Talk:Dane Rudhyar

Nationality

@Fustos: - while your latest disruptive hobby seems to be going around to various BLP's and removing any mention of a citizenship or nationality secondary to the subject's nationality at birth, here you are clearly in the wrong.

• The lead stated; "Dane Rudhyar (March 23, 1895 – September 13, 1985), born Daniel Chennevière, was an American author...".
• You changed the sentence to read; "...was an (sic) French author...". You left no edit summary and no source to support the change.
• I reverted you, also making the slight change; "...was a French-born American author...", and with the edit summary; "no edit summary/no source - read the article before you edit, He lived in the US for the last 60 years of his life" Further, if you had bothered to read the article, you would see that he moved to the U.S. in 1916 (age 21) and became an American citizen in 1926 (age 31). He lived for 90 years, 69 of those years he lived in the U.S. and for 59 of those year he was an American citizen.
• Instead of going to the talk page and discussing, like you were supposed to (and instead leaving me to do it), you again reverted to your previous edit; "...was an (sic) French author...", (with the glaring spelling error intact), only this time adding the edit summary; "that doesnt make him less French". That makes no sense. I actually added "French-born" to the sentence. How does that make him appear "less French"...? And how do you justify removing any mention of "American" from that sentence? (despite the fact that not only was he American, but arguably more-so than French)

This is yet another clear example of your disruptive editing, making messes of articles that others have to clean up, and then your combative behavior afterward, with the constant edit-warring, refusal to leave edit summaries, (unless they are some form of snarky retort), your refusal to engage on article talk pages, especially after someone reverts one of your mistakes, or even on your own talk page, where despite several editors attempting to engage you, offering assistance, all you do is delete their comments and order them to stay off your page (leaving the only means to notify you of your problem edits is by way of template notices). I will again ask that you stop this disruptive behavior and abide by the policies and guidelines of this project. - ^theWOLFchild 12:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Fustos: "removing nonsense by (Personal attack removed)" - yet another snarky, immature comment (and a personal attack) via edit summary. So, in other words, there is no actual response forthcoming (as usual), just more rude and hostile behavior. We'll just add it to the list. - ^theWOLFchild 17:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dane Rudhyar studied astrology.. problem

As you can see from the article, Dane just changed astrology to whatever he felt. And this is a trend of modern astrology. When he studied astrology, he learned it from Alan Leo and a Theosophical version. Alan Leo also just changed astrology the way he saw fit. As far as I know, there was an indian astrology and a buried mediaeval astrology. The problem is that some words don't actually mean anything, but the article gives people the impression that Dane Studied astrology which people think is a meaningful word, but is really just the invention of the last person. There is no way I can think of changing the article that would contain skeptical overtones and still remain as professional as it appears. ~2026-33644-38 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)