Your recent editing history at Wen Wang Gua shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf 1735 22:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you find to be POV on the text that I copied from Astrology#Science_and_the_Philosophy_of_Science to Hindu astrology (per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia)? That content has been on Astrology for quite some time. Can you suggest material from peer-reviewed scientific journals which support Hindu astrology that I perhaps missed? Don't you think that the content of Hindu astrology should be critically reviewed? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)material that has been posted against it
- The Astrology article is the proper place for material from peer-reviewed scientific journals in favor of or against astrology. But so far the material against it does not review the scientific evidence in favor of astrology. The theological objections are more to the point, because they do take into account such evidence. The existing scientific objections favor belief in science rather than in astrology, in the context of the psychology of belief. The article is not about psychology, so they need to be removed.
- Sorry but no. Astrology is regarded as pseudoscience, and wikipedia respects the scientific mainstream. We don't mention the evidence in favour of astrology because it does not exist. We can not link to a fantasy which you have invented, as we respect what the most reliable sources say. On wikipedia the most reliable sources about science and the relation to science are the ones in use. Read our WP:FRINGE guidelines. Covering what the most reliable sources say is WP:NPOV. In response to "The existing scientific objections favor belief in science rather than in astrology", inherently wikipedia will always favour science over superstition. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your comment does not make sense. Your inability to see why I said sorry in this context has no relation to reading guidelines. I was sorry about the state of your argument, which necessitated me addressing it. I am also sorry that I had to further clarify this. If you are unwilling to read wikipedia guidelines and base your arguments through guidelines, then further arguments you make will continue to be without basis, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Divinatory, esoteric and occult tarot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magical. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.