit your user talk page, i.e. this page. If you wish, you can respond to comments here as well. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arbitration Committee, I tried to contribute on the workshop sub-page, but discovered I was blocked. Apparently, a block was placed on me for one week for no reason but sujective. Moreover, since I work as well, I've not had time to edit much over the past few weeks. I am feeling that Wikipedia is not the place for me; and I don't enjoy what obviously has been an effort to turn away newcomers. I will try to contribute when I can; however, I was not informed as to the "true" reason for this one-week block. It came about immediately, and seems to be done for no reason other than to prevent me from editing, and sourcing materials I edit. An excellent way to turn away new Wikipedia members. Seems it is more common now that I've had more time to read about things like this.Theo 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s one week block, you may want to confer with the other parties on shortening this to enable him to contribute evidence--provided his behavior is not disruptive in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, BorgQueen, what say you? I'd be in favor of lifting the block per Tony. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe later. I've conferred with Tony and applied for an injunction, I want a reply to that first. Bishonen | talk 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Excellent idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My behavior, certainly as a newcomer to Wikipedia has never been destructive, nor am I a vandal. I am a veteran journalist, writer, and editor with many years of experience. Though I've made mistakes as a Wikipedia newcomer, I am not oblivious to the attempts by some to make a mountain out of a molehill in this short a time I've been a member of Wikipedia. As an example, I was recently blocked without knowledge of this being done, and with no proof as to the reason but citing "edit warring" which I did not partake in. Moreover, the more I cite sources that are verifiable, and the more I read, and apply Jimbo Wales Wikipedia principles & guidelines, the more trouble newcomers seem to get into with what appears to be a clique of POVers, and "revert warriors" who take the honest mistakes of newcomers, and turn them into immediate accusations, use of pronfanity, and the "one-way" pastes of comments from me onto RFC & arbitration pages - taken out of context, without adding their OWN comments on edit summaries, and talk pages. I find this curious - since, to prove that a person is doing such a thing as they say - revert warring - and being "disruptive" in honest writing & editing, citing sources, and references, that some such as Ruud, Bunchofgrapes, and others, would find it useful not to add their own comments which, if arbitration members can find them - contain a hostile tone, reject attempts to work together, are mean, avoid sourcing themselves, with their own entries very much POV while "revert warring" without first reading; or checking the sources cited. They just instantly "revert" blindly. This has happened many times with me in just over one month and I just got here. I am not some person who was born yesterday. I know how to cite sources, and how to work with responsible writers & editors. However, some on the RFC page who signed have even resorted to deleting their comments to fit their accusatory assertions on Theodore7 - but they paste my comments as one-liners - and sentences as "proof" of my being disruptive and a vandal? What is this? If this is the case, then why do they not add their own comments, and my return comments in context? Doing this - cutting, and pasting my words OUT of context to then fit into their accusations - is what is going on, and this only makes more suspect their own Wikipedia edits; which, are very weakly sourced (if at all) despite my doing so, and asking others to do so in accordance with Wikipedia principles, and the advice of some Wikipedia administrators who were kind enough to help me without biting me as a newcomer - nor making immediate accusations like some Gestopo designed to disrupt matters themselves. For instance, Bunchofgrapes made several instant "reverts" on materials I added sources to - and then turned to make rude comments on edit summaries. I asked him to please not do this. It seems more common to not cite sources and to "revert war" - a term I did not know existed before joining Wikipedia. It seems that many of the crew who complain so much about the newbie Theodore7 - have been "revert warring" and POVing on their own for some time. Theodore7 just got here. I just stumbled onto some rather neferious POVing, and "reverters" who throw out that accusation on others if they do not agree with something that is counter to their own point of view. This is why citing verifiable sources is so important. Not one time - not a single time - has one of these people who complain about Theodore7 brought to attention ANY source, or disputed any edit with FACTS. Not once. Yet, they claim to have "proof" of my being disruptive. In what way? Mistakes? Yes, I've made them as a newcomer. And, I've corrected them - with the help of non-accusatory, non-rude, non-cynical, non-POV, non-profanity-laced Wikipedia members who've been a big help to me along with Jimbo Wales' advice, guidelines, and principles. Yet, I have not yet been appraised on just where my edits are incorrect, unfactual, not sourced, nor verifiable. However, some just seem to think Jimbo Wales' principles do not apply to them. I think different. I am new here, and I read, and am applying more of Wales' principles and guidelines as I go along - despite some who would laugh at this, and, if one is good enough to read through all the "complaints" about Theodore7 - other would mock Wales' principles & guidelines, and tell newcomers not to "use" him as a "excuse", etc. This is the kind of thing that has been going on since I recently joined Wikipedia. Some just make things up as if it substitutes for the truth, and use "mistakes" as "proof" of being "disruptive." But, very few actually can cite facts, inaccurate edits, nor bother to even think about checking sources cited. It is much easier to "complain about Theodore7" and to "revert" since following Wikipedia's principles about biting newcomers is an "excuse" since it "does not exist" and "does not happen" to any newcomer. And, if they mention it - they are "using" it since it doesn't exist, etc., etc. This is just one of the many problems Wikipedia newcomers face with such people. It is so much easier not to care about any subject, nor to check sources (as I do as a journalist) and to find inaccurate and unfactual materials while avoiding POV. But, to play games, to have personality conflicts as if they actually know the people they are writing to. They avoid resolving matters peacefully, but highly enjoy creating fights, building molehills into mountains, and love throwing out wild accusations. They don't ask - they assume - they immediately accuse, then complain loudly. They take everthing personally - all the while - not reading, checking sources, nor citing sources themselves on the subjects in question but adding plenty of their own POV that is not neutral, nor cited with sources. If sources run counter to their POV - then they use ruses to attempt to divert attention: and ask for RFCs on Wikipedia members who just got here, and request arbitration to resolve situations they have not even started to resolve on their own - yet claiming that they have tried. Perhaps, if some spend much more time actually checking sources, citing them, and making sure that the encylopedic materials are factual then, the "revert wars" by some who want to re-write history to fit their own personal views would end, and Wikipedia could be that much more successful. So, if one is to gather evidence - show just where my edits are vandalism - where? I'd like to see it. Show my edit summaries. Show my edits, and don't cite my early mistakes as "proof" of being "disruptive" since I'd like to see someone claim they do not make mistakes themselves. Oh, one more thing. When a person defends themselves - try not to dismiss it as a "diatribe" - but actually read it in context and take responsbility for one's own "claims" against the person - in this case, a new member of Wikipedia. I've had enough of my comments being taken out of context, then pasted onto RFC and arbitration sections - and used as "proof" of me being a bad person, and disruptive. I say different, and have the right to defend myself against what I consider to be a classic case of biting Wikipedia newcomers. I will take credit for my honest mistakes, but not for accusations that are false. My evidence are the comments, and retorts, and my edits - which, are cited, and soucred. Any arbitrator who wants to know more about my edits and comments can feel free to ask, or to view my comments IN CONTEXT and not TAKEN OOUT OF CONTEXT by some who are doing the constant "complaining." I see no proof of any infactual edits on my part. And, my early mistakes are just that - mistakes that most newcomers to Wikipedia make. That does not justify, say your own comments Bunchofgrapes, and those of the other "revert warriors" - who, in my opinion, are ruining Wikipedia. So, I've made inquiries elsewhere to make sure that perhaps this comes to an end, and that my case can be used as an example of what happens - negatively - to newcomers who run up against those who signed the RFC, and asked for arbitration. My evidence is there - my work to this time, my edits, sourcing, and using the Talk Pages - which I do not abuse, but use to add comments relevant to the subject at hand. Theo 03:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise you to gather your evidence - in the form of diffs, not diatribes like the above - and submit it, for the moment by email, to a member of the arbcom, who should then enter it into your case. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, as a Wikipedia administrator, as a newcomer, I have found you of no help whatsoever to me. Your immediate "reverts" on articles I worked on amount more to censorship, and harassment, than assistance. I know the difference. Like your message on a Talk Page that "Theo is Awake." Hey, I just buried a friend who died - not that you would know this - but I was not asleep. I am a man in his 40s, I work, and I wasn't born yesterday. You know, I would really appreciate it if you would find another "target" because I'm not it. I am more than able to defend myself against censorship, and your "edits" are just that in my recent experiences here on Wikipedia.

Moreover, when I've asked you to explain what you were doing - you become hostile and changed your Talk Page - deleting my questions to you - asked respectfully. You avoid reading my sources, calling them "a bunch of books" without seeing if the sources are verifiable. When you pose assumptive questions, and then are answered; you immediately dismiss the answers. Hey, I am a person behind your computer screen, and I do not appreciate you instantly reverting - especially on subjects you say you have no knowledge of, and have no interest in whatsoever. I would suggest kindly that you please re-read what you call a "diatribe" and actually investigate "what if?" What if this guy's experience happens to be true? I don't like having to write answers in such a long paragraph, but I have found that some like to take partial sentences, or lines, and paste them out of context to fit whatever "case" they happen to be building. What if Theodore7 did experience this in his short time as a newcomer? Or, do you take personally that another person would not share your point-of-view? What if those accusing him are involved in POV, and biting newcomers? My evidence is already there -in my comments, my edits, my sourcing, and yes, my early mistakes. They are there for all to see. That does NOT make me into some monster Bunchofgrapes, nor do I "revert" as you have been doing - or not citing sources, as you seem not to like to do as well. but, as far as I know - censorship, and harassment are not supposed to be what Wikipedia administrators are about. My case as a newcomer is open for all to see and my "diatribe" is my experience to this point with you, and some others who take part in this "revert warring" that you seem to be a part of. I suggest, that as a Wikipedia administrator Bunchofgrapes, that you show newcomers good faith, and show some leadership of your own, and help us out rather than what you have been doing with me. I didn't know what "revert wars" were before joining Wikipedia, and I want nothing to do with that, and never will. It is a waste of time in my mind, but as an administrator sometimes the "newbies" who make mistakes also come to Wikipedia with experience, and fresh eyes on some of the nefarious things that have been going on. I read Jimbo Wales' guidelines, and principles, and suggest perhaps you should as well. Thanks.Theo 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My advice above was kindly intended. If you look here, on one of your arbitration talk pages, you will see that I have advocated for less harsh restrictions on you than the first few Arbitrators have been leaning toward. I am not out to get you. I know you won't believe me when I tell you that you are your own worst enemy here, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Listen. The members of the Arbitration Committee are busy people. They have a lot of cases before them at all times. They don't have time to come look at your talk page and at your entire history. You need to help them. They will likely only consider evidence in your case if it finds its way onto Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence.

This is important. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Proposed decision, you will see that two arbitrators have already voted that you be banned for six months from editing content on astrology, astronomy, and related subjects. As I said, I indicated on the talk page that I disagreed; that you have valuable things to add to Wikipedia. But you've got to start helping yourself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Note also that your block should have expired now, so you can directly edit the ArbCom case evidence page. A tip: limit editing to your own section; it isn't a discussion page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be nice for you to help me through the process, since I am still relatively new to Wikipedia.Theo 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can help too! First point. Don't edit anything on an ArbCom page unless you're adding a statement or evidence of your own. Unfortunately, [4] is unacceptable, and I ask you to revert your change there. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You know... I work for a living, am a professional journalist, editor, and in my 40s, and I have to say that my new experiences as a member of Wikipedia has been horrible. If this is what newcomers to Wikipedia can expect, no wonder Wikipedia is gaining a bad reputation. No wonder most editors cannot get peace on topics, and share their knowledge and experience. This is a total turn-off. Perhaps that is what some of you want: to turn me away from Wikipedia as an editor, and user. Maybe, just maybe, some of you will get your wish.Theo 05:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your note on WP:AN

First, let me extend my condolences for the loss of your friend. I cannot imagine how difficult such an experience must be.

I must ask you to stop pasting material from people's talk pages to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. At best, it's confusing to see such comments, out of the blue, looking as if the original authors added them directly to the noticeboard. At worst, it reflects badly on you. I am removing the pasted material now. If you want to pursue formal complaints against these users, you might find it helpful to contact a member of the Association of Member Advocates. FreplySpang (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates#Information for users who want an advocate should be a good starting point. They are a group of Wikipedians who understand the RFC and RFAr processes, and volunteer to help people through them. FYI, I'm logging out for now. FreplySpang (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Theo 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I second Freply in condolences, and would like to request that you do not copy talk page material to Jimbo's user talk page. As Freply says, it seems as if the original authors have made the comments, and it confused me for a moment myself. I have removed it from Jimbo's talk page, and recommend that you follow whatever advice you may get from the AMA. NSLE _(T+C) 08:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate it very much. Thanks.Theo 08:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your talk page and RFC

I saw you post on Jimbo's page and I read your story. Well in my humble opinion a lot of the admins on wikipedia are kids who are really angry at everything.

That Association of Member Advocates probably won't help. People who run this place support eachother more than family. In that Advocates list alone I spotted one person who is pure evil and how she got on there well she's as anti-human rights as they come.

If you ever become an admin you will never have to obey the 3RR rule again.

I used to go on IRC and on Efnet it was a great big battle to control each channel. People ban eachother for no reason--maybe boredom, entertainment. I know a person who had run a website like that but now he's old and losing hair and worried about his weight and never does any banning anymore, but he still keeps his mail form to block mailbombs using it. Wikipedia is kinda like Efnet was years ago (and maybe is today).

I should rant more but I got to get to bed. 6:27am and I meant to go to sleep more than 2 hours earlier. DyslexicEditor 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer, it is sad to see. The fact that "banning" on Wikipedia is so widespread is a bad sign for Wikipedia itself. Why do older Wikipedians complain about reverting so much when anybody who edits a Wiki-Page automatically reverts when the Save button is clicked? It makes no sense that some would chomp at the bits about a page being edited. Isn't that normal on Wikipedia? It makes no sense what people have claimed I have done. It's like a weird game that is a waste of time. Reverts are a bad thing when the system automatically does so when anything is added to a Wikipedia topic? What is that? This is confusing since every Wikipedia topic edited by anyone is saved. So, how is an edit, or a revert considered to be used against anyone? Pages are changed all the time by the Wikipedia server, but each "edit" is saved. Why is this even a problem with some Wikipedians, administrators, etc? Moreover, it seems that those with expertise on subjects who do edit have got to deal with what seems to be "poison-pen" Wikipedians, such as those I've run across in my short time here, who make all sorts of claims that are untrue. A revert is automatic on Wiki software when anyone edits a page. It makes no sense that some would use what is automatic on Wikipedia when an edit takes place as an "attack" on anyone.Theo 10:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Think Before Leaving Wikipedia

Hey Theo, just to let you know, I moved your comments from my Evidence section to the talk page. "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." (emphasis incl.) If you want, you can move that section from the talk page into your own Evidence section, but do not include it in mine. It makes things far more difficult to read and follow. Thanks! Incidentally, don't be discouraged and don't leave Wikipedia. We want you here. We just want you to behave a bit better in dealing with other editors; that's all. Don't be discouraged by your ArbCom case! Don't let other editors discourage you! You can be a very valuable asset to Wikipedia if you would just modify your approach to editing a bit. We could certainly use your knowledge and expertise. Don't give up! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Give up? Why? With Wikipedia friends like those below? Who would not leave Wikipedia with such examples of Wikipedia good faith? Read on, BorHunter, and tell me how welcome you would feel after reading such things.Theo 10:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read Theo's message to Jimbo and on ANI, and I also think that he is lying, for the simple reason that those who really lose a friend, and who need to grief, don't write melodramatic posts and try to use their misfortune to their advantage by making people feel bad about opposing them. Some people do feel the need to share their grief with others on the net, but in this case, it was obviously superficial. The guy posted the same thing on Alex' talkpage, on Jimbo's talkpage, and on ANI — and perhaps in other places, as well. He had an ARB case against him and probably tried to use his misfortune to gain symphaty. However, there is a possibily that he is telling the truth, and that is why it's not wise to do what Alex did and try to discredit the him. Not only that, but it would also make you look like an ass, even if you're right.

Another thing that should be noted is that Theo claimed to be a journalist. Well, he is quite articulate in his writing, but journalists are usually more laconic in their writing, whereas Theo was a bit repeatitive and too apologetic. You can see how he repeats his grief and how he apologizes for the same thing one time too many. It is no wonder that Alex suspected Theo of lying, but I'm not sure whether this qualifies as a personal attack. I mean, many admins accuse others of lying or of being a suckpuppet, without having much to go on. --Candide, or Optimism 17:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Theo is lying. And that's that. Alexander 007 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Think about this: I've spent a lot of time and effort putting together evidence for Theo's ArbCom case. I've also spent a lot of time and energy attempting to communicate with him on his talk page. He has frequently referred to my efforts as harrassment, and levelled so many other accusations at me and other people trying to reason in good faith with him that I have lost count.

Yet I am still civil to him. (???)

Civility absolutely includes not always telling someone what you suspect, think, or believe about them. Ideally, you'd judge the edits and not the editor, and all such personal notions would be irrelevant. Theo makes that ideal a little hard with his frequent overtures to his own personal status and situation, but the right thing to do is to ignore it. Insults don't help us make an encyclopedia; insults give Theo more reasons to cry foul; insults degrade our environment.

Fucking idiot motherfuckers always getting on my nerves. You're all so fucking stupid. It's pathetic. I don't know why I bother with Wikipedia, the free pile of SHIT. Fuck all of you. Nobody takes this fucking piece of crap as a reliable source. Kids can't even use it for school reports. Alexander 007 03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words Borghunter. But, as you can see from the words above, this is representative of the kind of things I've had to deal with since I joined Wikipedia in December. And, for my reasons to leave Wikipedia. This is typical of what I've been through in less than two month. They say things, and then act as if it is the truth, and that's it. Who do they think they are? Bunchofgrapes asserts, as he always does, that his assumptions are factual - the truth. He then asserts how "kind" and "civil" he has been to me? Giving "Theo more reasons to cry foul" - this comes from a Wikipedia administrator who has taken it upon himself to attack a newcomer with his suggestions serving as fact when they are not while hiding under the cover of his claim of "civility." Such as Theo "makes the ideal a little hard with his frequent overtures to his own personal status and situation" - this guy does not know me, but he speaks with authority on Theodore7 as if he does. No wonder I've had enough. If Wikipedia has administrators like this, who also protect people like Rudd (with his contant 3RR violations without sanction) and Alexander, who seems to believe that the only way to be understood it to implore expressions of repeated profanity-laced, and hateful slurs (see above) - or Candide's "thesis" on me as a journalist, who has to be more "larconic" to prove this assertion since I am so "articulate" and that there is a "possibility" that I did have a friend who just died, but now am "using" this to "gain sympathy" - because my grief is "melodramatic" - and no one expresses their grief this way? Who do they think they are? No wonder why Wikipedia newcomers are not welcome. Do they believe their own crap? Boy, what collection of fine Wikipedians. They know everything so well, and play both sides of the fence while spouting their disdain for people they do not know, but know well enough to suggest telling the truth, lying, be nice "just in case" anybody is watching, and with Alexander, well, we know what he "thinks". Giving up? Who would give up with such wonderful people like this? Why, I think I've found some new friends here who know me so well as to tell me about myself. What wonderful Wikipedians. They sure make a guy feel welcome, don't they BorgHunter? I've had enough of the false accusations, the meaness, the hostility, and lies. If newcomers to Wikipedia have to navigate through all what I've had to in a little less than the two months I've been here... well, there isn't much to keep them as Wikipedians. I can see when I am not wanted, and surely, I am not wanted here. Real life, teaching, writing, and editing has its own responsibilities, and the false accusations, the personal attacks, etc., hasn't been the kind of thing I joined Wikipedia to experience. Moreover, it seems the ArbCom has made its decision without much thought on how the "evidence" against Theodore7 has been made to make him look like some sort of monster. I've heard about censorship like this before, but am totally surprised to see it happening to me. In my short time here on Wikipedia: I've been called a vandal, a plagiarist, a revert warrior, stupid, silly, a bad person, and been the subject of pronfanity, a request for comment, arbitration, and at least one Wikipedia editor joking about my friend who just died - all since joining as a newcomer in December. Does this sound encouraging to you? I see how people like Ruud, who brought me to arbitration - is allowed to break the Three Revert rule multiple times (without blocks & warnings) as he engages in "revert warring" himself, while pushing the accusations of "revert warring" on others. This is not encouraging to a newcomer like me. How can any newcomer be a "valuable asset" with the antics of these kind of people who are allowed to flourish on Wikipedia? Lots of other eyes are watching, but, I haven't been able to add my experience and knowledge here. Not with these attacks. So, thanks for the kind words - perhaps, when the same Wikipedia rules apply to ALL - as they are supposed to - they maybe, perhaps, newcomers like me will trust Wikipedia more in the future. But, right now, what I am seeing is not very "encouraging" BorgHunter. Sorry we didn't have time to get to know one another better. I like your edits, and your quality templates. I wanted to know more about how you made those pages look so good. However, there has been something else going on in Wikipedia that has nothing to do with me. I've had enough. There is little good faith, and certainly no help for newcomers when dealing with what is obviously some very bad people who are ruining Wikipedia. After my friend's death, I realized that there are more important things to do then to continually have to deal here with people who hate. Look at my RFC, and Arbitration Page. Even Tony Sidaway didn't respond to my message on his Talk Page, but I am blocked. Ruud is allowed to violate the Three Revert Rule, and Bunchofgrapes turns a blind eye, while attacking me. This guy is an Wikipedia administrator! He is supposed to help newcomers - not attack them! I haven't been able to contribute much since all the accusations have been thrown my way. Perhaps that was the plan all along. So Bunchofgrapes, Alexander, Ruud, Brennan, PL, & crew got what they wanted after all. I've got more dignity than to associate with people like this on Wikipedia. There's no "community" here that I can see. Anyhow, I will be deleting my personal page, and withdrawing from Wikipedia on my own. I've never been banned, or censored from anything in my life. I don't intend to start here. Theo 08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to state your case

Hi Theodore7. A thread has been started about your case on http://www.wikipediareview.com/ here and you are welcome to comment. Note that Wikipedia Review is not in any way affiliated with Wikipedia, does not have the same rules, and is a place for you to freely talk. We welcome your comments. Zordrac 18:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (I use the name "Blissyu2" on there)

Thanks. But I'm not really interested. My case is open for anyone to see how I've been attacked here as a newcomer. It ruins the experience of Wikipedia, and has for me - leaving a bad taste in my mouth as a professional journalist. I don't think I could trust Wikipedia as a true source considering my experience here since December. Theo 08:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Injunction in the case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Theodore7

An injunction has been passed in this case:

• Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to this arbitration pending its resolution.

Enacted on 16:47, February 9, 2006 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Note discussion of penalties for violating the injunction here. It's standard operating procedure for injunctions of this nature to be enforced by blocks if they are violated. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, I had no idea that I was to be blocked for editing. I would appreciate it if the older Wikipedians, and administrators like Bunchofgrapes would be of more assistance to newcomers rather than taking a hostile position as if new Wikipedians have been here long enough to know all of the procedures. There is a lot of assumptions going about that are not right, and very unfair to newcomers to Wikipedia. It seems as if you do not follow your own policies & guidelines; yet use them against newcomers.Theo 10:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Block for violation

I have blocked you for one week for violation of the injunction. Vsmith 13:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've already left Wikipedia for good. I am not interested in censorship, or banning of views. As a newcomer, my experience has been horrible in the two months I've been a Wikipedian.Theo 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be like [5] or [6]. I wonder we'll see him again. (NOTE: I do sincerely apologize for linking to such a terrible website but I can't find this information anywhere else.) DyslexicEditor 08:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Some Advice

Theo, it's good to see you haven't left for good. I kindly offer three bits of advice, which you are free to use or disregard as you see fit.

1. Don't violate the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) injunction against editing.

Theodore7 is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to this arbitration pending its resolution.

ArbCom represents the "keepers of Wikipedia", and are the penultimate authority on Wikipedia. Regardless if the ArbCom is right or wrong, violating the injunction says to everybody, "I don't have to abide by any rules, I can do whatever I want." Some other editors act like this sometimes, but the ones who violate ArbCom injunctions are quickly banned from Wikipedia. If you violate the injunction again, you'll probably be gone for good, and that will be a shame.

Note: The ArbCom is appointed by Jimmy Wales. Practically, they are the last Wikipedians who will hear your case. Jimbo appoints the members of the ArbCom because he and the Wikipedia community at large trust their judgment. Jimbo won't overrule their decision.

Each action you take is a choice. You can choose to abide by the injunction, or you can choose to ignore it. The consequences will be yours alone. Please choose wisely.

2. Use appropriate edit summaries.

This edit [7] was summarized as: "Chris, this is the third topic you have lied about saying "vandalism" please stop lying or prove your assertion".

This is extremely bad form. The edit summary is supposed to help someone to understand what change was made to the article text. Your summary doesn't do this at all. Even if it's true that Chris Brennan is the worst liar in the history of Wikipedia, nay, the world; even if it's the thirty-third topic he's lied about (in the last hour); even if he can't tell a proper source from his own ass; even if he makes terrible unfounded assertions all day long; The edit summary is NOT the place to address these issues.

If a problem with another editor comes up, here are the proper steps to take: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

Keep all of your edit summaries focused on what changes you made to the text. Help other editors to understand what you did to the article. For example, I mentioned [8]; the edit summary I would have written would be this:

"revert changes by Chris Brennan to last version by Theodore7; whole article changed, please see Talk"

The important points here are:

• It shows what happened: revert changes by Chris Brennan to last version by Theodore7
• It shows how much changed: whole article changed
• It gives an offer for discussion if others disagree: please see Talk

Part of working well with other editors is helping them to understand what you are doing. Good edit summaries are a very important part of this. Please use them.

Pradeep Arya (Talk | Contrib) 23:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Read

Theodore, if you're still active,

Your recent block for violating the ArbCom injunction should have expired by now. Please note that the injunction is still in place. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Theodore7, Theodore7 remains banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to this arbitration pending its resolution.

As before, editing other pages will be met with a block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

This arbitration case has closed. Theodore7 is banned for six months from editing astrology- or astronomy-related articles. He is also placed on personal attack parole for a year, and is required to use edit summaries for the next six months. These remedies will be enforced by blocking. For further details, please see the case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked under personal attack parole violation

Theodore7,

The ArbCom ruling against you here included a personal attack parole: "Should Theodore7 make a comment that could reasonably be interperted as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, any administrator may block him at his/her discretion for a period of up to one week (for a first violation) up to indefinitely (for further violations)."

This edit is a blatant personal attack against User:PL. You are blocked for one week.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I responded to the writer, and reminded him that making false accusations in print is libel. This is a fact. Not a personal attack. Your block on me is unjustified, and is consistent with your previous actions since I joined Wikipedia in December. I responded to being falsely accused of being a vandal, and a plagiarist, and consider your block to not only to be unjustified, but also one-sided Bunchofgrapes. You have personally, as a English Wikipedia administrator abused your position, and also take sides. I've witnessed you not even blocking others who have used profanity - a clear personal attack - and moreover, casting a blind eye. I also did not see you block PL for making false accusations, nor his comment here on this page - which is against Wikipedia policy. I will therefore request that your behavior, and actions as a Wikipedia English Administrator be reviewed. As a newcomer here, I've found your behavior, unfair actions, and quick jumping the gun to be out of line with your responsbilities as a Wikipedia administrator.Theo 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• You called him a liar. (Among all your other invective.) That's a personal attack.
• Simple violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks are not generally enforced by blocking. You are under an ArbCom-imposed personal attack parole, because the ArbCom found you have a long history of making personal attacks, and thought you needed to be more careful about it.
• It's interesting to note that one of the very few other personal-attack blocks I have ever made was this one, where I blocked someone for making personal attacks against you, Theodore. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Yes, that was the one I brought to attention by Alexander -and you did so after the fact. Moreover, Bunchofgrapes, you helped the situation get to that point before it became obvious that Alexander loved to use the F_ word a little too much. And, he was blocked for one day. I've never used the word - and you've blocked me repeatedly.Theo 22:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia's policy on this Bunchofgrapes:

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. True instances of such writing, which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large.

Bunchofgrapes, This is one example of the "personal attacks" and slander you chose to ignore below -

Aaaaarghhh! He's just started vandalising (slander)the Nostradamus article again (repeatedly) with his usual ignorant fiction(defamation of character) and unsourced claims (libel)exactly as before. He has also indicated on the relevant Talk page (see reference above) his complete refusal to co-operate over editing the article. So, given that he has now indicated his wish to leave Wikipedia, perhaps this is the moment finally to give him a helping hand? I do hope so. Some of us are having to resort to some rather undiplomatic language with him, (personal attack)which might not be a pretty sight... Come on, Admin! --PL 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, when a person is called a plagiarist, and a vandal, among other names, and it is not true - he is a liar. He has done so repeatedly - in writing. I ignored this before, but asked him to not do so on in December, when I first joined Wikipedia. PL continued, as you can see. Is this not a "personal attack?" I also noticed that you did not remind PL of his comments (though they've been there for a while now and I only saw them today.) I suggest you look up Wikipedia's policies on slander, and libel, and read them - because I did - and it states that it should not be done and will not be tolerated. I did not read your comments back to PL stating not to slander, nor to libel. He has done both. It is not true. I am neither. But you blocked me immidiately. I am also stating here that I think you are harassing me. I don't know why, but I've seen you cast a blind eye repeatedly to profanity, to personal attacks (when it suits you to decide what "is" and what "is not" an attack. This is not proper behavior for an Administrator. You've read PL's slander, and libel against me - and, in your judgement, are you saying that calling a person a vandal, and a plagiarist - not an attack? Yet, you've said nothing, but block me for responding. I request that you remove the block, or prove that what PL stated, and wrote via Wikipedia is true. If he is not a liar in the statements he wrote, then he has to prove it, because as I see it - it is not only a personal attack, but slander, and libel. If you are to perform your duties as an administrator, then please do so fairly. My experience with you since I joined Wikipedia has been nothing but negative, and your pattern remains the same. You chose what you want to see - and cast a blind eye to the obvious. This is unfair and continues to ruin Wikipedia's reputation. Now, I am asking you kindly here to look at it fairly - or I will initiate legal action for slander, and libel. As a journalist, I know what these terms mean, and I have been subjected to them since December, and have not started any legal bearings on this. As an administrator, it is your duty to make sure that slander, and libel are nipped in the bud. You would be better served to handle this fairly rather than continuing whatever it is that you have against me. I am tired of being a target, and I am not your whipping boy Bunchofgrapes.Theo 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a notice on WP:AN/I inviting larger review of my block. Of course, they will probably just point out that you should be indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia:No legal threats, but that is your own hole to dig. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not making legal threats. I am not asserting copyright infringement Bunchofgrapes. I am saying that I've been slandered and libeled - since December, and last month. I haven't been here for weeks, and when I check in for messages - I see this by PL - who continues to slander, and libel me. Read the pages! I have a right not to be slandered, or libeled. All you had to do was remind PL to refrain from making false accusations, and that would've been that. But, for some strange reason, you keep on picking on me - but ignore the libel and slander that is going on. I reminded PL that other eyes are watching. They are. As an author, he should know better. He is doing all kinds of things on the Nostradamus Page that is drawing negative attention outside of Wikipedia - including making false accusations which leads to the very thing Wikipedia wants to avoid. Rather than picking on me - check it out for yourself. I am a grown man, an experienced journalist, and know slander, and libel when I see it. Why won't you simply listen? As an administrator, if you tell the guy to stop, to cool it, perhaps he might hear you. But, you seem to want to stomp on Theodore. What is with this? What did I do to you to deserve all this unwanted attention? I just got here man. But, you've allowed people to use profanity, you allowed PL to use original research and links to his own website on the Nostradamus Page, and then, let him slander, and libel - and not just me. But, you help to get me banned, now blocked? I mean, what is going on? Look for yourself on the Nostradamus Page, see the links to his own site. The guy's name is Peter Lemesurier. See the constant violations of the 3RR's there. The funny stuff going on there. I haven't touched a page since I've been back, and will respect the six-month ban, but I respond on my Talk Page to slandous comments, and libel and you block me? What for? Come on! For heaven's sake! Theo 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for three weeks

Theodore, you don't seem to understand the difference between being under an ArbCom personal attack injunction, and NOT being under an ArbCom personal attack injunction. Why is it that you must you stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALALALA" whenever somebody explains something to you? Bunchofgrapes explains it to you above. I note that you respond with legal threats. Making legal threats is a serious infringement of Wikipedia policy. I was going to merely tell you that there's a policy against them, and not to make them again, but then I noticed that you actually quote from the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy above. So you knew about it. I've blocked you for one week for making legal threats. I've also added up all the blocks made of you today for separate infringements: Bunchofgrapes' one week for violation of your Personal Attack parole, Vsmith's one week for violation of your injunction againist editing astronomy- and astrology-related articles, my own one week for making legal threats. You are now blocked for three weeks. Bishonen | ノート 22:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Uh, Bishonen? VSmith's was a month ago. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to mention that on every wikipedia page you post on from now on...? Sorry, Theo, I made a mistake. I've changed your block to two weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

This is what I am talking about. No, I'm not going mention it on every Wikipedia page I post on because you know, we all make mistakes Bishonen because we're human. But, I can't just go ahead and block you now, can I? I do not deserve this block. Period. I responded to slander, and libel on my talk page. Now, Bishonen gets into the act with statements that are not true and now here again, a newcomer's blocks are just growing by the minute. Soon, it will be four weeks, then five, then forever, and ever. I mean, you guys just spit out these accusations - turn a blind eye to those actually making the real threats - and slander, and libel, then, you go right ahead and just enforce more blocks without even checking out my reasons for citing slander & libel against ME. And, without even an hour to pass, you accuse me of making legal threats; yet, I am the one being slandered, and libeled? Great. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Then, I haven't even been on Wikipedia for weeks now. I just checked in to my Talk Page. I have not edited any page, much less any astrology, or astronomy pages, and I responded to slander, and libel attacks on my Talk Page, which I am allowed to write on. You know, how can you just make things up, and then act as if it is reality? Bishonen writes to a man in his mid-40s that he just sticks his fingers in his ears and goes LALALALA? You abuse your power. You go around handing out blocks like candy? You jump to conclusions, don't listen to reason, turn blind eyes to suit whatever biases you have against people, and just cite Wikipedia policy to fit your own mis-judgements like what just happened? Are you really an administator? What is going on with you people? This is exactly the kind of thing that is giving Wikipedia a bad name. Bishonen, before accusing a person - check the facts. Tell me, where have I edited a page other than my Talk Page? You know, this is why newcomers are not welcome - because of people just jumping the gun, acting as judge, jury and executioner. Unbelieveable. Just unreal man.Theo 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen was talking to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Theo, the legal threat to which Bishonen is referring is this: "Now, I am asking you kindly here to look at it fairly - or I will initiate legal action for slander, and libel. As a journalist, I know what these terms mean, and I have been subjected to them since December, and have not started any legal bearings on this. Theo 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)" Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, comments like that are taken very seriously, and should never, ever, ever be made. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but that is not a legal, or personal threat. But a fact. Listen, since December, Peter Lemesurier has accused me of plagiarism, and being a vandal. This is not true. I could've done something back then - but did not. I asked him to stop, and I let it go. So please, let's get on the record here. I'm sick and tired of being ganged up on - people saying that they "want to help" a newcomer, and then don't - then some, like Bunchofgrapes turning a complete blind eye to attacks on me - then blaming me - the victim. Ok, I've had ENOUGH. I am a journalist, and know how to file slander, and libel cases. So, this is serious. Not a game. I know my rights, and am not a child. I let this go for months, and all I've got to show for it are rude attacks, yes, slander on my character, and libel - being called a plagiarised is serious. These are false accusations, and PL has not - repeated - he HAS NOT retracted his comments. Go to the Nostradamus Talk Pages that are archived from December, and January, and go to the my Talk Page and note his comments last month. I just saw that one today. I have all his statements on paper - in his name - that is clearly slander, and libel. I've been cool with him - but today was the last straw. I've had no one to help me, or to have this guy retract his statements. To date - nothing. Then, I respond, and I get accused, attacked, and then blocked. Enough is enough. I have not seen, nor heard one administrator take PL to task and remind HIM of Wikipedia policy. If this had been done, and he had retracted his comments, perhaps all this RFC, Arbitration, and Blocking would have been stopped. Rather, he continued when I was not even on Wikipedia for weeks. So, I've just had it. It is not a threat. I am serious. In all my years as a journalist - I've never been accused of slander, plagiarism, nor ever libeled anyone. I do not enjoy being gang-attacked, accused falsely, and played games with so I will do what I have to legally to take care of the situation since the administrators will not. There are consequences to the poison-pen attacks on me, and it will end here legally. There have been plenty of opportunities for an honest adminstrator to step in and take care of it responsibly, and maturely. I have not seen it. So, I will take care of it myself. I am not a vandal, nor a plagiarist. Never have been - never will be. And yes, these are serious matters, and legally, I have my rights.Theo 00:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're serious, then it's all the more serious a threat. If you intend to file a case, I advise you to stop editing Wikipdia right now (including this talk page) to stop the problem and preserve your case for you and your lawyers. If you do not stop, this talk page may be protected from editing to prevent your jeopardizing your case. Of course...it's much more preferable not to sue anyone, but if you wish to, that is your own prerogative. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with BorgHunter) Your argument seems to be "it's not a legal threat; it's a promise". Wikipedia:No legal threats makes no distinction between the two. Here's the important bit from the page: "But, if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." So, yes, certainly you have rights to attempt to pursue legal action; but be sure to realize that you do not have rights to continue to edit Wikipedia while you do so. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, Bunchofgrapes. You are wrong. You assume too much. If you had simply taken to warning PL to NOT slander, nor libel anyone - in accordance with Wikipedia policy - then perhaps he would have gotten the message. I do not think you are a good administrator. You seem not to be able to be objective, nor fair. I've kept my word to people not to edit pages until sources are confirmed, etc., but you see whatever you want to see. I responded on my Talk page to a direct threat to me. And it is not the first time. PL did this back in December, and I asked him to stop, or to prove his accusations. That's the problem. Wikipedia has a problem with some people - and it is not me. Check out what this guy PL is doing on the Nostradamus Page. It is not funny. There are serious issues there that I've been trying to bring to your attention, and others, without success. Also, I am serious, and my case is already preserved. I am old enough and know exactly what I am doing. I've asked for a retraction from Peter Lemesurier (PL) - an apology that says I am not a plagiarist, nor a vandal, and that will be good enough for me. I am not a jerk. But, I am not stupid either. The problem is where your administrators are not looking at. If I have to look at it - I am going to file, and the proof is already in the words of PL, and others who took the time to list quite a number of accusations against me that are not true. The slander, and libel is something I will not stand for - especially after the nearly three months of hassle with some on Wikipedia. I doubt an administrator will go to PL to get him to retract the lies. This is why I have no recourse but legal action. It is not a threat. It is my right. And, I did not deserve to be blocked for it either by Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen. Not at all. I have a right to comment, but they do not have a right to take my statements (as was done in my RFC and Arbitration) and use it against me. And, Bunchofgrapes, you continue to harrass me, play games, and play favorites. You cite Wikipedia policies to fit whatever "case" you have against others. I did nothing to PL to deserve his slander, and libel against me. Others joined in. If you really would read the evidence, you'd know this to be true. He has not retracted his statements from December, January, or February. So, I will have to do it legally. I am no enemy of Wikipedia, but after the way I've been treated, slandered, and libeled against. It is my right. Theo 00:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Per WP:NLT, to prevent you from editing Wikipedia until your case is settled (and as you apparently refuse to settle this outside of Wikipedia), I am protecting this user talk page to prevent further damage to your case and to Wikipedia. You may email PL with any and all things you require from him. All subpoena should be forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation. I am also issuing an indefinite block on your account...this will be lifted when your case is settled. Please email me (or another admin) when this is so: Whether PL removes his statements, or you decide not to pursue the legal action, or you've gone through all the channels you care to. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Borghunter, thanks for being a decent admin.Theo 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew you'd be back! DyslexicEditor 04:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Partially, perhaps.Theo 04:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)