Talk:Mundane astrology

message: Recent reverts on a top-rated Wikipedia page calls for additions to the Mundane Astrology page. A critical section would be helpful as well as expansion of the history section on such an ancient topic. Eagle Eye 22:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Expansion is fine so long as it doesn't use a blog as a source.  This is almost never acceptable and when it is it is only for certain kinds of statements (such as what a person has to say about themselves). Saedon (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: A page being top rated means nothing, so please stop bringing that up.  The fact that blogs are being used is a problem and you shouldn't be adding to it.  How many times do I have to point out policy before you'll actually read and understand them?  Again, please see WP:SPS and WP:ELNO.  I have reported you at WP:3RRN since you're attempting to edit war a policy violation into the article and I will wait to revert you until an admin has blocked you.  If you want to avoid being blocked I suggest you self revert. Saedon (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: You obviously don't know WP policy since you make the insinuation that editors cannot revert a page without adding to it (not to mention that you can't remember to sign your posts or indent your paragraphs)...where do you even get this nonsense in your head?  There is nothing in policy that even resembles what you're saying.  I'm not threatening a block, I'm telling you that I've reported you for crossing a bright line rule that will lead to an admin blocking you.  Saedon (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Do I really need to say it again?  You violated WP:3RR after I warned you about it on your talk page (though I'm getting the impression that you literally do not read any of the blue linked policies I give you), I have reported you for said violation and an admin will now block you for said violation unless you revert yourself and agree not to EW anymore.  Whether you think it's fair or not, WP doesn't allow blogs as sources, end of story per multiple policies. Saedon (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Removing bad content source to crap blogs is improving the page in the same way that removing a false claim from a text book would be improving the text book.  Please don't lecture me on how to work with Wikipedia.  My main account, as I pointed out, has 7000 edits, about 3000 of them to article space.  You have 6 and thus are in no position to lecture me about anything here. Whether you think that crossing 3RR is "what editors do naturally" is irrelevant.  We have policies, you either follow them or you get blocked, simple as that. You are also misrepresenting the history of this page.  I did not start with insults (and haven't made any) and threats, I started by explaining policy, I then escalated the issue when you violated policy, that's it. Saedon (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mundane Astrology

message: Did have a talk page I started earlier but it disappeared. Adding content, sources, references and links on the topic only serves to expand and improve the article. Those who Revert based on ideology and POV tend to be hostile, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, "making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to good editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia, thus fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above." This new talk page is to discuss the quality of the article with well-written, concise additions by editors with references and sources along with internal and external links that the reader can go to if they choose. The addition of a critical section should also improve the overall quality of the encyclopedic article on mundane astrology.Eagle Eye 01:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mundane Astrology article 

message: I suggest removing the historical predictions section as it is poorly sourced and the link of many of the entries to the topic is dubius. I also propose deleting any unreferenced sections, are there any objections/comments? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest. I doubt any of those sections could be reliably sourced anyway. It is notorious difficult to find reliable sources for astrology-related topics. Modern astrology is practically never treated in scholarly sources, and most of the sources that exist are non-reliable coffee table books and for-entertainment-purposes-only do-it-yourself guides and such which give wildly conflicting information. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Predictions section 

message: Neither are reliable sources, and they all need to go. 86.** IP (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikis and blogs 

message: I propose that we delete the last two paragraphs (and the quotation) - it's enough to say that astrology is a pseudo-science. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about the skeptical sections 

message: This page was proposed for deletion a few months ago for having mostly unreferenced poor quality content. It was decided to reduce most of its content and merge what remained into History of astrology as a subsection of that page. However, mundane astrology is a branch - a type of astrology, not a period of its history, so this content does not fit on that page.
I have taken the content that was merged out of the History of astrology page and will aim to recreate a more appropriate page, starting initially with the text that was salvaged in the merge.  I will add a little more to develop this, but want the original text from the merge to be seen as it is before adding anything to it.  Almost all of the astrology project pages reference this page because it is one of the top importance pages for the astrology project, and links to it are built into the project footer-templates. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 23:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added more information and references. I believe that all the previous problems identified in the earlier delete proposal have been fixed. If any remain, please discuss. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 23:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuilding content 

message: This is a contribution of new content which relies on a good academic source and adds (I believe) informative encyclopedic content to the page. If anyone feels differently, please amend as necessary.  I have no other planned contributions in the short term. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 14:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution of content concering Richard Trewythian's practice of mundane astrology