User talk:Theodore7

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Theodore7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

I'm glad you liked the welcome! If you need anything, feel free to drop by. By the way, please type four tildes (~~~~) after your messages on talk pages. It generates a signature showing your username and a timestamp, which will look like this: Theodore7 17:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to be of service. :) Sango123 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sango,

Hi! As a newbie, I sure have run into some rather nasty people out there. See this talk page. I request arbitration since my last block I was not warned, and moreover, it was a computer glitch. Also, it seems I've got this Wiki-snitch BorgQueen or BorgHunter, who runs to an editor when I have violated the 3RR. The last time, he didn't even ask me if something was wrong first. Also, I'm learning some things from more experienced users about some of these individuals and would like your advice on dealing with them. ThanksTheo 19:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to practice the same advice. Theo 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, cool! I guess I don't have to look up how to get him kicked after all.

Chill out man. You are making the rest of the astrologers look bad with all of this. While I will agree that there are some NPOV issues all over the astrology article, you are totally going about trying to fix it the wrong way. --Chris Brennan 23:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Then what is the "right way" according to you? How would I know who the rest of the astrologers are if they do not identify themselves? If the rest of the "astrologers" don't want to look bad, as you say, then perhaps they ought to find some backbone and deal straight up with the negative POV rather than playing games with it. This work is complex enough and keeps us busy enough than to have to deal with the non-astrologer's POV on this science. And, if I am going about it the "wrong way" - then, I would suggest that you offer some alternative methods because up to this time, you haven't. Theo 13:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology Types & Forecasting the Weather

Would like to know who is a professional astrologer, and interested in talking more about reaching consensus on this page rather than leaving the entries to those who present obvious negative POV that is not neutral, but clearly biased on the applied science. Theo 13:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I have left a reply for you at the Talk:Validity of astrology page. I'm not an astrologer myself (more of a I Ching person), but I am not at all hostile to the practise. I have a lot of respect for scientists & the scientific method, but I also see that many make a new religion out of it and fail to see its inherent limitations, if that makes sense. Cheers, --Fire Star 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi FireStar, yes is does make sense. I also left a reply on that Talk Page. One of the major problems conventionalist scientists have is that they lack the intruments to weigh and measure the influences of the planets relative to the Earth. What they do not yet get is that judicial astrology - not "sun-sign astrology" - is the oldest science on earth and includes astronomy, which is the technical side of astrology. Astronomy is not meant to have a philosophy and yet they attempt to do so. Moreover, what is very interesting is that many do not believe in astrology, but I've been forecasting the weather for years using astro-meteorology and been very accurate - over 90 percent - and this perturbs some conventional scientists who do not study scientific astrology (openly) but see its amazing results. Many become cynics - which clouds judgement, and others who claim psuedo-science and laugh it away spend an awful amount of time on the subject. If its so funny then just chuckle and be on your way. But, you know, they seem to want to stick around and make sure no one else believes anything. That is suspect, don't you think? What on earth could conventional scientists be scared of? Theo 18:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Chinese make a strong connexion between weather and astrology (far beyond the obvious "It is winter so it must be cold" type). Unfortunately, the vast majority of their stuff remains untranslated. Myself, I'm also an amateur astronomy buff with a nice 750mm f5 Newtonian reflector, so I watch the moon cycles and local weather closely for observing purposes. I have noticed a correlation to weather dramatically changing immediately upon the full moon or new moon. Nothing systematic, just a trend I've noticed since I've been using the telescope. Of course, our no original research policy prevents me from mentioning anything like that in an article! ;-) Cheers, --Fire Star 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Fire Star, the weather changes accord to the gravitational cycles of the Moon relative to the Earth - known for centuries by judicial astrologers of nearly all cultures. The perigee cycle - from Full Moon to New Moon - brings the Moon closer within the Earth's orbit. These are also closely aligned with the northern and southern declinations of the Moon, in the tropical signs indicated, shows the type and strength of precipitation, among other effects, on the weather. For judicial astrologers, forecasting the weather is Astrology 101 - the first thing learned and the most easy function to perform using astrological principles - or, mathematics. Theo 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Magi

Hi, Theodore7. I was just wondering why you removed the info you did from the article on the Biblical Magi. It seems like the traditional names given to them would be useful, as that's pretty basic information and might be one of the more common things people would look up the article to learn, and second paragraph of section 1 does mention that they are not named in Matthew's account, so if that was the issue with that line, I think it's covered. Also, pointing to the Constantine disambig page doesn't seem any more helpful than the page for Emperor Constantine I - unless that's the wrong Constantine, in which case, which one should it be? Thanks! -- Vary 02:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vary - actually, that was a mistake. I was working on that and then I couldn't get it reverted back because I was blocked at that time and no matter what I did, it just didn't go through. I thought no changes were made. I left the tradtional names, and didn't get to Constantine, but will take a look again at Matthew's account. I did not have any issue with that line whatsoever. Re/Constantine, you know, that is a very good question. Which one is it? I will take a look if you will too. I didn't spend much time at all on it and glad you sent me a message. Get back to me. I'm going to take a look but would prefer it if you would revert it back to where it was when you worked on it. Thanks.Theo 04:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vary - I took a look and need your help on the section. Is it in your revert? Let me know. I will check out the right Constantine. I have a reference book on this particular era. Please remind me, ok? By the way, good references, and additions to the Magi history by you. That stuff is hard to find - on the Magi - and it looks like a lot of good work there has been done. My edits were minor - very - and were small additions. I'd like to know more about your knowledge here, because there isn't much on your talk page, I just added material on mine if you want to take a look. Theo 04:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to the Constantine page was added very recently - it pointed to a disambig before. When I saw it had been removed, I figured it was because someone disagreed with said edit. But, I've looked at Powell's articles, and he always says simply 'Constantine', rather than Constantine I or II or whatever, and that usually means Constantine I (the great,) and anything after II would be too late, anyway, so I think that Adam Bishop's edit was right.

If the changes were unintentional, I'll go ahead and put them back. And you don't need to look at Matthew's account, that's fine - I've checked, and the article is correct on that. They aren't named, but the popular names given them are still important, I think.

I didn't add anything at all to the article myself, actually - it's been getting a fair bit of vandalism recently, so I've had to do a few reverts on it, and have it on my watchlist. -- Vary 05:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vary, yes, me too. Especially on the references to astrology. Someone out there thinks they can undo thousands of years of history on this subject by using POV and vandalism on this subject matter. Just unbelievable. Thanks for the reverts on the material. Theo 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Misunderstanding

Hey Theo. I'll try to respond to a few points which I have taken issue with here, and then we can all return to our regularly scheduled programming.

A little advice: don't let your zeal for fighting vandalism lead you to believe that mistakes can't be made by new Wikipedia members. Ok? You know, mistakes really happen in the real world. And perhaps you ought to ask about things like that first before playing Inquisitor and jumping to conclusions.

Exactly what conclusions have I jumped to? You seem to think I've accused you of vandalism—I've done no such thing.

Tar Heel is right. It was a misunderstanding - a mistake. You jump to conclusions rather fast for a 17-year-old - which I am not - while not accounting for either mistakes, or mis-understandings, and rather than asking first; you have a VERY bad habit of not only jumping to conclusions, but of making accusations that are in error.

Again, what accusations have I made? I haven't accused you of anything except violating the 3RR—demonstrably true—and blanking an article—also demonstrably true. In fact, when you violated the 3RR, rather than reporting you to an admin or anything, I assumed good faith and left this note on your talk page: "Hey, since you're new, I'm sure you didn't know about this, but you've violated the three revert rule on the Nostradamus article. Admins can block you for that, so please stop reverting others' changes. Thanks." [1] You followed that up by accusing me of POV pushing [2], and implying that I had reverted the article more than I should have. That was later retracted, however, when you learned that I had edited the article only twice at the time you had written that. [3] (The edits: [4] [5])

Tar Heel is right. It was a misunderstanding - a mistake.

I never claimed otherwise.

I've yet to have an experienced Wikipedia user actually start a consensus discussion that is extended in a fashion that is done in good faith.

I made an attempt. [6] I was told to "stick with the fictional world of Star Trek and leave the Nostradamus subject matter to the scholars." [7]

I would prefer to be a lot more of good faith, but am not happy to have my straight questions and responses treated as "attacks" - I am a good enough writer to attack straight up and when I do - a person will know it. I don't assume - I ask - and prefer the same to be done with me. Read the entire answer - I meant every word of that - and not ashamed - I don't like a 17-year-old kid making assumptions rather than asking first. That is my preference. It is not banned and is not negative. If the kid wants to ask, ok, but don't accuse.

Okay, I'll ask, then. How did you mean "I am an experienced journalist, and a scholar and I am NOT 17-years-old." if not as a means to belittle me? How did you mean "So, the very next time you run to an editor like running to Mom, 'complaining' about what 'somebody' did..." if not as a fancier way of saying "You're immature and young"? How did you mean "I am not a child" if not as a way to underscore the fact that I am one legally, although only for a few token months? Perhaps you did not mean what you said as personal attacks, but I very much felt attacked. I felt belittled and insulted. If you did not mean to belittle or insult me, I respectfully request an apology and a promise to be more careful with your words in the future. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: BorgHunter, it means just that. Experience in the world counts, and this fact is not meant to belittle you. However, I did feel that you jumped the gun back there, and I certainly did. So, we can leave it at that and get off on better footing, agreed?

Answering your question: Yes, as a 17-year-old you are not as experienced as a professional journalist or an editor. When I was 17 years old, I was NOT either, and it took me time, hard work, effort, and respect for those with experience to become a professional. I have not forgotten what 17 years old was like - so I can relate; don't get me wrong. However, just as you know more than you did when you were 10-years old, you will gain more experience & knowledge and will know more when you are 27-years-old and so on... So, I apologize here and now if you felt belittled - it was not meant as such - but I am sure you understand what I am saying. On the other point - it would be very good of you to ask questions first before making accusations - especially to Wikipedia newbies. There are some who have read this exchange and offered me valuable advice that I find very useful. I would prefer that with you as well and if you do so, then you will be treated with respect - regardless of age. Ok?

So I will offer you some advice as well that we ALL should be more careful with our words and NOT assume anything until we know a little bit more about each other - but will treat one another with respect and understanding. I am mindful of your age though, and you should be mindful of mine as well. Experience speaks for a lot BorgHunter, and so you should not easily dismiss it. Ok? By the way, you might not know it yet, but we share many of the same interests - especially in music. I am trying to find out how to enter the links you did on music on your page and could use some helpful tips. Theo 04:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the links? First off, don't be afraid to hit "Edit this page" on any page: You can't do any damage without hitting Save page. So if you look at what my user page looks like "under the hood," so to speak, you can see the links formatted like this: "*[[Boston (band)|Boston]]" The asterisk makes it a bullet in a list. The part before the vertical pipe is where the link will point to. The part after the pipe is what the link looks like. So "[[Boston (band)|Boston]]" links to Boston (band) and looks like Boston.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I won't respond to it because I think all the stuff we've said is best left forgotten and a fresh start struck. Okay? If you want to chat, there are eleventy one ways to contact me on my user page (and more!), so pick your favorite. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try that. Was listening to Boston this morning. I will try to add the links first and see how it goes. Theo 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology

"Astrology and astronomy were once the same discipline and many famous astronomers practiced as astrologers."

This is a myth Theo.

Response: I suggest you study your history - because it is FAR from a myth. There are plenty, and I mean PLENTY - of materials out there that proves that this is a fact. Try starting with reading the "Tetrabiblos" to see that of course astrology/astronomy were ONE - how can you as a serious student even suggest such a thing as it being a myth?

"Astrologers maintain that the cosmos of which the Earth is a part, runs in cycles and definite patterns that have been observed for thousands of years to have effects on the Earth. In fact, those practicing astrology learn at the start that astrology is a very serious study of cycles and mathematical patterns in time. They apply mathematical aspects such as the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, and opposition to form complex calculations between celestial objects in their movements amongst the constellations relative to the Earth's position and the regions of time and space where a person is born to forecast potential future events. Free will is a given in true astrological practice, but is within the principles of universal laws - not outside of it."

The vast majority of astrologers in the world today don't believe that the planets and stars literally "effect" anything per se. The general consensus seems to be that it is more of a matter of synchronicity, or that the planets are mysteriously reflecting circumstances without there being any direct causal influence. Also, not all traditions of astrology use the major 'Ptolemaic aspects' of cojunction, sextile, square, etc. In modern Indian astrology they only use the whole sign opposition and certain special aspects for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Then of course you have other traditions of astrology which don't use aspects at all, so its misleading to imply that all astrologers use aspects. Also, you talk about "their movements amongst the constellations" which is only applicable to sidereal astrology, and not to tropical western astrology since Ptolemy established the vernal point as the primary reference point in the 2nd century.

Response: Study the techniques of tropical and sidereal astrology. This is NOT an valid argument. It is just about the "seasons" and the "constellations" due to the precession of the equinoxes. That is all. Question: how the hell can you conduct astrology WITHOUT using the aspects? Are you a serious student? What is mathematics for - nothing? Give me a break.

Also I object to this rather subjective statement that "Free will is a given in true astrological practice" because this is an issue that is constantly debated within the astrological community itself, and to state that 'only true astrology' in not fatalistic is completely biased. Different astrologers have different opinions about the subject, and who are you to say that the only real astrology is that which is free-will oriented? This is what I am talking about when I say that this is not NPOV.

Response: Free will is a given in astrological practice as it is in real life. I practice astrology - professionally - and by experience know this to be TRUE. Free will within the laws of the universe is a given. Suggest you gain more years of practical astrological practice under your belt before writing on the subject seriously. Experience and the gained knowledge counts for much.

"Judicial Astrology, the oldest form of classical astrology is an applied science not to be confused with "sun-sign astrology" - the popularized entertainment form of astrology that spread in North America in the early 20th Century."

What does this mean? Judicial astrology is simply a demarcation to separate the specific interpretive art of astrology from what was termed "natural astrology" in the classical and Medieval period. Sun sign astrology would still fall under the heading of Judicial astrology though because it is an attempt to ascribe meaning to the position of a celestial body at a person's birth. While it is true that this is an extremely simplified form of tropical natal astrology and that it doesn't accurately represent horoscopic astrology, that does not mean that it does not have some basis in it to some degree.

Response: This statement by you indicates a serious lack of knowledge of the subject. Suggest you study extensively because of the copious materials out there. Try taking a visit to Europe where you can spend time actually reading some of the original materials on astrology - because then you will have more knowledge to add to your studies.

"True classical scientific astrologers, do not separate from the science of astronomy, the scientific study of outer space and the applied sciences of astrology."

I'm currently studying Hellenistic and Vedic astrology which originated in the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE respectively, and I can attest to the fact that this is not an accurate statement to make. I suspect that this notion originated with a misreading of Ptolemy by some modern astrologers, but even he separates his books on astronomy and astrology. Even within his major treatise on astrology he makes a distinction between the calculations that are needed in astrology and the actual interpretive part of the subject.

Response: Hellenistic and Vedic astrology is judicial astrology practiced by the Greeks and the Indian cultures. Try not to confused the cultural/religious prespective of those cultures with astrological techniques. These are "techniques" that vary according to the cultural era of practice. At your age, how can you even be qualified to state that there is a "misreading of Ptolemy?" You are not an astrologer yet - but a student of astrology. There is a difference.

"Known as "judges of the heavens" - judicial astrologers rank among the most well-known astronomers, mathematicians and medical doctors in human history..."

I have never once heard this term "judges of heaven" used by any astrologers either modern or ancient and I seriously doubt the applicability of that title to astrologers in general and to this article in particular.

Response: That is the meaning of "judicial astrology" - judicial, meaning a "judge" and astrology referring to the study of the "heavens." If you haven't heard of it means that you have not reached this level of study. Any serious astrologer with knowledge knows the history of judicial astrology.

"...and include such names as Hippocrates, Copernicus, Nostradamus, Brahe, Johann Kepler, Galileo, William Lilly and Isaac Newton..."

While it is true that Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo were all astrologers in addition to being astronomers, and actually still have birth charts cast by them as well as some delineations, it is not an accurate statement to make that Newton was an astrologer.

Response: Really? Then you truly have much more to learn. Newton studied and practiced astrology as well as alchemy.

While he was clearly into alchemy and he would have had to of known a bit about astrology in order to carry out certain alchemical experiments, this does not mean that he was actually an astrologer and we have no evidence to substantiate that claim. It actually appears that he was quite hostile to natal astrology, although he appears to have believed in some quasi-astrological sort of things due to his Christian beliefs, such as comments being warnings from God. This is accepted by all historians of astrology at this point. For example, see Nick Campion's book Astrology, History and Apocalypse.

Response: he was hostile to "astrologers" who did not view the planets and stars with their own eyes. Of which there are quite a few who do not to this day. Moreover Chris, you seem to be picking gnat sh__ out of pepper here and you've got more to learn - MUCH MORE. I suggest you do that rather first before making changes on this subject. You are too young yet to make such absolute statements - particularly on astrology.

"Claudius Ptolemy, the Second Century A.D. judicial astrologer who is considered the father of western astrology"

This is just flat out inaccurate.

Response: How is THAT so? Ptolemy's work - even to this day - is required reading for most western students of astrology. Have you read, and studied the Almagest and the Tetrabiblos?

"declared that prediction of events was only possible through the union of two factors: first, correct mathematical calculations of the positions and motions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. Second, a prophetic spirit derived from God by which their configurations can be correctly interpreted by certain inspired human beings known as judicial astrologers."

You appear to actually be drawing on material from Nostradamus, but attributing it to Ptolemy. I’ve read Ptolemy and from what I can tell he said nothing of the sort.

Response: Of course he did. I suggest you re-read Ptolemy and stop wasting my valuable time with your long statements based on your lack of knowledge. I am an experienced astrologer Chris, and a teacher and I do not enjoy being lectured by a student who obviously has a lot more to learn. You are only in your early 20s and you dare to say that you've already gained the knowledge to make such bold statements?

"Today, judicial astrologers are rare due to the false popularization of sun-sign astrology"

Actually, there is quite a large astrological community in the world today and it appears to be growing. In light of that, I find this to be a peculiar statement.

Response: Yes, I am one of those judicial astrologers - with over two decades of experience and going into my third decade. Still, considering the vast number of "astrologers" in the world today, there are few constellational;, classical judicial astrologers as opposed to the past.

"It is said that nothing forecasted by a judicial astrologer should ever be taken lightly due to the seriousness and many years of practice to become a judicial astrologer. The average span of learning and astrological practice is over 20 years to reach the qualification level of judicial astrologer."

Ahem...

Response: Ahem, what? You express a lack of serious astrological knowledge and should know better.

"Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry - mathematical techniques invented by judicial astrologers."

I would like to see a source to back this up.

Response: If you do not know that these mathematical techniques were invented by astrologers Chris Brennan - then I suggest you back way, way up and start your astrological studies over. This clearly is a fact and the sources are out there easily for you to find. Jeez. Are you kidding me?

"Serious astrologers maintain that those who practice astrology without years of experience are not astrologers - but merely students."

I don’t buy this.

Response: as a "student" yourself - that is clearly obvious. There's nothing for you to "buy." But, if I catch you reading one chart as as "professional" Chris, when you clearly are not yet a professional astorloger - I will report you. This is a SERIOUS science and clients come to a professional with serious issues and you are not yet qualified - considering your statements here that show your lack of astrological knowledge - to be able to practice professionally. Put your time FIRST. Studying astrology is NOT the same as practicing in the real world. Understand? You are still a student. Don't go out there pretending to be a professional astrologer when you are not one yet. There's enough so-called "astrologers" out there who are not professional and give this science a bad name. These are the pseudo-scientists that I hate. They are lazy and don't want to work hard. it takes many years to become a professiona. And,I spent many, many years studying before actually reading professionally and you should do the same.

Conclusion: I really don't like psuedo-skeptics. The way I see it, a true skeptic is someone who is even skeptical of their own skepticism and thus they are more able to approach any subject from a truly neutral perspective. Psuedo-skeptics tend to just attack things right away due to prejudices and misconceptions about subjects. Its really annoying when someone is just attacking you all the time and making stupid assumptions because they haven't taken the time to research the subject that they despise so much. I think that this is even worse though, because this is essentially the exact same thing except that its focused in a more defensive manner. I think that this is even more destructive though. Although I can see that from your perspective you are trying to defend astrology, in actuality you are doing more harm than good because you are doing it in a way that is very hostile and inaccurate in places, and ultimately you are giving astrologers a bad rap because of this kind of aggressive behavior. I don't know if you are going through bad transits right now or what, but please, stop this madness and work with us here instead of trying to fight everyone.

Response: I am not fighting anyone. And, just who do you think you are to make such conclusionary statements on Astrology? You are a STUDENT Chris, and NOT a professional, experienced astrologer, or a teacher. You have a long way to go depending on the honesty and hard work you are willing to put into the subject. Moreover, I knew some people connected with Kepler, and some are very good instructors, but however, do not confuse your studies on Greek astrology with the entire knowledge of astrology. There is so much more to learn. Yet, you have the gall to write as if you are an experienced, professional astrologer. How dare you make such a statement that is rude, subjectly and clearly in error. The only "madness" here Chris is your assumption that you are professional in this science yet, when you are NOT. That is aggressive behavior my friend, and you have no right going around in your early 20s claiming that you are an experienced astrologer when you clearly have not reached the professional level as yet. As for going "through bad transits" - I suggest you read your OWN chart ONLY and not the charts of anyone else professionally until you have gained more astrological experience. Try astro-meteorology - forecasting the weather first - as this will sharpen your ability greatly by using an ephemeris right. It is the first thing learned by those studying judicial astrology and astrology in general and I started at the age of 10-years-old. I am now in my 40s. If you must make astrological assumptions Chris - while stating them as fact - please do so in your own studies and not on a Wikipedia subject page. You have much, much more to learn - especially on astrology in general. Forecast the weather to test your ability to read transits and to forecast for human beings. Do this and become expert at it before making predictions for real people in the real world. Theo 22:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hell no. Thats it. I was trying to be polite with you, but now you are going to try and talk down to me just because you are older and you think that you know more? That doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to the history of the subject, which you obviously haven't studied. You say that your "experience" and "knowledge counts for much", but you obviously haven't been studying too hard when you can make such blatantly inaccurate statements like "Ptolemy is the father of western astrology" and "Newton was a practicing astrologer". I know 14-year-old kids who know more about the history of astrology than you do, and that is pretty sad when you are trying to pretend that you are some great scholar of the subject.

Response: Again, experience and knowledge means quite a bit Chris. And, if you truly have been studying astrology as you say that you are then you would already know this. As for 14-year-old-kids who know more about the history of astrology than I do - I seriously doubt this. I am a scholar, great? I do not say so. I have taught and teach on the subject, and write on it as well. I have more than 21 years of experience Chris, and do quite well because I worked hard on this science. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 It is charlatans like you who continue to give astrology a bad reputation because not only are you almost completely ignorant about the history of the subject, but you are overtly arrogant about your ignorance and you flaunt it around. 

Response: Supposition. Suggest you reduce your ego-level, because as a "student" of astrology you have lots more to learn. You do not know me at all to make such statements. If you are going to call a professional astrologer a "charlatan" then I suggest you back it up with evidence. Be careful here Chris, because now you are writing things that are libelous because it is now in writing. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep talking about how you are a "professional" and a "teacher", but you aren't even aware of the simplest of historical facts about the subject.

Response: How would you deduce that? Prove it. Theo

You haven't written any books, and I doubt that you have any certification with any of the schools or organizations.

Response: That you are aware of. Supposition again and quite in error.

Basically, you are a 40-year-old nobody who knows less about the subject that you supposedly practice than some 21-year-old kid. 

Response: This statement proves that you will not become a professional astrologer. You show no respect, and think that your knowledge is equal to that of a practicing professional. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How very sad for you.  If you would just stop talking trash and trying to force your opinions and your faulty articles down other people's throats for one minute, then you might learn something and you might be able to actually change things around here to some degree.  But of course you wont, and so eventually all of your contributions will amount to nothing.  Way to go Theo.    --Chris Brennan 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  

Response: Suggest you take that very poor attitude and put your energy into actually becoming a professional. No one is trying to change anything around here. You assume way too much Chris. You make subjective statements, have made factual errors in astrological history and practice, and then go on to state that articles written from knowledge and experience are faulty. I've written many times on astrology, have lectured, taught and have a thriving client practice. I suggest you back off and spend your time studying rather than being rude and assumptive - very bad thing for an astrologer to do. My contributions are my own and made by me on my own and will amount to nothing less and nothing more. The contributions on Wikipedia is to expand knowledge, not restrict it Chris, and before you go on being rude about someone more experienced than you - take a step back and realize that there is a long way to go before you can practice professionally with the statements you've made here. Theo 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Theo, Astrology is nothing more than superstition, and vandalising a bunch of articles by sticking the words "astrologer and" before the subject's profession will not change that. I've backed out your changes on the hippocrates article, and will be watching for similar shennanigans on other articles.

Response: Using the word vandalism to support your POV is not enough for you to suggest that astrology is superstition - especially considering by your words here that you haven't studied the science to support your claims. I suggest on Hippocrates that you find out why then that he stated that a physician who does not practice astrology before treating a patient is a quack and not a doctor." I also suggest that you first study the science rather wasting time on opinions that are not supported by the historical facts. Theo 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology is not, never was, and will never become a science, no matter how emphatically you insist otherwise. You have some need to promote it, apparently, but please refrain from damaging unrelated wikipedia articles to do so. If you want to talk about Hippocrates and astrology, then I suggest a section at the bottom, along the lines of, "although a great contributor to medicine, Hippocrates was nevertheless susceptible to many of the superstions of his day, such as the belief in and practice of Astrology".

Well then, I guess then if you say so - it must be so then, huh? Suggest you read Hippocrates own words on the subject before making decisions for him, ok? Theo 10:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology Page

If you are to make revisions on the Astrology Talk Page, then please at least source materials before entering POV on the page. This continues to be done and violates Wikipedia NPOV. The outline on the Astrology Page is for knowledge and expansion and is not a personal college paper, nor for those who have limited or no astrological knowledge to enter in the subject matter. Thanks.Theo 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WIKI 3RR Newbie Violators, Glitches, & Wiki Snitches

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Astrology. I suggest you find a more constructive way to proceed forward on the page than insisting on wholesale returns to your version, which consensus does not seem to prefer. An incremental approach, adding a sourced sentence or paragraph at a time, might be worth a try. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what I was trying to do, but it did not go through the first time. I hear that this happens quite a bit with newbies, and would suggest that it not be confused with not wanting to reach consensus or insisting on wholesale returns - which is nowhere near what I was doing.Theo 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You also had a 3RR on Nostradamus. 24 hours away will give you time to learn to be less accident-prone. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I entered the material only once, and it did not revert back. It was a glitch. I would appreciate it next time if you would ask if something is wrong; rather than assuming I violated the rule. Re/ time to learn to be less accident-prone: Yes, I agree. It also provides me the time to gather more data on the Wiki users who are emailing me off-line about the POV BOT Gang that includes some of the users who have been making rather nefarious claims, and reverts of their own that are not monitored - including "complaints" that are self-serving: such as BorgQueen, or BorgHunter's snitching on Wiki users he does not like. He seems to have added me to his "list." I did not know about this because I am a new user, but a another list has been going around of trouble-makers like this and I wish someone had let me know earlier, then I would have had the time to avoid, or report them to the appropriate administrators. At least now I have the list of some editors, and users working together to maintain a non-NPOV standard under the guise of "doing Wiki-good." So the 24 hours is useful, yes. Again, I would appreciate it next time Bunchofgrapes, if you would kindly ask me first, or send me a warning - before jumping the gun and blocking - since computer glitches and mistakes do happen. Some here are pretty snippy with the "judgement button" themselves and quick to use it too. And since I am new, I will make certain to be sharper - considering the silliness & childishness going on. Thanks.Theo 19:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Theo, you have to revert four times in 24 hours before the penalty applies. That's a lot of reverting. If you've already reverted three times in a day &msdash; and have shown a pattern of revert-warring, which you have — then it's a bit far-fetched for you to ask for "warning" and understanding that the fourth revert was a "glitch". (Especially when you hit the fourth revert on two different pages around the same time!) There are a lot of editors, who, in the name of more productive editing, follow self-imposed rules like 1RR or even 0RR. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary has some good advice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)