Talk:Zi wei dou shu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astrology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The recent external links removal discussion[edit]

Hu12, I believe you did not make the deletion correctly based on WP:EL. Here are why:

1. You kept a site with sole purpose of selling one book.
2. You kept the free online computation link that requires all users to register to even get any answers. Also, I have observe wrong information provided by the site.
3. You delete the free computation link ( that I already defended in my Call for consensus in Chinese Astrology page (see the archieve in Chinese Astrology discussion), which should be kept instead of the site.
4. You removed a perfectly good manual calculation site. How is this site any worse than the site you kept?

Anyone care to comment? --Wayne8888 18:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I believe you (Wayne8888) are making a somewhat erroneous assumption. Hu12 does not indicate they decided to "keep" anything. Some other editor added the link to at some other point. If you have a problem with it, please look through the page history and contact that editor who did so, or simply delete it yourself. Ditto for the other.
Asking Hu12 why he "kept" an external link is like saying "Hey, you fixed the misspelling in the first paragraph, but I'm reverting it since it's not any worse than the misspelling in the last section that you decided to leave in." Wikipedia doesn't really work that way. Just because someone edits an article, it doesn't mean that they approve of every single aspect of that article.
So let's please concentrate on the edits that Hu12 did make, not the ones they didn't.
  1. They removed I can't imagine that you or anyone else has a problem with removing that one. Very spammy retail sales website.
  2. They removed Generally, blog sites are prohibited unless they are a top quality site that provides some really great resource, or perhaps if they are written and maintained by a recognized expert in the relevant field. It does not appear to provide any scholarly resources for the information provided. It also features Google Adsense advertisements. Not sure I disagree with Hu12 on this one, but I would appreciate hearing from editors more versed in Chinese astrology and divination.
  3. Finally, Hu12 removed This also seems like a personal website, and more Google Adsense, this time prominently displayed right across the top. Again, can't say that I disagree with Hu12, but further commentary by other editors would be welcome.
Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult to get much feedback on a little-edited page such as this. Wayne8888, if you still strongly disagree and would like more opinions on these two websites in question, you may want to consider posting a notice over at one of the various WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. You can also try Wikipedia talk:External links, but the editors there tend to be less inclusionist that you would probably prefer. You could also try posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Best of luck to you, Satori Son 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Satori Son, thank you for responding. I appreciate such information.
I believe when one decides to clean up the links, if the links are not too many, all of them should be looked at. In this case, only 6 links were on the page. How could Hu12, a site administrator, do such a half-baked job?
The problem about free online computation sites is that they are very few good one out there. The purpleking and destinyandluck site are the only two sites in the whole WWW that provide English online calcuation, as far as I could find. Just because both sites has a little advertising, are we supposed to strip the general user of the knowledge of a good site ( that actually calculate chart correctly?
Also, a good manual calculation site is very hard to find too. I can't find any other English language one out there that is as good. Just becuase the knowledge is in a blog, does it really matter?
--Wayne8888 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. Satori Son said it exactly, so there is no need to repeat the WP:EL reasons that were stated for their removal. I however removed the blog, and left the calc (despite the amazon affiliate ads and adsense). There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed here on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed this spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep reinserting it. Your contributions ( IP,IP,IP} to wikipedia consist mainly of adding these external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your Multiple IP contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only, and it appears that you may have a WP:COI relating these and other links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Your excessive "internal spamming" and "cross-posting" (WP:CANVAS), under: (IP,IP,IP,IP,user Wayne8888,IP,IP,user Wayne888) is never acceptable. Also please cease disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point as you have in the past. I'll also ask that you cease the Targeted personal attacks, as you have done here and as you have done in the past against other editors.--Hu12 02:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actualy I see nothing wrong with replacing the calc with , more encyclopedic and no ads! Would also seem to compliment the existing link. Or reinsert the link as it has less ads--Hu12 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hu12, thanks for responding. As you might has seen in my previous Chinese Astrology discussion archive, I did not purposely using multiple IP and I intend to use only one from now one. I just forgot my password for Wayne888, thus I am using Wayne8888. I already said that to Satory and Sam.
The only people I contacted are Satory and Sam as they are the one who know my history in Chinese Astrology discussion. I only been having opinion on two wikipedia subject so far. I don't think I have been excessive in expressing my opinions.
The site you mentioned is for Four Pillar/Ba Zi astrology. There is already another subject for this form of astrology in Wikipedia. For the uninformed, Four Pillar/Ba Zi and Zi Wei Dou Shu are different type of Chinese Astrology, but both are popular in Asia. I suggest you place this link at this wikipedia subject instead:
Also, personal attack and pointing out errors are two different things. Did I point out the errors incorrectly? How could pointing out your errors become personal attacks? If I was aiming at personal attacks, I would have used much worse wording that I have been using!
About which calculator to use, I think is the lesser evil. The most disturbing things about is it requires user to register in order to read anything. I observed errors on the purpleking site, even write to the author(s) to point out the errors before, but never heard back from them.
--Wayne8888 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

European Color[edit]

I really don't see how purple being a European royal color is relevant to the article. 2601:641:C000:1DB2:511D:66:6AE8:D536 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)