User talk:Nathanael Bar-Aur L.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks for your edits on the tarot card pages

I'm someone just figuring out how the whole system works, and just thought I'd say thanks for starting to fill in some of that information. Thanks. :) --BigCow 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure ;) if you want I can fill up on the other cards too. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That would make me a happy Panda. I've compiled a list of notes for myself based on stuff I've read and my own interpretations, I may send it to you to see what ya think of it. My initial exposure to the whole system was Quest for Glory IV actually, and seeing references in things like The Red Violin have piqued my interest, have my first deck ordered from Amazon.--BigCow 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous link

Your recent edit to Guyana included one or more links to the pages Chinese and English, which are disambiguation pages. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Guyana to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. RussBot 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology articles

Just wanted to say that I am so glad to see another editor involved with keeping uncited changes from taking over these series of articles. Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

These articles certainly need the upkeep. They seem to magnetize personal opinions! :) Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What software are you using?

Almost every astrology software I've tried had the major asteroids in it. Try Astrolog, it's pretty much the default astrology software. Or if you already are, you select the objects you want included in Settings > Object Settings. See also...

IdLoveOne (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just it, you have to elect to add them, which means that the designers of the programs and websites did not find it appropriate for them to be inserted by default. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Popularity isn't everything. Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, it took them a while to gain the status they have now as full-fledged planets, it certainly wasn't easy for tinier-than-the-Moon Pluto to get the respect it has now. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And now these have entered consensus. Ceres has not, and the article must point to the status and current consensus of its use, with proper sources as per Wikipedia policy. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you checked the Asteroids in astrology page? There you can find some links with more information, citations and web sites about Ceres. I've been studying astrology for about 4 years now, not much, but I think the observing planetary transits and natal placement is a better (and more mature) way of learning what a planet does than relying too much on books and popular consensus. IdLoveOne (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems you are not considering basic Wikipedia policies in your edits, like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, or in the case of my edit you reverted, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. This kind of approach is unbefitting here, but unfortunately in the astrology articles it sometimes feels like I am the only one that cares. I urge you to please cite more sources (inline sources) in your edits. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In cases like these, I like to make sure the article is fair and that both or all viewpoints are represented (see the Ceres section now) or otherwise the one I feel the apparent facts hint at most strongly. I WILL NOT recognize a popular opinion (or one of slightly more popularity) as fact, especially when I have research that might indicate otherwise. Things like that are what caused the Salem witch trials and they only provide a secure feeling of truth, not the actual thing, which BTW is what I think you are looking for instead of what Ceres truly does. In matters of opinion, people should have the known facts presented to them so they can come to their own conclusion, not just the way one or two people want them to see it (but then, this is my own opinion). If you did your own research, you might discover something no one else is even aware of yet. IdLoveOne (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I will not discuss breaching Wikipedia Policies. I am not looking for anything but preserving the rules here. No original research is no original research. My personal opinions and observations I save for myself. I am not a reliable source as per the requirements of wikipedia, and neither are you. You can open your own website to discuss your personal research. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't use original research on Wikipedia, but I do tend to cite the sources of my statements, this is acceptable according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability_.28V.29
Maybe you should consider this too, since you care so much about maintaining Wiki policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. IdLoveOne (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magician card

Thanks, we were in edit conflict and you beat me to it. I will take a look at more when I can, but this is a busy time of year for me.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm too overzealous sometimes :) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No apology necessary. It's just I promised to do it myself and didn't want you to think I dropped the ball. Thanks again. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boil

Just saw your edit on Aries, what does 'boil' mean?Doug Weller (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I meant boil down to. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taurus physical types

Hello, here are my written sources for my Taurean description: The body type is usually robust or can be lanky which is what Linda Goodman says in her famoue book "Sun Signs"; whereas the Grecian nose and Rubenesque body for females comes from Talila Stan, a brilliant Israeli astrologer whose book is entitled " Cast Your Own Horoscope". Now for the part about the swan neck-well those are my words taken from another physical description of Taurean women which I got from Alan Oken's "Complete Astrology" in which he states that the women are "beautifully proportioned with wide shoulders revealing a well-formed, arched neck. They are extremely graceful in their slow movements and exude airs of deep sensuality, amazing drawing powers, and tremendous magnetism". Now doesn't that sound like an apt description for these famous Taurus women: Lucrezia Borgia, Anne Boleyn, Lady Hamilton,Catherine The Great,,the Grafin von Konisgmarck, Empress Eugenie of France,Eva Peron, Koo Stark,Italian singer Anna Oxa,models Linda Evangelista, Leaticia Casta,actresss Michelle Pfeiffer, Anne Parillaud, Uma Thurman, Penelope Cruz and the singer/actress Cher? All Taurean women.jeanne (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thank you :-) I am adding those references to the article. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nathaniel, two other very typical Taurean women would have to include Bianca Jagger and Barbra Streisand. I notice you list modelling as a suitable career. That is true; Taurus women are easily the best-dressed in the zodiac.They are chic and strangely enough for such a conservative sign, their clothes are quite avante-garde but of the finest quality. They prefer fabrics soft to the touch such as silk, velvet, cashmere, chiffon. You should add a list of famous Taureans to the article. I note that you are a Taurus. I've got two sons who are Taurus plus a sister! It is an underrated sign and has probably produced some of the most influencial personalities in history, who have strongly impacted mankind for good or evil. Scorpio does not even come close!jeanne (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)