Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:16, 12 April 2006

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): I'm game on: affordable housing for Section 8 housing applicants, dictator busters, Progressive/reform politics, publicly-funded healthcare, real estate investing, socialism, compressed earth block, & Astrology. See my AstrologersHQ.com & AndrewHomer.Com.

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew Homer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 "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 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 Misplaced Pages:Talk page please. Rhobite 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Blatant vandalism

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Vanity_page and the policy on . 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)