User talk:Wendy Stacey

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[1]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the use of one of your comments

I believe you should have been made are that one of your comments has been used in a very misrepresentative manner by User:Dominus Vobisdu. I have made a comment myself about this in my statement (Zachariel) on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FArbitration_cases Regards, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should explain that you were previously quoted in this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Scorpio_.28astrology.29 See the post of Dominus Vobisdu dated 18 November.

His misrepresentaion of your remarks in that discussion, appear to have been used as the basis of the comment he makes in the 16th point of his statement in the Arbitration request for clarification: "This group is very "elitist" and ardently assert that they don't endorse the most popular varieties of astrology". I have asked him to qualify or retract the comment he has made in both discussions. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Stoker

Do not make own notes and signature inside the article. Yes Citation 3 is not a reference, but that is a note, and that showed in section of "References and notes". --Szente (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]