User talk:Aquirata

May 2006 archive

June 2006 archive

unlocking astrology and science page

I think the page should be unlocked. I believe the categories are the issue with the admins because the categories propogate through the servers. They can be difficult to remove. We've agreed on using both prototscience and pseudoscience categories. That's probably enough for the admins. It seems Chris wants to edit elsewhere on the page but can't. My thought is that we can continue the Talk after the page is unlocked.

I completely agree with your assessment that the mainstream scientists are not qualified to either test or publish the astrology claims. It is not a question of the astrology claims not passing scientific "muster", but a question of the mainstream scientists not passing astrological muster. Still, replication is not that difficult, because you just repeat someone elses experiment and see if it's falsified. I've a feeling that the mainstream scientists will go as long as they can calling astrology pseudoscience on the weight of their authority until the claims mount up and they cannot ignore replication tests any longer. I would like to think that time is now (Sat opp Nep, sq Jup), but it's a question of public education. Hope this helps. Piper Almanac 00:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I am concerned about unlocking the page with the falsifiable astrological claims removed. At least they're there now. I'd say that without them this article verges away from science as a method and towards the subject of accepting scientists and their irrational beliefs. Piper Almanac 01:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those references to astro work are important. I agree to keep the page locked unless there's agreement to keep these references.

Reliable sources This has only a slight chance. The issue is not easily understood.
Catagorization I'm okay if both cats are used. Maybe ensure the Sagan quote goes in to make it clear it's an appeal to authority.
Observing basic rules This will likely backlash. Don't go there.

How good is your User page? I get a sense that commentators look at user pages to make up their minds. Most don't even try to grasp the issues.

It's awfully quiet on the Talk page. My last post has been just hanging out there for almost two days! Maybe because it's American Independence Day? Are they fed up? Have I hit on something? Something brewing? I'm very curious to see a response to this one but I don't want to touch it because it's acting like a bomb. I'm going to just let it sit. Piper Almanac 02:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is very good. I haven't figured out how to search for and modify the interesting flags that many veteran users have on their pages. I've been away working on personal projects, but should be able to resume contributing now. Piper Almanac 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Hi Aquirata, we need your help on the astrology page. User:RJHall has suggested that we include a brief summary section or table on the beliefs associated with the different bodies in the solar system, particularly their supposed effects. I think with your experties in the subject, you could contribute to it and improve the article. Thanks Vorpal Blade ^{snicker-snack} 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki

The reason I deleted that sentence--rather than completing it--is that it was (is) redundant. See the first paragraph of the "Theories and practices" section. If the redundancy were critical to conveying the meaning of the paragraph, then it would be justified; but it doesn't really seem necessary there. --Takwish 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Astrology, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Marskell 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You have quite clearly violated the 3rr on article Astrology. Please cease reverting or I will report you. I revert myself when I unintentialy went over the limit, you can do the same. Jefffire 14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what you are referring to? Aquirata 14:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your rapid speed edit warring has mangled up firefox so badly than a lot of some my edits have been lost, in whole and in part. It is no longer clear what has happened on that page. Your recent POV contributions will be removed in short order in anyway. In the mean time, why not mosey on down to the request for mentiation and agree or disagree. Jefffire 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so no 3RR violation then. Aquirata 10:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If fact what I said is that due to your pernicious editing habits, which have more than once resulted in major accidental deletions on the page, it is impossible to acertain the events. Perhaps agree to mediation would help us avoid this sort of situation? Jefffire 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a software bug pernicious editing habits is a serious misrepresentation of facts and a personal attack. Perhaps you would like to take this issue up with Google and the Mozilla Foundation. Please choose your words more carefully, and abstain from making unfounded accusations in the future. Aquirata 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the exact same software and and never had such a bug. Perhaps it is due to the way you use it, namely the rapid-fire edit tactics you seem to prefer. Anyway, agree or disagree to the mediation and this sort of thing will probably become less frequent. Continued ignoring of the proposal will only reflect badly on yourself. Jefffire 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack. Have you ever seen the warning: "Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it"? Regarding the mediation, I am not ignoring the request as you are perfectly aware. I have proposed changes to the originator of the request, and he is currently considering them. Please do not misrepresent me. Aquirata 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that representation is inevitable. Have you tried not using tabs anyway? Jefffire 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed new entry in astrology tools

When I first jumped into Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago I added 2 external links, one to The Avalon School of Astrology under the Schools subheading, and one to a free chart service under the Tools subheading. The Avalon link is still there but the link to the free chart service was removed. I tried to follow the history list to see when it was removed and by whom but I can't seem to track this down. I would like to put it back but because there is a conflict of interest here in that the free chart service is on a commercial site and I am the founder of the company, I wanted to check with you and Chris Brennan about any concerns or problems with adding it before putting it there. The link I added was to to http://www.astrosoftware.com/freechart.htm directly underneath the Astrolabe Software link. Astrolabe is also a commercial enterprise and even their company name is featured in the link. The free chart service at Cosmic Patterns provides an alternative with some advantages and disadvantages to the astrolabe service (which I can discuss in detail). It seems to me that the link to the free chart service provided by Cosmic Patterns is on equal footing with the one from astrolabe so I wonder why the link I added was removed. Perhaps I am in error and in my clumsy first attempts at involvement with Widkipedia I did not properly add it. In any case, I thought I would get the opinion of you and Chris before attempting to add it back. Thanks, and thanks for all the good work you are doing for Wikipedia. I will write a note to Chris to read this note to you. DavidCochrane 10:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it used a spam word "free". David, you could try to list the commercial version, on equal footing with Astrolabe Software. Piper Almanac 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of external link, forthcoming mediation

Thank you very much for the explanation on Wikipedia spam guidelines. This does explain why the links I added were deleted. The intention of this link was not self-promotion but it is best for an addition like this to not be added by a person directly involved with the external link site. I had little understanding of the excellent Wikipedia guidelines when I was a newcomer. BTW, if I can be of any assistance in the forthcoming mediation, let me know. DavidCochrane 08:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The David Cochrane article is good, but he wrote it himself, so there's little chance it will stay.

I have little faith that mediation will resolve anything. I don't feel that the editing process has gone out of control or that there is any major violation of guidelines. There are strong beliefs on both sides and the article is going to reflect that. Piper Almanac 15:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Education

Articles for Deletion is the wrong place to take this... try WP:RM (which helps with moves that cannot be done simply by any editor) or Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion (the correct place to nominate redirect pages for deletion.)--Isotope23 18:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why more people don't move pages when they're in the wrong place (probably a lot of them don't realize it can be done by normal editors in many situations). I think in this situation it was impossible to move the article to the right title because of edits to the redirect; redirects can only be overwritten by a page move if the ONLY thing they've ever been is a redirect to the page that's moving on top of them. Make sense? I bet not... Cheers! Also see my note about the redirect links now created by the move. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation

Do you have an alternate list you'd prefer? Marskell 10:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The involved parties should be the people reverting, disputing, etc. The mediation will achieve nothing otherwise. Deciding on "experts" has no grounding in policy.
I can remove the RfC ref.
Specifically, should dependable astrological sources... We have to decide whether astrological sources can be considered dependable at all. "What constitutes a reliable source in terms of the Astrology page and other pages dealing with astrology? Are astrological sources reliable for statistical claims?" Marskell 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the RfC ref and changed the first point of dispute to the above suggestion. Tomorrow is the deadline, and you and Piper remain to sign. Again, I don't see how it can logically go forward if we don't focus on the people who are disputing. Marskell 14:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated on User:Marskell's page I don't think the purpose of mediation would be to divide sources into astrology and science camps as the request suggests. Piper Almanac 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is moot now as the mediation timed-out and was rejected. Marskell 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add that I don't know how we would have come to agreement with your analysis of the list of participants. Essentially, you'd like to add Zeus (no problem) and ignore two of three people you've been recently revert warring with (Jefffire and Vorpal). That doesn't strike me as accomplishing much. As for your analysis of experts, it's irrelevant to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and I think it flawed insofar as you and Piper do not appear to be experts. Marskell 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Cochrane

Sorry I missed this one, I've been putting in long hours at work & don't have a lot of time left for web surfing. Maybe undelete in the future? Doovinator 06:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo, etc.

Very sorry for the delay in responding. I was hoping to be closer to finishing the overall task in a much faster time.

I think that you are right and that it may well be that, once things have been "merged" the flaws will disappear and -- at least to a certain extent -- the material can be unmerged. However, it is also true that there are many serious problems arising from the fact that various authors (of journal articles, etc) are using terminology, etc. in a way that is not supported by the sources they cite.

For example, you will continuously find statements such as: "The placebo effect was first mentioned in 1955 by Henry K. Beecher, M.D.". Anyone who makes such a statement (a) has never read Beecher's paper (his paper is, in fact, an earnest plea for double-blind trials), (b) no knowledge of the usage of the expression "placebo effect" (which was only ever used in terms of saying smething like "we all know that, on many occasions, placebos bring considerable relief to patients" (and these references to "placebo effects" predate Beecher by maybe 10 years, and (c) totally ignore the fact that Beecher was speaking very correctly of "placebo responses", and never spoke of "placebo effects" (even his own, later, book on placebos does not contain a single mention of a "placebo effect"). Anyway, there are a lot of reasons why these sorts of things need to be dealt with all on the one page.

It is also becoming abundantly clear that there is an enormous amount of misinformation (and, as well, it seems that certain people are strongly pushing certain points of view (and, also, certain sorts of additional reference material).

As I get closer to the finish of the task, I will contact you once again. Best to you Lindsay658 07:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of astrology

I am very interested in your comment that you have recently found a proof of astrology! This may not be directly relevant to Wikipedia and if not, perhaps you can e-mail me information about this. Over the past several years I have stepped up the pace of the development of research tools and I have applied them to demonstrate, for example, that Bradley's DJIA forecast does not work, but other formula may work - I am still working on this. I am using some analytical methods based on symmetry and harmonics that are showing hopeful signs of validating astrology and have produced spectacularly positive results in pilot studies. Anyway, increased research to sort out what works and may not work is the critical issue of our times, and if you have found a white crow, as G. Dean refers to such a breakthrough, I want to hear more about it! :-) I can also perhaps create AstroSignatures, etc. that might be helpful in the research. DavidCochrane 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology

If all you want to do is pick open old scabs and introduce a new point to argue over (CAT:Science) then I will revert you. Marskell 07:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were/are a great user

It's horrible that you left Wikipedia, especially since you did so much to improve Wikipedia's astrology related articles. You should come back. I hope that you do some time in the future. --User:Wassermann

Category:Astrological factors

I have brought up a discussion regarding the deleted category on the WikiProject Astrology talk page. Comments are welcome. — Sam 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massage

Hi there I am just inviting you over to work on the massage article if you find the time..Thanks! Bronayur 04:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hi, two things. One, I fixed the cite error on your userpage by adding {{reflist}}. You can move reflist to wherever you want it to appear, or if you prefer the error, I guess you can delete it.

Also, your comments about astrology and being widely accepted by the public are pretty much the opposite of our sourcing standards. I think even astrologers feel that most horoscopic astrology as practiced under the 12 basic signs with no other information except birth month does not have any chance of being scientific, even if the more sophisticated practices did. Regardless, policy is clear that popularity of a belief can be reported on but is no indication of reliability, and that's the currency we use around here. I'm just responding here personally because the talk page is getting a little silly and I'm hoping some editors will shift their focus to contributing about what they know about the craft of astrology rather than focusing on this single, well-sourced word 'pseudoscience'. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that cite error. With respect to popularity, this should still be reported even if it doesn't affect the status of astrology. Aquirata (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Astrology

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Astrology. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Note that you can still be blocked for fewer than three reverts and per BRD you are edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Talk:Astrology, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision. NW (Talk) 01:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology ban

Please see [1]. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke!

You self-appointed, misguided, pseudo-skeptic, pseudo-scientific "editors" and "administrators", so called, ganging up on and bullying subject matter experts whose only desire is to improve the quality of the article! It was interesting to see how the game developed when you realized you were losing a battle you had been fighting for years. You will of course deny that the sudden appearance of twice the number of debunkers such as yourselves involved on the page prior to your call for help was orchestrated. You will also deny that you have an agenda, which is to keep pushing a particular point of view that you call "scientific". Well, you probably don't even know what the word "science" means, let alone understand the intricate issues on subjects you are "editing". For that matter, you have no idea what a true skeptic is because that is what you are calling yourselves so proudly while it is obvious for all involved that your closed mind testifies to the contrary. You notify users of the three-revert rule and then innocently ponder about these users suspiciously adhering to it. You have the balls to quote the five pillars when it is yourselves who should be locked up for treason. You are questioning the edit practices of reasonable users while yourselves are reverting any change on the article within a minute and dumbing down the page without using talk. You keep rehashing old arguments mindlessly and then hide discussions that are leading toward consensus for reasons of "irrelevance". When users start talking about going to arbitration, you suddenly ban them. When consensus starts developing on adopting a sentence from a policy word for word, you start a temper tantrum and throw in all the misinterpretations you can come up with. How wonderful is your sandbox where your mommies will support your bullying behaviour to keep you in control and to ensure that you end up with all the toys! All I can say, farewell kids, enjoy your populous solitude and the hellhole you built for yourselves. Send me a note when you find the light at the end of the tunnel. Aquirata (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Moreschi. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Can you explain to me what this is about? DarkFireII13 17:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summer is here!

In the Northern hemisphere, but it's very cold in the South...

WP:Astrology project would like your views on what constitutes appropriate content and sources for astrology-related content

Hi, this is to let you know that there is an important discussion taking place in the WP:Astrology project, which affects the guidelines for content and sources on astrology-related pages. This requires input from its members. It would be very much appreciated if you could leave a comment/express your views on the issues raised.

The link to the discussion is here.

Hope you can find time to add a few thoughts

Thank you, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]