User contributions for Zachariel

18 July 2012

• 10:3810:38, 18 July 2012 diff hist +220 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: Signing off
• 10:3710:37, 18 July 2012 diff hist +1,388 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: R & GB
• 10:1910:19, 18 July 2012 diff hist +2 m Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement →Statement by Zachariel: sp
• 10:1610:16, 18 July 2012 diff hist +3,551 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement →Statement by Zachariel: Qu to admins - any point continuing?
• 09:2709:27, 18 July 2012 diff hist +786 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: Source for AA comment?
• 09:2109:21, 18 July 2012 diff hist +2,120 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: @Saedon - an unacceptable outpouring of hostily and prejudice
• 08:5308:53, 18 July 2012 diff hist +3,366 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: The point is not so obvious to readers come to this page from a different perspective
• 08:1408:14, 18 July 2012 diff hist +648 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: Q re Chrpak

17 July 2012

• 18:0718:07, 17 July 2012 diff hist +1,346 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: cmt
• 17:3717:37, 17 July 2012 diff hist +503 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: Adding details of the paper
• 17:3317:33, 17 July 2012 diff hist +23 Astrology →Modern scientific appraisal: Tagging ref 59 - see talk section: The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59
• 17:2917:29, 17 July 2012 diff hist +3,592 Talk:Astrology →The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59: new section
• 14:5514:55, 17 July 2012 diff hist +5,975 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement →Statement by Zachariel: Response to diff 11 and the criticisms that I won't accept books like The Cosmic Perspective as a reliable source without question
• 11:1411:14, 17 July 2012 diff hist +4,148 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement →Statement by Zachariel: Response to diffs 13 and 12
• 05:5605:56, 17 July 2012 diff hist +2,918 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement →Statement by Zachariel: R re Skinwalker's complaint

16 July 2012

• 17:4217:42, 16 July 2012 diff hist +395 Talk:Astrology →Arbitration Enforcement: R
• 17:2817:28, 16 July 2012 diff hist +515 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement →Statement by Zachariel: rply
• 17:1617:16, 16 July 2012 diff hist +6,084 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement →Statement by Zachariel: Rpy
• 13:0413:04, 16 July 2012 diff hist +67 Astrology No they have not - if you think so raise the issue on the talk page, establish that is the consensus, and follow my suggestion for a request for gaining comment from uninvolved editors. Also suggest you follow my suggestion to you on talk
• 12:5912:59, 16 July 2012 diff hist +921 Talk:Astrology IRWolfie - You must stop behaving as if you own the article and non-hostile editors may not contribute. Colloboration is not about reverting everything without clear explanation. Specify your reasons for reverting my edit
• 12:4312:43, 16 July 2012 diff hist +67 Astrology IRWolfie - You have raised concerns about sources not being reliable yourself; talk page is full of concerns about the neutrality of content YOU have developed. Therefore you should not remove this tag - no one should whilst the discussion continues
• 12:3812:38, 16 July 2012 diff hist +915 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": To IRWolfie - give an explanation for your revent
• 12:2612:26, 16 July 2012 diff hist +608 Talk:Astrology →Move precesssion explanation into the 'world traditions' section, and rename that section 'Divergence of systems': Need for tag
• 12:2612:26, 16 July 2012 diff hist +67 Astrology Talk page discussion needs attention and input. Several issues of concern have been raised about the content being affected by bias and the suitability of the content's sources.
• 12:1712:17, 16 July 2012 diff hist +1 m Talk:Astrology →Move precesssion explanation into the 'world traditions' section, and rename that section 'Divergence of systems': sp
• 12:1612:16, 16 July 2012 diff hist +2,166 Talk:Astrology →Move precesssion explanation into the 'world traditions' section, and rename that section 'Divergence of systems': We should report the issues with neutrality and objectivity using *independent* reliable sources - not sceptic debunking! manuals
• 11:5811:58, 16 July 2012 diff hist −5 m Astrology →Precession: WP:POV
• 11:5511:55, 16 July 2012 diff hist +39 Astrology →Precession: A better amendment to previous content, adopting a more neutral tone to our report of their work, following WP:NPV
• 11:5111:51, 16 July 2012 diff hist +415 Astrology →Precession: Clarifying that the tropical zodiac addresses the issue of precession - the word 'avoiding' suggest that it ignores it
• 11:2611:26, 16 July 2012 diff hist −11 Astrology Precession is not an 'astronomical mistake' - see ongoing talk discussion and proposal to move this section. You should discuss and seek approval before changing topic headers
• 11:2311:23, 16 July 2012 diff hist +1,157 Talk:Astrology →Move precesssion explanation into the 'world traditions' section, and rename that section 'Divergence of systems': new section
• 11:0711:07, 16 July 2012 diff hist +2,274 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": historians and philosophers of science understand the issues best
• 10:4110:41, 16 July 2012 diff hist +3,549 Talk:Astrology →Theological criticism: Precession - content is wrong, based on unreliable sources, and misplaced within the modern science section
• 01:1901:19, 16 July 2012 diff hist +511 Natal chart Undid revision 502535307 by ArtifexMayhem (talk)Source seems directly relevant, and reliable; no talk page explanation why removing editor thinks otherwise
• 00:5500:55, 16 July 2012 diff hist +500 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": What's a better word for defamatory (which still means defamatory)?
• 00:3000:30, 16 July 2012 diff hist +1,068 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": And whilever the problems remains, it won't be the last
• 00:0500:05, 16 July 2012 diff hist +1,791 Talk:Astrology →Theological criticism: Re signs & constellations

15 July 2012

• 23:4623:46, 15 July 2012 diff hist +1,001 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": Tyson: is criticism is neither valid or relevant
• 23:3123:31, 15 July 2012 diff hist +1,716 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": Precession is discussed in the article, but not in any way that makes sense
• 23:0923:09, 15 July 2012 diff hist +1,541 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": Review WP:TALKNO
• 22:4322:43, 15 July 2012 diff hist +795 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": Astrology has astrological arguments - it really does
• 22:2522:25, 15 July 2012 diff hist +1,979 Talk:Astrology →Theological criticism: Nothing to do with belief
• 21:2121:21, 15 July 2012 diff hist +2 m Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": sp
• 21:2021:20, 15 July 2012 diff hist +872 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": Agree, as much nonsense as a US president declaring a believe in God - yet they all do, don't they?
• 20:5520:55, 15 July 2012 diff hist +1,814 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": Yes, about recognition of nonsense
• 17:2217:22, 15 July 2012 diff hist +741 Talk:Astrology →Theological criticism: Not a debatable point - if you think otherwise provide your ref from Tet 3.5 to show that their assertion about Ptolemy's view is correct
• 16:5416:54, 15 July 2012 diff hist +602 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": To help you understand the issues
• 16:4716:47, 15 July 2012 diff hist +891 Talk:Astrology →Theological criticism: Rpy
• 16:1416:14, 15 July 2012 diff hist +1,201 Talk:Astrology →An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong": new section
• 15:1815:18, 15 July 2012 diff hist +2,042 Talk:Astrology →Theological criticism: Ptolemy: measurement & definition of the signs