User talk:Dailyhoroscope

May 2019
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In case you're interested, the lead section in the Wikipedia article on Astrology summarizes the current scientific consensus quite well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * it's nothing to do with my personal knowledge or opinion, or yours - both of our opinions are irrelevant. The point is that the current scientific consensus is that astrology is nonsense, as explained in our Wikipedia article, and that it is not, as you claimed, a well accepted branch of science. The scientific consensus is what prohibits horoscopes from being presented in biographical articles here. If that scientific consensus should change in favour of astrology, then horoscopes might become an accepted part of Wikipedia's biographical articles - but until that happens, they will not. Concerning the gravitational effects of the moon, I hope you don't mind if I correct your apparent misunderstanding that it is anything do with water. The moon's gravity affects everything - solids as well as liquids, and the only reason we don't see tides in solid ground is that rocks are a lot stiffer than water. In fact, the entire Earth, right down to its iron core, is perturbed by the gravity of the orbiting moon. And yes, the moon's gravity acts on people too (and would do even if we were solid with no water in us). But it acts on everyone equally, regardless of our date of birth. Finally, I'd just like to add that I appreciate that early Indian astronomers achieved some remarkable things without the use of telescopes - I've visited a couple of their observatories and have stood in awe of them. But that's astronomy and is nothing to do with astrology. That they were able to measure the movements of planets is an astonishing feat, but it doesn't demonstrate any effect on who's going to win the cricket. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)