User talk:Dave of Maryland

Summary of September 18, 2012

For unknown reasons, around September 14, 2012, two Wiki editors began to write me notes which I found highly offensive. Rather than let those notes, and my replies stand, I have exercised my rights as a junior editor and have cleaned up and deleted them.

This will hopefully end the matter. Dave of Maryland (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. Hi. I noticed your early post at Talk:Moon and thought I'd just wait and see what transpired before I said anything. I'm not sure why other editors have chosen to argue the topics themselves with you. Reality is that it doesn't matter. The fundamental "problem" is that Wikipedia is not a place for non-mainstream nor original research (see WP:FRINGE and WP:OR), regardless of whether it was, is, or later turns out to be correct.

To answer your statements and rhetorical questions, which really cut to the heart of the matter:

"You have to give us space to breathe. Labeling a 2000 year old discipline, known independently in all cultures, as "pseudo" isn't objective (is barely credible) and will win you no friends."

No, WP doesn't have to give you space. If the world predominantly labels something as pseudoscience, that is what WP is bound to report. There are plenty of other forums for discussing every theory imaginable, and if there isn't one, there's no stopping you from creating one somewhere for free. It's just not what WP is for.

"Is it Wiki policy to beat people into submission? What good is that?"

None. I wouldn't characterize it as "beating", though. IMO, your responses were always provocative and created escalation. The purpose of other WP editors writing to you is to try to let you know when you have violated the rules the community lives by, just like a traffic ticket. It's certainly preferable to just immediately banning you (just like the ticket is preferable to revoking your driver's license at first).

"You want variety, you want hard-won, first-hand experience, no?..."

No. Really. Re-read the cited WP policies if you don't believe it. The only thing experience in a field is useful for here is maybe to interpret and write about what a source says without plagiarizing it directly. If you can make a technical source more understandable and accessible to non-specialists, that is worthwhile as well, as long as you don't actually change what the source means to say.

"[continuing from last quote]...(Or yes-men?) I have huge abilities in this area, I would be an asset. I myself am a stranger here, I do not know."

Yes-men, mostly. The problem is that your "huge abilities" are not appropriate or required here, as we're not here to develop new ideas, nor to promote old and predominantly-rejected ideas to a higher standing. "Huge abilities" could be of use in the ways outlined, and since you "do not know", several people have tried to show you where those ways are documented.

"A moment ago I needed a good reference for the Akashic. The Wiki entry was shit - and you need to hear that."

There are 4 million articles. A lot of them are "shit". They would be even more unreliable if people were allowed to insert their own (or not-widely-accepted) research, skew and filter facts to suit their POV, etc. It's still a great source of information about many topics, and continues to get better as more people become dedicated to the concept. I imagine the foundation keeps track of some metrics, and they're reported somewhere, but my impression is that the overall quality and completeness is escalating better than linearly.

In closing, I'm not surprised at the direction the talk here headed. Your situation is not unique, and was fairly predictable. It's up to you whether you want to contribute within the given parameters.

P.S.: Feel free to read (or not) and delete, as you like – it's your talk page. Most people think that's like editing history, and choose to archive their pages instead.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello AlanMi I was happy lurking in the background, leaving comments behind on talk pages, until I got harassed here. The situation between astrologers and science is one of war.

I deleted but you have resurrected. I'd like an explanation for that, better than "we told you so." If you wish to converse, I strongly urge you to email me directly. I've had the same email address for more than 16 years, I have no hesitation in giving it out: dave@astroamerica.com . I do not think matters such as this should be published and I reserve the right to delete them as an infringement upon my privacy. Dave of Maryland (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)