User talk:Aunt Entropy/Archive 4

Philipp Lenard
Do you really think that his ancestors not relevant to be mentioned in the lead? The man has been claimed to be Hungarian or German for a long time and although no good biography exists of him the claiming goes on! Look at the talk page and the mentioning of the word Hung... 27 times and Gem... 21 times in relative short article makes clear what poential this man has. It is good that nobody found out thet he is only mentioned in the categories German Nobel laureates and German physicists and not in the Hungarian Nobel laureates  and Hungarian physicists. Be carefull with the nationalities of those guys. I had my share in the Leopold Ružička und the Nicolaus Copernicus, this always a mess and the people in those discussions are sometimes not likely to be samrt enough to avoide a full grown edit war for a not so relevante piece of info.--Stone (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Curious
Not sure why you would delete stuff that was over 2 years old here. Doesn't seem to matter much now. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrongful deleting
Hi, please do not delete sections for fallicious reasons. You are supposed to use the talk page, which I am doing and is already going on, for this topic. If you're beliefs are offended you can edit the creationism-evolution section. You can not use faulty reasons of "inaccurate" (unless you specify, logically, how any part is inaccurate and only delete those parts). POV isn't the issue here either and if it were it would not be wrong because these are objects to the theory. You should not abuse your power as an editor by censoring info. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What you added was factually inaccurate. I deleted it for a good reason, not a false one. If you wanted your edit to stand, you should have used the talk page to propose it first. I can revert inaccurate creationist-sourced material that doesn't belong on a science page any time I see it. See WP:BRD. You need to show your edits are relevant and factually accurate. Prior consensus on all evolution-related pages is that creationist reasoning does not belong on science pages, only on their own pages or the Creation-evolution controversy page. Antievolutionism is a fringe belief] and it does not need representation here. POV is definitely the issue here, it is on every page. Besides, I repeat, that article is not the place for objections to the theory. And do not accuse me of censorship of of abusing my editing power. Those are personal attacks and are not acceptable. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark
Hello, I thought might be interested in a discussion about the wording of Noah's Ark's introduction. There is more information about it on the talk page. Have a good day, Loves  Macs  (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote
Hi there! I noticed you voted oppose on my ArbCom candidacy but didn't say why. I was curious as to your concerns, and if there was anything I could do to address them? Thanks very much! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no offense to you personally... I simply disagree strongly with your assessment re: Elonka acting as an "uninvolved admin" in regards to Science Apologist (looking at the thread, I'm not alone in that opinion). I feel that Elonka has shown bias toward fringe POV promoters and bias against mainstream science editors to the point that is detrimental to the project, and I find any encouragement of her endeavors to also be detrimental. Wikipedia is used (even by people that know better) as a first source of data on scientific subjects whether I like it or not. Keeping the science articles accurate is the reason I'm here. It's a non-negotiable issue for me.


 * ArbCom sanctioned SA against editing articles such as WP:FRINGE, for which he was blocked by Elonka. She was definitely not the first person I would've chosen to institute the block, but it was a valid block. As for the science aspect, I've been a firm supporter of science on Wikipedia. I urge you to take a look at my answer to Rspeer's question as shown by here. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question
I was. I'm not now. It's a long story. If you really want I'll be happy to fill in the details. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Darwin's theory
I think I was replying to him based on what was written there I am not sure. Saying ALL parts of Darwin's theory are true won't make it so certain things must be proven and can't be true when they are logical. Arguing with you guys is worse than when I was a creationist, so you can view my vid and the LINKS within it and judge for yourself, IF you're open minded. Deleted as a creationist?? Makes less sense. I didn't know he was so bad either but something must be done censoring arguments against things is not right and can't last for so long. P.S. Sorry for the delay I avoid wikipedia editing for these reasons; I heard the average admin is 17 and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sfvace (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the vid is on youtube.com/playitalready but you should wait till after the youtube boycott ending Dec 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the old "Saying ALL parts of Darwin's theory are true" argument again, haven't these people read about pangenesis (or, for that matter, the roads of Glen Roy)? Anyway, some admins are over 17, and I've replied to your comments on my own talk page. One thing's for sure, Arbcom will be under a lot of scrutiny now, and undue secrecy on their part is being discouraged. . dave souza, talk 10:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings




Hrmmmph
Darnit, Auntie, could you edit just a wee tad more? I want to nom you for admin. :-P KillerChihuahua?!? 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! Why would you want to do such a thing to me? ;) No really, not dead set against the idea, but it would surely be a sign of masochism to consider a run of the gauntlet anytime in the near future.
 * But I do appreciate your consideration, it means a lot. Thanks. :)

BRD
Aunt Entropy,

WP:BRD only works if both sides are attempting to reach an agreement. Neither you nor the previous reverter have responded to my talk post. If you simply revert and fail to discuss, then you are not adopting the optional WP:BRD approach, nor abiding by the standard WP:etiquette policy to seek to achieve agreement. I have made concrete points and factual claims in a clearly good-faith effort to improve evolutionism. Please address them. --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The burden is on the one adding the material to gain consensus on the talk page. The status quo does not need consensus. Just because you haven't gained consensus yet does not give you the right to put it back. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Genesis Flood
I wanted to leave you a personal message about my deletions to The Genesis Flood. If the links weren't broken, I would have left them until I finished rewriting the article even though they are citations to what amounts to a blog. I plan to work on this article until I have an outline from Numbers; then I'll see what else is out there. My idea for this article is that it shouldn't be a rehash of the evolution-creation controversy but a description of how important the book was to the modern creationist movement.--John Foxe (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:168.140.181.4, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Email
You've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, appreciate your message :) DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

People's "say-so"
I have to ask if you would make the same sort of edit to PZ Myers' claim of once being a Christian as you are doing with Kirk Cameron's claim that he was once an atheist. Myers' claim is no more provable than Cameron's. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It says Myers was raised a Lutheran, which is an outward fact easily corroborated by others. Then it has a quote of his talking about his decision of the existence of God, his personal belief. That's the right way to do it. So I don't know what your question is about it, and it sounds like you are trying to assume some bias of me, because you don't seem to understand personal beliefs are not something that can be verified by others and Must be qualified. Find a quote of Cameron's if you want to do it like that. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still only Myers' "say-so" regarding his past Christian beliefs. I'm sure if we hunted around, we could find people who could easily corroborate Cameron's past atheist beliefs. In any case, I've gone ahead and sourced that portion of Cameron's article so the issue is moot. As far as your claim of not being biased, well, I guess I'll have to go with your "say-so." 67.135.49.198 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing about fundamentalist Christians is that anybody who doesn't share their fervour is considered atheistic, even if they've never really thought about it that much. Cameron's beliefs were probably ill-defined and not very well thought through (like most normal people's) before he came across his special friend Ray, and now considers his former beliefs as atheistic when they were really just apatheism. (I don't know why I'm commenting on this stale discussion, I think the crocoduck wacko has been on my mind lately.) --Closedmouth (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of an exaggeration; even the most fundamentalist Christian won't call an conservative Jew, for instance, an "atheist." EastTN (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR - certainly not.
Certainly not. And removal of article flags is not an exception to 3RR. If some other editor agrees with me, they will eventually flag or correct the text. If not, it will stand as it is. Thanks for the comment, in any event.sinneed (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: No doubt Jimmi Hugh used PAs
Great, that is your opinion, although I feel that you have misinterpreted some of the information at hand. I have explicitly stated that neither party is blameless. The last statement, which you have quoted to me ("find a cave somewhere") was posted after my last comment in that discussion. I read that statement and agree that is unacceptable behaviour. I have not accused Hervegirod of anything other than perhaps slightly inflaming the situation by continually pointing out things which actually aren't attacks, but comments (i.e. "You have insulted my character, my faith, my contributions"). I'd also be "gobsmacked" if you found that comment to be offensive, rather than a simple comment. However, I agree that certain comments from Jimmi have been offensive. On the other hand, I feel he has been aggrevated to and his good-faith contributions have been ridiculed with little basis.

The fact is both parties are inflaming the situation, and both have come as close to an apology as we can get. It would be far more beneficial for the two to walk away now than to provide a block for Jimmi, which could potentially outcast a user who has editing the encyclopaedia at heart. I will have a word with both parties and ask if they are happy to try and walk away with no hard feelings, as that would be the best solution. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already wrote that in my own user page: I don't agree of course with the "his good-faith contributions have been ridiculed with little basis", because I did not ridiculed anything (or you/he must have been fooled by my English - as I am not a native English speaker). Just for the record ;) Hervegirod (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodmorappe Article
I've changed the Woodmorappe article again. Can we Talk about it? LowKey (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you PLEASE take it to the talk page? What point listing criticisms when you won't allow anyone to know WHAT has been criticised? LowKey (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about editing?
Hi I'm new here and want to know about editing articles and whatnot. Mainly, I think that obviously people would be checking what's edited, so if I edited something, how could I show the difference between what is written and what I believe a better version would be, so that others could look at the reasoning and change or leave what I edited based off of the supposed ideals of this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzedram (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted
You recently reverted an edit I made for "incorrect information". Except what I changed came directly from the report.

Here's what the referenced source says: "In 1982, a phase II study with 175 patients looked at which types of cancer might benefit from treatment with amygdalin. Most of the patients in this study had breast, colon, or lung cancer. Amygdalin was given by injection for 21 days, followed by oral maintenance therapy using doses and procedures similar to those in the phase I study. Vitamins and pancreatic enzymes were also given as part of a metabolic therapy program that also included dietary changes. One stomach cancer patient showed a decrease in tumor size, which was maintained for 10 weeks while the patient was on amygdalin therapy. In about half of the patients, cancer had grown at the end of the treatment. Cancer had grown in all patients 7 months after completing treatment. Some patients reported an improvement in their ability to work or do other activities, and other patients said their symptoms improved. These improvements, however, did not last after treatment ended."

This is what I wrote: "A 1982 study found that while on Amygdalin therapy patients symptoms improved, though once taken off therapy the improvements didn't last. One patient's tumor decreased in size, and the rest either had no size change or increased."

This is what's written: "A 1982 trial of 178 patients found that tumor size had increased in all patients. Minimal side effects were seen except in two patients who consumed bitter almonds and suffered from cyanide poisoning."

--> Notice that the patients who consumed bitter almonds and had cyanide poisoning are not at all mentioned in the source.

Perhaps it would be better to write: "A 1982 trial of 175 patients found that while undergoing vitamin therapy and amygdalin injections, an improvement in symptoms was reported by some patients, while others reported that their ability to work or do other activities had improved. While on the therapy, one patients tumor mass decreased and approximately half had tumors increased in size. Seven months after therapy ended however, all patients tumors were found to have grown, and previous improvements reported did not last."

My feeling on that is, (though not to be written in the article), isn't obvious that after treatment stops the disease will continue to grow? It seems it's less a indicator of the effectiveness of treatment but rather of the non-effectiveness of lack of treatment.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that the change is a nudge towards more accurate and neutral reporting, compared to what was previously written. Grizzedram (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What you wrote is not what the report says. Only one patient's symptoms improved for a short time, but rebounded. Turning that one person, an outlier, into "patients" is deceptive. Also, you removed the report of toxicity due to cyanide. The abstract was very clear and perfectly neutral. " No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range" and "Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment." I would be happy to have those quotes used, but we aren't going to second-guess the scientists and ignore the findings to dig up little nuggets of cheer for amygdalin.

Representing the abstract is NPOV. Attempting to soft-serve it is not. And removing the findings of near-fatal cyanide toxicity is completely and totally unconscionable. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap, I just realized I viewed the wrong source when I made the edit. I apologize. Grizzedram (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion question
Hi there. I have a question about your recent edit to Kirk Cameron. Believe me, I want as much information as possible included in the article, particularly of the nature of the statement in question, but the deletion that you reverted (unfortunately) seems reasonable to me. The editor who made the deletion left a note on the talk page explaining that the referenced link no longer shows any information at all about Kirk Cameron (and I verified that it's true), so I left it. I don't know that we should have a statement that's that controversial without a good reference. So... I'm not going to change it back, but I'm wondering whether you might want to. Your choice, of course. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the whole situation. Thanks for your attention to the article (it's an important one to me!) and for your help with this. :) -- edi (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor's suggestion that it was made up are clearly wrong, there's a trail in the blogosphere of that Yahoo article. However, is that a sufficiently reliable source? If not, we should delete the "God, family, career - in that order," quote as well as deleting the bit of him saying that decision has had negative consequences on his career. . dave souza, talk 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I should have been clearer about that. The link as given is broken, but it's clearly (technically) a sourced comment.  I'm just saying that if the comment is left in, the link definitely needs to be more stable, and it would be even better if we could find a more reliable source as well.  Any ideas?  (My strengths are writing and copyediting; I seriously suck at the sourcing thing so I'm probably going to be of little help here, though I'm happy to do what I can.)  I apololgize for any confusion my previous comment might have caused. -- edi (talk)  18:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

thankspam
My dearest Aunt Entropy, Much thanks for your support in my RFA and apologies for my tardy sending of this thankyou note, which was at least partially due to a holiday in warmer climes.





 Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.
 * To copy this elsewhere type

marlin
I think Marlin is capable of speaking for himself. Stay out of private conversations unless you are asked to join in.Prussian725 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Prussian725, as I'm sure Auntie would tell you if she were here herself, there are no private conversations on Wikipedia. Anyone can, and will, comment on talk pages. And it may not have been your intention, but your second sentence looks like barking orders in a rather impolite way – please take more care with etiquette. Hope you don't mind me butting in, Auntie. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course not, Dave. What you said is what I would have said. And Prussian, given that OM didn't want to talk to you, he had no intention of "speaking for himself", and he didn't mind that I spoke for him because everything I said is accurate, I don't see the reason for your complaint. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still appalled about Prussian's comment that Science is about Truth. We replied to him.  And Auntie, you can butt in anytime you want, unless you think the Yankees rule.  Then you're off my beer drinking list.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention the Truth question, there's quite a discussion gong on about it here. No mention of the NYYankees that I've noticed. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it then, what are user talk pages for? I hear people say all the time, "this is something you should take to your user pages". What am I missing? Oh and I went to that link. Yeah, those questions were almost embarassing. I can't stand it when creationists make irrational and illogical arguements; makes all of us look bad.Prussian725 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Velikovsky
History and astromony are not inaccurate. Please do not vandalize the edits of other members.Wikkidd (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked before for this sort of comment on talk pages and edit summaries, I've blocked him for a week. dougweller (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doug. I was just heading over to his talk page to remind him of that when I got your message. Cheers! Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikignome award
Here you go, I see collecting these things as a bit like collecting decals (stickers as we call 'em in Oz) on yer car or filing cabinet or something. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)



Watch the evidence for common descent page
User Christian Skeptic just put a "speedy deletion" tag on the Evidence for common descent page -- I removed it, but I just wanted to alert you (as someone who took part in recent discussion on its talk page) that he's going off the deep end on this, and suggest that people who are interested in the topic keep an eye on the page. Agathman (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add Internet forum URLs as source citations to articles
Hi, Aunt Entropy. Why did you add back the TalkReason forum citation to the Daniel v. Waters article? I now see that you are saying that Lenny Flank is already a published legal expert who has already written about this area of law. Do you know that the use of all Internet forum sites as sources violates WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and probably WP:Original research as well? Are you also aware that any use of partisan websites [like TalkReason] also violates the WP:Neutral point of view policy?

If Lenny Flank has already been published by any legitimate organization for which the citation of such a source would comply with policy, please cite those legitimate publications instead of TalkReason – provided that Flank is not an involved partisan on one side of the issue or the other, in which case any reference to Mr. Flank would violate the WP:NPOV policy as well. Let me know about your concerns on the article talk page (and maybe you would also like to respond either on my talk page or here as well). If you have in mind any additional sources for the article which are non-partisan, verifiable, and reliable, I encourage you to add them in as well. 198.252.12.202 Talk  00:35, Friday April 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted the relevant guideline on self-published sources on your talkpage before I saw your message here. Regarding your accusation of bias, all sources have a bias, the trick is to combine those sources to create a neutral article. The opinion of a relevant expert in the subject in no way should be discarded. Thanks, Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are Lenny Flank's published works, Aunt Entropy? Where are his books, magazine articles, newspaper columns, monographs, etc.? You know, publicly accessible, verifiable, reliable sources? Why didn't you provide those when you answered me? Why didn't you provide those here? By the way, it looks like this discussion will have to be pasted onto the article talk page, since you didn't want to discuss the article entry there. 198.252.12.202  Talk  01:46, April 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered on the article talk page. And please assume good faith. I had responded to your page as you responded to mine, so do not assume that I do not wish to discuss this there any less than you do. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of UC article
Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)