User talk:Dave of Maryland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have finished with this. Dave of Maryland (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You have strong feelings about astrology and science. Why not try editing stuff unrelated to astrology and science? Others have indicated if you publish what you know about the history in peer reviewed sources it may be suitable for inclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear IRWolfie,

Over the past two weeks I have learned the best way to get a Wiki editor's attention is to tell them to go away.

I have finished with this phase.

The situation is grave. I will present this to the community on Monday. In two days. The presentation is nearly done. I will most strongly urge immediate legal action. The community has 30 years case law experience. I do not think Wikipedia will present much problem.

If Wiki knows of a law that prohibits Astrologers from speaking for themselves, it should avail itself of it. I will make a presentation and I will await instruction, but I do not think Wiki covenants will be a problem.

On behalf of the astrological community, with 2000 years of recorded history, I welcome Wiki.

David R. Roell Dave of Maryland (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

I've taken the issue of your legal threat to WP:ANI. See WP:NLT. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I expected you to slam rules down. Are you sitting on your hands, wasting your time?

A pseudo list is the same as an enemies list. Richard Nixon learned about that, but his was private. Wiki published its list. It was only a matter of time.

The game is now in play. Astrologers got slammed by the original French Encyclopedia. (Its original article on astrology is on-line: Go read it.) It wasn't "science," but the Encyclopedia itself that changed reality. It is now Wiki that is doing so. Astrologers are not going back there. Note that astrology, like the Orthodox Church in Russia, have survived repression. Why subject people to such mistreatment?

Linking pseudo to astrology literally destroys the livelihoods of millions. I cannot state strongly enough how huge a danger Wiki's policy is.

By mid-day on Monday (tomorrow) there will be a full-blown firestorm.

Is Wiki's pseudo policy worth that?

I would strongly suggest a wholistic approach. Inclusiveness. Decouple yourself from the mistakes of Diderot. Let science declare anything it wants. Become independent. Become an objective reporter. Become inclusive, not exclusive. Find a face-saving excuse to drop the enemies list.

I have given contact details. I will not reply further in public. Dave of Maryland (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Beware the wrath of the Astrologers, for is it not they who know the ways of the heavenly fires!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

WAKE UP. Nobody wants to sue anybody. Suing is a loser's game. Anybody who's been in court knows that. It's a backs-to-the-walls-we-have-no-choice option. Exclude people, block people, sneer at people, call them names, call them pseudo, give legislators "scientific justification" to gratify the fundamentalist crowd - which will happen - and you give people no choice. Astrologers were BANNED in most towns in the US up to 20 years ago. Including Los Angeles, by the way. They were BANNED in the UK for three centuries. Your private opinion of astrologers is of no importance. I wouldn't want to be a target of something this enormous. It's something Wiki can avoid. You would know this if Wiki policy did not prohibited a real essay on the history of astrology, by the way. There are fundamental principles, there is common sense, and then there's plain stupidity.

WAKE UP. Nobody wants to sue anybody. Suing is a loser's game. Dave of Maryland (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can clarify what you meant by "legal action" then? Perhaps you just meant as opposed to illegal actions?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
He must have been referring to celestial court, presided over by judge Sol and his impartial jury of 8 planets. Alternatively it may be something like this episode of South Park, which incidentally is how I perceive this situation. Sædontalk 20:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, in my last effort to be "helpful," I wrote an essay for History of Astrology, 20th century. It was rejected because I used "in universe" sources.

I gave a list of all the current US astrological organizations. One of which was the Association for Astrological Networking - AFAN - which, since the 1980's, has worked to overturn local anti-astrology ordinances. In court where necessary. They have 30 years case law experience. They have attorneys who specialize in this precise area. This is not idle.

Yesterday I emailed and gave them a heads up, that I was going live at 7 am Monday morning. (I've since gone live on Facebook), that I would link to AFAN in my article. I expect a firestorm and they were certain to get responses. I've got a newsletter and it's got a following and it appears every Monday morning.

AFAN emailed back a couple of hours ago. The big cheese is in China at the moment. AFAN knows all about Wiki. The response was, "nobody's been arrested," which is the typical "we don't want to bother" response. Which is conditioned on me letting it rest. I won't.

I've developed this over the past year. First I had to answer Parke Kunkle, who can't count (12 or 13?) In the process of sorting astrology out, I then had to sort science out, as to how and why astrology got banned in the first place. If you want that, there is a thread that connects the following, all Wiki articles: Crusades. Twelfth Century Translators. Italian Renaissance. German Renaissance. French Renaissance. 30 Years War. Enlightenment. Encyclopedie. It wasn't the Enlightenment that doomed astrology. It was the Encyclopedia. It was the articles in print. That's what the fuss with Wiki has taught me. Which is why you should read the original article that started it. The link is in this week's newsletter:;cc=did;rgn=main;view=text;idno=did2222.0000.736 . It was then a shock and surprise when I learned of Wiki's pseudo policy, about three weeks ago. A round of testing and I learned, to my intense dismay, that Wiki was serious about it. At that point there was no choice. NEVER AGAIN. It's that simple.

If Wiki is not aware of its awesome power, IT SHOULD EDUCATE ITSELF. There is an ENORMOUS DANGER that Wiki's enemies list (aka the pseudos) will be used to ban, prohibit, suppress and otherwise legally harass and deny people their rights. Indeed, it would only be logical. If science says astrology is pseudo, then astrologers are either dumb and stupid and deluded, or they are liars and thieves. Self-professed liars and thieves are a matter for criminal law. Up until recently, many notable astrologers in the UK went under aliases, which is where "Sepharial" came from. (Under the Vagrancy Act. Under the "contamination" policy, the Wiki article omits all mention of its most notorious use.) Many astrologers in the US got phony religious ordination and put "Rev." in front of their names. I personally know a great many such "Reverends." That's what AFAN was created to fight. I don't want to go back to that. If Wiki's Astro History page was any good, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS. Wiki can have ideology and be blind to the world and take its chances, or it can have common sense and know what's going on. Wiki's best way of knowing what's going on in the world is Wiki itself.

Wiki must become a GOOD CITIZEN. Before it's too late. That's what's driving this. Can we get this out of the trivial crap level and stop what's coming? I don't like this, I don't like being second class, I don't like looking over my shoulder at Andrew, whose house is next to mine. He's a high school physics teacher / part time fundamentalist preacher. I happen to be the world's leading astrology bookseller, and that's not an exaggeration. Andrew knows who I am, my daughter and his daughter used to play together. Andrew won't talk to me, aside from polite hellos. There's tension and big friendly smiles won't help. If the ordinances come back and if he throws a fit, I could be run out of town. I have a wife and a daughter and a mortgage. I keep to myself. I have to. There are real people here, with real lives.

It isn't Wiki's right, it isn't Wiki's stated purpose, to create law. It must avoid giving the impression that it does, or that it could be used as such. Partisans will rip it to pieces if it does. If it's not perfectly clear by now, the underlying problem is the fact that Science creates Reality. If Science says it's Real, then it's Real. If Science says it's Fake, then it's Fake. There is no appeal. None. If Science labels people, then they are labeled. If some idiot with a Ph.D. wants to do that, fine. But no matter how many secondary sources it appears in, WIKI MUST REMAIN NEUTRAL. If there are scientists who say astrology is fake, then that's their personal opinion and must be reported as such. (Only a tiny number of scientists have a stated opinion, by the way.) If scientific organizations publish statements, then such statements should be attributed to them. (Remember the 186? Sagan wasn't one of them.) If there are actually reliable refutations of astrology, they can be reported as such, to the limit of the study itself. So far, scientific refutations have not gone beyond sun signs and ascendants. Which is rather like looking at dents on a car. Big deal! Ten planets. Two nodes. Twelve signs. Twelve houses, thousands and thousands of combinations. The best way to refute astrology is to learn it.

Wiki's pseudo policy must be dropped, or Wiki must be exposed as biased and partisan. It's one of the other. I will force it, I have the ability. There are people's lives at stake. I know virtually all the major players, or I know people who know them. I can help Wiki to be a better Wiki, or I can be a nightmare. Wiki should find a face-saving way to slide out of this. If it wants to do that, I will help. If I sound like I'm shouting at you, I am. Do I have your attention yet? Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • From the above, it's blatantly clear that you have no understanding of how Wikipedia's verifiability, reliable sourcing, neutrality, and fringe position polices, guidelines, and standards work, or that you have no desire to understand them. If 9001 sources report "X", and 9 report "Y", reporting that "X" is only a personal opinion is not neutrality, in fact it's the opposite. It's also clear that you are here to push an agenda, as opposed to being here to improve the encyclopedia. Based on that and with the continuing (and reaffirmed) threats, legal and otherwise, that are intended to cause a chilling effect in this area, and the fact that instead of requesting unblock and retracting the threats you posted the above commentary, your ability to edit this talk page has been removed. If you wish to request unblocking, please read WP:GAB and then email WP:BASC at - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This editor has clarified here: [1] that they do wish to sue wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, and if goes to court claiming a "bias" against the fantasy world called "astrology", he might discover that the stars are not aligned in his favor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
To quote the relevant bits from his newsletter:
"I am not a legal theorist, I have no legal training, but it would appear that Wiki’s doctrine of pseudoscience is in violation of its own general principles, which clearly do not include fighting science’s battles for it. It is also clear that Wiki was never anyone’s private turf and is in fact a public resource. If I am correct, then, if there was money and if there was the will and if there was persistence, a protracted court case would end with Wiki being declared to be truly open to all. This is the sort of thing that corporations, with unlimited budgets, do to each other. It is not the sort of thing starving astrologers do.
A simple injunction may do the trick. If so, well-worded letters to Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger may be all that is necessary. In this regard, AFAN has 30 years case law history and can give expert advice. Cunning is nine-tenths of the law, and cunning does not require money. (Do I hear Jayj whispering in my ear? I hope so!)"
"...I will donate to a legal defense fund to the limit of my ability."
SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting. I'd like to see him find a law that prohibits a privately owned website from being allegedly "in violation of its own general principles". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Also interesting that he thinks suing a non-profit organisation to force them to promote astrology constitutes "legal defense." - Cal Engime (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, he says "I have no legal training", as if that weren't obvious, and that's where he should have stopped his dissertation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Out of interest, here are the demands he places on Wikipedia:

  • Astrology removed from the pseudo list.
  • All “in-universe” restrictions removed.
  • All other restrictions and conditions pertaining to Astrology and its related subjects removed, including “contamination.”
  • Anti-Astrology editors curbed.
  • All Astrology and astrology-related articles to be subject to qualified astrological review and edit.
  • Astrologers to have the right to comment on all Wiki articles as astrologers see fit.
  • Wiki by-laws and covenants changed to reflect these demands.

--Lead holder (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I think editors should put a lid on these comments, no matter how laudable their motives might be. I was tempted to remove all the material subsequent to Bushranger's removal of talk page access, and I may still do that. This page is not a forum for discussing everyone's views as to the history of what happened or what they think Dave was doing here. Dave deserved to be blocked and deserved to have his talk page access revoked, but there's still something unseemly about discussing him here when he can no longer respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)