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 17:34, 8 September 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)

Four reverts on Nostradamus

Hey, since you're new, I'm sure you didn't know about this, but you've violated the three revert rule on the Nostradamus article. Admins can block you for that, so please stop reverting others' changes. Thanks. (diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]) —BorgHunter (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Perhaps if you would cease playing games by making POV changes to the already written additions (you've made more than several reverts yourself) then it would not be required to make certain that your POV additions are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore7 (talk • contribs)

I didn't make the edits you were reverting. And I'm positive I haven't violated the 3RR. There's no need to be combative—I'm trying to help you, and further help Wikipedia by trying for consensus on the talk page and NPOV in the article. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then someone out there is making POV edits and railing on astrology in a manner that is not objective - but combative and Wikipedia is a resource, and not a personal forum for such crusades. I appreciate the help. As for consensus, I am all for that, as long as it doesn't turn into POV opinions being passed on as facts. Theo 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Good. Can we agree not to touch that second paragraph anymore? It's accurate as it stands. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen BorgHunter; I am NOT one of those Nostradamus "believers" or "supporters" - I am a serious professional judicial astrologer, a writer, and a scholar and am quite versed on the life and times of Nostradamus. I also am NOT one of the popularized astrologers either, nor a supporter of Nostradamus' work in the manner that many have sought to be in attributing everything to the man. However, I do know for certain that Nostradamus did in fact predict a high number of future events accurately - and some who don't "believe" this have a problem with it. Well, one's "beliefs" does not qualify them to be in the position to add their own POV assertions on such an important historical figure. And, moreover, there is a way to tackle the more controversial themes surrounding Nostradamus without others going into their "academic rsponsiblity" debates that seek to rewrite history of the subject, astrology, etc., based on their own personal bias. I will and have successfully fought this kind of "objectivity" before and will continue to do so. I would prefer a more honest text that seeks to enlighten the mind and not restrict the perspective of this subject to such gooblygook of POV that seeks to divert and demean the subject. I have kept copies of these additions just in case to prove my point of the very negative POV additions to this and other related subjects. Theo 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You also have beliefs, and we don't know whose beliefs are right. Wikipedia, as a NPOV source, should seek to provide the facts (with sources), and let the reader make up his mind on his own. The text simply should not be skewed to one direction or other. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Of course, we all as human beings have "beliefs" but that is not the real issue here. What is the issue are those who obviously go out of their way to INSERT demeaning and negative opinions as subject matter than claim that these entries are factual - the weak - and I mean very - weak "theories" that they are. There have been several attempts by some members of the "academic world" who think that they have the right - carte blache - to "re-write" history and to do so bypassing the author's OWN words and views clearly written on the printed page. There are those out there who even object to the word "astrology" because it upsets their sensibilities. Funny thing is that Nostradamus writes about this himself... these people who try to fit the world into a square peg and want all of us to join in on the fun.

The problem comes from those who have an obvious materialist view of the world and cannot come to terms with their own non-belief in a subject such as Nostradamus. Ok. Then why do they even care if the guy was nuts as some claim via their assertions? This is my point. Who cares then? Obviously, some are on some kind of "kick" that is personal - not objective - and I am not stupid. And neither are the people of Wikipedia either. They know that people can think for themselves. But I can recognize a POV "claim" for what it is. I was not born yesterday and am well-versed on Nostradamus and judicial astrology - so I can handle myself quite well. If people have a problem - then quote the author himself. I don't see those entries except the ones I made - and I took them from the subject's own writing - which should end the arguement. My problem with some is that they act as if this guy didn't write anything - even prose - which he clearly did and lots of it. So let the "direction" go there rather into some bull about retroactive clairvoyance and he didn't know what he was doing and just guessed and all that crap. Theo 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to practice the same advice. Theo 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Chill out man. You are making the rest of the astrologers look bad with all of this. While I will agree that there are some NPOV issues all over the astrology article, you are totally going about trying to fix it the wrong way. --Chris Brennan 23:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Then what is the "right way" according to you? How would I know who the rest of the astrologers are if they do not identify themselves? If the rest of the "astrologers" don't want to look bad, as you say, then perhaps they ought to find some backbone and deal straight up with the negative POV rather than playing games with it. This work is complex enough and keeps us busy enough than to have to deal with the non-astrologer's POV on this science. And, if I am going about it the "wrong way" - then, I would suggest that you offer some alternative methods because up to this time, you haven't. Theo 13:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Theodore, blanking an article, like you did with Quatrains of Nostradamus, is, by definition, considered vandalism. You might want to review the vandalism policy. Blanking is the first thing mentioned under 'types of vandalism'. The following is a formal warning about blanking.

• This message concerns your recent blanking of all or part of Wikipedia pages - please stop. If you feel that the page should be deleted, please see the deletion policy.

I'm sure this was just a misunderstanding.--Tar Heel 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of things I have not done. Theo 19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you certainly did blank it. See [5]. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I've got a few things to say to you BorgHunter - and I'd suggest you'd listen carefully: First of all - I am a trained writer and editor, but new to Wikipedia. I've used Wikipedia as a resource before, but never joined until now. I am an experienced journalist, and a scholar and I am NOT 17-years-old. I've been a professional writer, and astrologer longer than you have been alive on this good Earth. Ok? I haven't had the time to start my own Talk Page description, so I thought I enter that here so we can get on with a real discussion, rather than false accusations.

Next thing: I see from your Talk Page that you enjoy "fighting vandalism" - that is great - so do I. I also like Boston & Styx too and have actually seen them in concert in the 1970s. A little advice: don't let your zeal for fighting vandalism lead you to believe that mistakes can't be made by new Wikipedia members. Ok? You know, mistakes really happen in the real world. And perhaps you ought to ask about things like that first before playing Inquisitor and jumping to conclusions. That is one of the problems with some "writers" on Wikipedia - they do not know the difference between "factual knowledge" and "opinion" - often merging the two as one in the same. They are NOT the same.

Tar Heel is right. It was a misunderstanding - a mistake. You jump to conclusions rather fast for a 17-year-old - which I am not - while not accounting for either mistakes, or mis-understandings, and rather than asking first; you have a VERY bad habit of not only jumping to conclusions, but of making accusations that are in error. Listen, I am new here, and not on any "missions" as some seem to be. Moreover, I've had entire additions deleted by some people at once - without cause, or explaination, but after reading the Wikipedia instructions, I found the deleted versions and did not accuse anyone of deleting my addition; because perhaps it was a mistake. So, the very next time you run to an editor like running to Mom, "complaining" about what "somebody" did - try taking a step back and asking what happened FIRST before playing teenage Columbo, ok? I'd suggest that before you continue to add accusations on my page, that you ASK first (like Tar Heel did) if it was a misunderstanding BEFORE assuming that you are RIGHT. You just might be wrong and made a mistake too. Did you ever consider that as a possibility? Theo 11:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology

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)