Andrew Homer

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): I'm game on: affordable housing, dictator busters, Progressive/reform politics, universal healthcare, real estate investing, socialism, compressed earth block, & Astrology (Relocation, Synastry, Cosmobiology, Uranian Astrology). See my websites @ http://www.WhatWouldJesusDoPAC.org/ & http://www.Motors66.Com/ & http://www.RealtyShowcase.US/ & http://www.TravelAstrology.Com/ & http://www.AndrewHomer.Com/

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew Homer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Journalist ^{C.File:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}

Signing

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know a couple things about keeping talk pages easy to read.

The first is that you can sign your name to your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), I see that you have been signing all your posts, which is great, but it really helps if you sign using the standard method used by all users...this improves readability and also provides a handy link to your userpage. It seems that you might be signing differently because you want your sig to display a certain way, and that is fine too...you can customize how your signature appears (if you would like help doing this, feel free to ask and I'll help any way I can). Many people customize their signatures in very interesting ways!

The second thing I wanted to mention was that posting your message in the middle of another person's post can be very confusing. Other people's comments can always be quoted within your post if you'd like to respond to a specific part...again, feel free to ask if you'd like any help with this. Thanks. bcatt 18:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Police State

The continual reversion of this page is neither helpful nor appreciated. There has already been an RFC on the issue of whether or not the list should be included, and the consensus (which you can clearly see on the talk page) was overwhelming in favor of removing it. siafu 15:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Siafu, Have any of you RFCs bothered to study the topic of Police States? I know you haven't. How about sticking to topics you HAVE studied. You know. Like video games. A majority of the world was wrong about the world being flat. You under-achiever psuedo-academics are wrong about removing the list from Police States. Read a book. From someone who apparently knows more about the issue than you wannabes, StarHeart 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you're new here. Perhaps you should consider reviewing some of wikipedia's policies, starting with WP:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, RFC stands for "request for comment", and does not refer to a person. siafu 00:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add your own comments to articles. To discuss the content of police state, please post your comments on Talk:Police state. Articles are strictly for encyclopedia text, not editorial notes. Rhobite 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Since you continue to add condescending personal remarks to articles, instead of participating in civil discussion on Talk:Police state, I have asked administrators to look into your conduct. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:StarHeart_adding_insults_and_personal_remarks_to_Police_state. Rhobite 03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Starheart, I gotta shake my head, you're making a huge assumption here that the rest of us don't have real world experience, and that's neither right nor polite. Whether the list is a good idea or not has nothing to do with the reality of what Police States are, torture and murder of people by governments is, etc. This is neither the time nor the place to be having a size queen contest about how many friends, family members, or aquaintences of ours and yours have been victims of police states. If you happen across me in a bar we can drink to absent friends, but please be civil here. Georgewilliamherbert 03:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the altogether appropriate points raised by George and Rhobite, inter al., I, having happened upon this discussion after seeing the note at AN/I, am altogether confused. Here, supra, you advise that editors should "[r]ead a book", lest they should continue to be ill-informed "pseudo-academics". In your edits to the police state article, though, you suggest that "factual edits can actually be based on experience, rather than just being based upon [sic] a BOOK" (one observes that you've constructed a false dilemma here, inasmuch as one can cite books that refer to experiences, and, further, that the implementation of your suggestion would eviscerate WP:CITE). I wonder, then, which it is: are the editors of the "police state" page (amongst which number I don't count myself) insufficiently well-read or exorbitantly absorbed with books?? I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but... Joe 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear glib cutey, Ignorance is ignorance. Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of the source. It appears that your peers and you are remiss this concept. StarHeart 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm the "glib cutey". I should say, of course, that you are altogether correct that "knowledge is knowledge", but that an encyclopedia requires verifiable, objective, non-first-person-experiential contributions. No one seeks to disabuse you of your knowledge or to deprive you of your right to disseminate that knowledge on your own, but only to suggest that, even as you may be altogether certain of something (and may, in fact, be correct), outside sourcing is required. Joe 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Begs the question then of who needs just another online encyclopedia when with the awesome outreach of the Internet, cumulative insight can be amassed. Hamstring potential? How small minded. StarHeart 04:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate text

Please do not include personal comments to the reader or comments about other editors in the text of articles. This sort of writing has no place in encyclopedic work. Comments for other users may be placed on their talk pages; those relating to the article may be placed on the article talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

StarHeart, it is easy to write a message on a talk page. You would be able to achieve much more here if you just used talk pages, instead of inserting personal comments into actual articles. See Wikipedia:Talk page please. Rhobite 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Blatant vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Police state, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Herostratus 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Hypocrite!! Deleting valid information from the Dictatorship page is YOUR vandalism. I assume you don't know that because you were raised in a police state. There appears to be ignorant people censoring the Astrology article, the Supernatural Project, the Police State article, and even my own Andrew Homer Article. The only knowledge these fake editors seem to have is how to use a keyboard and how to harrass. StarHeart 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I would clear up a few things and make sure you knew what is happening at your Andrew Homer page. First of all, I am sure you know a hell of a lot more about astrology than me - which is fine. You also, obviously, know more about yourself than I do. Neither, however is reason enough for you to be the authority on these matters here on wikipedia, as we also have a (to me at least) hell of a lot of policies (see the welcome notice you got). The problem with astrology is that we cannot write it up as fact unless it has been scientifically tested (and citations for this is very much needed). The problem with your personal page is that unless you are a significantly notable, it is not material for wikipedia - and furthermore, there are problems with Wikipedia:Vanity_page and the policy on [sources]. I recommend the page be moved to your userpage (and feel free to change your username to Andrew Homer if you wish). Regards, Lundse 10:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We can write it up as documented fact that people believe these things, even if the things they believe in are not scientifically provable fact. The verifyability criterion does not require that things be objectively true, just demonstratably reliably accurate information. That people believe in astrology, and what those beliefs are, can be demonstrably and reliably accurately validated by references to astrology publications and so forth.

That information has to be properly labeled as a belief and not an established fact, but that's just a neutral point of view issue. Georgewilliamherbert 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whose "verifyability criterion"??? I hope you're not referring to the fraudulent demands of the Amazing Randi. If everything that can be discovered has been discovered, why is the Patent Office still open? If you ever bothered to take a history of science class, or read a book on the topic (I'm sorry but NOT everything pertinent is on the Internet), you would learn that throughout history, a lot of facts were assumed BEFORE being "scientifically" verified. Just because the reseach tools, themselves, have YET to prove proficiency does NOT mean that the topic being examined is invalid. The validity of Astrology has yet to be challenged by subsequent breakthroughs in physics. Actually, thanks to 'Hyperdimensional Space" the physicists are getting CLOSER to explaining how and why Astrology works!! You debunkers, pretending to be sceptics, insist on taking the bread out of the oven before the yeast kicks in. Stop pretending to know more than you do. Haven't the women in your life warned you about that? StarHeart 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert was talking about Wikipedia's verifiability criterion. I have the feeling that you misunderstand the purpose and goals of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to get an idea of what it's all about. — MSchmahl… 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment in Validity of astrology

I removed your comment from the article. Please learn the difference between articles and talk pages. Commentary and discussion belongs in talk pages, not in articles. — MediaMangler 01:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Wikiproject Paranormal

Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Supernatural I have proposed that you'll merge with the above but I need member support. This is also inviting you to Wikipedia: Wikiproject Paranormal. Mahogany-wanna chat?

Adding commentary to articles

You have once again added commentary directly to an article page instead of to its talk page. (Twice to House (astrology), both have since been removed.) It is not unusual for people to find Wikipedia's interface and policies a bit confusing. Please don't hesitate to ask myself or others for help in understanding them. I'm sorry to inform you that adding commentary into articles in the way you have been may be considered disruptive behavior by some admins on this site and, if you persist, might well result in your account being blocked. — MediaMangler 11:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're so ignorant of the topic of Astrology that you're imcapable of understanding that I was UPDATING the House (astrology) article, not just making inane commentary as you just did. Andrew Homer 19:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you will please bear with me, I will try to explain in more detail. You have signed each of your additions to articles. If you will look at any article on Wikipedia, you might notice that there are no signatures in any of them. A signature within the text of an article is grossly inappropriate. Furthermore, your additions have always been written in the first person ("I don't believe", "I have never heard", etc.). If you will look at any article on Wikipedia or, indeed, open up any print encyclopedia, you might notice that all articles are written in the third person ("Few people believe", "No claim has been made", etc.). These are not my rules. I'm just a guest on this site, just like you. Journalist provided links to several good references to the rules of this site. I strongly urge you to read some of them if you wish to have your contributions accepted into the Wikipedia.

I have tried to be polite and helpful with you and have been answered with personal attacks. Allow me to suggest that you should learn to answer politeness politely. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Failure to behave in a civil, polite manner is a violation of WP:CIVIL and an admin might use it as grounds for blocking you from editing on this site. — MediaMangler 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to Astrology

Hi! It's wonderful that you're contributing to Wikipedia! However, please differentiate the Talk pages and the actual article itself before posting personal opinion. Talk pages are solely for the purpose of discussing the article and its contents. It's perfectly fine to add any personal opinion to the talk pages. The article itself, however, should never contain personal opinion. Adding personal comments to an article is considered vandalism and isn't tolerated lightly. Thank you! Sam 03:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More on your astrology edit

You claim that: "a stock market forecasting newsletter published by an Astrologer is voted as one of the best year after year", for which I would love to see a citation (or at least get the name of the newsletter).

You also claim that "it's the TOOLS of scientific research which have yet to catch up to Astrology to explain its validity". This is a bit confused, it is not the goal of scientific reasearch to "explain" validity, it is the goal to find out whether something is valid or not. There are plenty of ways to do this for astrology, and quite a few have been tried. If you meant to say that this is the task for which science/common sense is not up for, please explain why not.

You also claim that gravity is a part of quantum physics (its a Newtonian concept) and that because new scientific hypotheses do not use it this somehow "gives evem more credibility to the claims of Astrologers." Please explain how this is, does the new scientific concept of "attraction" tell anything about how planets affect people besides (seemingly, to our eyes) attracting them? Lundse 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As usual, your opinions exceed your knowledge. Study hyperdimensional space: Michio Kaku & Brian Greene. Andrew Homer 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should study statistics. Jefffire 08:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So hyperdimensional space explains how common sense is not up to the task of testing astrology? And how planets influence me? I know what string theory is, but unfortunately for your argument I also know that it does not do away with the Einsteinian view of gravity - it merely adds to it, positing that there could be other dimensions to which gravitrons escape. How does this fact (that different dimensions "exchange" gravitrons) give credibility to astrology?

Try answering me this time, at least give me something to work with - like the name of that newsletter that does so well... Lundse 08:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So, during these last 35 years, how many natal charts have you read for customers to elicit a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down response, rather than just cowardly hiding in front of a keyboard impressing yourself with your unsubstantiated opinions? You were remiss regarding the Law of Attraction. Do your homework or get a life. Or both. Andrew Homer 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Thumbs up" responses is not the way to measure efficacy of anything. Now, I actually have studied philosophy of science and since this is what the basic disagreement is about (how to test validity of a theory/statement) I fail to see how it is me who is trespassing on your "turf" of astrology. What are your credentials regarding science, validity and rationality? Lundse 08:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you are resorting to ad hominem I'm guessing you don't have a rational rebutal to Lundse. Jefffire 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You may note above that this user has not actually answered any question posed to him, at all. Ad hominem is apparently the first and only line of defense. siafu 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as he has just written a whole paragraph of trolling on talk:astrology I am now inclined to agree. Jefffire 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as soon as you fakes actually make the effort to study the topic you're debunking, then you'll deserve respect. Not until then. 35 years ago I was a sceptic of Astrology. But unlike you unethical debunkers, I made the effort to study the topic and found an amazing portion of it actually works!! So, stop projecting your lack of integrity onto those of us who have made an HONEST effort to assess the validity of Astrology. Until you make a sincere effort your a pathetic fraud. Andrew Homer 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify that from a reliable source, or are you just going to insult other editors? Jefffire 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Same question, more or less. I will also note that I am actively asking you questions here on your userpage and that these questions concern astrology - you can take this to mean that I am willing to learn. Any proof you have (maybe that name of the newsletter?), any indications, any attempt to answer my questions. Lundse 08:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was a sceptic, I did my homework and READ books on the topic of Astrology and interviewed a lot of Astrologers. As a psuedo-intellectual debunker, you're just being a smarmy harrasser. My job description doesn't include providing entertainment for glib shallow punks. Read a book. Andrew Homer 00:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we to take it that you won't give a rational rebutal, or can't? Jefffire 09:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rational rebuttal for the sane: Study a topic BEFORE pretending that you're qualified to critique it. Andrew Homer 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am studying the topic. I am asking you to provide me with the name of the newsletter so I can begin my studies where they seem to hold the best chance of disproving my own point (its called falsifiability, look it up). The best evidence you have mentioned is this newsletter, please let me know the name so I can start studying...

And I have studied the topic (which is validity and science), have you? The only thing I need from astrology are its proofs and claims - the claims are wide and varied and the proofs are lacking (for some reason, the astrologers I have met seem to be more interested in saying that I do not know enough instead of providing me with data, very odd). Lundse 07:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've studied the topic of Astrology with integrity, you'd know you can get everything you need to know regarding Financial Astrology @ http://www.BusinessAstrologers.Com/ Oh, by the way if you have been studying the topic of Astrology, as you claim, where is the Jupiter/Pluto midpoint in your natal chart and it's relevance? What and when is the next pertinent Solar Arc direction to it and how should it play? Andrew Homer 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is my last response to your post regarding this matter.

I will follow your link and see if I can find the newsletter you talk about (although I cannot for the life of me understand why you did not just provide its name).

I did not claim to have studied astrology, but philosophy of science; this was blindingly obvious from my posts - were you unable to see it or did you purposefully choose to see put words in my mouth? Either way, I do not believe you are capable of a serious discussion. Lundse 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for exposing your lack of integrity. You're pretending that you're qualified to critique astrology WITHOUT bothering to STUDY the topic. Likewise, I'm qualified to do brain surgery upon you, because I've studied nutrition. Andrew Homer 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't have much experience with double-blind randomized trails? Perhaps ou should study those before making claims about validity. Jefffire 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think he is confusing 'astrology' with 'objective testing of astrology' - I have tried to explain that we are talking about (and know about) the latter, but he keeps reminding me how little I know of the former. Lundse 16:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you Amazing Randi clones are pretending to be authorities on the topic of Astrology, you can pretend some more by getting your grubby paws on the Winter 2006 issue of Geocosmic Journal, published by the NCGR (National Council for Geocosmic Research). This quarterly issue is specifically on Astrological research. Andrew Homer 09:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

None of us ever claimed to know anything about being authorities on astrology. You joined a discussion about validity and science - please try reading other peoples messages before assigning them random viewpoints from your own catalogue of archetypes. Lundse 10:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

May 25th

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Objective validity of astrology. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Eivind^t@c 09:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My favorite Astrologer said of debunkers pretending to be objective sceptics: "No whine before its time." Andrew Homer 09:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [1]

First of all you signed your edit useing ~~~~ in an article. Adding your own comentery to an article is vandalism, the fact that it was POV makes it worse. Looking at you talk page, I can see that this isn't your first brush with other editors regarding your edits, you might want to take a look at our welcome page, and try to learn more about Wikipedia before you continue your editing. After a review of your edit and my response I can not see that I've done anything wrong. --Eivind^t@c 23:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, a little thing like the TRUTH isn't high on the list of you psuedo intellectuals hiding in front of computer monitors. There's a thing called "experience." You might want to try it. Get a life. Or will you just continue to assume the nature of reality like, a good Republican. Andrew Homer 06:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." You might want to assume good faith in the future, instead of insulting other editors, this is a colabrative project and not a battleground to impose your own agenda. If your not capable of listening the opinions of others without insulting them, you might want to stick to your own website. --Eivind^t@c 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is just rattling your chain, but are you saying that Eivind is wrong in saying that you signed your your post with four tildes in article space, and do you claim to know this better than him because you have more experience? Or are you saying that because you have THE TRUTH (unlike all us losers who have to get a life and never saved the world during the cold war) you are allowed to make POV and signed edits? If so, please try to make this policy before going ahead and doing it, as per current policies. Lundse 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that User:Marskell had initiated an RfC on my behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. You may wish to comment. Aquirata 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post on the RfC. I have moved your comment to the 'Outside view' section, which I believe to be the right place for it. I also endorsed your view because I agree with it in principle. However, in the interest of showing good faith and keeping the RfC as civil as possible, you may wish to tone down the wording so it could be considered a 'view' and not a 'personal attack'. Thanks again! Aquirata 21:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I'm continually being slimed by anti-constitution Republicans is one real estate office after another, these last 3 years; I'm, also, sick of the mean-spirited "half-logic" psuedo-academic debunkers here on Wikipedia pretending that they're objective skeptics. I'll tone-down when the knuckle draggers discover integrity. Andrew Homer 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you are referring to me, then I am not Republican (nor Democrat, I come from that strange world outside of the US where we do not have a two-party system). Should I take your response to mean that you will not "tone down"? Lundse 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, I'm just responding likewise. You insist on double-talk and a lack of integrity and I'll treat you as you deserve. You accuse me of not fully responding to you prior challenges. After 2 weeks I'm still want you to explain the Jupiter/Pluto midpoint in your natal chart. OR GET LOST!!! Obviously, your "problems" which magnetizes you to a topic which you're not qualified to discuss plus your confession that you haven't studied Astrology PROVES you have "issues" you're not dealing with. Andrew Homer 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please note that I never claimed to know anything about astrology, but about scientific objectivity and validity. These were the topics being discussed (and applied to astrology, which is why you and other astrologer's input is needed and appreciated). I will not "get lost" as I have something to contribute to the debate on validity, if you believe one must have studied astrology before one can talk scientific validity, please raise this as a seperate point and present your argument.

More importantly, I have had enough of your personal attacks now. I asked you whether you were going to stop and between the new personal attacks I sensed that you would not. Now I ask you one last time to stop throwing out stuff like "You insist on double-talk", "lack of integrity", "OR GET LOST!!!" or saying that I have "problems" and "issues" i'm not dealing with. I see myself forced to file a complaint about your behaviour if you do not.

I hope we can work this out without having to make a big fuss and inconvinience the system. Lundse 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've worked it out. You haven't. Get therapy. Goad and harrass someone else, little man. Andrew Homer 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Petros471 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the deranged harrasser here. You and yours are. Project your personality onto someone else. Andrew Homer 07:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Language of this kind will not reflect well in the RfC. Please do not make personal attacks against fellow editors. Jefffire 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then grow up and stop spamming on my page. I hear your mommy calling. Run along. Andrew Homer 18:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Petros471 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

STOP SPAMMING!!! Andrew Homer 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not spamming. I am warning you that you have made personal attacks that are in violation of Wikipedia's NPA policy. If you continue to make personal attacks against other contributors, you will be blocked. Petros471 10:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to messages either on your talk page, or on my talk page, but not on my userpage. As for your question I have already answered it above. Petros471 10:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reinsertion of comment

Is against policy - read the page and you will see it says at the bottom that such comments should be on the talk page. I am not trying to censor you but to keep the discussion within the rules laid down - address me on the talk page if you wish. Also, you have not put your name on the list supporting Aq. (where I assume you want to put it). Lundse 23:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Despite repeated warnings you have continued making personal attacks, and have now started vandalising userpages. Therefore I have blocked you for 24 hours. On your return please stick to addressing disputes appropriately. To learn more about this please read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Petros471 11:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat to hypocritical debunker Petros471 what Lundse censored from his page:

Stop spamming on my talk page!!!! Why do you keep harrassing on the Astrology articles when you admit you have NOT studied Astrology. If you haven't studied brain surgery, do you believe your opinions are relevant on a brain surgery article??? Andrew Homer 11:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you wrote the comment on my main page and not talk space as is customary - it is hardly censorship if I choose to delete a message you send to me (in the wrong place). And BTW, you still have not answered why you think one has to study astrology in order to talk about validity and methodology of science (and whether you have studied these). Lundse 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been answering that question in almost every other post here on Wikipedia when I challenge you unethical debunkers on your under-informed deliberate misinformation you and yours keeps spewing onto the pages of Wikipedia.

This is the THIRD time I'm asking you to explain what the Jupiter/Pluto midpoint in your natal chart is about and how has it been activated by Solar-arc Directions and what have been your experiences during those periods?

The serious Astrologers I've meet since 1969 have high IQs. They're capable of keeping up their end of intelligent conversations. Is your inability to answer the above question an admission of limited wherewithall? Or if you don't get patted on the head by your favorite professor, an endeavor isn't worth the effort? Andrew Homer 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered why one needs to study astrology in order to say something about validity, you have just claimed it time and again. Please show me one single instance of you saying why it is so.

I have told you time and again that I do not know anything about the specifics of astrology, rendering whatever point you are trying to make about my inability to answer your astrology question moot - I am clamoring for evidence, not more (astrology) theory.

I see you are back at personal attacks, I have told you to stop before and I think I have done so pretty nicely all things considered. I take your recent attacks on me and the administrator who blocked you for attacking him as signs that you are not going to change your ways. Until this matter is resolved, I am not going to argue with you any further, therefore two final questions:

Are you willing to live up to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Civility or not, and do you find your post above to be in concordance with them? Lundse 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:67.0.219.211

Please do not vandalize my user page ([2]). If you have anything to say to me please use my talk page. I have no idea why you have a problem with my warning at 67.0.219.211 (that too on March 1 2006). If you look at the contributions here you will see that 67.0.219.211 made an edit to Albuquerque Academy - here's the diff. "st pius sUKS ass" is considered to be vandalism and hence the warning on User talk:67.0.219.211.

Articles for deletion/David Cochrane

I thought I'd let you know that the David Cochrane article has ben listed for deletion. In my view, it is important and in the interests of WP that users knowledgeable about the subject matter make their views known. If you wish to comment, please do so here: [3]. Aquirata 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

You've been round this particular route before, and are apparently completely unrepentant. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Take your fights to Usenet and come back when you can work productively even with those you disagree with. While you are blocked I commend to you these notes for the pasisonate. Remember, what Wikipedia documents is not The Truth^TM but what can be verified from reliable secondary sources, giving due weight to all informed and significant points of view.

Above all you seem intent on personalising content disputes. Your problems on Wikipedia are not going to stop until you revise that approach radically. Please use the time to reflect, and to investigate how Wikipedia normally works. Just zis Guy you know? 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

unblock}}

The valid reason to be "unblocked" is that this is just another campaign of abuse by non-astrologer monitors who continually harrass and spam us Astrologers on the Astrology, Zodiac, etc articles & talk pages. Why is it against Wikipedia policy to only have Astrologers police these pages, instead of repeatedly being spammed by under-informed debunkers who brag about NOT knowing anything about these topics??? The behavior of these debunking monitors is completely senseless, immature, and mean-spirited. Someone once said that "When the petty are given power, notice how they abuse it." Andrew Homer 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gee, the unethical & mean-spirited bullies keep proving how insecure they are in front of a keyboard. What a suprise! They can't win rational discourse, but they flaunt the lose standards where anyone can become a Wikipedia monitor. I like challenging debaters. No challenges here. Just the petty proving how unqualified they are debating informed Astrologers. Let the pogroms & krystallnachts BEGIN!! Anyone have a Geocosmic Journal on them that I could read, while the debunkers are waiting for their puberty to kick in? So, how does one deal with those proud of their ignorance? Notice no constructive input from the so-called "monitors." Us real Astrologers are bad people, because the inadequate keep lurking on article pages over their head and then harrass us who do comprehend the topic. No justice here. Just pathetic egos. At least staying on Wikipedia, they're not kicking kittens. Andrew Homer 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Informed Astrologers," now there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Please do not desecrate the memory of the millions of Jews who died in pogroms and the Holocaust by trivializing those words. Comparing your petty complaints to genocidal crimes is highly offensive. Askolnick 15:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The best way to appeal a block for personal attacks is not to repeat those personal attacks. I am resetting the block counter for another week. You really do need to realise that WP:NPA is fundamental when diverse points of view are in conflict.

The reason we don't only have believers patrolling the astrology and other related articles is patently obvious: WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. You can't ensure neutrality by having only converts edit the article. If you want to portray the subject in an uncritical way then you are in the wrong project - you probably want Wikinfo. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As a typical unethical debunker (Republican?) you put words in my mouth. I never stated ANYTHING about "uncritical". It's about mean-spirited attackers who do NOT even bother to study the topic. What course in the scientific method or course in ethical journalism expounds expressing an opinion without even bothering to study the topic? Besides proving lack of knowledge you guys are also proving lack of morals. The standards to be a monitor onboard Wikipedia are clearly low. No attempt regarding integrity, ethics, honor or honesty on your part. You may be blocking me on Wikipedia, but I know that you and yours are being blocked socially, because of your relentless lack of ethics. Andrew Homer 21:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way to appeal a block for personal attacks is not to repeat those personal attacks. Stop now. Just zis Guy you know? 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert of your edit to Astrology

I reverted your edit. The material you added lacks any verification. You have attempted to add the same material in the past, have been asked to substantiate it and have refused. Please provide some verifiable references if you choose to add the material again. --MediaMangler 07:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lundse response

Hi, I responded to your... well, response. But I put it in my own userspace, as it has little relevance to the astrology article directly (I put a link there). I'd still like your answer or links to answers. Its at User_talk:Lundse#Andrew_Homer_discussion_per_Jan._2006. Just delete this message and/or don't go there to ignore (I won't post here again). Lundse 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Astrology project would like your views on what constitutes appropriate content and sources for astrology-related content

Hi, this is to let you know that there is an important discussion taking place in the WP:Astrology project, which affects the guidelines for content and sources on astrology-related pages. This requires input from its members. It would be very much appreciated if you could leave a comment/express your views on the issues raised.

The link to the discussion is here.

Hope you can find time to add a few thoughts

Thank you, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)