Jump to content

Talk:Chinese astrology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wayne888 (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 18 April 2007 (→Getting Consensus for External Links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAstrology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChina B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk page

Talk page archived--Hu12 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--71.111.50.244 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJASE1,

I want to point out that although I disagree with you in the external links issue, I appreciate your contribution to WP in other areas. This is a thankless job and I applaud your effort.

As you can see, Chinese Astrology is my favorite subject. Due to my profession, I want to remain unidentified for now. You may call me "Wayne" if you like.

Having said that, I still do not agree with your action. You did agree that I am free to seek consensus. So, this is what I plan to do:

1. I have seen an oversight of yours in the Astrology page. There are external links coexist along with DMOZ link. So, I will start my consensus process in the Astrology page.

2. Instead of playing myself, I am going to act like you by removing all other links, leaving just DMOZ.

3. Then, we will both wait for reaction in about four weeks or so?

4. If no one complain, then you are right. I am just a over passionate nut case.

5. If many people complain, please reconsider your action and relist the old links?

Deal?

If I get no objection from you, HU12, or Satori Son, I plan to start my consensus gathering process tomorrow night. Thank! --71.111.63.11 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have badly mischaracterized the situation. No one said you were "free to seek consensus". We said consensus has already been reached. Please respect it.
And removing all external links from another article, whether or not they meet the inclusion criteria of WP:External links, would be a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I suspect that doing so will eventually get you blocked for disruptive editing.
As you have been told again and again, this issue is resolved (unless, of course, completely new information is brought forward). -- Satori Son 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Wayne888 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Satori Son and all Editors:
I will address all of your questions and concerns properly:
1. About register for account:
I have signed up for an account so all of you do not think I am sockpuppet. I promise to continue login as Wayne888 from now on. I did not intentionally using many IP, it happens because my ISP does not provide static IP.
2. About "free to seek consensus"
Satori, RJASE1 actually said that I am free to seek consensus twice. Please read the last article in the archived talk page. 1. Right after I showed him that user did weed the links, he said, quote, "Please feel free to start a discussion of your own...". 2. Right after I wrote the American Idol analogy, he said, quote, "Like I said, you are free to gain consensus for your position". Your comment is just right after that. I honestly do believe he meant I could start a discussion. What do you think?
3. About starting consensus on the Astrology page.
Normally, I got a response from one of the editors within minutes or hours. So, having not hearing any disagreement from any of you for 36 hours, I really thought that I got the permission to seek consensus. Actually, I did went ahead to start my consensus on the Astrology page. But, I did talk about that with SAM in his talk page before I start the edit. He already reverted my edit. I hope I did show that I actually show constraint and being reasonable.
4. About the issues.
I believe we have been focusing on slightly different issues.
a. All links should be reverted.
I believe all of you have been focusing on my request to revert all links. I do agree with all of you that not all link should be revert just because they were there for a long time. Your reasonings were fine. I actually know full well from the beginning that I do not want all of them back. In fact, I would remove three of them as SPAM. So, why am I being so unreasonable, asking RJASE1 to revert all links? Well, see issue b.
b. All links are SPAM.
What I have been focusing on all along was that RJASE1 think all links are SPAM before looking at them or talk about them in the TALK page. When RJASE1 finally offered to talk about the links in the TALK page, I already in heated argument with him for 7 hours. I have become hard-headed myself and unwilling to talk. I demanded all links to be reverted, knowing full well that some are SPAM. I apologize if I insulted anyone, for I have become unreasonable myself when dealing with an action that I think is unreasonable.
5. Where do we go from here?
SAM has advised that I make my case by explaining why not ALL links are SPAM. So, I will agree with SAM and Satori to discuss the edit, not the person. I will start another consensus section on this page and state my reasons why I think some links should be relisted. I sincerely want all editors to comment. If I did not make a valid point, please let me know. I am willing to learn.

Personal attack removed

I have removed a personal attack against User:RJASE1 that was posted below. I am not sure who posted it, because many anonymous IP's have been used to edit this page (but it was not the account used above at 71.111.63.11 (talk · contribs) by "Wayne"). If you are the new contributor and would like to repost your questions, please do the following:

  1. Refrain from making any personal attacks or uncivil remarks. Discuss the edits, not the editor.
  2. Register for an account and log in. Otherwise, your comments are likely to be disregarded as a sockpuppet and/or single purpose account.

Thank you, Satori Son 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_astrology&oldid=123805977"