User talk:Aunt Entropy/Archive 2

I must say
I love your username. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Aww, thanks. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting
User:Bwrs is doing some unusual things. Bears watching, I suppose. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment on my talk
Yes, this was already noted. The wording was in poor taste/confusing I suppose, but my intention was not to spite the opposition, which was the context of the discussion that you cut and pasted. Also, see my comments on the RfA itself explaining the position. I actually supported the candidate based on the issues Al Tally raised. Admittedly that wasn't clear until after. The candidate has high standards and they meet them with aplomb. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob. Like I said, I wasn't clear, and I can see why some people thought I might have been taking an unnecessary jab at Al. In hindsight, I should not have said "Per...". Glad you see my point. I do disagree with his rationale in this case though, that's for sure. I don't feel that the way somebody votes at RfA should be held against them when they themselves apply (unless they are consistently bitey). Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With that I agree. How one votes on issues, as long as the reasoning isn't hypocritical or extreme (and it appears none of Shoessss were) is IMHO considered like a content issue i.e. not an issue under RFA consideration. Now, one's behavior on those pages can certainly be an issue, and should be, as an RFA is an official function of the wiki and not just some random talk page of an AFD. (Not meaning to diss the importance of the random RFD talk page. :P) Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing
I hate to sound whiny and persecuted, but thanks for the support. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not holding my breath waiting for enlightenment upon this matter.


 * Speaking of enlightenment, I must have missed the statement from Arbcom on the matter of their lack of good faith of pretty much everyone... Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He isn't barred from requesting assistance. There's been no 'ignoring', or else no note would be left for his mentor. The complaint was handled promptly (at ANI). Nothing else to see, for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you were not one of those users I was referring to - I'm pretty sure Josh knows who I'm referring to though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not About Creationism
Dear Ms. Entropy;

(No, it wouldn't be about Creationism -- gawd, I had my fill of that at PTA meetings when my kids were a lot youngsr.)

No, I wish to discuss my site, "Don Markstein's Toonopedia" (There's a Wikipedia article on it, if you want to read it before continuing). Despite the fact that my name is in it, it is neither a personal site nor a blog. (I made a business decision when I launched it, that I'd use it to promote my personal name, as a minor aid to selling my writing, as well as its content.)

My Toonopedia is an attemt, at least, at a serious reference work. Judging by unsolicited third-party response, I seem to have had some success in making it both useful and entertaining.

There must be SOME usefulness about it -- I see it cited as a reference on Wikipedia over and over. Some people who contribute here, and don't seem to "get" it have even plagiarized my work, lock, stock and barrel. (Which can be a nightmare to track down, but that's neither here nor there.)

When I (yes, I was the one who made the edit that you reversed a couple of days ago -- I could act like a typical Internet guy and hide behind a phoney name, but I'm not comfortable with that) added a link to my site in the "External Links" section after an article here, it was not an attempt to degrade Wikipedia.

Nor was it an attempt to boost my own PR on Google, which, I'm glad to say, is quite healthy already. I know very well you've taken steps to keep that benefit from accruing to those who add links in hopes of getting it. I'm cool with that -- it makes perfect sense, because if a lot of people tried to do that, it could really mess things up.

No, it was because of an honest belief that anyone interested in the subject might also be interested in another article, from a different point of view, on it. Yes, it might boost my traffic a little, but hey -- I get plenty traffic. Maybe it's just my allegedly collossal ego talking, butI really do think it's an enhancement.

So how's about it? Restore my edit? Please?

Or better yet -- take a look at my site (toonopedia.com), and see if you don't agree -- a link there doesn't detract from Wikipedia, but adds to it. It's not the greatest thing you guys do, of course, but it's a positive, not a negative.

Quack, Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.149.155 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

-

Sorry about this clumsy way of replying, but I'm not sure how to go about it otherwise.

Okay, conflict of interest, I get. I disagree that it's relevant in this case, but okay, your site, your rules.

Fact is, links to my site have been added by many others. In fact, I ran across a site that rated other sites according to how many Wikipedia articles link there. (Wish I could find it again.) Over 300 Wikipedia articles linked to the Toonopedia before I'd ever added even one.

Okay then, that's that. Next time you see a new link to the Toonopedia (and I'm confident there'll be a next time), it won't be me.

Quack, Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.149.155 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy Challenge Hate Speech?
"Fuck God, Fuck Jesus, Fuck Christians," -Demonique666 Enough Proof?--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI
You're welcome. I think they both need to be reined in, they're making a lot of pronouncements as if they run the page. Corvus cornix talk  21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

chamois revert
Hi, it`s good you have spoted this vandalism, which I didn`t spot. But I don`t understand why reverting my image change? It`s better than previous. --Sfu (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, somehow didn't see that. I have no quarrel with your image; feel free to revert that. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
 A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Creation Evidence Museum
Might I ask what the meaning of this edit was? RC-0722 361.0/1  22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean, changed back. I didn't see the need for change, and you didn't give one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, and if you don't mind I'll give explanation here. The reason for the edit was that the wording "only 6000 years old" implies that the earth is exactly 6,000, whilst the word "roughly" eliminates that misconception. RC-0722 361.0/1  02:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Afrocentrism
I asked him on his Talk page why he made the edit, and he gave me what I thought was a reasonable answer. I don't know anything about any disagreement, so I reverted myself. Corvus cornix talk  05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity
It may be unsourced, but that doesn't make it untrue, and there's no need for you to remove it so soon without giving me any time to find references for this. Gabr-  el  00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It read like commentary or opinion, so without sources or quotes, it's not encyclopedic. Are you saying you don't know whose opinion it is yet? Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on. Some of it is not commentary, but just unreferenced facts. The most revered human being in The RCC is Mary and there are deaconesses in the Eastern Catholic Churches. My local Priest told me the official Catholic stance towards its corrupt periods, but I will add in the references. I ask that you please give me time to add in references for the rest. <font color="00B33B">Gabr-  el  20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added in 1,900 bytes of references and will add more if needed. The last section cannot be cited because it is so obvious - Just because Christians do mistakes, does not mean the teachings of Christianity are wrong - a case of the followers who fail their religion vs. the religion failing its followers - and Christians will say the former explains any "bad stuff" <font color="00B33B">Gabr-  el  21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is a neutrality problem, state it. Sensing there is a problem without actually pin-pointing what the issue is, does not help. I am not against trying to make this neutral, I am against a hollow insertion of a NPOV violation when nothing in the article is stated as violating it. Furthermore, I have added in verifiable and referenced replies to criticism of Christianity. Neutrality and bias are different - something can be true and from a neutral point of view. An agnostic who neither hates nor loves Christianity would be neutral, but could present a statement biased against Christianity like "The Crusades involved massacres" - is it neutral? You bet. Is it biased against Christianity - yah huh, it accuses them of a crime! Is it the truth? Yes.<font color="00B33B">Gabr-  el  04:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And outdated conversations don't count; they are for outdated tags. <font color="00B33B">Gabr-  el  04:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you see the date on the tag? Fine, whatever, you guys can have it, it was a crap article anyway. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you a secret. Not all Christians believe in the nonsense theory that the world is 6000 years old and evolution is the devils work. I might be a Christian and defend Christ's word, but that is my POV. Let me for one last time ask you what you find specifically to be inappropriate in the article. There is no point in giving up without you presenting your thoughts, since without presenting them you don't know if I have rejected them or not. Let me also say for one last time, before I do leave your user page per your request, that simply citing a dead discussion or not citing a specific point for me to argue against is not valid. <font color="00B33B">Gabr-  el  04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Assume you knew nothing of Christians? Oh I assumed you knew something, just not correct information. <font color="00B33B">Gabr-  el  05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What can I say? You were wrong. I didn't delete your material because I doubted it, but because the article was called "Criticism of  Christianity", and what you added wasn't, so it needed sources from apologists that have used the arguments in response to criticism making it relevant to the article, otherwise it was blatant OR, instead of just being "unsourced material". Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ID Cabal
Don't draw attention to the fact that you edit ID articles, or suddenly people are going to use that slur as a reason to attack you. If you want to see a similar, but more viscous campaign by WR against a Wikipedia editor, see User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate. I'd also recommend User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. Guettarda (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to say the opposite of Guettarda. I don't know your editing patterns much, but what I see suggests you have little to fear. Frankly, most of the stuff regarding "IDCAB" or the "ID Cabal" has little to do directly with editing ID articles. Most of that issue surrounds the Rosalind Picard article and a user named Moulton. Basically, Picard is barely connected to Intelligent design, but Moulton felt her article put undue weight on that one small item in a way that was unfair to her (I agreed, when it came to my attention).

So, here are my two opinions on the problem:
 * 1) Moulton is not very good at understanding WP's culture, and can be quite bull-headed. There's a good chance he never would have fit well here.  He also considers Rosalind Picard a colleague, and possibly a friend, so it was very personal for him.  However...
 * 2) Moulton was not treated well by a relatively cohesive group of editors here. He had concerns that I believe have been shown to be well founded, based on the changes made (with much conflict) to Picard's article since then, but he was treated in an unnecessarily adversarial manner, and provoked on multiple occasions (I can give you links if you really want more detail on the kinds of things I think did that).

Really, the "ID Cabal" conflict has little to do with Intelligent Design and a lot to do with the ongoing issues around biographies of living persons. For obvious reasons, those articles are where issues become personal, as seen with not only Picards article, but also people like Don Murphy (now that guy is vicious).

To sum up, it's not really the topics so much as Don't be a dick, and be particularly careful to be fair with biographies, and you should be OK. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless GRBerry notices you. Poor We66er - we're trying to think of a way to help out this poor newbie at User talk:Jim62sch, but I think anything we do will merely worsen the unfair situation that poor innocent guy is in. Or how do you explain Kyaa calling Jossi "IDCab's new attack dog"? feh. Sxeptomaniac, I think in this regard you are being more optimistic than my experience has led me to believe is warranted. Still, I hope you're right, as I think Auntie is a good editor and hope she isn't tarred and feathered with that particular smear, or any smear for that matter. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and why I came here - Auntie, if you're horrified at JWS's behavior on AN, you should see his rancid attacks elsehwere. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, both of you
If you disagree with Ned, go to his talk page and work it out there. Ben Aveling 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * :-) Hi, I probably could have worded that better given more time, I just wanted to leave messages on both your talk page before you each reverted each other again, again. I agree, that removing other peoples comments should only be done with good reason; a borderline personal attack, is probably not really enough reason, I'd have let is slide myself.  But then, reverting what was a pretty close call without discussing first, that's probably not something I'd do without a good reason either.  I just don't want to see it escalate - there's been enough dramatics lately.  Cheers, Ben Aveling 06:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. He'd already reverted you.  I didn't know if you were going to respond, and I didn't want to wait to find out.  Better a quick word now I figured.  Let's go do something useful.  Feel free to blank this.  Cheers, Ben Aveling 06:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Saw your comment at G's (he's on my watchlist), and your message on my talk page. Ned didn't win, nobody did.  But nobody really lost either, because you had the courage to back down.  What Ned did was borderline, it's usually better to strike things than to delete them.  What you did was well meaning, and I think everyone except Ned saw that.  Give him a few minutes to reflect, and he'll ought to recognize it too.  But it was a criticism of what he did, and he got upset.  That wasn't an inevitable outcome, but it wasn't unforeseeable either - happens all the time.  What I did was a judgement call.  With hindsight, it probably didn't need to be done.  I made the best call I could at the time.  So did you.  We live and learn.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn
User:Hrafn. That really really sucks. I feel like I let him down in the advice I gave him over at WP:WQA. :( Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah. But the truth is, over time you can make a real contribution.  This what what the ID article looked like when User:Duncharris started editing it.  FM joined in a little later, and Dave, KC, Jim and I stumbled upon it in 2005.  Along the way we helped shape the sourcing policy.  It's possible, incrementally, to make real improvements to articles, to craft FAs out of total dreck.  Some fights are avoidable, some are unavoidable.  Just bear in mind that you're always free to walk away from a fight.  And sometimes, the people you get into fights with end up becoming some of your best friends.  Guettarda (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very true. Without knowing what was said to Hrafn, but having looked at his WQA, I'm reminded that some people on Wikipedia have a personality that means that they tend to return hostility with greater hostility.  Many of these people are great contributors, fantastically knowledgeable, dedicated, and committed.  Far more so than me.  But sometimes they bump into each other.  Neither has the guts to back down, after all, "they were right" and "he/she started it".  You can fight for these people, and sometimes you win.  And sometimes you don't.  Cheers, Ben Aveling 07:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you grabbed the wrong paragraph here? From the edit summary, it looks like you meant Update4, not the notice of posting to religion-related discussions. I requested that Catherineyronwode refactor that, so I do not wish to myself remove it. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see MsTopeka. I have invited Hrafn back.  And, above, please see:  Why are you gaurding the Hrafn page post his retirement? I authentically invited him (Richard Dawkins and / or his apologists) back. Why do you know me by my real name and deposit it only in edit tags? I am informed that any tie between WP and our government - with any kind of POV which is unconstitutional - such as freedom of speech and /or separation of church and state - is tantamount to sedition. Where is Raoul? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.31.116 (talk)