User talk:Erekint
Astrology
[edit]Please stop editwarring on the Astrology article. Tit-for-tat reverts won't build a better encyclopædia article. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the talkpage; it might be a good idea to browse that, and seek consensus before making a controversial change. bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Astrology and science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Replicates content at Astrology, emphasizes a point of view (or rather, de-emphasizes a point of view) which is currently being disputed at the main article. Thus, it's operating as a bit of a WP:POVFORK. The main article is not too long to incorporate any of this material.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ocaasi (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Astrology
[edit]Hi Erekint. I left you some comments before, but you seem to be going pretty aggressively head-to-head over the same issues. I think what I wrote at User:Robertcurrey's page may interest or help you understand what's going on. I've been on Wikipedia for a very busy year, and I can assure you that the current track you're following, whether you like it or not, will be very minimally effective. Please take a look at the entire thread here: User_talk:Robertcurrey#A_few_common_misunderstandings Ocaasi (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Astrology ban
[edit]Please see [1]. Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)