User talk:Aunt Entropy/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aunt Entropy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please check

I reworded the information, deleting any mention of Stephens or Palin, by writing that "Wasilla" hired a "successful lobbyist", instead of saying "Palin acting as mayor of Wasilla" hired Stephens lobbyist, to address your coatrack concerns. Could you please check to see that I addressed your concerns? Thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Better, as it's about the town, not the personalities. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology on Wasilla page

That done, I'm off to edit on interstellar molecular precursors to life without mentioning intelligent design. Maybe you can wiegh in or contribute to WP:Coatrack Deletions to create a formal template to plug coatrack discussions into and avoid edit wars. (By the way, what does "Aunt" refer to in your name?) EricDiesel (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have thirty nephews and nieces... Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!!! I guess that explains the "Entropy" part, too. EricDiesel (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Sorry to bother you, but immeditely after reading your 30 nephews and nieces answer, I went to read the talk page of my WP:Coatrack Deletions essay, where I responded to a strange comment by User talk:68.103.31.116 regarding application of my essay on Coatrack Deletions to "Young Earth Creation", as requested by 68.103.31.116. I went to his/her talk page and left my response. I noticed your name immeditely above. Wikipedia is a big place, and "six degrees of separation" or not, it seemed rather odd that your name would be on this completely unrelated essay I wrote. In fact, it is statistically impossible under a hypothesis that it was a coincidence. I thought you might be playing some joke, being 68.103.31.116 yourself, but reading your remark to 68.103.31.116, it appeared not to be the case. Can you account for this statistically impossible coincidence? EricDiesel (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most likely you have contracted my creationist troll. I contracted him from recently retired Hrafn's user page which he repeatedly vandalised. He has also harassed another user who recently posted on my talk page. Apologies...Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I imagining things, or did the 68.103.31.116 question and my response just disappear from the talk page and history at WP:Coatrack Deletions? EricDiesel (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No problemo

Whats more annoying than anything is that I can't even read his or her vandalism lol. Gabr-el 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Darwinism

Please do not war on Wikipedia articles, such as Darwinism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's policies including consensus and possibly the neutral point of view policy and may lead to blocking for violation of 3RR. Thank you. DannyMuse (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One reversion is not edit-warring, but you are now edit warring. See WP:BRD And accusing me of edit warring, wikilawyering or POV is not WP:AGF, which I did not fail to use towards you. It's your job to convince me on the talk page of the article that your edit is relevant. Please do so on the talk page. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. It's not my job to convince you of anything. My professional vocation is not really relevant here. DannyMuse (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

According to policy, it is up to the person adding or re-adding material to convince others of the edit. You've been here long enough to know that now, surely? Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I expect you'll get one of your friends to "conveniently" revert my edits to skirt the 3RV rule. Prove me wrong and don't. DannyMuse (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see know that your preemptive "don't edit war" (iow "don't revert me") has gotten to stage two, in a massive show of bad faith.

Well, I contacted no one. I went to bed, got up, and went to work, then logged in to see that you were reverted, and not by a "friend" of mine either. I've only run into Eric Diesel when he was on the other side in a Palin dispute. We were from opposite sides, yet we came together to achieve a compromise. It's great when it works. But it's not when you demand others do what you yourself will not do. Eric was more than a rough edged newbie when he started, and seeing as how WP:BLP is not obvious even to the most conscientious of us,he could have gone on like countless others, death-by-AN/I. But he figured out what this project is all about and how to make it work.

It looks like your added copy was shot down on the talk page, with no assistance from either of us. Such is Wikipedia. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, must get round to improving the article. Danny just doesn't seem to get it. Your help is much appreciated, auntie. . dave souza, talk 22:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence... Again?

Coincidence again? Six degrees of separation aside, I ran across you again on the history page of Darwinism. Is Wikipedia that small? I was at Darwinism for a quick historic mini-fact check, as I was asked by Laura Huxley, shortly before her death last December, to create and direct the Thomas Henry and Aldous Huxley Foundation. (I was also honored to become a member of the nine member X Club, where I’m expected to be some kind of cross between Hooker, Galton, and Spencer; as botanist, statistician, and positivist, respectively). I am having difficulty figuring out when people at Wikipedia are joking. I undid a “metaphysical and religion” comment on Darwinism. (Darwinism was vaguely metaphysical 130 years ago, until discovery of the physical basis and mechanism of inheritance, quasi-metaphysical with only a mathematical inference for the existence of genes, then purely physical with chromosomes then DNA. There is even irrefutable macroscopic evidence, e.g., in “Beak of the Finch” by the wonderful Jonathan Weiner.) Was my edit an interference with a back and forth joke you were having, or was the revert of your deletion supposed to be serious? EricDiesel (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed DannyMuse is interested in Taiko drumming, where I have some personal experience. I will go talk to him and try to get him to stop putting unusual things on the Darwinism article. EricDiesel (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, that was just a coincidence, unlike my troll you attracted by posting here. (But the troll was of the creationist persuasion...so there's another coincidence.) and re the edit in question: I actually thought maybe the source was something historical, but the book Danny Muse used was written last year! Sad...

Well, feel free to use your expertise to help the science corner of the wiki. This is the roughest neighborhood in the whole place. Cranks love wikipedia, as you can imagine. To have or influence an article on the number one search result (for pretty much anything) is a major coup for too damn many of them. So, again, no pressure or anything, but you could be a good help. Just remember to WP:AGF and assume they are not joking unless it is patently obvious. Because they really mean what they write. Until we bump into each other again, (Thomas Huxley was da A-bomb btw...:) ) Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course we assume good faith of all our editors, at the same time being suitably cautious without saying as much.[1] Regrettably, it's probably not the toughest neighbourhood, with arguments rumbling along even in the British Isles, and ferocious battles over pure water at homeopathy. But I digress. Huxley was in some ways a bit of a nuisance, dashing Darwin's hopes for endorsement of natural selection at the same time as upsetting Darwin's carefully drafted conciliatory position. Great fun, however, and Darwin enjoyed hearing about the battles as much as anyone. Not perhaps an ideal model for WP, but certainly top quality. . .. dave souza, talk 11:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but Huxley was the first person in history to empirically kill god, in fact, all the gods. There were rationalist (reason alone) arguments against the existence of god, but Huxley was a paleontologist and meticulous comparative anatomist, and empirically "proved" Linnaeus' (the wonderful woman I was dating last year was gave the Linnaeus Lecture in Upsalla last Feb) conjecture of a common human ape ancestor, knocking down the central (egotistical) tenant of almost every world religion. By the way, we had a wonderful 300th anniversary Linnaeus party at Huntington Gardens last year. EricDiesel (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Like strangled snakes around the cradle of the infant Hercules :) Of course the issue had been well aired by the author of Vestiges, but Huxley's battles with Owen did indeed demolish lingering claims that we have significantly different anatomical features. Anniversary outing sounds splendid, no doubt a few lined up for the near future. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More on this at section "Some more evidence from 'Our Posthuman Future'" on talk page of Evolution. EricDiesel (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis

Should this go to ANI? Classical example of an Admin intervening badly. Why would anyone allow the removal of all sourced text? Doug Weller (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's where I saw the link... Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about the Admin who put a week's page protection on the article and then seems to have just abandoned it. That seems hasty and not terribly responsible. Doug Weller (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you've unlocked it, so the point is moot now. You've got to pick your battles here, you know. And this one wouldn't go very far...it would have to involve a policy change to affect it. The admin did nothing technally wrong, and so doesn't require any sanction. Because as it stands now, if an admin reverts to the "before edit war" version and then locks it, he's considered "involved." (This "involved" BS has been interpreted wayyy too liberally lately.) Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's protected until the 26th still, I didn't unlock it (don't want to start by wheel warring). You're right, it wouldn't go far, it was technically correct, just wrong from an encyclopedic point of view IMHO. The issue has been raised on the blocking Admin's talk page, and he's around but simply ignoring the editors who have raised the issue with him, and that seems wrong also. Doug Weller (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dang, sorry, don't know why I thought you did that; obviously, it wouldn't be good to unprotect without contacting the protector anyway, and not doing so first and unprotecting would more reckless than I should ever expect from a brand spanking newbie admin who got one of only two support RFA votes I've ever bestowed... But yes, now that my senior moment has passed, I see there's an issue here. Not quite an incident yet...but not good. I wonder if it would be mean to post a link to my talk page...might get a response anyway ;) Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm honored, I had no idea. No, I really don't want to wheel war. The link idea sounds a good idea. At the moment we are just stuck. I'm going to try again to clarify the issues, but one of the editors who was reverting seems to have gone stum. (And I can't figure out the guy who keeps using his caps lock by mistake, but he is very enthusiastic and a devotee of the 19th century writer George Rawlinson whose book he seems to be copying into Persian Revolt). Doug Weller (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Fast

My article Monkey Darwinism, with photos, was nominated for speedy deletion within seconds of it being posted. See it now or see it not. EricDiesel (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Boff

Not the right place to discuss article content, but I'm sure Dawkins would be the first to agree that God and religion are not in the ambit of reason. . . dave souza, talk 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Amygdalin

Hey there! The line you took out about "although this is widely contested by many credible doctors" I think deserves to be in there, since it's true! The reference I gave shows numerous examples of such, each with their own individual citation. There's no doubt that there's medical controversy over this issue, however, when you remove that addition to the article, it becomes biased towards those who are against it as a treatment, which isn't fair or balanced. In my opinion, it's important to show both sides and all the facts of the topic. Please consider replacing. Thanks! Trikageon (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Small Talk

Heheheh. Look at her go. She´s running around tagging random articles for citations. Check out those edit summaries - clearly trying to make a point. Priceless.Rickus Muller (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe she realised how wrong she was about our policies and Hrafn. Certainly she wouldn't do something that she complained constantly about if she hasn't change her mind. That would be very childish indeed. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

Fake medicine wrapping itself with religious dogma. Kind of like Intelligent design being fake science wrapping itself with religious dogma. How does this crap get into a real encyclopedia? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That article is not about medicine and doesn't make scientific claims - it's about a philosophy/religion from the late 1800s-early 1900s, describing the beliefs of the members of that religion. How is that different than the article on the Blessed Virgin Mary that states: "Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ" ? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cesspool

The article is on my watchlist, but I hadn't been paying attention to this specific problem. Though the SPLC is a reliable source, the assertion that someone is appearing under a pseudonym is an exceptional claim, and we should probably leave it out until there are multiple sources. Like many articles on radio shows, it is thinly sourced. It seems barely notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Not sure what you are referring to. Aunt Entropy (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reed210

I really don't know why. I guess I was thinking he was an IP for some reason. He's indefblocked now. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin Bias

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zecharia Sitchin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --84.103.37.167 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy has not broken the 3RR rule on this article. This warning appears to be retaliatory for a good faith warning placed early, I have warned the IP about WP:POINT here [2]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems as good a place as any, absent an interest to start a new heading/topic, to say "thank you" for correcting the formatting in my Talk comment re: Zecharia Sitchin yesterday. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Sorry, I keep forgetting to get back to you. Take a look here: [3]. Do you want (me or you) to go ahead with doing this? As you know, I've been involved, but I will if you want. Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are involved, and although I don't think it should be an issue just to make a report, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an issue. I'd suggest asking one of your admin friends for advice/assistance here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And Thatcher says "The checkusers will consider your arguments/evidence and decide whether or not to investigate the matter". I'll ask another Admin. Doug Weller (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a good answer, but not complete. Will there be friction because of your involvement is what we need to know. But our evidence is sound. Same behavior and shift-like activity (one for a few hours, then the other, never overlapping...) is beyond enough for a checkuser. IF I were you I'd be BOLD and submit it. I will back you; I'm not involved in that page, just an interested bystander. When you get it set, send me a link. Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at [4] and [5] and let me know what you think. Doug Weller (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking turns, like they were the Looney Tunes Goofy Gophers: "After you!" "No, no, no, my good sir, after you!" "Why, thenn-kyaw, thenn-kyaw! You are too kind!" Wow, almost too good for checkuser. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins Neutrality

Apologies for not stating a reason for labelling Richard Dawkins' article as un-NPOV - I've never done this before! I've put my reason/suggestion on the discussion page. Cooltrainer_Hugh (Talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

As per your note on my Talk page about my comments at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy: my remarks there can not possibly be considered a personal attack on anyone; it was a general comment. If you actually try to maintain that it was a personal attack, then that would just be 'case in point' of my whole remark. Regardless, you will never be able to really block me, just perhaps make it a little more inconvenient to edit (IP Spoofing?). ;) Hassandoodle (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No it is absolutely not an attack on fellow editors, it is a general comment about rouge administrators. The administrators can block a subnet, but will never be able to truly block someone from editing (i.e., IP spoofing). Additionally, I don't see how it would be possible regardless to generate a good reputation amongst rouge admins, since their own agenda is to prevent any possible appearance of credibility to minority groups (regardless of "The Truth"), simply by claiming POV. See the wiki page on Rouge admins Hassandoodle (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a humor page, and it seems you aren't getting the joke: Wikipedia is not about truth. Again I stress: your continued antagonism isn't going to serve you well here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do get it. And yes I understand that it's a humour page. So perhaps you aren't reading in-between the lines. My point was, "Rouge admins" don't 'really' exist according to the 'irony' of the page, but in fact, they do (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Anyways. Hassandoodle (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

POV

You seem to be an experienced editor. Please do not let your POV come into play in the article Book of Genesis. The previus anon. IP left a edit summary of "it is (at best) an ancient mythology" -- you call that legit? Wikipedia calls that pov, and I'm sure you know that. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith edit to me, and NPOV means reflecting prominent expert viewpoints rather than an idealised "neutrality", so I've responded on Tjbergsma's page,[6] and advised the IP editor on policies. dave souza, talk 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks Dave for your concern -- i have responded. I lightened my message up on the anonymous ip's page, but I still felt that I made a correct assumption, also with regard to npov.

Aunt E., regarding your recent revert on the YEC page, just so you know there actually is a specific vandalism warning for pushing pov. This is the warning that the user left on that ip's page. Considering that this anonymous ip continues to put in his/her edit that others keep removing, it seems clear to me that an editor patrolling for vandalism will believe that this falls under vandalism. I might as you as well to please not criticize others so quickly and assume good faith on their behalf. Some spend many hours on vandalism patrol to support this project and they could use some support from other editors in this. Thanks, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 20:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a warning for pushing a POV in an UNDUE manner, but it still doesn't make it vandalism. And a minor edit war does not vandalism make either. Regarding criticising editors too quickly and not assuming good faith, you seem to have a plank in your eye. Please see WP:Vandalism and WP:BITE; we need to assume good faith of newbies without calling them vandals. And no vandalism patroller who spends many hours on patrol to support this project (like myself) should ever assume a legitimate content issue is vandalism. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for completely misrepresenting my position, and then for encouraging a friend of yours "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author]" so that he would start an edit war. Always appreciated. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 23:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For continuity's sake, I readded and struck through the deleted comments. I still find the re-edit disingenuous. You wanted him to discuss this on the talk page. I echoed you. To think that doing such is somehow gaming the system is just not cricket. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)