Scorpius1975

Welcome!

Hello, Scorpius1975, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  McSly (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Astrology seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Astrology. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. McSly (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah and your edits arent neutral. LOL. Why have you got such a stake i this if you think it is a pseudoscience.

And ill add my edits for as long as it takes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpius1975 (talk • contribs)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Astrology. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Astrology. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Scorpius1975, thanks for using the talk page to discuss the changes. First, those are not "my edits", the article has been edited by many people for many years. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and report what they say. If you read the article, you will see that we have many of those sources stating that in fact astrology is pseudo-science so that's what we reflect in the introduction of the article. If that conflicts with your views on the subject, well, there isn't much I can do about it except to tell you that you should consider the possibility that the article is actually correct. In any case, please use the talk page of the article to propose changes instead of edit warring. As you can see from the notices on your talk page here, continue to edit war will just get you block, it will have no chance of success. --McSly (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Science. The new fundamentalism.

How many other pro astrology people have you blocked.

The internet is rife with examples.

Since when is Astrology claimed to be a science? Its a theory. Just like all science is. A theory.

Im not going to waste time on close minded people. You think your all progressive n stuff. But your just like a religious findamentalist, only your religious faith is science.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpius1975 (talk • contribs)

Well, again, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you provide sources to back up your claims, people will listen, but so far you have failed to provide a single one. Instead, you are ranting and playing the victim when other people don't automatically agree with you. You should also look to see what the word theory actually means. So, if you sources, please provide them, if not, indeed, you should stop wasting everyone's time, including yours. --McSly (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

June 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Britain. MPS1992 (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Canada

Why is Canada given such a prominence in this Battle of Britain page - it was a junior player at best Scorpius1975 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the article, the RCAF was the only air force other than the RAF to have its own pilots in the battle -- "Although under RAF operational control, RCAF pilots in the BoB were technically flying for the RCAF". No. 1 Squadron RCAF "was the only fighter unit from the Commonwealth air forces to see combat in the Battle of Britain". Some pilots of other nations, although quite numerous, were held back from the fighting at various points for a variety of reasons that may or may not have been sensible. MPS1992 (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nina has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Nina was changed by Scorpius1975 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.970534 on 2018-07-31T23:35:24+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

N I N A

Is a real retro synth pop musician. I thought she was of noteworthy consideration to have her own page. Scorpius1975 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, and WP:42 are worth reading. MPS1992 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of N I N A

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on N I N A requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PKT(alk) 00:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)