User talk:Dave of Maryland

Hi Dave, An appreciation, really liked your reasoning at Talk:Antikythera mechanism. MrCleanOut (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Dave of Maryland! I'm so glad you decided to volunteer your time to the encyclopedia. Everyone is welcome here and I hope you enjoy your time spent editing. If you need any assistance, please feel free to contact me or seek assistance at the Teahouse.  Ryan Vesey 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vesey. Thanks for your note. You will find me a bit of a radical. Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, I'm Saedon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sædon^talk 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I find Wiki to be hostile and ignorant in many ways. I don't think being polite is going to help. Wiki needs to realize that deletions must be handled as if they were nitroglycerin. Science as we know it is a simple consensus. Which is to say, if I got more people who shout louder than you and your people, my people win. This is a sad state of affairs. There needs to be organization. Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your distorted view of how science works aside, I'm not asking you to be polite per se, but rather to follow the civility policy and to not treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This means not making personal attacks or antagonizing other editors; if your first foray into WP is insulting other editors I don't expect you'll fit in very well here, sorry. Please also familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. Sædon^talk 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dave of Maryland. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

That's awfully vague. As a rule I do not talk directly about anyone I actually know. So far as Stonehenge is concerned, I've never been there, so my opinion, that it is a giant Earth battery, must therefore be legit. Would you like to be specific? Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it,

You mean, an expert? That doesn't seem to be a problem in any other area. Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

WP doesn't quite recognize the validity of "experts" in pseudoscience; you should familiarize yourself with out policies on WP:FRINGE topics as well as how WP handles WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topics. Sædon^talk 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Saedon, It's like this. If I said there were niggers about, I'm not referring to anyone per se, am I? If you say, "astrology is a pseudoscience" you're not referring to me and my friends, are you? Of course not.

PSEUDOSCIENCE IS INFLAMMATORY. It is. "Pseudoscience" was intended to be an offensive term, it has no other use than to offend. If you are scientific, you have many other ways of expressing yourself. Just accept that. Drop it. Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No quite no, the intention of the word is to characterize beliefs that are not scientific but pretend to be, as distinct from science. That it has the affect of offending people who hold pseudoscientific beliefs is unintentional and ancillary. Racial slurs, on the other hand, exist solely to offend people. I'm sorry that you hold a belief that the educated scientific world considers to be pseudoscientific, I really am, but WP represents the mainstream of scientific opinion, not fringe views. You'll notice that the main article on astrology makes it very clear in the lede that astrology is a pseudoscience and that is something you'll have to deal with if you edit here. Please also see WP:NOTAFORUM. Sædon^talk 21:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. The world divides cleanly into two-something camps. What is believed to be known and understood, what is not understood, and some sort of gray area in-between. The idea there are things that are Known To Be Wrong is absurd on the face of it. At best we may say that "we do not understand, so we set it aside." There are many things that are unknown and always will be. That would be rational. It would be modest. It would be neutral.

In this specific case, scientific taunting of astrologers prompted me to do my own work. Formulate a theory of astrology from the ground up. Since astrology is real, since many of us use it on a daily basis, a comprehensive theory was always possible. Science could have done it, in fact should have done it, since astrologers, as a group, are more interested in using it than explaining it. ("All we know is it works for us.")

In fact, two researchers at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, DC, have nailed it. They have a theory that the center of the Earth is a single, giant crystal. They further suspect it is a six-sided crystal.

I am terribly sorry to tell you this, but a six-sided crystal at the center of the Earth will prove every single astrological tenant. Without exception. Why will a six-sided crystal explain the twelve signs of the zodiac? Quite simply. A six-sided crystal has six faces. Six edges. Six masculine signs. Six feminine. Whatever you want to call them.

Think about all the six-sided crystals in the world! Snowflakes! There are meteorites with six-sided iron crystals (hexahedrite), which is probably exactly what's at the center of the Earth. We are soaked in 6-sided crystals. You wanna count the ^'s of a snowflake as masculine signs of the zodiac and the v's as the negative? It's a labeling system or maybe it's more. Six that becomes twelve is pervasive, it's everywhere, you cannot escape.

The alignment of this crystal, at the solstices and equinoxes, establishes the Tropical zodiac. Its daily rotation establishes houses. If the Earth has a crystal at its center, presumably the other planets do as well. Astrology is then nothing more than the interaction of planetary crystals. These crystals are more than big enough, more than close enough, to do exactly that. They moreover prove the inverse square law. The Sun and Moon have the predominant influence, the Moon by proximity, the Sun by sheer power. Their influence is consistent and never varies, as the distance of Sun and Moon to the Earth varies but little. The inner planets, Mercury, Venus and Mars, are known as "personal." Which indicates detail due to physical proximity. Jupiter and Saturn are "social," in that they relate to groups and abstractions: further out, less detail. Outer planets need to relate to inner planets, or we don't sense them at all: too far away. It's what astrologers have always said. It's the inverse square law of planetary crystals at work, but you know us as pseudoscientists.

In addition to the central crystal, the Earth is enrobed in a liquid crystal, which is water. You want to tell me that someone, anyone, understands the interaction of the central crystal with the abundant supply of liquid crystal, strung together with "electronic" nervous systems, to say nothing of static electric discharges in the atmosphere? Do you know the electrical properties of quartz, to give an example?

Planetary radiations are combined and synthesized by the central crystal and then radiated outwards. Astrology does not fall from an empty sky. It radiates from the very ground below us. Always has. Always will. We are soaked in it, we can be nothing else.

It's not Wiki's job to promote my private theory, which is why I have not made a Wiki page on it, though today you have given me great encouragement. But neither is it Wiki's job to pass judgment on what it knows nothing whatever about and then deny that it is doing so and refuse to accept the consequences of that.

The central Earth crystal is a field of research that will keep everybody happy for centuries. It is so big and so explosive that I frankly think "science" will close the door and denounce the central Earth crystal as bunk. (Which they have repeatedly done in the past, by the way. Suppression of astrology includes suppression of scientific demonstrations of it, three of which are known to me, but, I suspect, not to you.) Precisely by insisting on "pseudoscience," science has painted itself into a corner. It will take appropriate action to save itself. I don't think they will be successful. With every passing year, astrology gains.

Currently, science laments the disbelief in global warming. They have only themselves to blame. Global warming is based on anecdotal evidence. Forty years ago anecdotal evidence supported global cooling. At neither time was there any real structural evidence, which can be found only in astrometeorology. What is it really? Knowing the historical basis, I myself do not know and have an open mind. This is but one example among many.

So, please. Go on telling me about this pseudoscience. From the very inception of the Enlightenment, science has been bold. Go read Wiki on Enlightenment, go read Italian Renaissance, go read German Renaissance, go read French Renaissance, go read Thirty Years War. The outlines of the story are there, if you read closely. The modern scientific movement pitted rich city against poor country, book learning against oral hand-me-down, rich France against devastated Germany, "science" against "superstition," scientists against old wives. So tell me. In 1650, at the very beginning of "science," what did science know about anything? In 1650, how could anything be labeled "superstition" - ? Yet science did, and with wild abandon. (See Cellini's autobiography for an alternative reality.) It's just that simple. Astrology got tossed because the French were ignorant of the subject. The Germans, the Italians, the English, the Islamic world in general, were not, but they were not French, they were not the masters of the universe.

I want to be a nice person. All Wiki has to do is clean itself up. "Pseudoscience" is not evidence of an open mind. It has to go. Those who believe in pseudoscience need to be reminded to be civil and modest. Dave of Maryland (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. 

If you have evidence of that in my work, please bring it to my attention. Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, no, I dropped the COI template on your page because you mentioned being part of an astrological organization. Sædon^talk 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a member of no group or organization whatever, which is by choice. I have a great many contacts who are themselves members of various groups and organizations, as they see fit. Dave of Maryland (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject,

You want to encourage those with little or no experience? I'm sorry, but I've thought it through. Took a quarter century. Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

You will have to get used to the fact that as astrology has been actively suppressed for 350 years, a lot of damage has been done, a lot of source material has been lost and is still being lost. We have to reconstruct as best we can, and then prove it in the field. Astrology is not a belief system. It is provable. This is the best that can be done under the circumstances. Blame the Encyclopedist movement that excluded astrology. There were consequences. I am one of them. Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You will have to get used to the fact that WP does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This is not a website for advocacy or for people to fix what they perceive is wrong with the world. If mainstream scientific discourse states that astrology is bunk then that is what we report. I've given you a lot of policy to go over, at this point you should read over it and decide whether you can work within the WP rule set; if your goal here is to promote astrology then I'm sorry but you're in the wrong place. Sædon^talk 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.

Is this a general lecture? I have done no such thing. I have restricted myself to talk pages, and to talk pages only. As of this time I do not feel welcome here, so have avoided the main pages. Dave of Maryland (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a generic template that deals with COI topics. Sædon^talk 21:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Sædon^talk 20:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

Sorry about my summary for your edit to [1], but you are being disruptive by adding to the guidelines in this way. It's clear that you have a fringe belief. That is all well and good; but do not subject us to your non-evidenced, non wikipedia policy based opinions about things. Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia based on the reliable sources and not your own personal interpretation of things. I suggest you actually read the Astrology article fully to understand why your opinions are not well founded. Wikipedia describes as pseudoscience what the sources say is pseudoscience. As Saedon has pointed out, we aren't here to right the great wrongs. If you are here to counter the reliable sources, you will find yourself unsuited for wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello IRWolfie. Very well. I went to Astrology. I read: Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which . . . after which I stopped reading. Not a neutral point of view. "Belief systems" are a grudge that's been going on for 350 years. There are many millions who use astrology as practical guide in daily life. Which, by the way, is way more than any believer in religion gets out of his religion. Pray to God, will he hear you? But millions do, in the belief of something that keeps them going. If the Old Farmers say the winter will be mild, it is. How do they do it? They won't tell you (I once asked them, point blank) because they know you'll condemn them. They use astrology. I've got books on it. I know people who go toe to toe with them and can show their work. All Wiki's "pseudo" this and "pseudo" that has done is drive a real discipline underground. Suppression of knowledge. The Old Farmers won't touch you with a ten foot pole. You think that's a good thing?

I got pneumonia the first week in August and nearly died of it. I'm 60. Pneumonia is fatal to men my age. At the time I could find no astrological reason for it. It was a Canadian astrologer who phoned me a week ago. Look at the transiting nodes, she said. They were exactly square to your natal nodes. And they were. To the degree (it's a 19 year cycle). Yes, this is anecdotal (so is the evidence for global warming, by the way), but it ain't no belief. I can keep at this until you ban me, or let it drop. Whose page is this, anyway? Has my name at the top. Dave of Maryland (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)