User talk:Samuel Grant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add your additions to the bottom of the page or simply create a new section by clicking here.
Archive
Archives

Prior to 2007


Contents


[edit] Thanks!

Hey, thanks for contributing to the Asteroids in astrology page! I really appreciate it.

Whoa! I just left a message on your talk page, only to find upon saving it you had just left one on mine! — Sam 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Tarot.

Sam,

Seeing so many "male" users editing this page, I am surprised that no references are made to the Gay Tarot. No offense intended, nothing wrong with homosexuals, I just feel that the Gay Tarot should be discussed heavily here. Real man (my husband for example) do not show an interest in Tarot.

Jenny

I really don't have more than a shallow interest of the topic. I have a tarot deck but don't use it much. I just want the article to be a quality one. Information on the gay tarot would probably need to be on its own article. The tarot article is meant to be a general overview rather than go deep into specifics about each deck. — Sam 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fidiot.

"I really don't have more than a shallow interest of the topic" - Then who are you to edit an encyclopedia? What gives you any kind of credibility? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.109.20.38 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

And who are you to judge me? Do you even know anything of what I contribute? I don't really feel the need to justify my presence here to a rude stranger. — Sam 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuella: I wish you Ill Well.

Let me show you why: "Another problem is that most of the administrators at Wikipedia prefer to exercise their police functions anonymously. The process itself is open, but the identities of the administrators are usually cloaked behind a username and a Gmail address. (Gmail does not show an originating IP address in the email headers, which means that you cannot geolocate the originator, or even know whether one administrator is really a different person than another administrator.) If an admin has a political or personal agenda..." The quote comes from Wikipedia Watch.

Don't hide this. Be a man. Let the world know that other users feel you are scum.

Um, firstly, I'm not an administrator nor have I ever been one. Second, you are the one posting anonymously here. I don't know why you are so persistent about getting your site included in the external links of an article, or why you continue to pick solely on me. Newsflash: your link has been removed by multiple people who deemed it as spam. Leave me alone. Sam 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horoscope

Please don't add references to an article which were not used in the creation of the article. Those are Jyotish references. Jyotish is not even mentioned in the article. Add them to the Jyotish article if they are not there, but please don't add them to Horoscope again. Tunnels of Set 17:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for the mistake. Sam 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Now, if someone were to add a section to the article about Jyotish horoscopes, then they would be appropriate. Tunnels of Set 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted To Ask...

Hi, Sam. This is my first time posting anything on Wiki, so I hope I'm doing this right. I went over and played in the sandbox, and it seemed like I did it right there, so my fingers are crossed...

I was on Wiki today looking for a Tori Amos-related page that I thought used to be here (an article on A Dent In The Tori Amos Net Universe) and couldn't find it. So I popped over to the main Tori page to see if there was a link to it. While there, I noticed that my site -- Undented.com -- wasn't under External Links, but I could have sworn it had been (because I was excited when I first saw it, feeling like the site had "arrived," which made me happy). Since I'd gotten a Wiki account a few weeks ago to add info to the Tori article if I ever needed to, I was able to log in and check the history; I discovered that Undented was removed and added at least a couple of times in recent weeks, most recently being removed by you today. At least, best as I can make out.

Personally, I don't mind if it isn't there. I mean, if someone feels it's important enough to add that's great, but if not that's cool, too. What I don't really understand, though, is why it gets removed when someone DOES add it. Undented is a large news site dedicated to Tori and Toriphiles, and it seems like at least a few people must have felt it was important enough to include. So I was just curious.

At any rate, I mostly want to make sure that the folks at Wiki don't assume it's ME trying to promote the website and blacklist it altogether (I did at least read through a few helpfiles to try to figure out how this works *LOL*). I have no intention of trying to list my own site here. Having an external link to Undented on the Tori page would be wonderful of course, but I want it to be there legitimately. I don't want it there unless OTHER people think it's important enough to add, otherwise there's no point. However, when someone DOES think so and attempts to add it, it would be nice if they actually could. So I just want to go on the record with my personal account and say it's not me or anyone I know trying to add it, and I hope other people adding it legitimately isn't going to result in the domain itself being blacklisted. That would be unfun. So I do appreciate you and other people keeping an eye on this. If you notice any funky problems, I can always be contacted through the website.

Anyways, hope you're having a good one, and sorry for being long-winded. Undented 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. First let me thank you for being polite and calm about it; you would not believe the kind of nasty words I typically get from enraged webmasters for the removal of their links.
As far as your link goes, there has been some initiative lately to clean up the external links on the article because so many links are added that really do not contribute anything. In my zeal for a lean and uncluttered external links section I admit I can become too intent on deleting anything added, not because it's anything personal (far from it) but because there are so many people merely wishing to get some free traffic to their website by piggybacking on what is supposed to be encyclopedic content. I recommend bringing it up on the talk page under the existing external links heading. On the talk page multiple users can weigh in on the issue and a decision can be reached. Sorry for the inconvenience and, again, thank you for your constructive attitude. Sam 06:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine how hard it is trying to do this. You're very brave. So many people think being online means they have a godgiven right to be rude.
I'll let it sit as is, and if other people think it's important, maybe they can have a chat about it. I don't really feel comfortable going to bat for my own site. That WOULD be begging for promotion. Besides, I had a hard enough time figuring how how to write something on your talk page. heh I do find it interesting that Undented seems to be the only site listed where a reason wasn't given for its removal, though. Maybe I'll ask Plek about it. Or at least ask him/her to list a reason so people can see why it was taken off. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Best, Undented 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natal chart

Hi Sam. Thanks for your comments on the talk page. Please don't get frustrated by what is happening - this is a process by which the Wiki ethos of clarity and fairness is seen to be working. I value your contribution. The editor clearly doesn't understand why the link is being removed. Either a revert war takes place until a block is placed on one or more editors, or we go through this open discussion in which it is hoped understanding will emerge. I believe open discussion is better than imposed blocks. Will you continue to help me? SilkTork 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but I would rather not involve myself anymore with external links. These kinds of petty disputes drain away energy and time like a hemorrhage. Sam 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Astrology

Sorry, takes so long to reply. Astrology WikiProject seems to be pretty inactive, and it's hard to drive a portal to featured status with just couple people. I'll try to help more in the future, right now my focus is Portal:China and Portal:Japan.

Choose any article for selected article... Right now we just need to accumulate the archive. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. Thanks for your help. Sam 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interests

Good mix. Linux and poetry. That's interesting. The interests you have seen related - systems and language. Ways of understanding. Cool. SilkTork 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it's pretty diverse. I've got a growing collection of houseplants (30+). Poetry and technical manuals make quite a mix. Sam 00:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sitesled

The article lacks secondary sources, and as it stands simply presents the company and its' products to the reader. Further sources of external information, such as whether Sitesled has been referred to in third party media would greatly improve this article. -- Longhair\talk 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Well I have removed the user since he/she has been inactive for a while and only had one edit today and no recent warnings (i.e today). Generally we block when the user/IP has adequate warnings and vandalizes past the last warning within 24 hours. Cheers keep up the good work. ~ Arjun 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

She has vandalized within the past 24 hours. She removed it once again less than an hour ago. I have asked her repeatedly to stop yet she continues. Sam 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrologer

Hi Sam, thanks for your kind comments - there is so much basic information still missing! May I make a suggestion about your astrologer article? Why don't you put in a table on the same lines as the astronomer article with a list of ten or so famous astrologers and a few words about them. It doesn't matter if people don't agree with your choices - that would generate a debate. It would demonstrate the worth of the article and stop the redirects. Neelmack 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the astrology content here is so lacking. I may expand the astrologer article a bit just to give it a base from which to improve. Perhaps we can get more people over on the Wikiproject to give us a hand. — Sam 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be more careful

Please be more careful and stop erasing so much info from the astrology article -- many of your edits are very counter-productive as you have deleted MUCH valuable material from the article, including the ONLY reference to the astrological aspects that was found on the page. --172.162.128.195 11:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The only edits I have made to astrology recently have been attempts at improving the text's style and cleaning up the see also length, so I assume that "much material in the article" is referring to the see also entries. That section has been in need of a trim for quite some time, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. I wrongly assumed aspects had already been linked as most other technical terms had too. I stand corrected. — Sam 12:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Nice to meet you, & thank you very kindly for inviting me, when I have more time I'll learn about the WikiProject Astrology & join! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User is a vandal

Hello.

You recently edited User:Nforbes's userpage, who is a friend of mine. You removed the Wikiproject Astrology userbox for absolutely no reason other than it "seemed" like he was not contributing.

Mr. Forbes does more to help that project than any other Wikipedian by far. You're a pompous asshole.


--HansWReiser 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He hasn't made any edits to any astrology pages. I removed it because he treats the project like a joke. He is not a member of Wikiproject Astrology and yet finds something amusing about using its userbox. Say what you want, but I take the project seriously, and would like others to do the same.
"Mr. Forbes does more to help that project than any other Wikipedian by far." Are you kidding me? Most of his contributions have been to his own userpage. — Sam 00:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the Chinese Astrology External Links

Hi Sam,

I was going to start my consensus process at the Astrology page. (See the Chinese Astrology talk page for more detail.) But by visiting the talk page, I just realized that you are a contributor to the Astrology page and you do like Astrology.



So, I decide at least talk to you first before I start. I want to make it clear that my issue with RJASE1 is about his actions, not about the quality of the links, so if I sounded too harsh last the weekend, I apologize. Again, my issue with RJASE1 are

1. 2 weeks after the site was declaired spam free by users, he deleted all links on April 5 without even look at the links or dicussed the links on the talk page.

2. I told him about it a week later, instead of talk about the links or actually look at the links, RJASE1 decided to replace all links with another link. No other links are allowed.

So, I was not going to let this kind of "don't care" attitute went unnoticed.

If he did not act so hastily without regards of users contributions, I would have told him that I agreed that may be half of the links deserved to be removed.

Sam, I actually agree with you that not all links deserved to be relist. Look at the links at April 5, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_astrology&diff=120370157&oldid=120239480, I think only three of them deserved to be relisted. They are list #2, #4, and #6. I believe they all enrich readers experience. The rest are either too commercialized or out of topic.



What do you think about the links? Would you relist any of them? Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.99.26 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Often in these kinds of disputes there is a conflict of interests in which the anonymous editors are not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and defend the inclusion of links when experienced editors or administrators call for their deletion. Is RJASE1 justified in his actions? Perhaps. You must remember this is an encyclopedia and links should complement the article in an encyclopedic way. That said, you are not justified in disrupting the astrology article to draw attention to the issue. Like I suggested before, you should list the links you feel should be reincluded and give your reasoning for each of them on the talk page, because as it stands everyone who has participated in the discussion has disagreed with you. It should be clear to you that others are not seeing your logic for their reinclusion, and instead of disrupting other articles, you should try your best to help us see your point of view. Instead of telling me only, you should voice your reasoning on the Talk:Chinese astrology page. — Sam 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. If possible, would you please help add a new consensus section in the talk page? I can't seem to find a way to add a new section. So far all I could do is to appending to existing topics. I hope I have addressed everyone concerns so far in the first item. But I still want to provide my reasoning properly in a new section. Thanks again!--Wayne888 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jungian archetypes

Hi Sam. I'm in the process of writing a more detailed article about Jungian archetypes and would welcome your input and ideas. I would also like to collaborate more in elaborating referencing and reorganising existing articles on Jung's work.

Supernaut76 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I will check it out. I unfortunately don't have any books regarding archetypes specifically, but I will try to help out where I can. I'm working on the Carl Jung article — slowly but surely — and I'm planning on doing a lot of work to the Jung-related categories. Thanks for letting me know, two heads are always better than one! — Sam 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] astrological aspect

this page gives more symbols for trenary aspects; like the sesquiquintile and an alternate Biquintile. maybe you could make them and upload them for the page as you've so kindly done in the past. 71.32.240.182 06:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Thanks for the suggestion. — Sam 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing Astrology Back to Astrologers

Hi Sam.

I'm curious to find out if you and I have compatible views of astrology. I don't know if you saw my comments under the heading "Astrology As A Language" on the Talk:Astrology page, but here are a couple questions that I came to realize were the essence of my ranting:

"How does a subject with so little to do with science remain under the jurisdiction of pseudoscientific subjects? And why does the opinion according to the scientific community have anything to do with defining or discussing its practice, let alone free reign over the content of an entire article?"

It bothers me to see astrology being represented by a community of people who predominantly want to trash and discredit it. Of course I know that science has its place, but I just don't feel that it deserves so much control over the topic. Basically, I'd like to bring astrology back to the astrologers.

What's your opinion on the matter?

pixiequix 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the issue of empiricism and astrology can be overblown sometimes. For some reason it's a very contentious issue, probably due to the strongly held emotions regarding astrology on both sides of the debate. I've tried to steer discussion into other areas of the article because the same argument is being held over and over again. There's 11 pages of archives worth of redundant bickering while ignoring vital aspects like history, transmission, traditions, and so on. That's not to say that science's relation to astrology isn't important, or that its presence in the article is unjustified. A vocal group of astrologers have claimed certain things about their craft and in doing so have invited empirical research into the field. Astrology's validity is hotly discussed by both sides, so it's definitely relevant to the topic. I've tried to keep the debate in perspective though and I hope the article will improve because of it.
I get frustrated too sometimes that so many people simply want to disparage a topic they often know very little about, but it's important to keep your cool. Wikipedia is not the place to debate whether astrology is valid or not anyway. An encyclopedia compiles sources and reports them in a prose manner, and indeed "No original research" is one of Wikipedia's policies. It's not really the correct place for someone's personal opinion to come into play. There's a factor of elitism within both sides that we really need to set aside and remember that reporting neutrally is the biggest concern. Presenting all sides of the matter allows the reader to think for himself, which is paramount in a topic like this one full of assumptions and worn-out platitudes. — Sam 04:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I think it would be great to expand upon the topic by addressing the more vital aspects of astrology's traditions and history and so forth. I wanted to clarify that I value the ideas and contributions of those who support and enjoy astrology very much. I just realized that it wasn't very considerate to refer only to astrologers.

To clarify myself a bit further, the way that I view much of what I say here on Wkipedia, is almost like an attempt to balance the already large amount of heavily jaded, and often cynical, perspectives already present. In a way I think of it like the movements of a pendulum. Because it's already swinging one way, I give it a little push in the other direction in order to help it find a restful point at the center.

Of course I do enjoy challenging people occasionally, but it's usually just to encourage an active participation in their own thought processes. And I'm usually pretty good about only promoting ideas and making claims that I can cite with a reference. In general I find that people need to take themselves much less seriously in some ways, but still more seriously in others. I feel sure I'm doing it the right way when I can still laugh at myself.

Oh BTW, I noticed that you're categorized under INTP Wikipedians, I'm an INFP type myself. :)

pixiequix 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Expansion on topics like history, traditions, and so on would be a great addition on both the main article and all astrology articles. I think that the critics and proponents of astrology both play a vital role here. They tend to keep each other in check so that no particular bias is being overblown (and both sides are guilty of this).
INFP, eh? Very cool. I find the INTP description uncanny. — Sam 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed astrology categories

Hello: I just fixed some of the categories related to astrology. It is clear that Category:Astrological ages, Category:Moon myths, Category:Astrological organizations, Category:Astrological texts, and Category:Astrological writers are all FACTORS of astrology and do not belong under the main astrology category. I especially found the moon myths category ridiculous, since those are only taken in to account by a small number of astrologers (as are the astrological ages, texts, and organizations). Do you not see the reasoning and logic behind this? Only the MAIN subcategories should be under the main astrology category (these include Astrologers, Traditions, Types, and Stubs). All of the others should stay under the factors category, because they are all rather miscellaneous. But like I said, it is clear that the main astrology category should only contain the MAIN points of the subject, not a bunch of random topics (that's what the Factors category is for). If you'd like to propose a rename for the Factors category that might be appropriate. --172.166.34.87 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, please get another registered user account. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's block policies but if it's within your ability, please do so. It makes discussions and contributions much easier to take into consideration and review.
I have tried to make my reasoning for my deletions from Astrological factors clear:
  • The category's premise is ambiguous, weak, and undefined. What is a "factor" exactly? I added a description to the category recently in an attempt to clarify its usage, as its contents are illogical and follow no standard pattern. I've defined it as "technical factors", but I have since come to the realization that the entire category's premise is flawed. Take a look at other categories. Astrology by tradition is self-explanatory, clear-cut, unambiguous. Only traditions of astrology would logically go here, such as Western astrology, Chinese astrology, and so on. This immediate and direct conclusion for its proper contents is something Category:Astrological factors lacks.
  • Your reasoning, as far as I can tell, is that categories are like index of topics pages where there are "major" and "minor" categories and only major categories should be immediately visible as subcats of Astrology. This is definitely a nonstandard approach. Categories do not follow this "major" versus "minor" topic distinction, so lumping a bunch of unrelated topics into a category simply because you consider them "minor" topics compared to others does not make a lot of sense to me. What decides whether a topic is worthy of immediate view, anyway?
  • An area for miscellany defeats the whole purpose of categorization. Why couldn't miscellaneous topics simply be in Category:Astrology? There's simply no need for a "misc" category. It's nonstandard and counter-productive.

The purpose of a category — according to Wikipedia's categorization guide — is to help readers find information that they do not know the name of specifically. If we have topics scattered in a poorly defined category whose premise is to house "minor" topics (whose classification as "minor" or "major" is largely at the whim of the categorizer) what kind of information is s/he going to be able to find? — Sam 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm not going to get another account because I already have one and have been unjustly banned for adding valid and relevant categories to articles (and for allegedly being uncivil to other editors when they repeatedly removed these entirely valid categories)...however, despite my block, nothing is going to stop me from improving, contributing to, and editing this FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit.
But back to the subject at hand...what I am trying to do is to prevent Category:Astrology from getting too cluttered with other minor categories which may not play a large part in astrology as a whole (Moon myths, astrological ages, etc) and with other secondary (but related) subjects. Category:Astrological factors now states "This category is for all of the miscellaneous factors associated with astrology" (I just changed the description) - it is a container category for all of the disparate topics related to astrology but which are not embraced, recognized, or used by all astrologers (includes the technical factors like the aspects, signs, the elements, and so forth: but the signs are not used by all astrologers, nor are the elements). Astrological texts, Moon myths, the astrological ages, astrological organizations, and astrological writers are all FACTORS in astrology, i.e. not related to the subject as a whole like the traditions and types of astrology along with the astrologers themselves. There are many astrologers that aren't concerned with micro-issues like "Moon myths" or macro-issues like the "Astrological ages" -- similarly, many of the astrological texts listed are Western-centric, and so are all of the astrological organizations (most astrologers don't belong to any astrological organization(s), by the way). Therefore, it just seems to make the most sense to categorize all of this miscellanea in the "factors" category instead of the main category (in order to reduce clutter, like I said). All of this information is still easily viewable/accessible from the main astrology category; in fact, it is first on the list of subcategories.
Part of the problem is that many articles are doubly categorized, both in the factors category and the main category. This is something that we could certainly begin to fix.
As for including ALL of the traditions, types, and systems of astrology for which Wikipedia has an article in the List of astrological traditions, types, and systems list/article, please discuss this on that list's talk page.

--172.166.34.87 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't going to consider my points of view there's nothing I can do. I've already passed the three revert rule and to be honest at this point I don't even care that much. I'm not going to waste my energy rehashing my views. I'm submitting the category and this discussion to be reviewed at Categories for deletion where it can be discussed by external parties. — Sam 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yipes! That anonymous user made a hash out of the astrology cats, totally wrong-headed. But to delete the cat "Astrological factors" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Now I see why I found all that garbage in the category; it got put there very recently....
"Astrological factor" is a crystal-clear, precise, standard term in astrology, to mean "the factors examined in interpreting an astrological chart." The basic factors are simple: the planets, the houses and signs, the aspects; and (less precisely, the categories they belong to, such as the triplicities to which the signs belong). Additional more detailed factor: of the same type as the planets: the Arabic parts, the Sabine degrees, the fixed stars; of the same type as the signs and houses: the decans and the terms, the lunar mansions; and some calculated points used mostly by ancient and Arab astrologers to determine the length of life: the prorogator, aphetic or anairetic points, the Hyleg, etc. It is clear that all these have a definite "familyness" about them, and they form a natural category.
The other stuff, as I said in the main discussion, is tangential, or worse, inserted by people who (a) either don't understand astrology; or (b) take a very wide view of astrology, viz. that astrologers are witches or prophets or pagan priests, or fans of ley-lines: some are, some aren't — but in either case ley lines and the writings of X or Y (whoever they might be, with the most impeccable astrological credentials, such as Ptolemy or Dane Rudhyar), are not "factors" used in interpreting a chart. So I got rid of a lot of these items, merely by removing them from the category "Astrological factors".
Unfortunately, by resorting to the voting mechanism, you accidentally opened the door to the making of technical decisions by people who — to judge from the comments — know very little about astrology. It's Wikipedia in action, the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia erratic and unreliable: democracy does not establish truth, or at least certainly not uninformed democracy. I hope you'll put the stopper back on this one.... Best, Bill 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that particular user and I have been butting heads for some time. I have repeatedly tried to straighten up this category and he has undone my changes without even the slightest respect for my views. His registered user account has been blocked indefinitely due to this kind of chronic behavior and I'm getting quite fed up with it in his anonymous sock puppet edits.

But regarding the category, I feel a deletion or at the very least a rename is necessary. I am striving for utmost clarity and an ajectiveless word like "factors" does not cut it. Let's define what the category is for, first and foremost, and then put that in an unambiguous title and category description. Murky, vague titles like this are the reason this category is such a mess to begin with.

If it's for horoscopic factors, then let's consider renaming it to "Horoscopic factors", although, as I mentioned on the deletion discussion page, Category:Horoscopic astrology exists already which may be suitable for such topics. That said, I am not certain such a category would be useful. But I think it's one of those things you sort of have to tinker with. As pages get categorized, new categories are created as necessary, old ones trimmed or renamed, etc... so for the time being, I have no objection to trying it out. I don't think exposing this category to the mainstream of Wikipedia is a bad thing. The discussion is not solely about astrology as a topic you must understand to make an informed decision. It also includes common sense and a discriminating eye that many of these people have. It is only a matter of one category, anyway, after all.

Thanks for helping out. I hope this gets sorted eventually. I can't say that I will be very active in the near future as I'm taking a short break from editing due to school and to reevaluate some things about my presence here. I will probably be back shortly. — Sam 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

'Three people so far agree with me that astrological factors is a bad idea. Four against one. Think about that. -- Make that five against one now.
Actually, it's more than that now, but you are ignoring a key fact...the only people that actually know anything about astrology in this CfD are you, Bill, and myself, and both Bill and myself (the most knowledgeable people on this subject) have voted to KEEP this category (to use your own words: "Think about that"). Like I wrote on the CfD page, I've been an astrologer for over twenty years and I own over 200 books on the subject, so I feel that I am rather learned when it comes to astrology. As Bill stated above, by opening this CfD you have allowed a bunch of people who know absolutely NOTHING about astrology to vote to delete this category, and now many of the related factors of astrology are being de-linked from the subject and will soon disappear entirely from the astrology categories. Sam: just because you take a narrow modern Western view of the subject (your personal POV) doesn't mean that we should ignore astrological factors from the distant past like archaeoastronomy, Sun/Moon myths, and so forth. Other highly relevant factors (including birthdays, celestial mechanics, etc.) have now been removed even though they are still critical to the study of astrology in modern times. But do what you will Sam...if you would prefer to have a bunch of teenage or twenty-something amateurs hijack Wikipedia in the name of their personal POV that is your call; but please remember that it is you and the other astrological amateurs that are reducing the quality, scope, and effectiveness of Wikipedia, not me. --172.132.121.129 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is more than that now. If you take a look at the signature of the comment you'd see that message was left a few days ago.
  • I don't see this as a matter in which a knowledge of astrology is necessary. The category is vague, end of story. You don't need a background in astrology to understand that a title like "Astrological factors" is not explicit enough. How many times have I been through this?
  • My Western POV? How exactly does a leaning toward a particular tradition got anything to do with my actions regarding this category? Your argument would make sense if it was "Indian astrological factors", but it's not. This category's got nothing to do with a particular tradition, so your argument that my judgment is impaired because you assume I have a Western-centric mindset is irrelevant.
  • It's funny how you completely ignore that fact that the original creator of the category was appalled by its contents that you added.
  • I'd much rather have "a bunch of teenage or twenty-something" competent editors than one who chronically disregards Wikipedia guidelines. I seriously doubt you've even bothered to read Wikipedia:Categorization. — Sam 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:APiano-ToriAmos.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:APiano-ToriAmos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zi Wei Dou Shu external link

Hi Sam,

Please note that I sent basically the same message to Satori Son.

How are you doing? I was the one who made a big deal about the external links on Chinese Astrology. I observe a current external link edit on Zi Wei Dou Shu page's external links which I believe was not made totally appropriately by Hu12 a few days ago.

As you might remember, Hu12 archieved my call for consensus in the Chinese Astrology discussion page and I believe if I make any complaints, he would do the same to my call for consensus.

I believe he has a bias on this subject because of what he kept and what he deleted.

1. He kept a site with sole purpose of selling one book.
2. He kept the free online computation link that requires all users to register to even get any answers. Also, I have observe wrong information provided by the site.
3. He delete the free computation link (destinyandluck.com) that I already defended in my Call for consensus in Chinese Astrology page (see the archieve in Chinese Astrology discussion), which should be kept instead of the purpleking.com site.

Would you please take a look at the links that he removed and the links that he kept to see if he has made the deletion correctly based on WP:EL?
What would you keep and what would you remove?

Thanks!

Wayne8888 (I forgot my password for Wayne888, so I use this now)


--Wayne8888 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tori Amos

Sorry for changing the Strangelittletour to Strange Days tour you are half right, one leg of the tour was Strangelittletour like New York, there is a poster. But on mp3s of the concert Tori welcomes everyone to the Strange Days tour and the programme was also titled the same for the end of 2001 and 2002.

Anyways I don't think you should have ommitted my contribs about the RAINN-Calvin Klein campaign since it was everywhere across America and quiet a big deal.

Incidently I am only tagged as having committed vandalism because I created an entry without Capitalizing the words, then I created the same entry with the titled Capatilized, then deleted the original entry, hence vandalism. I couldn't find anyway to fix the title of an entry once it has been posted.

Sorry about that. Some vandals will change facts around a little in ways that look plausible to editors but really erode the quality of the article. I had never even heard of "Strange Days Tour" and Googling it brought up very little. Coupled with the numerous warnings of vandalism on your talk page I felt it was safer to revert it. — Sam 01:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Carl Jung in popular culture

Carl Jung in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Carl Jung in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Jung in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Carl Jung in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken part in the discussion, so no worries. Thanks for the notification anyway. — Sam 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Sam, thank you for your note and information. I am sure that once he is unblocked, there will be many eyes watching him carefully. If he falls back to his old ways, he will be immediately re-blocked for a long time, or possibly banned permanently. So let's be optimistic he can change, and let him spend the off-wiki time reflecting on his behavior. When he comes back, be sure to let me know if you feel he is straying again, and we'll deal with it appropriately. Thanks, Crum375 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

According to Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#In what order should categories be listed within the article?, the obvious solutions are by importance or by alphabet. As it's really hard to tell whether, for instance, a given subject's status as a writer, mathematician, astronomer, or astrologer is of greater importance, I opt for alphabetical order. Also, it does provide a bit more of a reason to edit the categories, including putting in default sorting, and often add more, like category of "people from X" where that isn't already there. I also think I've seen it as a subject in FA review, but I can't remember exactly where right now. So, it isn't really important, but could be useful down the road. John Carter 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I have no problem with alphabetizing them, just curious. – Sam 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] definitions

Thanks for your reply. I will tidy up the article, then add the refs to my list of reading. The astrology article inludes non western cultures, it agrees with my general reference's definitions of astrological. The number of systems and beliefs would seem to be included in both definitions. The article makes no mention of it, as you correctly point out. It needs a bit of attention and I know nothing about it. I probably would not have removed with out seeing a good reason to define it as purely astronomical, having both kind of diffuses that claim. Not a very neat solution, I admit, so I will add it to the list and let you know what they say. Regards, Fred ☻ 11:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How would you define astrology? I would say the act of observing or studying celestial objects and phenomena is astronomy. It isn't astrology, however, until these observations include a belief that the phenomena are correlating with terrestrial affairs. Studying a solar eclipse is astronomy; believing it causes the death of a king is astrology. The article mentions nothing in my opinion remotely astrological. The Aborigines use planetary transits for various indicators as to when to start a certain practical activity, e.g., collecting eggs when a certain constellation becomes invisible, but this is mere observation for a practical application. The article also mentions a certain star lore, but this is more mythology than astrology. The editor who added the astrological categories was speculating himself: in the edit summary he writes, "these studies by the Aborigines likely had astrological/mythological/religious/mystical purposes as well [but please correct me if I'm wrong]". Certainly an encyclopedia is not the place for making claims based on mere speculation. Samuel Grant 15:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Astrology

I think that instead of monthly selected articles and pictures we should replace the stuff with Random portal component. Do you think it would be appropriate. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what this box is for. Could you explain it to me? Thanks. Samuel Grant 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In random portal component, there is no need to upgrade selcted articles, pictures and biographies after month and forth. Only once we have to do a massive work and then rest of the work we move on smoothly. Also then we can pass it on the portal:astrology for featured portal candidates too (though it is not a compulsion). thanks, Sushant gupta 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So it chooses an article/photo/whatever out of a list automatically every month? Sounds good to me. Samuel Grant 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you got it wrong Actually it will show you new selction in a random manner. even after a second you can view a new selection. take a look at Portal:West Bengal. Click on Show new selection 4 to 5 times (but not in a row). Hope so now you might get the exact meaning of Random portal component. Sorry for acting as a stupid. My english is sick. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing

I had even asked the help of other experienced administratos and editors over my special problem. While editing any main article, when I sign , my name automatically gets linked to my user page, but it fails to get linked when I sign at the talk page. Once, a hostile editor (an admin) had treacherously tried to make me a sockpuppet (but failed). Perhaps he caused some defect which I cannot remove. At the talk page, I have to manually type the code of this link, which I often avoid for saving time. Look now : -Vinay Jha -Vinay Jha 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... have you looked in your preferences in the signature section? Make sure "Raw signature" is unchecked. Also, make sure you're using 4 tildes instead of 5; I've made that mistake before. Samuel Grant 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Star

Thanks Sam! You are very kind - good to know I'm not alone. You are pretty much the only person who has noticed though. If only more people joined us the work could be done in half the time! Anyway thanks againNeelmack 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately as of now the number of active astrology editors is pretty slim, but I hope that will change someday. You're welcome! Samuel Grant 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was/Is

I myself have no real preference, but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs, "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist." Clarityfiend 05:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Wasn't familiar with that guideline. Samuel Grant 12:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Upset

I left editing many India related articles due to too much of useless fuss about dating or Greek influence on India &c. These editors had no interest in understanding the topic at hand and were more interested in proving European superiority over ancient India. I have no interest in such discussions. I am keeping away from editing Jyotisha due to two editors. Now I realize Wikipedia is not a proper place to describe Jyotisha. You can rename the article, I have no interest in it. You are not the chief factor behind my resignation. -VJha 21:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But what good is leaving going to do? The astrological community here is small enough as it is. Wikipedia needs all the active contributors in this field as it can possibly get. Please at least participate in the discussions on the Jyotish article's name. I'm planning on bringing it to a wider audience soon, as the discussion on its talk page has been rather small and has unfortunately dwindled to just us. If you could participate in such discussions I'd greatly appreciate it. :) Samuel Grant 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BC vs. BCE in Maya calendar

I can't believe that you are engaged in an edit war on the Maya calendar page over whether to use BC or BCE to describe negative years! Who cares! If people want to use BC, BCE, B.C. or B.C.E. SO WHAT! If you can't contribute anything meaningful why don't you leave it alone.Senor CueteSenor Cuete

I'm not engaged in any "edit war" — I reverted a single edit by an anonymous user who obviously was not familiar with the style recommendations here. Instead of jumping the gun and chewing me out, how about you familiarize yourself with said guideline: both styles are appropriate, as long as it is consistent. It isn't acceptable for someone to change a single instance of BCE to BC in an article with multiple instances of the other style without good reason. Samuel Grant 04:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boys for Pele article

Hey Sam, I've noticed you contribute quite a bit to the various Tori Amos-related articles here on Wikipedia. (I assume you're a fan?) Much to my dismay, the individual album articles are in poor shape, as I am sure you've noticed. I recently decided to re-work much of the Boys for Pele article (it's my favorite album of hers) and I was wondering if you could just have a look at it? I'm nowhere near being finished with it, but if you could offer any advice on how to proceed or on how to arrange/improve what's currently there, I would appreciate it. I just want it to be a comprehensive and accurate article. Just a warning, if you come across a small piece of information that doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the section, then that means it was pre-existing information and I haven't found a place for it yet. ;-) Thanks! --Pisceandreams 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be more than willing to help out. I've got a few things I'd like some collaboration with as well. I want to get a good amount of her EPs listed on the discography page, and maybe even add detailed information to the B-side page like where the tracks appeared, what year, and so on. Samuel Grant 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You're speaking my language, Sam! All of this sounds like an excellent idea. I don't know if you saw my discussion topic for the main Tori Amos page, but I proposed trimming the info on her albums and adding that info to the articles devoted to each album (since nearly all of them are lacking as is). I don't think her 'biography' should necessarily be broken down by album. If we go in and start dramatically changing things, we might incur the wrath of some Tori fans... ;)
Anyway, I'm leaving town for a few days, but upon my return I will begin working on the EP and singles discography info you mentioned. This will be a killer discography! :) --Pisceandreams 12:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about refactoring the main article. I like how Joni Mitchell is organized; it's based on lengthy periods and is much less obsessive about including so many details about the albums. Of course, Mitchell has had a much longer career than Amos has, so it's easier to break hers up into separate periods. Still, if we could find some increments to work with it would make the article much better organized, as it is currently split up between releases which occur so frequently the text is becoming rather cumbersome. We could start off with "Early years", then move onto "Y Kant Tori Read", then "Solo career and increasing fame" covering Little Earthquakes, Under the Pink and so on, then move onto "Marriage and miscarriage" covering her marriage, miscarriages, Boys for Pele and Choirgirl. Then "Motherhood", covering Venus, Scarlet, Beekeeper and all that. That's just my thoughts.

I definitely agree that fanatic details need to be moved to the album's article. I went through the article last winter and moved a lot of obsessive details elsewhere, but there is still work to be done.

Regarding EPs, the biggest obstacle there will be distinguishing between a single and an EP. Some releases could go either way, and that makes it doubly difficult. I'll be looking forward to working with you. :) Samuel Grant 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Tori Amos b-sides

Hey Sam, I'm back in town. I was wondering about the List of Tori Amos b-sides page, what do you think is the best way to organize the b-sides? They are currently listed quasi-chronologically (we could implement a better system), but they could instead be listed alphabetically, which would be useful for people who know the song, but not necessarily all of Tori's albums. Your thoughts?

Also, I definitely think we should add a section for soundtrack contributions because those songs are currently listed as album b-sides, which, technically, they are not. --Pisceandreams 13:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I tinkered with a table that showed what release the track could be found on, what year, etc. It's not going to be easy, though. Whether to go by year or by alphabet is I suppose a personal preference. Would be less work if we just stuck with years, since it's easy for a reader to skim through the page and find what particular song he or she is after. Samuel Grant 02:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Before I get too far along into the process, check out the organization I started for the List of Tori Amos b-sides page. Let me know your thoughts-- what works, what needs to change, etc. Thanks! :) --Pisceandreams 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, looks nice! Way better than what I had experimented with. The only concern I have is with the colors. Some readers are color-blind in varying degrees, so the choice of colors must be accessible. The pastel colors used on the discography page are easily distinguished by such people, as far as I know. See Wikipedia:Colours for more information. Again, looks great! Samuel Grant 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! The color issue never occurred to me, I will look into that so as to make sure the list is accessible to everyone. A few questions are coming to mind as I put this together, but maybe they would be best asked when the main chart structure is complete. Never fear, I'll return with questions. :)--Pisceandreams 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't come up with anything cool using colors, so I replaced them with symbols. Let me know what you think. I also tried not using colors or symbols and inserted a column with the albums, but it cluttered things up too much. I think using something small and simple, like colors or symbols, works best here. Let me know if you have any other/better ideas. --Pisceandreams 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like the symbols — it's harder to identify in the table. Does the album era even need to be present? To me the year is adequate, especially since these have never made it on a full-length album anyway (not including A Piano, of course). Samuel Grant 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

It's disappointing to know that you won't be working on the astrology article anymore, but I totally understand where you're coming from. What's even more disappointing is that a select group of people can so effectively force their version of reality on everyone else, just because they're skilled at persistently whining and complaining.

Many thanks for all of your efforts.
Good luck.


pixiequix (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I seem to be growing more and more disgusted with this site as time passes. If you'd like to stay in touch, you can email me using the "email this user" feature. Thanks, Samuel Grant (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tori Amos discography

Here's the thing. I don't know much information on More Pink, but from what I read in the More Pink article, it seems it wasn't sold separately, rather it was attached as a second disk for UTP in AUS/NZ. By that definition, it doesn't count as an album. As for iTunes Essentials, it's a compilation that Apple compiles; aside from collecting royalties, the labels and Tori Amos (and her team) play little to no role when it comes to iTunes Essentials. It's a tool that iTunes uses, like iTunes Originals, to expose musicians. The Original Bootlegs, which are more suitable for a discography aren't included, yet Legs and Boots are; there is already a category for official bootlegs, therefore those should be relegated to that pre-existing section, especially since "Legs and Boots" is a series and, in all actuality, every city made available should be listed in the discography. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't understand your logic. More Pink isn't an album because it was released only in a couple of countries? Whether it was released as a second disk to Under the Pink or if it was released separately isn't the issue. Either way, it should be listed. If it was released as a second disk then it doesn't make much sense to me having separate articles for the two, but that's beyond the scope of the discography page and not something I'm concerned about right now.
  • Whether or not iTunes Essentials is a "true" Amos release or just a promotional thing isn't up to editors like us to decide. On other artists' discographies, these online compilations are treated as albums, and since it has its own article it's silly in my opinion to leave it out.
  • I agree with Legs and Boots being in "Live material" instead of "Albums". The Original Bootlegs were physical, separate releases, whereas Legs and Boots is a series of digital releases that haven't made it to any more concrete form yet, nor does the collection have its own article. I think it should just stay in "Live material". Samuel Grant (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, the discography lists releases for sale. More Pink is a bonus second disk that, apparently, was included in the actual CD case for UTP in AUS/NZ. It was not sold as a separate album. Therefore it should not be treated as a separate album. I've added a note that AUS/NZ releases came with More Pink. As for iTunes essentials, iTunes Essentials lists the artists that have iTunes Essentials releases, and none of them have it listed. iTunes Essentials and iTunes Originals are two very different things. The Tori Amos Discography page was the only page for an artist with an iTunes Essentials release that listed it as an album. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I thought I saw some discography pages (not the ones that are listed on the iTunes Essentials page) listing them as albums. Anyway, my point is, to be a complete discography (which the page aims to be) releases cannot be left out on account of some little detail. May I suggest creating a "Compilations" section a la the navigation template and moving Tales of a Librarian, iTunes Essentials, the Piano box set and whatever else would be relevant there.
BTW, I just created a page for Legs and Boots. I want to get the shows into a table format with the date, city, location of performance and length of show in it. Wanna help? :) Samuel Grant (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, there is no precedent for the inclusion of iTunes Essentials. As an Apple fanboy, even I don't regard those as being official releases. If Tori Amos were to have an iTunes Originals release, I can see a basis for its inclusion. But for iTunes Essentials, I can't see any justification. As for Legs and Boots, I'll see what I can do. toriset has the information, as well as undented. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legs and Boots articles

Hey Samuel Grant, did you happen to notice that someone created an article for each of the digital shows in the Legs and Boots series? The only down-side is that the introductory text is the SAME in every single article. Can you think of any ideas allowing us to change that and make the text more specific to each show? With the text being identical in every article, it seems that the articles serve no purpose but to display the set list for each show. In that case, I wonder if they are necessary?

I recently read through the articles in the The Original Bootlegs series, and while it's good that the text is different from release to release, it seems to have a subjective tone that should ultimately be changed. I can legitimize an article for each of these releases, but I'm not so sure about the ones for Legs and Boots. Your thoughts? --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure separate articles are really necessary. It's treading into unknown territory (excuse the pun) with digital releases eclipsing physical ones; the concept of what constitutes an "album" is changing. I think it should be brought up at WikiProject Albums or some place similar.
At any rate, my internet access is intermittent at the moment and I'm busy elsewhere, so I can't say I can contribute much. Samuel Grant (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word choices on Tori Amos

Forefront and pioneer mean the same thing so what's your deal? Convergence Dude (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is trying to "discredit" you. Analyze the wording you're proposing. Would you see that in a print encyclopedia, for example? No, you wouldn't, because it reeks way too much of fanboyism. This is not a fansite, leave the zealous wording at the door. She was/is influential, sure, but calling her "the pioneer" for female musicians everywhere is just plain overinflation and doesn't lend much to the level-headed tone an encyclopedia is supposed to take towards its subjects.
"At the forefront" and "the pioneer" (with the definite article, no less) mean completely different things. You must be forgetting that there were other female musicians at the time. I can think of a dozen that would have been inspirations to modern day musicians. Samuel Grant (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Pioneer is perfect for an encyclopedia because it's accurate. I see now you are misreading, she's not THE pioneer in the way that you might think, she's the pioneer for female musicians and others THAT USE A PIANO as their primary instrument, you forgot to include the last part of that sentence in your calculations. Though I, Convergence Dude, do admit to being a cosmic Tori Amos fan and I do think she's the one. Convergence Dude (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I was considering the entire phrase to begin with, and I seriously think you should familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy. This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia, where whether you like something or not is absolutely irrelevant when writing an article. If you would like to say she was a "pioneer," then I suggest you find a third-party that says such. It's inappropriate for such strong wording -- negative or positive -- to be present without a reference. May I remind you that editors have the right to remove anything controversial that has not been properly sourced.
BTW, please do not take this as a personal attack. It is not. I think you will find the vast majority of editors here are more than willing to discuss and negotiate. That's the whole point of the talk pages. Just reverting another person's edit without any sort of discussion will just piss people off and get you on the fast track to being reprimanded by the admins with possible banning/blocking. Samuel Grant (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a section on Talk:Tori Amos for listing sources for her being a pioneer and etc. Convergence Dude (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheiro research

Awesome job finding a second source on that grab-bag list of rich and famous people that Chiero is reported to have met with. The Mark Twain quote bolsters his biographical details at least.

Peace

Drakonicon (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)