Vindictus23

September 2016

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. Your recent edit to the page Pisces (astrology) appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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.

Your edit is similar in content to a number of edits made in September (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5), and if this matter is referred to administrators for action, the administrators may infer that you have made all these edits, or that you have been cooperating with others to make these edits.

These edits have also been raised at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#False dates in astrology articles Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

New astrology dates (according to NASA)

This edit is very hard to believe. Is NASA taking an interest in astrology now? They will be sending missions to the signs of the horoscope? If you are not editing in good faith, you are risking a block from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I was mistaken in thinking your changes could be vandalism (per Jc3s5h's explanation below) but still believe that these zodiac articles need semiprotection. See my full response over at RFPP. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a branch of NASA tries to make astronomy appealing to children, and at least one of their websites makes reference to astrology. But as one would expect with pages aimed at children, they are not useful for finding dates of astronomical phenomenon. (Zodiac signs are an area where astronomy and astrology overlap; The Nautical Almanac used these signs (numbered from 1 to 12 rather than using names) into the late 1700s. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)