![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Thanks for drawing my EAR on EAAN to Guettarda's notice ( here). I'm sure he knows all about it, though, as I informed all editors on that article by way of a new thread on the relevant talk-page. Regards. -- Muzhogg ( talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: "please gain consensus for your edits on talk page"
Could you please write (as example) the gaining consensus entry. Contributions/76.16.176.166 ( talk) 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[4] Reverted again and replied on the talk page. And, for what it's worth, I'm obviously assuming bad faith, but on the part of the person who originally inserted this fact, [5] not you. Your motivations are clearly different (and far less cynical). SluggoOne ( talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
RE this edit: Thanks. This article, to me at least, plainly needs an extra-cautious eye to be kept within bounds w.r.t. WP:NOR, despite the sparse content it presents to date. Offhand I roughly imagine a fairly large lot of individuals who collectively fancy themselves potentially the next Albert Einstein--progenitors of the next big quantum leap, as it were, if only it were possible to avoid the hard work of scientific method. Put another way: "How might I rearrange the world so I don't have to subject my ideas to intense scrutiny by the existing scientific community in order to sell my ideas to the world"-- or something like that. :-) I'm just speculating of course, so please feel free to correct me if you think I'm significantly off the mark here. ,,, Kenosis ( talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Some things are obvious as shining sun. You question it. Here is, i hope quite good help. If you read the art (did you?), wiki alone give enough data to conceptualization: when cell structure may be embossed in silicate during fossilization then counting and measuring macroscopic futures is rather trivial. There is also a picture. 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
On the admin noticeboard a short while ago you used the term SPA - please could you explain what it means?¬¬¬¬
I've edited my comment to link to the page in question. Auntie E ( talk) 00:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the explanation on article talk and reconsider your reversion. The issue is not "notability" (which, as per WP:N, only "refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article"), but rather A) medical reliability as per WP:MEDRS; B) excessive prominence of selective information drawn from a primary source, contravening WP:PSTS; and C) sheer excess, as opposed to WP:SS. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't making a personal attack, I was pointing out Blaxthos' bias, as you pointed out mine. And I can't earnestly talk to someone about someone else on their talk page? PokeHomsar ( talk) 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you reverted a reversion while a discussion was going on. I'm not entirely sure of the protocol, but I rather thought that it was BRD not Bee aRe DeRe (that's supposed to be funny BTW) ;-) Would you object to reversing your revert and joining the discussion on the Ian Stevenson page? Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
See my comment on the talk page. Using a document written five centures or so after the end of the ANE whose meaning is disputed... Dougweller ( talk) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And how about if I accuse editors of racism JUSTLY? I have been banned out of the blue by an editor who was never involved in the article in question, after a long period when the article itself was not being edited at all (far less edited disruptively), merely for striving to include ON THE TALK PAGE content which certain persons (the racists in question) did not agree with! There were no warnings of any sort on the subject, there was no community discussion that I am aware of (certainly I was never advised of any such process) and as far as I can tell the required process was never followed. One particular editor one day decides s/he doesn't like the PROPOSED content and four editors get a six month ban! What are we supposed to conclude here - WTF happened to AGF??????? And as regards Dubya - he did actually say that, with a big goofy grin that told the whole world exactly what he thinks of international law. You might be his godmother, but public figures must live with what they say. Anything else is censorship. Wdford ( talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You have removed routine and sourced biographical information from this BLP, and have restored factually incorrect content. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljulie ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I see your thirteenth edit and raise you five to tango. :P Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you have been asked this already, but could you change your signature so that it includes a link to your talk page? That would make it easier for people to reach you. The code
[[User talk:Aunt Entropy|<font color="483D8B" face="lucida blackletter">Auntie E.</font>]]
would show up exactly the same as your current signature, and would be hardly any longer. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
[[User talk:Aunt Entropy#top|<font color="483D8B" face="lucida blackletter">Auntie E.</font>]]
Hello,
I wanted to add just a small edit to David Icke page but it has been removed twice. Personally I think the date of transmission of the Wogan show is relevant and very hard to come by on the internet. The date I provide is the date that is shown on the Jon Ronson documentary. People who would want to see this particular show can do so by going to the BFI archive and requesting a viewing. They can only do this if they have the exact date of transmission. The fact that this wogan episode is not available on the internet is of interest to me as it has been miss-quoted many times. Even in the Icke article it should read 'Son of godhead' not 'Son of god'
Please advise me how we can incorporate this important information into the David Icke page. Bsosaka ( talk) 03:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
In response to your comment: The welcome template in question was added 3 years ago before I added my warning. SOrry for not responding sooner. CardinalDan ( talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Off to bed now but I've reported the IP to 3RR. Dougweller ( talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Joelg549 rants about Jesus race, declares his goal is to get Aunt Entropy banned. Shouts in CAPS that she is CLEARLY CHILDISH. I'd say pot:kettle except it doesn't apply if its only the accuser. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You may find this discussion on the Race of Jesus article. I post this as a warning to all and hope it may benefit others who have had difficult dealings with this very passionate and opinionated entity called "Aunt Entropy" that should CLEARLY not be editing Wikipedia articles. It is my goal to have such individuals as this banned for they are holding back the development of Wikipedia by thumbing their nose at it's admins and actual historians. Wikipedia is a great website, let's do our part to keep it that way. -Joel Ginsberg Originally the section on Jesus' Ancestors (within the Race of Jesus article) existed unmolested for at least a year. As a Jewish historian I added a few relevant points including reference to the best and perhaps only ancient authority on the subject: Josephus, also noting the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, the Strong's Concordance and the Bible itself. All direct quotes from records, no opinion or original research given at all. It was immediately approved by Wikipedia admin Woohookitty who made one minor change to help clarify a reference. Then "Aunt Entropy" deleted the whole section, including all information and details that others had diligently added prior to my amendments, which had stood unmolested and approved for many months. Reason given by "Aunt Entropy" for deletion of full section was: "completely irrelevant OR, being bold and cutting it)". Jesus' forefather's historical physical descriptions from the bible and the most authoritative Jewish historian, Joseph, is about the ONLY relevant thing on an article titled "Race of Jesus". Anyone can logically estimate that Jesus' own forefathers were of the same race as himself. A child can understand this. "Aunt Entropy" other reason was: "being bold and cutting it". This I literally do not understand, in all sincerity it does not even seem to be proper English, though it smacks of being heated and personal. It is without doubt that this individual has an axe to grind and not objective at all. Regardless of improper English or ill conceived notions, neither reason disputes the accuracy or authenticity of references to Jesus' ancestral descriptions. UPDATE, Once again: "Aunt Entropy" has gone against the admins of Wikipedia and a Jewish Historian both of whom are clear on all facts leaving out all opinions, with regards to the only real historical relevance to the "race" or ancestry of Jesus (through physical descriptions of Christ's relatives). Clearly this person(s) has an axe to grind and should be immediately BANDED from Wikipedia. It is an outrage, that "Aunt Entropy" still has an account after such childish behavior, it seems very much that I am dealing with an immature individual that has no place being involved in a serious online endeavor to record public information. "Aunt Entropy", whoever this is, describes his/her reasoning for removing old already Wikipedia approved entries twice as: "(I don't see anything on the talkpage about this section, and I don't care what admin approved it, it's original research)" So let me get this straight, just so I understand his/her's reckless idea of how Wikipedia works: if it is not on the talkpage, regardless of Jesus' ancestors CLEARLY being relevant to his race and approved by official Wikipedia admins, fully reference and backed by a Jewish scholar, then "Aunt Entropy" has a right to just simply take it down? I'm sorry, but who are you again? Are you the founder of Wikipedia or some type of higher level admin? The truth is your are not, and your pretentious presumptuous pandering will NOT go unchecked. I love Wikipedia and all that it stands for, the creators have produced one of the most brilliant online websites since the webs inception. I use it all the time, but people like "Aunt Entropy" are holding back it's progress with personal options, axes to grind and frankly childish behavior. "Aunt Entropy", may I say that the people of Wikipedia are trying to develop an online encyclopedia for the world to use, not a playground for you to put all your petty little beliefs and opinions into, go start a blog, that is what they are for. But for God's sake stop trying to use Wikipedia to support your own personal ideas as if it was created to be some sort of baby blanket and pacifier for your ideology... to be used to make you feel better about the world as you see it, to fit it into your little box. You have no place in this online exercise and should be removed and I will see to it personally. "Aunt Entropy's" second argument consists of SLAMMING the admins by telling everyone here, he/she "does not care" about what the official sanctioned admins rulings are. Someone with such a careless disregard for a public online encyclopedia should never be allowed to contribute. "Aunt Entropy", you need to respect the founders and admins even if you will not respect a Hebrew scholar on the subject. Thirdly "Aunt Entropy", grasping for straws in delusion fervor claims that "it is original research", and so I say, what pray tell is "original research"? How is an ancient historian's comments on a historical physical profile "original research", this is NOT my research at all it is merely ancient records from Josephus. Do you know who he is? Please see his article on Wikipedia. Like many of the articles on this website, it is a good one, and I will insist that this article hold the same standard. There are multiple Hebrew scholars who agree, but the ancient reference itself clearly illustrate the point better than anyone's personal opinion. "Aunt Entropy" I just want you to know that I will not rest until you are removed and/or severely reprimanded for your childish and careless behavior on Wikipedia. In short you have no place here. I have changed it back and will do so each and every day you underhandedly remove this approved section. I WILL be alerting the authorities with regards to your flagrant disrespect for the admins, real historians and the rules of Wikipedia. You are in breach of contract (read the Wikipedia rules again) and you have been sufficiently addressed on this subject. Sincerely, Joel Ginsberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Repy to "Descriptions of David" by "Aunt Entropy" Yes you have been bold, very bold. And you should not have been. Do you know how long it supposedly takes for one species or race to magically "turn" into another, if you believe this? Millions and Millions of years, NOT 10 generations of a race (giving each "father" generation 100 years). NO ONE in the world in their right mind would say that your ancestors would look markedly different from you racially going back only 7 to 8 generations or even 10 or 50 (but you only need less than 10 over span of 1k years) which is really no time at all. Take the history of ANY people on the globe, do you think going back 1000 years in China the Chinese would look different? Go back and look at their ancient drawings of themselves from that period 1000 years back. They look the same. Do you think that going back 1000 years or only 10 generations (giving each "father" generation 100 years) in Ireland means the people magically transformed into a different racial type? One need only look at the drawings of the Irish 1000 year ago, they look very much the same. This is ludicrous, you are not an anthropologist but I am and you ideas are childish, unfounded and CLEARLY opinionated. Be "BOLD", brushing everything with a wide opinionated brush, making wild generalizations is not the signature of a good public Encyclopedia editor, but rather the marks of pure novice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
So when are you going to let me nom you for admin? KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the votes of confidence...I'm glad I have your back...some of the most awesome backs in the wiki for sho if I must say so. :) Auntie E. 14:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Okie dokie then! So you'll let me know when you've composed answers to the standard questions and have sufficient time and bandwidth for answering the nitpicky optional questions, yes? I look forward to it! I'll start writing the nom right now in my
User:KillerChihuahua/Sandbox so I'll be ready to post.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a case concerning the aforementioned user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.15.125.234. I noticed that the User has been reverting your edits Wapondaponda ( talk) 09:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't want Talk:Muhammad/images getting any more off-track than it already tends to be, but I enjoyed the distinction between "force", "addiction", and "compulsion". I've seen your contribs at a number of articles I watch or participate in, and I admire your editing. Of course, you're a friend of the Puppy, so more is expected of you than of any ordinary mortal or mundane editor : ) Doc Tropics 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Aunt Entropy, I'm sorry to not preview my changes well enough to see what i was doing in editing the "United States" part. Please accept my apologies. I will try to do better in the future. Earlysda ( talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have a problem with this edit, then you are the one who needs to show support for such an inflammatory statement. Show exactly where the AFA Journal sells the McGuffrey Readers and where the readers "claim that Jews are "superstitious" and have been rejected by God for being unfaithful to him." I can't find either in the reference provided. Can you? If so, where? 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
See the article's talk section. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC) A
An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind ( talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your correct reversion of someone's deletion of Einstein from the lead of Secularism. However I've removed Einstein again along with Dawkins for very different reasons. Please see the talk page if you are interested. Cheers. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've notice you've reverted the listing of conspiracy theories regarding Jewish world domination. But that does not conform to taking over the world, world domination, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's my understanding that world domination is a pejorative specifically applied to Jews. So would you reconsider your reversion, and advise me how we can re-reconcile thesec article to be consistent with one another? Thanks. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock ( talk) 07:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you remove my footnote #15? if so why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardecker ( talk • contribs)
I can see where you are coming from. I will do some more research on the "Perfect Preservation view" of the TR/KJV issue. It is a notable concept, perhaps very much akin to D.A. Waite, David Cloud, and a host of other pro-KJV proponents. I just need to connect the dots and document this. I am just curious, and perhaps you can help me (I am a new Wikipedian, btw), would it be appropriate to cite this view in the KJV Only movement article, or to begin a new one? I tend to think that this view is an elaboration of a more balanced approach for the superiority of the TR and the KJV being an accurate and faithful translation, and not "inspired" like Peter Ruckman teaches. What say you? and Thank you Aunt E., Bhardecker 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not a policy [7]. HarryAlffa ( talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING MY ADDITIONS? Don't give me that junk about "neutral point of view." The very first sentence of the current article condemns the book as pseudoscientific. Look that word up. I'm pretty sure that's not neutral! Many sweeping claims are made in the article, such as that ALL biologists consider evolution one of the central theories of biology. I know for a FACT that isn't true, and I can give three names to prove it: Michael Behe, Dean Kenyon, and Phillip Johnson. Please let me fix this article. Even if you are an evolutionist, you should be able to see that the entire article is aimed at tearing down the book Icons of Evolution. I've tried to add some actual information about what the book actually says (which should be what the article's about anyway), and some reviews that are actually positive. Someone who read this NEUTRAL article would walk away thinking that Jonathan Wells was some two-bit scientist with nothing good to say and a book with nothing credible in it. I put a lot of work and thought into those revisions, and I really don't appreciate you deleting them
I am sincerely interesting in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I started working on this article because I could see that it was (and thanks to you cooperation, still IS) anything but neutral. If you have any advice as to what I can write that won't be deleted in two minutes, I will read it. What am I doing that's wrong?
Sorry if I ranted, but I did really want to improve the article, and I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about. Please respond to me. -- Thalia14 ( talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
When I first saw the two articles in question, I almost just quite ikipedia then and there. I share your anxiety about people positioning anti-Semitism as just another "view."
And this idea that calling someone an anti-Semite is a personal attack, whereas being an anti-Semite is simply to hold a view .... this is deeply upsetting to me.
I really appreciated your recent question at AN/I. It is troublin that Noleaner is not capable of a dialogue. I am trying to figure out his friend, Equazcion - they really work as a tag team in discussions and I sometimes wonder if they are the same person. But I have no evidence, only that they always think the same thing, which is always diferent from what everyon else thinks. I am not sure I have the evidence to request a checkuser; I think it is just as likely that the two are lovers. Eq. left a note on my talk page explaining why Noleander would not answer my questions - that seemed weird, like Equa is Noleander's press secretary!
What is gratifying is the number of people who have voted to delete the two articles. And I am glad you are participating. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI Camelbinky just left a message on my talk page informing me that Noleander and Equavizcion are not only different, they are VERY different. Well, okay. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I agree with you. FYI this was the thread... So what is the next step? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
(Actually thought you were an admin, huh, surprise there!) Auntie E. 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. One admin closed down the AfD on "misuse of anti-Semitic accusations" - and then DGG (an editor for whom I usually have the utmost respect) left this comment [8]
Appropriate or not, his insisting that his view of those with whom he disagrees - e.g. me and you - is the correct view is a real refusal to assume good faith. I am sure that his vote to keep the article was made in good faith. Why can't my vote to delete it be in good faith? I don't think DGG is an anti-Semite but I think this is one example of just what you say, how good Wikipedians in good faith can really fail to see the big picture. But I havde to admit, it is th implied refusal to assume good faith on my part that really gnaws at me .... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment ... before I respond, I wanted to note that your comment was unsigned. You say I dropped my claim? I thought that claim that he wasn't notable had been dropped after much work had been done on the article, and the person who made it had started editing the article, rather than trying to delete it. There are numerous sources that support notability claims ... and it is these that the the user in question keeps deleting .. and then argues that he isn't notable! Nfitz ( talk) 19:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Auntie E., you said that to the wrong person. I'm persistent. Science -- true science -- is NOT a vote. So just because it's majority doesn't mean it's true. Now, if you can prove to me definitively and without question that evolution is true, I'll accept that and back down. But you can't do that, can you?
I'd like to know what the purpose of that article is. It's supposed to be about Icons of Evolution, isn't it? Sadly, while reading it, I found HARDLY ANYTHING on what was actually in the book. Nearly everything in the article was based on criticising it. And that is fine, as long as it's sourced. But when I tried to improve the article by adding what should have been there -- information from the book -- I found you calling me biased. By the way, your point about the majority of people believing in evolution, that's irrelevant; I don't think Galileo had the majority when he said the earth was round. This article is inexcusably biased towards evolution. If a book is written teaching that people were created by primordial robots, then a Wikipedia page on that book should include what the book taught. Criticism of it is okay, but an article constituted entirely of it is not.
Auntie E., I really can't believe you think that Icons of Evolution article is neutral. It's totally biased against the book! It makes such sweeping claims such as that all biologists buy into evolution; I gave you three names and I certainly hope I don't have to go door-to-door and find the name of every person who believes in intelligent design in order to convince you that not everyone is evolutionist. If there was proof that evolution was real, there wouldn't be such a big controversy. The evidence, the solid facts for evlution, is thinner than anyone thinks. Textbooks make lots of generalizations that have no backing, and I think these are the basis of your arguments.
Can you please tell me why it isn't okay to add some stuff in the article about what the book says? The section about the chapter on Darwin's finches contained one thing: a quote abusing it. Is that bias or what??? I wrote some information on the chapter and it was promptly deleted.
You say that it's misleading to imply that intelligent design could be real in a non-biased article. Open your eyes. Isn't the article, by your own reasoning, misleading people by leaning heavily towards evolution? You called MY stuff misleading?
I'm going to keep pushing at this until I am allowed to do something. Are you more interested in the integrity of Wikipedia or maintaining your own evolutionist bias? -- Thalia14 ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I wrote:
Our articles reflect the scientific point of view when it comes to articles on science. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that evolution is well-supported and that intelligent design and creationism are not science. This is sourced.
This is not "the majority of people." Scientific consensus refers to the relevant opinion of biologists, experts in the field. Somewhere around 99% of biologists accept evolution and common descent. In fact, it's one the most well-supported theories there is in science today, see Level of support for evolution. So yes, our articles will be biased to reflect the opinions of experts in the field. Same with the article on heliocentrism and germ theory. I do not have to "prove" evolution to you for the article to reflect our policy on NPOV. If you honestly want to find out about the subject, look at the Evolution page, and if that's too technical, try the Introduction to evolution page. You have been asked several times to read the relevant pages regarding neutral point of view especially noting our due weight and fringe view guidelines. Unless you read and understand these, this conversation cannot go any further. You may persist, but unless you gain consensus for your edits on the talk page of the article, you won't get very far. Please take any other issues you have to the talk page of the article. Auntie E. 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
On the Michael Behe article, I added a reference to Behe's response to the quoted statements by Judge Jones about Behe. You removed them, with the remark "not a rebuttal." What does that mean?
-- Swood100 ( talk) 14:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi ( talk) 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
sock puppets are abusive. This is an alt account, as allowed by policy. It is not a disruptive sock. Please would you consider removing your accusation and assumption of bad faith? Or, if you have evidence of harm being done by this account, have this account blocked. Remember Civility ( talk) 19:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You say "Socks are not to be used to edit project space" - where does policy say this please? SOCK says "Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.[1]" - this alt account does not edit policies, guidelines or their talkpages; it does not comment in Abritration proceedings; it does not vote in RfA or deletion debates or elections. You are wrong - using an alt account to comment on ANI is allowed y policy, this account is an alt account, not a sock. I consider your use of the word sock (after I've explained the use of sock / alt account) to be a personal attack. Please have clear evidence next time you call this legitimate alt account a sock. Remember Civility ( talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw ( talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the merging of Sudbury Valley School into Sudbury school. If you would like to vote on the merger, please visit Talk:Sudbury school#Merger Two. PYRRHON talk 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I'm convinced at last. There is no integrity in Wikipedia and no room for any serious discussions ... even on Discussion Pages ... this is why information from Wikipedia is held in so much contempt.
I'm resigning. Now it will just be a community of the Sames. DasV ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort articles are frequent targets of vandalism, and have seen an uptick of it recently, perhaps due to the Origin of Species flap. Protecting them was perfectly reasonable. Nightscream ( talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you participated in adding criticism to the Realclimate article. There is a mediation cabal request to add a small criticism section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-01/Realclimate I've noticed that this debate has been doing on for 2 years now without resolve. The same individuals hover over the page to keep criticism out.( Meltwaternord ( talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
In your comments to me regarding the article on Stephen C. Meyer you are correct that Myers is a scientist, I thought as much was informed in the text as I had originally written it. Notice when I edited back in the "ID critic" comment, I did not omit that he was a biologist, just adding that he is well known as an ID critic, as his own Wikipedia page clearly states in the first paragraph. Myers qualifications should be stated, but his actions should be as well.
In its current form, I do not feel that the article gives undue weight to the minority viewpoint at all, I think we have reached a nice middle ground. The problem has been that no consensus is being reached and over-editing is occurring, in which certain editors are walking a fine line at demonstrating bias.
A fine example would be ID as a "controversial" theory. You added pseudoscientific (which it is), but deleted controversial. ID is one of the more controversial topics of the last decade. One need just look to the articles on Intelligent Design to see that it has created no end of controversy.
Accusing me of edit-warring is rather off-base. In looking at your history I can tell this is a "pet topic" for you...so I would like to remind you that it takes at least two to edit war and that objectivity is not subjective...this shouldn't be post-modernism at work here, and the minority viewpoint must be treated fairly, while still acknowledging it is in the minority. I would once again ask you to look over the Wikipedia policies on bias and NPOV here, particularly the section on impartial tone, as well as guidelines regarding Writing for the Opponent here.
I was hesitant to open up a discussion on this because I felt no discussion was needed, but as future edits come along I will be happy to do so.
Biaspo ( talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I never reverted that page, i requested speedy deletion. What are you talking about?-- General Cheese 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
May I ask why you removed my edit on 'Human Biology'? Do you have some doubts as to whether chiropractic schools offer the degrees I mentioned? If you have any doubts that they offer Bachelor degrees in Human Biology that differ considerably from that discussed in the article, please see http://www.cce-usa.org/Accredited_Doctor_Chiro.html
I am more than willing to discuss this with you. I hope you're willing to dialogue with me too. DarkApollo ( talk) 10:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing important, just responded. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda ( talk) 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You should go back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing). I've left a new comment there.
A1DF67 ( talk) 03:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the article does provide for a list of residences for Stein, it seemed appropriate to at a minimum include this residence on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One-Off Contributor ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was never almost blocked for my behavior. If you'll read the past AN/I incident, a user (Coldplay Expert) proposed a malformed "topic ban" after the issue had already been resolved (which Jclemens corrected him on). He apologized afterwards
In the past AFD, I addressed each of Seregain's allegations individually and proved that most of them were lies or misunderstandings, and also provided a series of links which show that he is a likely banned editor come back under a new screenname for the purpose of pushing an evangelical Christian POV (he has only 200 edits, his 1st of which was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and this is just the tip of the iceberg).
Since Jclemens ended the dispute, Seregain's edits were never reviewed, but I'll be happy to bring them back up again. As for "wikistalking", Seregain linked to an offsite forum profile which he believed to be me and complained on Wikipedia for something said offline (personally I think he deserves an immediate ban for trying to "out" me on other sites, but I'll let the admins handle it).-- SuaveArt ( talk) 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Aunt Entropy. Thanks for the friendly message. I've reviewed your edits and wanted to quickly discuss my thoughts. I think you're correct to delete the item about Roger Waters being an atheist. He is and I have a good source (a direct link to the full Rocky Mountain News interview) but his lack of belief didn't play much of a role in his art. I will leave your edit as is.
I disagree, however, on the matter of Eugenie Scott. I think her lack of belief is very relevant, given she's fighting Intelligent Design and the Religious Right. I know you said that she identifies herself as a nontheist and not an atheist, but in the Wikipedia article, there are two somewhat conflicting sentences in a row. Here they are:
Scott is now a secular humanist and describes herself as a nontheist. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Scott describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality."
If both were properly sourced, this would be a big dilemma, but the sentence about her being a nontheist is unsourced and the sentence about her being an atheist is sourced from the San Francisco Chronicle. I will be adding her back to the category of American atheists tomorrow, but I just wanted to address your concerns first. Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts. Thanks again. I'm new here so I'm bound to make some rookie mistakes and I appreciate people helping me get Wikipedia's policies correct. JohnnyGerms ( talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Entropy, just a quick note to let you know I've declined this case for checkuser as per your request, let me know if you have any questions about this or have changed your mind (I've also tagged the case as a duck case and have recommended a block, again, please let me know if you have any questions about this). On a related note, it may be worth your while taking a look at Nathan's comment at
Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks#Trainees?, if you haven't already.
Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I already decided to ignore his baseless accusations, but your advice is still appreciated as an encouragement. Seregain ( talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
From me. Auntie E. ( talk) 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate everything you're doing to help with this situation. I'm really truly sorry that I am in part at fault for why all this continues to happen. I should've never entered into any level of conflict with him. Seregain ( talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,-- Swood100 ( talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you left a note about deletion of text - I wonder who this is? Doesn't look new to me. Dougweller ( talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if you said that there shouldn't be proselytizing, then how come you restored that creationist's soapbox rant about fossils being evidence of Noah's flood?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello the Justine Bateman case has been resolved so there was no need to bring it back up. And i need you to show me exactly what i did wrong, and i kind of feel that it was wrong to use a threat against me on my talk page, that's why i removed it a few minutes ago. Please post the talkback template on my Talk page, so i can respond if you have any further concerns! Thanks!--Written by General Cheese 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Written by General Cheese 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you ignored the last message, re-read it i included more. Written by General Cheese 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Written by General Cheese 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I do apologize for my behavior, it was uncalled for. I was getting frustrated, and i was not thinking clearly.
I'm sorry about not letting you know about this. I was considering going back to find everyone, particularly admins, who was involved with SA, but it was getting to be 2 in the morning here! Thanks for your help, though. Seregain ( talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Written by General Cheese 06:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand your being annoyed with that character, but he's blocked from responding on his own talk page, which is why I reverted my question to him - because he can't answer (not under that IP, anyway). ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Go back through his edits and count all the lies. The base dishonesty is simply shocking. And he's proud of it! IMO, a month-long ban isn't nearly long enough. Ah, well. If he comes back (I don't doubt he will), I'm sure he will be quickly dealt with again. (And I'll make sure to let others handle it.) Seregain ( talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Auntie, I appreciate and agree with your sentiment about what should be done on Wikipedia. At the same time, we need to recognize when something is not being done and may never be done correctly, and see if there is another neutral alternative that does not create all the overhead. Both sides agree that there has been no satisfactory solution to reach a stable consensus. Well, why not see if there is another neutral alternative? Perhaps there isn't one -- but after months and years of relentless debate, it may be worth a few minutes of brainstorming to put this to bed and get back to the constructive editing we all came here to do. EGMichaels ( talk) 02:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that the above individual appears to be self promoting at [ [9]]. Isnt this a violation of the rules under COI? Wikibacmd 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibacdoctor ( talk • contribs)
Auntie E,
Since you've been involved in the maelstrom at Talk:Genesis creation myth on and off for quite some time now and seem to have a good grasp of policy and standards etc... I want to ask if you would do me the favor of taking a quick look at the ANI posting I'll be making this afternoon regarding a discussion ban on the whole "creation myth" mess. you can find the draft here. Feel free to make comments or edits.
Thanks! Nefariousski ( talk) 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
I think we need to review, firstly, the distinction between the TRADITIONAL and the COLLOQUIAL use of the word "MYTH."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
1. Traditional meaning
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory
Other definitions
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths
It is clear, from the above, that the colloquial use of the word "myth" (as in "that propaganda is a 'myth' ") involves definition 2a ("an unfounded or false notion") which we can see demonstrated right here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode.html
However, the use of the term/phrase "longevity myth" in fact refers to the first definition. The extreme age claims of early Japanese emperors are "ostensibliy historical events" that serve to enshrine the imperial line of Japan further back in the ancient past; the same may be said of Jewish genealogies which include ages of up to 969 years. By the way, the Bible itself questions their veracity:
<< 1 Timothy 1:4 >>
New International Version (©1984) nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.
<< Titus 1:14 >>
New International Version (©1984) and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.
At least TWICE, the BIBLE ITSELF uses the word "MYTH" to describe earlier literature, including the genealogies of the Old Testament.
These are all points you may wish to consider before proceeding with this discussion. Ryoung122 11:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently proposed a merger here and it looks like it should be okay to go ahead with it, but I don't understand what the next step should be according to Help:Merging. Can you help me? Seregain ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
. Arjun 024 10:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Aunt Entropy, just posting to let you know that we've decided that you'd be fine as a trainee clerk at SPI, sorry for the long delay in getting round to this. I will be training you, if this is alright, (although training is a fairly open process and everyone pitches in a little). If you spend some time in #wikipedia-en-spi then we should run into each other. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kind regards, Spitfire Tally-ho! 23:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was on the SPI page because the Admin who closed this case asked me to view it to see how to reopen the case. I could not find out how to do that. Could you please reopen the case for me? If you look at the case's talkpage, today I caught a new sockpuppett named Train12 editting his userpage just like highyack07. Thanks.-- Morenooso ( talk) 17:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that part of the policy can refer to new account/s being created with the sole purpose of harassing another user, so long as the accounts display an understanding of wiki markup and convention. It may also refer to several other situations. Typically checks without an alleged sock master are rare, and they should definitely be reviewed with care, especially if the alleged sock appears to be a good faith user. Bear in mind that the main reason that the possibility of a check without a known master is mentioned in that policy is to highlight the fact that it does not count as fishing. In any matter, sock puppetry allegations should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and each time when reviewing a case one should fully look into the situation to determine whether or not sock puppetry is likely.
Hope this helps somewhat, kindest regards
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
07:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've read your comments on my talk page. You are entitled your opinion of course but I stand by my actions. This seems to be a clear case of spamming which needs to be dealt with firmly.
What is incontrovertible is that a few days ago 173.163.134.97 added links to several Fox Chapel Publishing websites to a range of articles. When they were removed they were re-added by another IP editor and subsequently by Gloden, a new user. It is also easy to verify that 173.163.134.97 is an IP address assigned to Fox Chapel Publishing. If Gloden is to be believed then somebody at Fox Chapel added those links, and identical links were re-added by a new user acting independently less than 24 hours later, and that users apparently created an account for the express purpose of adding those links. I believe that that is stretching credibility. Sure, you'd need a CU to confirm it for certain but it appears clear that there is a prima facie case there.
Both user Gloden and the IP editors were told that the links added were in contravention of policy on external links but chose to ignore that fact. The edit summaries suggest that the reverting edit summaries were being read and that they were aware of the nature of their addition but they were willing to persist in re-adding the links anyway. There comes a point where AGF is no longer tenable: when it is clear that the true motives of an editor are not in the best interest of the project AGF should be dropped. I believe that was reached a long time ago and when that point is reached the conclusion is simple: he is a spammer and should be dealt with accordingly. My post at AN/I did not solicit any concerns about my own behaviour - the response seemed to confirm my reading of the issue.
Having said this I don't believe myself to be infallible so I'll open this up to editor review to see if the general consensus is if I have acted appropriately. CrispMuncher ( talk) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You declined checkuser because it would be stale when there were socks blocked less than 5 months ago. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar. This seems a little odd. Is this usual practice? Polargeo ( talk) 10:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I redirected it back to the main article and realized after than you had created another one just before me. They were problematic for a couple of reasons at least. Besides the dubious renaming of those new articles, there really wasn't any suitable lead or unifying introduction in any of them. I thought it best to redirect back to the main article for the time being, before any new content to speak of accrued in any of them. You can see my reasons here. If you have any reservations about my redirects, please comment there. Thanks. Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Those were very kind words, thank you. And thanks, but....dealing with hunting references, content etc in controversial articles is a walk in the park compared to admin-ship. I'm grateful to you and others willing to do the really tuff stuff, but I wouldn't-couldn't. I know what I'm cut out for, and what I'm not. :) But thank you again, and for bring editors up short when they need it. Professor marginalia ( talk) 17:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I specifically requested a hiatus on the ref war during Pesach because I would not be there, and said I would restore them on my return if someone took a cheap shot during the holiday. This is on the talk page. Don't act so shocked. EGMichaels ( talk) 13:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I wasn't a fan either, hence my moderating edit. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems a bit strange. Was it intentional? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
But that's just it, they're most certainly NOT good faith edits. I have had NO good faith shown to me since I joined this site, this is an orchestrated attempt by people to have me banned for something. I will not be checking here for a response so don't bother. Lefty101 ( talk) 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
...and yes, I'd like a CU on that account, if you'd be so kind. I left word on the request page as well. PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. I've seen these wholesale, rapid-fire changes before to this same basic subject matter, but doggoned if I can remember who the original user was. Should have requested the CU from the get-go. Thanks for taking care of my incompetence. :) Signing off...-- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 03:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a personal attack because I didn't personally attack any editor. It simply is my opinion. Nothing against you. And assuming and stating that this is a "religious thing" is a very invalid assunption. There are definitely "elitists" here who attempt to swing various topics towards there POV; this can be blatantly seen throughout many controversial WP topics. I never said you (or anyone else) were one of those people. I did not personally attack anyone. -- ΙΧΘΥΣ ( talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to make you aware of this. Since you posted the material, technically noone should alter what you wrote. But, since you were quoting another user (who was the one who removed it) not sure what the procedure is here. By definition, noone should alter another's talk page comments. I am just letting you know since I do not want to get into the middle here. - OberRanks ( talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to drop you a note re your post on the talk page at John Pershing. The comments that I made on a different article do not belong there. It is irrevelant how I feel, or have felt, about a different article. With that having been stated, yes, I did say that there was no reason to use an incendary term when a neutral one suffices. That was a different time, on a different article, with completely different reasoning. I will not clutter up your talk page with the myriad reasons that I oppose "Genesis Creation myth", whilst approving "Nigger Jack". I will, however, be more than happy to discuss it with you upon request. All the best- Mk5384 ( talk) 13:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That you have endorsed a CU, not giving me any chance to reply, and that within minutes therafter, a CU being run is unacceptable. The question has flipped from me being possibly this Hetoum to me not having the right to use alternative accounts. Why then this account was not blocked? Rather a CU was endorsed! Admission of alternative accounts in no way can be used as evidence whatsoever that I am user Hetoum. No evidences have ever been provided, behavioral or otherwise that I am Hetoum yet a CU was endorsed over the admission of the uses of an alternative account. Please explain. What prevent me now to request a CU on any new suspicious users to check that user with a banned user and just having to show the user is suspicious without having to provide any evidence which link that user with the banned user in question. Behavioral or otherwise. Ionidasz ( talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
WT...? Come on! Creating a sock to comment on other editors? I can't believe you can take words at face value without checking the actual edits! An account created to make a comment on the relevancy of a template. Ionidasz ( talk) 04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the evidence was very misleading. And there were innacurate info after checking the diffs. For example: and protested being checkusered, what can be found from that account was this, not a CU protest. It was a clear cut case of attempting to link me to others, with such evidences that, he protested like user y, he must be that user. You can't then accuse me to check his contributions after the request to find out that about the time that he requested a CU on me, he filled a report about another user here, when it would have taken about 10 seconds to tell that only the last edit was a revert. It should not be acceptable to fill CUs at the first edit of an account, or bogus claims of reverts when such reverts there is not against editors who do not agree with his positions. Besides, with the email I have sent you, you should have known the users he accused to be me could not have been me, since he requested CUs previously at the same time I was contributing with my primary account and that account would have come during the check. As for the socks, they're very occasional, and most of the time, I don't keep their password. In any case, I am busy, and won't contribute much, but I think Grandmaster should at least be warned to not jump to the guns like this. Ionidasz ( talk) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is my last reply regarding this, Spitfire, I think you are giving arguments to Grandmaster to fill another bogus request. He will probably use your reply if someone show this case because he too would be victmin of a bogus request. The alternative account claim does not make sens, as I was in no way behaving in such matter which would justify from Grandmasters part to request two different check. You claim I have behaved like those Grandmaster claimed I possibly was. How so? Note that the issue of the alternative account was not even raised then, and I have commented on a matter touching history and Grandmaster announced that request for opinion in an article talkpage which is subject to a heated discussion. Could I have been a new user who edited Wikipedia for the first time? Sure! That's the important thing here. Had I not said it was an alternative account and attempted to defend the position that I was a new user there would have been no argument for a CU to begin with. Because Grandmaster would be needing to explain why it was not possible that I would have found that request for an opinion regarding history as a new user, when he provided it's link in a heated article talkpage. The endorser now admitting there was no clear substance and even apologizing, the blaim remain on the filler of the request, who also at the same time attempted to have another user on indefinit restriction by attempting to pass edits as reverts. Clerks should be careful when endorsing checks, and even checking the accounts requested when in presence of several accounts. If for example someone add accounts on Hetoum_I CU page, other users which were unconnected to him from prior checks should not be added. That would be fishing at best. On this I conclude. Ionidasz ( talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Aunt Entropy, just dropping you a quick note regarding
this, which I assume is the result of the recent GC issue (which we have discussed at some length, so I won't go into details). While I am sorry that you have decided that you need to take break from clerking (presumably) due to this, the decision is, of course, entirely up to you. Once you feel that the matter has been settled or is no longer of concern you should be more than welcome to return to clerking if you still want to (and any appearances in the meantime will be gladly received). As a clerk you have been progressing well, and I look forward to seeing you around SPI again once the matter is resolved. (Of course, if you're just going on holiday I'm going to look like a total nitwit now
).
Kindest regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you planning on returning to clerking in the near future? Also, thanks for the comments at my RFA as I really value them from someone whom I worked with for all two or three weeks on IRC. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Saw your comment on Jpgordon's talk page. So far as I'm concerned, the provision against "Editing project space" in WP:ILLEGIT covers it. It's not permitted to create a sock to edit project space divorced from your mainspace edits. I think we could probably get a consensus to make it more explicit if you think it's necessary.— Kww( talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You have mail. — fetch · comms 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wanted to advise you of this, since the "false accusation of sockpuppetry" is one of the major points that has been brought up, in case you wanted to weigh in. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384. - OberRanks ( talk) 13:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As an editor of this redirect, you may be interested to know it is currently being discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 21#Christian nation. Robofish ( talk) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Thanks for drawing my EAR on EAAN to Guettarda's notice ( here). I'm sure he knows all about it, though, as I informed all editors on that article by way of a new thread on the relevant talk-page. Regards. -- Muzhogg ( talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: "please gain consensus for your edits on talk page"
Could you please write (as example) the gaining consensus entry. Contributions/76.16.176.166 ( talk) 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[4] Reverted again and replied on the talk page. And, for what it's worth, I'm obviously assuming bad faith, but on the part of the person who originally inserted this fact, [5] not you. Your motivations are clearly different (and far less cynical). SluggoOne ( talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
RE this edit: Thanks. This article, to me at least, plainly needs an extra-cautious eye to be kept within bounds w.r.t. WP:NOR, despite the sparse content it presents to date. Offhand I roughly imagine a fairly large lot of individuals who collectively fancy themselves potentially the next Albert Einstein--progenitors of the next big quantum leap, as it were, if only it were possible to avoid the hard work of scientific method. Put another way: "How might I rearrange the world so I don't have to subject my ideas to intense scrutiny by the existing scientific community in order to sell my ideas to the world"-- or something like that. :-) I'm just speculating of course, so please feel free to correct me if you think I'm significantly off the mark here. ,,, Kenosis ( talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Some things are obvious as shining sun. You question it. Here is, i hope quite good help. If you read the art (did you?), wiki alone give enough data to conceptualization: when cell structure may be embossed in silicate during fossilization then counting and measuring macroscopic futures is rather trivial. There is also a picture. 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
On the admin noticeboard a short while ago you used the term SPA - please could you explain what it means?¬¬¬¬
I've edited my comment to link to the page in question. Auntie E ( talk) 00:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the explanation on article talk and reconsider your reversion. The issue is not "notability" (which, as per WP:N, only "refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article"), but rather A) medical reliability as per WP:MEDRS; B) excessive prominence of selective information drawn from a primary source, contravening WP:PSTS; and C) sheer excess, as opposed to WP:SS. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't making a personal attack, I was pointing out Blaxthos' bias, as you pointed out mine. And I can't earnestly talk to someone about someone else on their talk page? PokeHomsar ( talk) 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you reverted a reversion while a discussion was going on. I'm not entirely sure of the protocol, but I rather thought that it was BRD not Bee aRe DeRe (that's supposed to be funny BTW) ;-) Would you object to reversing your revert and joining the discussion on the Ian Stevenson page? Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
See my comment on the talk page. Using a document written five centures or so after the end of the ANE whose meaning is disputed... Dougweller ( talk) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And how about if I accuse editors of racism JUSTLY? I have been banned out of the blue by an editor who was never involved in the article in question, after a long period when the article itself was not being edited at all (far less edited disruptively), merely for striving to include ON THE TALK PAGE content which certain persons (the racists in question) did not agree with! There were no warnings of any sort on the subject, there was no community discussion that I am aware of (certainly I was never advised of any such process) and as far as I can tell the required process was never followed. One particular editor one day decides s/he doesn't like the PROPOSED content and four editors get a six month ban! What are we supposed to conclude here - WTF happened to AGF??????? And as regards Dubya - he did actually say that, with a big goofy grin that told the whole world exactly what he thinks of international law. You might be his godmother, but public figures must live with what they say. Anything else is censorship. Wdford ( talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You have removed routine and sourced biographical information from this BLP, and have restored factually incorrect content. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljulie ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I see your thirteenth edit and raise you five to tango. :P Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you have been asked this already, but could you change your signature so that it includes a link to your talk page? That would make it easier for people to reach you. The code
[[User talk:Aunt Entropy|<font color="483D8B" face="lucida blackletter">Auntie E.</font>]]
would show up exactly the same as your current signature, and would be hardly any longer. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
[[User talk:Aunt Entropy#top|<font color="483D8B" face="lucida blackletter">Auntie E.</font>]]
Hello,
I wanted to add just a small edit to David Icke page but it has been removed twice. Personally I think the date of transmission of the Wogan show is relevant and very hard to come by on the internet. The date I provide is the date that is shown on the Jon Ronson documentary. People who would want to see this particular show can do so by going to the BFI archive and requesting a viewing. They can only do this if they have the exact date of transmission. The fact that this wogan episode is not available on the internet is of interest to me as it has been miss-quoted many times. Even in the Icke article it should read 'Son of godhead' not 'Son of god'
Please advise me how we can incorporate this important information into the David Icke page. Bsosaka ( talk) 03:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
In response to your comment: The welcome template in question was added 3 years ago before I added my warning. SOrry for not responding sooner. CardinalDan ( talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Off to bed now but I've reported the IP to 3RR. Dougweller ( talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Joelg549 rants about Jesus race, declares his goal is to get Aunt Entropy banned. Shouts in CAPS that she is CLEARLY CHILDISH. I'd say pot:kettle except it doesn't apply if its only the accuser. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You may find this discussion on the Race of Jesus article. I post this as a warning to all and hope it may benefit others who have had difficult dealings with this very passionate and opinionated entity called "Aunt Entropy" that should CLEARLY not be editing Wikipedia articles. It is my goal to have such individuals as this banned for they are holding back the development of Wikipedia by thumbing their nose at it's admins and actual historians. Wikipedia is a great website, let's do our part to keep it that way. -Joel Ginsberg Originally the section on Jesus' Ancestors (within the Race of Jesus article) existed unmolested for at least a year. As a Jewish historian I added a few relevant points including reference to the best and perhaps only ancient authority on the subject: Josephus, also noting the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, the Strong's Concordance and the Bible itself. All direct quotes from records, no opinion or original research given at all. It was immediately approved by Wikipedia admin Woohookitty who made one minor change to help clarify a reference. Then "Aunt Entropy" deleted the whole section, including all information and details that others had diligently added prior to my amendments, which had stood unmolested and approved for many months. Reason given by "Aunt Entropy" for deletion of full section was: "completely irrelevant OR, being bold and cutting it)". Jesus' forefather's historical physical descriptions from the bible and the most authoritative Jewish historian, Joseph, is about the ONLY relevant thing on an article titled "Race of Jesus". Anyone can logically estimate that Jesus' own forefathers were of the same race as himself. A child can understand this. "Aunt Entropy" other reason was: "being bold and cutting it". This I literally do not understand, in all sincerity it does not even seem to be proper English, though it smacks of being heated and personal. It is without doubt that this individual has an axe to grind and not objective at all. Regardless of improper English or ill conceived notions, neither reason disputes the accuracy or authenticity of references to Jesus' ancestral descriptions. UPDATE, Once again: "Aunt Entropy" has gone against the admins of Wikipedia and a Jewish Historian both of whom are clear on all facts leaving out all opinions, with regards to the only real historical relevance to the "race" or ancestry of Jesus (through physical descriptions of Christ's relatives). Clearly this person(s) has an axe to grind and should be immediately BANDED from Wikipedia. It is an outrage, that "Aunt Entropy" still has an account after such childish behavior, it seems very much that I am dealing with an immature individual that has no place being involved in a serious online endeavor to record public information. "Aunt Entropy", whoever this is, describes his/her reasoning for removing old already Wikipedia approved entries twice as: "(I don't see anything on the talkpage about this section, and I don't care what admin approved it, it's original research)" So let me get this straight, just so I understand his/her's reckless idea of how Wikipedia works: if it is not on the talkpage, regardless of Jesus' ancestors CLEARLY being relevant to his race and approved by official Wikipedia admins, fully reference and backed by a Jewish scholar, then "Aunt Entropy" has a right to just simply take it down? I'm sorry, but who are you again? Are you the founder of Wikipedia or some type of higher level admin? The truth is your are not, and your pretentious presumptuous pandering will NOT go unchecked. I love Wikipedia and all that it stands for, the creators have produced one of the most brilliant online websites since the webs inception. I use it all the time, but people like "Aunt Entropy" are holding back it's progress with personal options, axes to grind and frankly childish behavior. "Aunt Entropy", may I say that the people of Wikipedia are trying to develop an online encyclopedia for the world to use, not a playground for you to put all your petty little beliefs and opinions into, go start a blog, that is what they are for. But for God's sake stop trying to use Wikipedia to support your own personal ideas as if it was created to be some sort of baby blanket and pacifier for your ideology... to be used to make you feel better about the world as you see it, to fit it into your little box. You have no place in this online exercise and should be removed and I will see to it personally. "Aunt Entropy's" second argument consists of SLAMMING the admins by telling everyone here, he/she "does not care" about what the official sanctioned admins rulings are. Someone with such a careless disregard for a public online encyclopedia should never be allowed to contribute. "Aunt Entropy", you need to respect the founders and admins even if you will not respect a Hebrew scholar on the subject. Thirdly "Aunt Entropy", grasping for straws in delusion fervor claims that "it is original research", and so I say, what pray tell is "original research"? How is an ancient historian's comments on a historical physical profile "original research", this is NOT my research at all it is merely ancient records from Josephus. Do you know who he is? Please see his article on Wikipedia. Like many of the articles on this website, it is a good one, and I will insist that this article hold the same standard. There are multiple Hebrew scholars who agree, but the ancient reference itself clearly illustrate the point better than anyone's personal opinion. "Aunt Entropy" I just want you to know that I will not rest until you are removed and/or severely reprimanded for your childish and careless behavior on Wikipedia. In short you have no place here. I have changed it back and will do so each and every day you underhandedly remove this approved section. I WILL be alerting the authorities with regards to your flagrant disrespect for the admins, real historians and the rules of Wikipedia. You are in breach of contract (read the Wikipedia rules again) and you have been sufficiently addressed on this subject. Sincerely, Joel Ginsberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Repy to "Descriptions of David" by "Aunt Entropy" Yes you have been bold, very bold. And you should not have been. Do you know how long it supposedly takes for one species or race to magically "turn" into another, if you believe this? Millions and Millions of years, NOT 10 generations of a race (giving each "father" generation 100 years). NO ONE in the world in their right mind would say that your ancestors would look markedly different from you racially going back only 7 to 8 generations or even 10 or 50 (but you only need less than 10 over span of 1k years) which is really no time at all. Take the history of ANY people on the globe, do you think going back 1000 years in China the Chinese would look different? Go back and look at their ancient drawings of themselves from that period 1000 years back. They look the same. Do you think that going back 1000 years or only 10 generations (giving each "father" generation 100 years) in Ireland means the people magically transformed into a different racial type? One need only look at the drawings of the Irish 1000 year ago, they look very much the same. This is ludicrous, you are not an anthropologist but I am and you ideas are childish, unfounded and CLEARLY opinionated. Be "BOLD", brushing everything with a wide opinionated brush, making wild generalizations is not the signature of a good public Encyclopedia editor, but rather the marks of pure novice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
So when are you going to let me nom you for admin? KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the votes of confidence...I'm glad I have your back...some of the most awesome backs in the wiki for sho if I must say so. :) Auntie E. 14:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Okie dokie then! So you'll let me know when you've composed answers to the standard questions and have sufficient time and bandwidth for answering the nitpicky optional questions, yes? I look forward to it! I'll start writing the nom right now in my
User:KillerChihuahua/Sandbox so I'll be ready to post.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a case concerning the aforementioned user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.15.125.234. I noticed that the User has been reverting your edits Wapondaponda ( talk) 09:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't want Talk:Muhammad/images getting any more off-track than it already tends to be, but I enjoyed the distinction between "force", "addiction", and "compulsion". I've seen your contribs at a number of articles I watch or participate in, and I admire your editing. Of course, you're a friend of the Puppy, so more is expected of you than of any ordinary mortal or mundane editor : ) Doc Tropics 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Aunt Entropy, I'm sorry to not preview my changes well enough to see what i was doing in editing the "United States" part. Please accept my apologies. I will try to do better in the future. Earlysda ( talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have a problem with this edit, then you are the one who needs to show support for such an inflammatory statement. Show exactly where the AFA Journal sells the McGuffrey Readers and where the readers "claim that Jews are "superstitious" and have been rejected by God for being unfaithful to him." I can't find either in the reference provided. Can you? If so, where? 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
See the article's talk section. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC) A
An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind ( talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your correct reversion of someone's deletion of Einstein from the lead of Secularism. However I've removed Einstein again along with Dawkins for very different reasons. Please see the talk page if you are interested. Cheers. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've notice you've reverted the listing of conspiracy theories regarding Jewish world domination. But that does not conform to taking over the world, world domination, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's my understanding that world domination is a pejorative specifically applied to Jews. So would you reconsider your reversion, and advise me how we can re-reconcile thesec article to be consistent with one another? Thanks. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock ( talk) 07:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you remove my footnote #15? if so why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardecker ( talk • contribs)
I can see where you are coming from. I will do some more research on the "Perfect Preservation view" of the TR/KJV issue. It is a notable concept, perhaps very much akin to D.A. Waite, David Cloud, and a host of other pro-KJV proponents. I just need to connect the dots and document this. I am just curious, and perhaps you can help me (I am a new Wikipedian, btw), would it be appropriate to cite this view in the KJV Only movement article, or to begin a new one? I tend to think that this view is an elaboration of a more balanced approach for the superiority of the TR and the KJV being an accurate and faithful translation, and not "inspired" like Peter Ruckman teaches. What say you? and Thank you Aunt E., Bhardecker 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not a policy [7]. HarryAlffa ( talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING MY ADDITIONS? Don't give me that junk about "neutral point of view." The very first sentence of the current article condemns the book as pseudoscientific. Look that word up. I'm pretty sure that's not neutral! Many sweeping claims are made in the article, such as that ALL biologists consider evolution one of the central theories of biology. I know for a FACT that isn't true, and I can give three names to prove it: Michael Behe, Dean Kenyon, and Phillip Johnson. Please let me fix this article. Even if you are an evolutionist, you should be able to see that the entire article is aimed at tearing down the book Icons of Evolution. I've tried to add some actual information about what the book actually says (which should be what the article's about anyway), and some reviews that are actually positive. Someone who read this NEUTRAL article would walk away thinking that Jonathan Wells was some two-bit scientist with nothing good to say and a book with nothing credible in it. I put a lot of work and thought into those revisions, and I really don't appreciate you deleting them
I am sincerely interesting in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I started working on this article because I could see that it was (and thanks to you cooperation, still IS) anything but neutral. If you have any advice as to what I can write that won't be deleted in two minutes, I will read it. What am I doing that's wrong?
Sorry if I ranted, but I did really want to improve the article, and I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about. Please respond to me. -- Thalia14 ( talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
When I first saw the two articles in question, I almost just quite ikipedia then and there. I share your anxiety about people positioning anti-Semitism as just another "view."
And this idea that calling someone an anti-Semite is a personal attack, whereas being an anti-Semite is simply to hold a view .... this is deeply upsetting to me.
I really appreciated your recent question at AN/I. It is troublin that Noleaner is not capable of a dialogue. I am trying to figure out his friend, Equazcion - they really work as a tag team in discussions and I sometimes wonder if they are the same person. But I have no evidence, only that they always think the same thing, which is always diferent from what everyon else thinks. I am not sure I have the evidence to request a checkuser; I think it is just as likely that the two are lovers. Eq. left a note on my talk page explaining why Noleander would not answer my questions - that seemed weird, like Equa is Noleander's press secretary!
What is gratifying is the number of people who have voted to delete the two articles. And I am glad you are participating. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI Camelbinky just left a message on my talk page informing me that Noleander and Equavizcion are not only different, they are VERY different. Well, okay. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I agree with you. FYI this was the thread... So what is the next step? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
(Actually thought you were an admin, huh, surprise there!) Auntie E. 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. One admin closed down the AfD on "misuse of anti-Semitic accusations" - and then DGG (an editor for whom I usually have the utmost respect) left this comment [8]
Appropriate or not, his insisting that his view of those with whom he disagrees - e.g. me and you - is the correct view is a real refusal to assume good faith. I am sure that his vote to keep the article was made in good faith. Why can't my vote to delete it be in good faith? I don't think DGG is an anti-Semite but I think this is one example of just what you say, how good Wikipedians in good faith can really fail to see the big picture. But I havde to admit, it is th implied refusal to assume good faith on my part that really gnaws at me .... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment ... before I respond, I wanted to note that your comment was unsigned. You say I dropped my claim? I thought that claim that he wasn't notable had been dropped after much work had been done on the article, and the person who made it had started editing the article, rather than trying to delete it. There are numerous sources that support notability claims ... and it is these that the the user in question keeps deleting .. and then argues that he isn't notable! Nfitz ( talk) 19:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Auntie E., you said that to the wrong person. I'm persistent. Science -- true science -- is NOT a vote. So just because it's majority doesn't mean it's true. Now, if you can prove to me definitively and without question that evolution is true, I'll accept that and back down. But you can't do that, can you?
I'd like to know what the purpose of that article is. It's supposed to be about Icons of Evolution, isn't it? Sadly, while reading it, I found HARDLY ANYTHING on what was actually in the book. Nearly everything in the article was based on criticising it. And that is fine, as long as it's sourced. But when I tried to improve the article by adding what should have been there -- information from the book -- I found you calling me biased. By the way, your point about the majority of people believing in evolution, that's irrelevant; I don't think Galileo had the majority when he said the earth was round. This article is inexcusably biased towards evolution. If a book is written teaching that people were created by primordial robots, then a Wikipedia page on that book should include what the book taught. Criticism of it is okay, but an article constituted entirely of it is not.
Auntie E., I really can't believe you think that Icons of Evolution article is neutral. It's totally biased against the book! It makes such sweeping claims such as that all biologists buy into evolution; I gave you three names and I certainly hope I don't have to go door-to-door and find the name of every person who believes in intelligent design in order to convince you that not everyone is evolutionist. If there was proof that evolution was real, there wouldn't be such a big controversy. The evidence, the solid facts for evlution, is thinner than anyone thinks. Textbooks make lots of generalizations that have no backing, and I think these are the basis of your arguments.
Can you please tell me why it isn't okay to add some stuff in the article about what the book says? The section about the chapter on Darwin's finches contained one thing: a quote abusing it. Is that bias or what??? I wrote some information on the chapter and it was promptly deleted.
You say that it's misleading to imply that intelligent design could be real in a non-biased article. Open your eyes. Isn't the article, by your own reasoning, misleading people by leaning heavily towards evolution? You called MY stuff misleading?
I'm going to keep pushing at this until I am allowed to do something. Are you more interested in the integrity of Wikipedia or maintaining your own evolutionist bias? -- Thalia14 ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I wrote:
Our articles reflect the scientific point of view when it comes to articles on science. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that evolution is well-supported and that intelligent design and creationism are not science. This is sourced.
This is not "the majority of people." Scientific consensus refers to the relevant opinion of biologists, experts in the field. Somewhere around 99% of biologists accept evolution and common descent. In fact, it's one the most well-supported theories there is in science today, see Level of support for evolution. So yes, our articles will be biased to reflect the opinions of experts in the field. Same with the article on heliocentrism and germ theory. I do not have to "prove" evolution to you for the article to reflect our policy on NPOV. If you honestly want to find out about the subject, look at the Evolution page, and if that's too technical, try the Introduction to evolution page. You have been asked several times to read the relevant pages regarding neutral point of view especially noting our due weight and fringe view guidelines. Unless you read and understand these, this conversation cannot go any further. You may persist, but unless you gain consensus for your edits on the talk page of the article, you won't get very far. Please take any other issues you have to the talk page of the article. Auntie E. 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
On the Michael Behe article, I added a reference to Behe's response to the quoted statements by Judge Jones about Behe. You removed them, with the remark "not a rebuttal." What does that mean?
-- Swood100 ( talk) 14:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi ( talk) 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
sock puppets are abusive. This is an alt account, as allowed by policy. It is not a disruptive sock. Please would you consider removing your accusation and assumption of bad faith? Or, if you have evidence of harm being done by this account, have this account blocked. Remember Civility ( talk) 19:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You say "Socks are not to be used to edit project space" - where does policy say this please? SOCK says "Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.[1]" - this alt account does not edit policies, guidelines or their talkpages; it does not comment in Abritration proceedings; it does not vote in RfA or deletion debates or elections. You are wrong - using an alt account to comment on ANI is allowed y policy, this account is an alt account, not a sock. I consider your use of the word sock (after I've explained the use of sock / alt account) to be a personal attack. Please have clear evidence next time you call this legitimate alt account a sock. Remember Civility ( talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw ( talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the merging of Sudbury Valley School into Sudbury school. If you would like to vote on the merger, please visit Talk:Sudbury school#Merger Two. PYRRHON talk 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I'm convinced at last. There is no integrity in Wikipedia and no room for any serious discussions ... even on Discussion Pages ... this is why information from Wikipedia is held in so much contempt.
I'm resigning. Now it will just be a community of the Sames. DasV ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort articles are frequent targets of vandalism, and have seen an uptick of it recently, perhaps due to the Origin of Species flap. Protecting them was perfectly reasonable. Nightscream ( talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you participated in adding criticism to the Realclimate article. There is a mediation cabal request to add a small criticism section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-01/Realclimate I've noticed that this debate has been doing on for 2 years now without resolve. The same individuals hover over the page to keep criticism out.( Meltwaternord ( talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
In your comments to me regarding the article on Stephen C. Meyer you are correct that Myers is a scientist, I thought as much was informed in the text as I had originally written it. Notice when I edited back in the "ID critic" comment, I did not omit that he was a biologist, just adding that he is well known as an ID critic, as his own Wikipedia page clearly states in the first paragraph. Myers qualifications should be stated, but his actions should be as well.
In its current form, I do not feel that the article gives undue weight to the minority viewpoint at all, I think we have reached a nice middle ground. The problem has been that no consensus is being reached and over-editing is occurring, in which certain editors are walking a fine line at demonstrating bias.
A fine example would be ID as a "controversial" theory. You added pseudoscientific (which it is), but deleted controversial. ID is one of the more controversial topics of the last decade. One need just look to the articles on Intelligent Design to see that it has created no end of controversy.
Accusing me of edit-warring is rather off-base. In looking at your history I can tell this is a "pet topic" for you...so I would like to remind you that it takes at least two to edit war and that objectivity is not subjective...this shouldn't be post-modernism at work here, and the minority viewpoint must be treated fairly, while still acknowledging it is in the minority. I would once again ask you to look over the Wikipedia policies on bias and NPOV here, particularly the section on impartial tone, as well as guidelines regarding Writing for the Opponent here.
I was hesitant to open up a discussion on this because I felt no discussion was needed, but as future edits come along I will be happy to do so.
Biaspo ( talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I never reverted that page, i requested speedy deletion. What are you talking about?-- General Cheese 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
May I ask why you removed my edit on 'Human Biology'? Do you have some doubts as to whether chiropractic schools offer the degrees I mentioned? If you have any doubts that they offer Bachelor degrees in Human Biology that differ considerably from that discussed in the article, please see http://www.cce-usa.org/Accredited_Doctor_Chiro.html
I am more than willing to discuss this with you. I hope you're willing to dialogue with me too. DarkApollo ( talk) 10:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing important, just responded. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda ( talk) 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You should go back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing). I've left a new comment there.
A1DF67 ( talk) 03:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the article does provide for a list of residences for Stein, it seemed appropriate to at a minimum include this residence on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One-Off Contributor ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was never almost blocked for my behavior. If you'll read the past AN/I incident, a user (Coldplay Expert) proposed a malformed "topic ban" after the issue had already been resolved (which Jclemens corrected him on). He apologized afterwards
In the past AFD, I addressed each of Seregain's allegations individually and proved that most of them were lies or misunderstandings, and also provided a series of links which show that he is a likely banned editor come back under a new screenname for the purpose of pushing an evangelical Christian POV (he has only 200 edits, his 1st of which was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and this is just the tip of the iceberg).
Since Jclemens ended the dispute, Seregain's edits were never reviewed, but I'll be happy to bring them back up again. As for "wikistalking", Seregain linked to an offsite forum profile which he believed to be me and complained on Wikipedia for something said offline (personally I think he deserves an immediate ban for trying to "out" me on other sites, but I'll let the admins handle it).-- SuaveArt ( talk) 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Aunt Entropy. Thanks for the friendly message. I've reviewed your edits and wanted to quickly discuss my thoughts. I think you're correct to delete the item about Roger Waters being an atheist. He is and I have a good source (a direct link to the full Rocky Mountain News interview) but his lack of belief didn't play much of a role in his art. I will leave your edit as is.
I disagree, however, on the matter of Eugenie Scott. I think her lack of belief is very relevant, given she's fighting Intelligent Design and the Religious Right. I know you said that she identifies herself as a nontheist and not an atheist, but in the Wikipedia article, there are two somewhat conflicting sentences in a row. Here they are:
Scott is now a secular humanist and describes herself as a nontheist. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Scott describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality."
If both were properly sourced, this would be a big dilemma, but the sentence about her being a nontheist is unsourced and the sentence about her being an atheist is sourced from the San Francisco Chronicle. I will be adding her back to the category of American atheists tomorrow, but I just wanted to address your concerns first. Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts. Thanks again. I'm new here so I'm bound to make some rookie mistakes and I appreciate people helping me get Wikipedia's policies correct. JohnnyGerms ( talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Entropy, just a quick note to let you know I've declined this case for checkuser as per your request, let me know if you have any questions about this or have changed your mind (I've also tagged the case as a duck case and have recommended a block, again, please let me know if you have any questions about this). On a related note, it may be worth your while taking a look at Nathan's comment at
Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks#Trainees?, if you haven't already.
Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I already decided to ignore his baseless accusations, but your advice is still appreciated as an encouragement. Seregain ( talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
From me. Auntie E. ( talk) 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate everything you're doing to help with this situation. I'm really truly sorry that I am in part at fault for why all this continues to happen. I should've never entered into any level of conflict with him. Seregain ( talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,-- Swood100 ( talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you left a note about deletion of text - I wonder who this is? Doesn't look new to me. Dougweller ( talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if you said that there shouldn't be proselytizing, then how come you restored that creationist's soapbox rant about fossils being evidence of Noah's flood?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello the Justine Bateman case has been resolved so there was no need to bring it back up. And i need you to show me exactly what i did wrong, and i kind of feel that it was wrong to use a threat against me on my talk page, that's why i removed it a few minutes ago. Please post the talkback template on my Talk page, so i can respond if you have any further concerns! Thanks!--Written by General Cheese 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Written by General Cheese 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you ignored the last message, re-read it i included more. Written by General Cheese 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Written by General Cheese 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I do apologize for my behavior, it was uncalled for. I was getting frustrated, and i was not thinking clearly.
I'm sorry about not letting you know about this. I was considering going back to find everyone, particularly admins, who was involved with SA, but it was getting to be 2 in the morning here! Thanks for your help, though. Seregain ( talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Written by General Cheese 06:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand your being annoyed with that character, but he's blocked from responding on his own talk page, which is why I reverted my question to him - because he can't answer (not under that IP, anyway). ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Go back through his edits and count all the lies. The base dishonesty is simply shocking. And he's proud of it! IMO, a month-long ban isn't nearly long enough. Ah, well. If he comes back (I don't doubt he will), I'm sure he will be quickly dealt with again. (And I'll make sure to let others handle it.) Seregain ( talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Auntie, I appreciate and agree with your sentiment about what should be done on Wikipedia. At the same time, we need to recognize when something is not being done and may never be done correctly, and see if there is another neutral alternative that does not create all the overhead. Both sides agree that there has been no satisfactory solution to reach a stable consensus. Well, why not see if there is another neutral alternative? Perhaps there isn't one -- but after months and years of relentless debate, it may be worth a few minutes of brainstorming to put this to bed and get back to the constructive editing we all came here to do. EGMichaels ( talk) 02:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that the above individual appears to be self promoting at [ [9]]. Isnt this a violation of the rules under COI? Wikibacmd 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibacdoctor ( talk • contribs)
Auntie E,
Since you've been involved in the maelstrom at Talk:Genesis creation myth on and off for quite some time now and seem to have a good grasp of policy and standards etc... I want to ask if you would do me the favor of taking a quick look at the ANI posting I'll be making this afternoon regarding a discussion ban on the whole "creation myth" mess. you can find the draft here. Feel free to make comments or edits.
Thanks! Nefariousski ( talk) 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Greetings,
I think we need to review, firstly, the distinction between the TRADITIONAL and the COLLOQUIAL use of the word "MYTH."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
1. Traditional meaning
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory
Other definitions
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths
It is clear, from the above, that the colloquial use of the word "myth" (as in "that propaganda is a 'myth' ") involves definition 2a ("an unfounded or false notion") which we can see demonstrated right here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode.html
However, the use of the term/phrase "longevity myth" in fact refers to the first definition. The extreme age claims of early Japanese emperors are "ostensibliy historical events" that serve to enshrine the imperial line of Japan further back in the ancient past; the same may be said of Jewish genealogies which include ages of up to 969 years. By the way, the Bible itself questions their veracity:
<< 1 Timothy 1:4 >>
New International Version (©1984) nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.
<< Titus 1:14 >>
New International Version (©1984) and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.
At least TWICE, the BIBLE ITSELF uses the word "MYTH" to describe earlier literature, including the genealogies of the Old Testament.
These are all points you may wish to consider before proceeding with this discussion. Ryoung122 11:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently proposed a merger here and it looks like it should be okay to go ahead with it, but I don't understand what the next step should be according to Help:Merging. Can you help me? Seregain ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
. Arjun 024 10:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Aunt Entropy, just posting to let you know that we've decided that you'd be fine as a trainee clerk at SPI, sorry for the long delay in getting round to this. I will be training you, if this is alright, (although training is a fairly open process and everyone pitches in a little). If you spend some time in #wikipedia-en-spi then we should run into each other. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kind regards, Spitfire Tally-ho! 23:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was on the SPI page because the Admin who closed this case asked me to view it to see how to reopen the case. I could not find out how to do that. Could you please reopen the case for me? If you look at the case's talkpage, today I caught a new sockpuppett named Train12 editting his userpage just like highyack07. Thanks.-- Morenooso ( talk) 17:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that part of the policy can refer to new account/s being created with the sole purpose of harassing another user, so long as the accounts display an understanding of wiki markup and convention. It may also refer to several other situations. Typically checks without an alleged sock master are rare, and they should definitely be reviewed with care, especially if the alleged sock appears to be a good faith user. Bear in mind that the main reason that the possibility of a check without a known master is mentioned in that policy is to highlight the fact that it does not count as fishing. In any matter, sock puppetry allegations should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and each time when reviewing a case one should fully look into the situation to determine whether or not sock puppetry is likely.
Hope this helps somewhat, kindest regards
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
07:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've read your comments on my talk page. You are entitled your opinion of course but I stand by my actions. This seems to be a clear case of spamming which needs to be dealt with firmly.
What is incontrovertible is that a few days ago 173.163.134.97 added links to several Fox Chapel Publishing websites to a range of articles. When they were removed they were re-added by another IP editor and subsequently by Gloden, a new user. It is also easy to verify that 173.163.134.97 is an IP address assigned to Fox Chapel Publishing. If Gloden is to be believed then somebody at Fox Chapel added those links, and identical links were re-added by a new user acting independently less than 24 hours later, and that users apparently created an account for the express purpose of adding those links. I believe that that is stretching credibility. Sure, you'd need a CU to confirm it for certain but it appears clear that there is a prima facie case there.
Both user Gloden and the IP editors were told that the links added were in contravention of policy on external links but chose to ignore that fact. The edit summaries suggest that the reverting edit summaries were being read and that they were aware of the nature of their addition but they were willing to persist in re-adding the links anyway. There comes a point where AGF is no longer tenable: when it is clear that the true motives of an editor are not in the best interest of the project AGF should be dropped. I believe that was reached a long time ago and when that point is reached the conclusion is simple: he is a spammer and should be dealt with accordingly. My post at AN/I did not solicit any concerns about my own behaviour - the response seemed to confirm my reading of the issue.
Having said this I don't believe myself to be infallible so I'll open this up to editor review to see if the general consensus is if I have acted appropriately. CrispMuncher ( talk) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You declined checkuser because it would be stale when there were socks blocked less than 5 months ago. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar. This seems a little odd. Is this usual practice? Polargeo ( talk) 10:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I redirected it back to the main article and realized after than you had created another one just before me. They were problematic for a couple of reasons at least. Besides the dubious renaming of those new articles, there really wasn't any suitable lead or unifying introduction in any of them. I thought it best to redirect back to the main article for the time being, before any new content to speak of accrued in any of them. You can see my reasons here. If you have any reservations about my redirects, please comment there. Thanks. Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Those were very kind words, thank you. And thanks, but....dealing with hunting references, content etc in controversial articles is a walk in the park compared to admin-ship. I'm grateful to you and others willing to do the really tuff stuff, but I wouldn't-couldn't. I know what I'm cut out for, and what I'm not. :) But thank you again, and for bring editors up short when they need it. Professor marginalia ( talk) 17:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I specifically requested a hiatus on the ref war during Pesach because I would not be there, and said I would restore them on my return if someone took a cheap shot during the holiday. This is on the talk page. Don't act so shocked. EGMichaels ( talk) 13:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I wasn't a fan either, hence my moderating edit. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems a bit strange. Was it intentional? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
But that's just it, they're most certainly NOT good faith edits. I have had NO good faith shown to me since I joined this site, this is an orchestrated attempt by people to have me banned for something. I will not be checking here for a response so don't bother. Lefty101 ( talk) 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
...and yes, I'd like a CU on that account, if you'd be so kind. I left word on the request page as well. PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. I've seen these wholesale, rapid-fire changes before to this same basic subject matter, but doggoned if I can remember who the original user was. Should have requested the CU from the get-go. Thanks for taking care of my incompetence. :) Signing off...-- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 03:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a personal attack because I didn't personally attack any editor. It simply is my opinion. Nothing against you. And assuming and stating that this is a "religious thing" is a very invalid assunption. There are definitely "elitists" here who attempt to swing various topics towards there POV; this can be blatantly seen throughout many controversial WP topics. I never said you (or anyone else) were one of those people. I did not personally attack anyone. -- ΙΧΘΥΣ ( talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to make you aware of this. Since you posted the material, technically noone should alter what you wrote. But, since you were quoting another user (who was the one who removed it) not sure what the procedure is here. By definition, noone should alter another's talk page comments. I am just letting you know since I do not want to get into the middle here. - OberRanks ( talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to drop you a note re your post on the talk page at John Pershing. The comments that I made on a different article do not belong there. It is irrevelant how I feel, or have felt, about a different article. With that having been stated, yes, I did say that there was no reason to use an incendary term when a neutral one suffices. That was a different time, on a different article, with completely different reasoning. I will not clutter up your talk page with the myriad reasons that I oppose "Genesis Creation myth", whilst approving "Nigger Jack". I will, however, be more than happy to discuss it with you upon request. All the best- Mk5384 ( talk) 13:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That you have endorsed a CU, not giving me any chance to reply, and that within minutes therafter, a CU being run is unacceptable. The question has flipped from me being possibly this Hetoum to me not having the right to use alternative accounts. Why then this account was not blocked? Rather a CU was endorsed! Admission of alternative accounts in no way can be used as evidence whatsoever that I am user Hetoum. No evidences have ever been provided, behavioral or otherwise that I am Hetoum yet a CU was endorsed over the admission of the uses of an alternative account. Please explain. What prevent me now to request a CU on any new suspicious users to check that user with a banned user and just having to show the user is suspicious without having to provide any evidence which link that user with the banned user in question. Behavioral or otherwise. Ionidasz ( talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
WT...? Come on! Creating a sock to comment on other editors? I can't believe you can take words at face value without checking the actual edits! An account created to make a comment on the relevancy of a template. Ionidasz ( talk) 04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the evidence was very misleading. And there were innacurate info after checking the diffs. For example: and protested being checkusered, what can be found from that account was this, not a CU protest. It was a clear cut case of attempting to link me to others, with such evidences that, he protested like user y, he must be that user. You can't then accuse me to check his contributions after the request to find out that about the time that he requested a CU on me, he filled a report about another user here, when it would have taken about 10 seconds to tell that only the last edit was a revert. It should not be acceptable to fill CUs at the first edit of an account, or bogus claims of reverts when such reverts there is not against editors who do not agree with his positions. Besides, with the email I have sent you, you should have known the users he accused to be me could not have been me, since he requested CUs previously at the same time I was contributing with my primary account and that account would have come during the check. As for the socks, they're very occasional, and most of the time, I don't keep their password. In any case, I am busy, and won't contribute much, but I think Grandmaster should at least be warned to not jump to the guns like this. Ionidasz ( talk) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is my last reply regarding this, Spitfire, I think you are giving arguments to Grandmaster to fill another bogus request. He will probably use your reply if someone show this case because he too would be victmin of a bogus request. The alternative account claim does not make sens, as I was in no way behaving in such matter which would justify from Grandmasters part to request two different check. You claim I have behaved like those Grandmaster claimed I possibly was. How so? Note that the issue of the alternative account was not even raised then, and I have commented on a matter touching history and Grandmaster announced that request for opinion in an article talkpage which is subject to a heated discussion. Could I have been a new user who edited Wikipedia for the first time? Sure! That's the important thing here. Had I not said it was an alternative account and attempted to defend the position that I was a new user there would have been no argument for a CU to begin with. Because Grandmaster would be needing to explain why it was not possible that I would have found that request for an opinion regarding history as a new user, when he provided it's link in a heated article talkpage. The endorser now admitting there was no clear substance and even apologizing, the blaim remain on the filler of the request, who also at the same time attempted to have another user on indefinit restriction by attempting to pass edits as reverts. Clerks should be careful when endorsing checks, and even checking the accounts requested when in presence of several accounts. If for example someone add accounts on Hetoum_I CU page, other users which were unconnected to him from prior checks should not be added. That would be fishing at best. On this I conclude. Ionidasz ( talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Aunt Entropy, just dropping you a quick note regarding
this, which I assume is the result of the recent GC issue (which we have discussed at some length, so I won't go into details). While I am sorry that you have decided that you need to take break from clerking (presumably) due to this, the decision is, of course, entirely up to you. Once you feel that the matter has been settled or is no longer of concern you should be more than welcome to return to clerking if you still want to (and any appearances in the meantime will be gladly received). As a clerk you have been progressing well, and I look forward to seeing you around SPI again once the matter is resolved. (Of course, if you're just going on holiday I'm going to look like a total nitwit now
).
Kindest regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you planning on returning to clerking in the near future? Also, thanks for the comments at my RFA as I really value them from someone whom I worked with for all two or three weeks on IRC. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Saw your comment on Jpgordon's talk page. So far as I'm concerned, the provision against "Editing project space" in WP:ILLEGIT covers it. It's not permitted to create a sock to edit project space divorced from your mainspace edits. I think we could probably get a consensus to make it more explicit if you think it's necessary.— Kww( talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You have mail. — fetch · comms 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wanted to advise you of this, since the "false accusation of sockpuppetry" is one of the major points that has been brought up, in case you wanted to weigh in. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384. - OberRanks ( talk) 13:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As an editor of this redirect, you may be interested to know it is currently being discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 21#Christian nation. Robofish ( talk) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)