User talk:Aunt Entropy/Archive 5

RE: EAR on EAAN
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)

please gain consensus for your edits on talk page
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)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) how to do it?
 * 2) who are supposed to gain consensus?


 * You have to convince the other editors of the page that your edits are worthy. You haven't done so as of yet. When you do, you write in the edit summary that you have done so. Major changes to an article on a controversial subject without an edit summary are almost always reverted on Wikipedia. Auntie E (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you precisely list who do you think i have to convince? How you will convince somebody who wrote about scientific highly sourced terminology gibberish. How could be convinced the other person who anyway reverting much reduced 'degibberished' edit without giving mind crossing clue. (Can you please write/show me example)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
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, not you. Your motivations are clearly different (and far less cynical). SluggoOne (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Protoscience
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)


 * Oh, thanks, I like to help where I can. I'm not highly edumacated in the hard sciences, but I have a highly calibrated BS detector which seems to be of good service on these pages. And yes, those who fancy themselves "TNAE" as you put it think of WP as some sort of holding tank for the various effluvia of their unbelievably massive brains. I will AGF and assume they don't know the definition of "encyclopedia" until I enlighten them. Auntie E (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

very old wood and dendrology
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)


 * When some of those references are used to add content to the petrified wood page ... then a link to it from the dendrochronology page would make sense, preferrably a link within the body of the article rather than just a see also. Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

what's an SPA?
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)

Zicam
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)

Yo
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)
 * Accusing an editor of being "a rapid partisan liberal" and accusing them of using admin tools to enforce a personal bias is certainly a personal attack. Dayewalker (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling someone a "rapid (sic) partisan liberal who oversees the political pages with an iron fist" (I'm assuming you meant "rabid") is a personal attack. It is absolutely not civil. Again, please consider to assume good faith of your fellow editors. To assume the basest of motivations of others is not conducive to a collaborative project. Auntie E (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I struck it from my talk page. Awickert (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar
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)

Stevenson invite
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)


 * I guess judging by your latest reversion you're not willing to join the discussion! And touche on the BRRD line!  Are you willing to discuss it here then?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oops! Apologies, I just found your addition to the discussion on the bit you just reverted. The other discussion is happening at the bottom of the page.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis
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 see - I've queried her reversions on her talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy
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 no evidence of your assertions about the editors here. . It's surprsising that you can accuse others of a most base accusation on the flimsiest of excusesand still complain about AGF when you have shown none to IceColdBeer. You also have given no reliable source that Bush is a racist. And it doesn't matter if he's a public figure, at WP we follow the strict guidelines of WP:BLP for all living persons whether public or no. And your statement that you attributed to him has absolutely nothing to do with race. That means, you need a reliable source to state anything that might be considered negative for any living person anywhere, not just in article space. I take it you will not be striking your attacks then? Auntie E (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Egnor page
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 don't wish to discuss changes to the article here, I'd rather do it on the article's talk page. The message I posted to your talk page mentioned that it is best to gain consensus for your edits there before making major changes that could be considered controversial. You added content without any footnoted cites. It's your responsibility to show where everything you wrote is cited. Also if you disagree with any source enough to erase it, you need to make your case on the talk page. If you already know what BLP means, you should know these things as well. Auntie E (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Raise
I see your thirteenth edit and raise you five to tango. :P HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your sig
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 Auntie E. would show up exactly the same as your current signature, and would be hardly any longer. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not getting the font this way... Auntie E.  15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nor a link apparently... help! Auntie E.  15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it's working. You're getting problems because you're posting this message on your own talkpage, so it's a link to itself (which means it will just show up in bold, like it is now, and will not link anywhere since you're already here). If you try adding your signature at Sandbox, it will work fine. (I tried it on your own userpage&mdash;just using preview, didn't save the edit&mdash;and it worked). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if you'd like it to make a link and the font even when you sign on your own talkpage, you can just add #top to the link:

Auntie E.
 * (basically that works by telling the link to link to a nonexistent section of your talkpage, so it thinks you're not linking to where you already are.) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, tried it on my workshop page, still not getting my font though... Auntie E.  15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried it here and it looks fine. Are you sure you pasted the correct code into your preferences page? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm an idiot. I forgot I changed my browser settings last night to override fonts and forgot to change it back. Sorry for the timedrain there. And thanks for helping a playa out. Auntie E.  16:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC) (feel like such a newb...time to template me with a welcome message, sheesh)  Auntie E.  16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, no worries...I do stuff like that all the time, too :) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

David Icke
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)

RE: Your concerns
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)


 * That would be fine is this was an IP, and not necessarily the same user. But this is a named account and obviously the same person, so I'm not getting your point here. Auntie E.  16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You said that I added a welcome template to said user's talk page, which I didn't. Now, if you think I should have added a more severe warning to said user's talk page, then I probably should have, given the history. CardinalDan (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I gotcha. I was calling a templated first-level warning a "welcome" template incorrectly because it says "welcome", my bad there. Yes, I thought he deserved a warning with a little less good faith assumption than the 1st level provides. Auntie E.  17:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

David Rohl
Off to bed now but I've reported the IP to 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Aunt Entropy"
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)


 * Thanks for the rather lengthy heads-up, Joel, note that you don't need to repeat everything you add to an article talk page. Accordingly, I've moved the section to the talk page until you provide sources giving the required verification so that the section is no longer WP:SYNning. . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, Auntie, we can hope that Joel will learn the ropes and be more productive, producing verification rather than screeds like the above. Will wait and see, abwarten und Tee trinken if my Deutsch O-level prelims serve me well. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at what Joel says about millions and millions of years, I'm wondering how much Joel really knows about anthropology. Height, skull shape, etc all can change in hundreds of years, not millions, skin colour in thousands of years (not hundred thousands), etc. New species of insects develop in a few years, maybe less. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the problem with self proclaimed expertise. . . dave souza, talk 12:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue peer pressure
So when are you going to let me nom you for admin? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn you, damn you... And I was just thinking how helpful the tools would be just a day or so ago running across a sock-clad Duck...and now I can't just laugh it off, like last time you mentioned it. Damn you...
 * I've seen RFA. I've voted "oppose" in quite a few, IIRC. (support in some too, not a total biatch :P) It's rough. It takes several layers of skin from you. And over there they like people that actually write stuff, i.e. "contribute." ;) I'm not that great at that. For one, I'm in a literal desert of source material. If it isn't on the net, or doesn't blow by my single-wide stuck on a tumbleweed, it's not available. I would really like to work to be able to contribute more than I do, but right now, considering I can probably count on at least as many opposes as supports, I just don't see an admin run to be viable at this moment. Maybe at the end of the year...I don't know, we'll see how I develop. The fact that you think I possess clue enough for the tools, wow, you don't know what that means to me. I'm humbled. (toes dirt) :) Thanks, really...  Auntie E.  04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, I'm completely cold hearted about this. You have clue; you are intelligent. You do not push your POV and earnestly attempt to apply policy to yourself first - I have seen this. We need admins like you. And the skin grows back, really. You'll have to set up an email account to enable here, though. You can do that while you're looking for articles to rewrite to GA status. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang, thought my e-mail was good....well, it is now, feel free to mail me! Auntie E.  15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. :) Vsmith (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support! The process does seem to be such that anyone with enough sense to be a good admin will be reluctant to go through it, but we can hope that such pessimism is unfounded and quality will prevail. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 7 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)
 * If you are silly enough to accept a nom and in the unlikely event that I am around when it happens, then you will have my full support. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:03, 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)

User:Xook1kai Choa6aur
I have started a case concerning the aforementioned user at Sockpuppet investigations/24.15.125.234. I noticed that the User has been reverting your edits Wapondaponda (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Auntie
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)


 * Hi back! :) Thanks for the kind words, and the admiration is mutual, Doc. And yes, I know well the burden of expectations due a FOTP. (I should have been working on my RFA questions...not screwing around on the Muhammad talk page...shh!)


 * Regarding word choice: "compulsion" is why most of us are here I think. I am compelled to make sure science and certain historical articles are not being filled with crap. (I'm hoping it's not an addiction yet...) I know some people are compelled to just write and write; that's great for them. But that's why I don't set foot in Fiction Land. :) Auntie E.  00:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ellen White
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)


 * No worries! :) Just wanted to let you know why I reverted you. You are doing good work on the article: keep it up! Auntie E.  14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No "consensus" needed for removal of unsupported inflammatory material
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


 * I didn't see the talk page before I reverted; I saw that you removed references with no explanation but an attack on another editor. It's best to explain your reasoning with each edit you make like you did in the edit you linked to which had a very clear summary: as you see the edit still stands. I apologise for not reading the talk page first, but from my experience, an edit which removes references coupled with no real summary with an ad hominem is not typically a solid one. But I did jump the gun, and for that, I'm sorry. Auntie E.  03:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Roy Eugene Davis
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 Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Einstein and Secularism
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)

World domination
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)
 * I don't believe there's such a thing as non-Jewish world domination. I think that the adjective, "Jewish," merely indicate that the pejorative only applies to Jews. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I only reverted the wikilinking of the title of the section. That is against our method of style regarding section titles. It's fine to do it on the talk pages, like you did here though. It was an IP who added the "Jewish" which I think is helpful to readers, so I didn't revert it.  Auntie E.  01:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Special creation. Borock (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

King James Only movement
Did you remove my footnote #15? if so why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardecker (talk • contribs)


 * This was my edit summary: "I question this blogger's notability; "perfect preservation" is not a notable concept in KJV issues, without definition it's an easter egg type link" which serves only to drive traffic to the blog in question. I googled "perfect preservation" and saw nothing that would indicate the term has any notability regarding this subject. To link to a blog, you need to establish this fellow is a notable expert on the subject; otherwise, they are not considered reliable sources. Auntie E.  05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * Notablility would be your main problem getting a new article through. Since googling for notability isn't always accurate I could be wrong, but you need to have some good reliable sources to include the concept in the article or to make a new article. But before you do anything, I'd suggest starting a section on the talk page of the article, so everyone that edits it can get his opinion in, and I'm sure there are more knowledgeable editors on the subject than me. Auntie E.  13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. I will do just that. Bhardecker (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardecker (talk •contribs)


 * Aunt E. I have tried your suggestion, but no one has responded to my inquiry at the KJO movement page. What now? Bhardecker (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Give it at least a day, it's a holiday weekend in the US.  Auntie E.  19:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. Bhardecker (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF
This is not a policy. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's surprising, and it seems the talk page has several editors who think it should be policy. Still, it doesn't mean you don't need to follow it, as it's a corollary of the WP:CIVIL policy. Auntie E.  16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Icons of Evolution
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)

Noleander
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)


 * It is odd that Noleander left and Eq. just smoothly continued to speak for him, and yes, I saw those comments on your page...I do sense some sort of meatpuppetry/offwiki alliance here.


 * I agree that it's heartening to see the many deletes on the articles, (including mine now finally...honestly I thought I'd voted in the Hollywood article, fixed now (blush), and added my probably unnecessary vote to his soapbox-cum-article on false accusations) considering how surprisingly few editors keep articles like "Protocols" on their watchlists.  I never thought when I started here those would be on mine. Most of my pages are watched for anti-science POV pushers and bleed over into other pages fringe Christians attack. I found the "Protocols" by following one of them there. I don't do politics or current events and very few religion pages except those visited by the aforementioned POV pushers, so I don't know the situation regarding the Middle East political articles where I'm sure this is a more volatile situation. But this particular issue doesn't make me hopeful for those pages. (Hell, to be honest, I'm not hopeful for any but the science pages here...) End rant,  Auntie E.  17:18, 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)


 * Isn't there a saying... being open minded is a virtue, but no so open minded that your brains fall out? I find it ironic that liberals so often help those on the far right in the interest of fairness. But what do I know? I'm a classical liberal anti-kook pro-life Theravada Buddhist who manages to piss off people on both sides of the aisle... :) Auntie E.  18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ETA:You know, sometimes you have to make a damn moral judgment. That's what IAR is all about. If we weren't expected to every once in a while, to forget about trying to build up petty violations to get rid of what should be got rid of, there wouldn't be a policy on it. Auntie E.  18:29, 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)
 * I wish I knew. We need more admins who see the big picture: that we are an information project, not just a writing project. Unfortunately too many admins are afraid of acting nowadays to avoid the "cowboy admin" label by the Negatory Nellies on ANI. Every time a POV pusher is boldly blocked, while being disruptive as well, with their IDIDNTHEARTHAT and bad faith accusations and attacks, within 6 hours he'll be back, after playing the "I promise I'll be good" game. And ChildofMidnight et al. will go on to attack the bold admin for daring to remove a problem editor.

(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

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)


 * Why am I not surprised at the DRV? And forgive me if I don't buy Eq.'s stated neutrality in this issue. Bringing this bit of frivolousness to DRV shows that. Auntie E.  21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Greenberg merger
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)


 * I will respond on the article talk page. Auntie E.  19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I wasn't trying to move the discussion here; I primarily wanted to note the missing signature before replying. I think I've fixed the reference problem in the article since you replied, BTW. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Icons of Evolution bias
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)


 * You seemed to have failed to grasp many of my points in my message to you. I'll repeat and clarify:

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)

Michael Behe and Judge Jones
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)
 * Already under discussion at talk:Michael Behe, where it belongs. . dave souza, talk 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism
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 Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

socks
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)


 * Socks are not to be used to edit project space, and I see no legitimate reason to evade scrutiny on a general noticeboard. Auntie E.  22:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a sock, socks are abusive accounts. By calling it a sock you are, with no evidence, accusing me of harming the project.  You assume ad faith with no evidence to do so.  The account could be "Restarting under a new name".

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)
 * Hmmm, interesting. It's been pointed out to Remember Civility that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." but the user has been contributing to discussions internal to the project debating policy. Undisclosed alternative accounts are sanctioned under WP:SOCK for privacy when editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, but these are internal discussions, not an article. A more general introductory note on legitimate uses suggests "For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with, or longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. If you use an alternate account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy." Clearly this account is now known not to be a new user, and editing project discussions internal to the project is forbidden. Looks like evading scrutiny, and should cease. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page on socking is not clear that AN/I is not a legitimate place to sock as it wasn't listed specifically. But logically, since it is a discussion of editors and policy (heck his name is promotion of a policy!) and not content on some obscure or controversial article, and it's obvious this is a sock (not trying to "see what it's like" as a newbie), it should be blocked. Auntie E.  17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a narrow distinction it's trying to make between discussing changes to policy, and discussing implementation of policies. Looks wrong to me and had earlier caught the attention of Jayron32, so there's some scrutiny. It hasn't edited since 11:32, 6 November 2009, so in line with my policy of wikisloth it's too tedious to be bothered unless there's more nonsense, but it has been warned. . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Others share your view . . . dave souza, talk 09:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker
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 Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger of Sudbury Valley School and Sudbury school
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. PYRRHON  talk   19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Edits
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)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but the discussion pages of articles are to be used to discuss changes to the article, not for general discussion of subjects such as your distrust of science. Auntie E.  17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Cameron
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)

Realclimate
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))

December 2009
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)


 * First: You might want to review the Bold, revert, discuss page. You were bold, I reverted, but instead of made your case for your edits on the talk page, you just came back and added again. If there is someone who disagrees with your edits, of course discussion is needed. There has been questioning of the POV of your edits on the talk page.


 * I did delete "controversial" by mistake from the lead but I only re-added pseudoscientific that had been deleted by a previous editor. That was not originally added by me.


 * You seem to be complaining of the tone of my edits; I'm not sure of what you're talking about here. Also, your speculation of what is a "pet topic" of mine is not necessary. Please focus on the edits, not the editor.


 * Anyway, I would like to continue this on the talk page where other editors of the page can contribute. Auntie E.  06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You say it takes two to edit war: your edits are still there, aren't they? Me removing your edits wasn't edit warring, but you putting them back in was. Note it also takes two to have a discussion. Auntie E.  06:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your wrong!
I never reverted that page, i requested speedy deletion. What are you talking about?-- General  Cheese  23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The page has been since deleted, so the history page is no longer there. But you most certainly reverted the edits via Huggle and left a warning message on the editor's talk page. I've responded on your talk page. Auntie E.  00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Biology
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)


 * Let's discuss this on the talk page of the article here, so others can weigh in. Auntie E.  16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Nothing important, just responded. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
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)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You should go back to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've left a new comment there.

A1DF67 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback query
-   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Stein page
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)


 * Honestly, it seemed a bit unnecessary for an overly long biographical encyclopedia article that already suffers from too much unnecessary detail. If you wish to discuss this further, please start a section article talk page so other editors can add their opinion. I'll be happy to discuss it there. Thanks, Auntie E. (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Seregain
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)

RE: the Eugenie Scott edits
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)


 * I must have misread that, I apologise. Feel free to change it back. Auntie E. (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW I didn't revert your Roger Waters edit, that was another editor who had a problem with the source. Auntie E. (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/FootballPhil
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, if you haven't already. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Both the accounts have been blocked by Mike now, and they have both been tagged appropriately, so hopefully there's no worries there. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
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)

You have e-mail
From me. Auntie E. (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied. Jonathunder (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
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)
 * No problem. :) Auntie E. (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Theory Ground Rules
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Swood100 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New editor
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)


 * Which editor? This guy:Boing! said Zebedee? Looks like he's been here awhile, unless you are talking about someone else... Auntie E. (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, reviewing, wow, he seems to be an intense huggler. Like 3000 edits in the last couple months, and editing sporadically, but I don't see anything odd apart from that. Auntie E. (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note - your reversion of my deletion makes sense, thanks. And yes, I'm a sporadically intensive Twinkler, occasionally doing actual article work too, mainly on articles related to Thailand. I've been here a few years, and am driven by the anti-vandalism urge every now and then - I expect I'll ease off again before too long.
 * -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should add that though I'm not new, my name is - I changed it recently -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for this confusion, I thought I'd added the article, it is, not you Boing!, I've got no worries about you. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks - if people don't find me odd, it's only because they don't know me well enough ;-) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, sounds like me. I look perfectly normal, and when people first meet me they think I am. It's sadly amusing to continually have to disabuse them of that notion. Auntie E. (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doug, it's hard to tell with this fellow as of yet, as he's mainly just deleting stuff he doesn't like, and the little he added was boilerplate creocrap. We shall see... Auntie E. (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Question Concerning Talk:Fossil
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)
 * Because I thought rollback would revert all of his edits; it didn't: Sinebot got in the way. I thought you missed my revert and reverted you, it was by accident, sorry. Auntie E. (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accidents happen. Either way, thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RE
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)

Talkback
Written by  General  Cheese  22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Just in case you ignored the last message, re-read it i included more. Written by  General  Cheese  22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rather concerned. I would like to avoid AN, but if you wish to bring it there, I certainly understand—obviously calling peoples' edits BS is unacceptable regardless of whose talk page it is, and not listening to plain good advice is simply uncomprehendable to me. I'm tempted to forget the situation, but I have a feeling it will come back with a vengeance; if the Justine deal had not been solved with Keegan there might very well have been serious consequences. Please let me know what you wish to do, I really am quite concerned.  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, bringing some outside comments into this might end up helping to avoid further issues, so, as I said, I hope to avoid AN, but it could end up helping in the long run, a reality call or something (sorry if I ec'd you).  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to avoid AN as well, but this exact same thing has happened before. I warned him politely about calling blanking vandalism, and he removed the post with the summary "remove false information." I don't see this fellow it "getting it" without extensive use of a cluebat. It'll have to keep til I'm back at home, but I'm afraid that's where we are going to end up shortly. Auntie E. (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How coincidental, I had actually thought of the word "cluebat" myself :P All I hope is to show that one can't simply ignore helpful warnings and try to do something without what would to seem to be a basic understanding of policy, as well as come common sense. If AN is the way to help remedy that, I'm happy to go, I've exhausted myself trying to explain ACC rights and DYKs. I simply cannot understand why reading a page and getting the big idea is so hard sometimes :(  fetch  comms  ☛ 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't realize he had any DYKs. The articles created tool came up with only 2 created, and I was rather confused because two of his deleted articles had seemed odd for someone who had that much experience. I agree with the inability to take criticism, it's happened on IRC too. (There was a botched WQA post about User:PeterSymonds and I being unfair to him, although we were attempting to show how the channel worked). I didn't realize the AN/I thing from the ER, oh dear...  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Written by  General  Cheese  01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!
I do apologize for my behavior, it was uncalled for. I was getting frustrated, and i was not thinking clearly.



SuaveArt
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)


 * I just posted a message for Jclemens, too, as he had attempted to mentor SA. Seregain (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, gawl. I just saw your post on his page.  lol!  This is what I get for staying up that late. Seregain (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You posted your AN/I report about 8PM my time, so I should have been around. It's a good idea to go to the people who have helped you before, especially if you had sanctions against you regarding the user in question, which you did. What if Guy had been the first responder? As you are a user with under a five hundred edits editing from a minority evangelical Christian perspective, you have to consider not everyone will be interested taking the time to understand your point. On AN/I, often the first thing the responders will do is inspect the reporter's wikihistory like so, before even reading the complaint. But, it's often with good reason. At least twice a day on AN/I a troublesome yet clueless sockpuppet will make a report on his enemies, thinking he himself will not be inspected. Food for thought... Auntie E. (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I never thought that the sanctions would still be considered "in play" due to SA getting himself permanently banned. If that truly was wrong, then I apologize. I never thought the IP was SA until I was made aware of the comment he made on WR stating he had commented on an AN here, but once I saw all that, the pieces fell into place and continued to fall into place (e.g. the WR post being edited mere minutes after I posted the AN/I and alerted the IP user to it). I perhaps was a bit of a eager beaver in creating the AN/I, but
 * And, incidentally, I consider myself to be editing from an average American perspective, not a "minority evangelical Christian" one. Don't label me and I won't label you. Seregain (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you may not be a minority in America, but you are here. And IMHO "evangelical Christian" is my phrase for all Christians who are not "Christians in Name Only." I'm sorry you felt if it mischaracterised you; I meant no offense. Auntie E. (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Minority or not, Wikipedia is open to everyone, is it not? Why what someone's personal religious beliefs (or race or gender or sexual preference) need to be brought up at all is beyond me. I wasn't offended. Only confused. Seregain (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, but that doesn't preclude people's biases. Many users will scrutinize those who are on the "wrong" side of an issue while forgiving faults of their ideological compatriots. IOW, human nature is at play. It really doesn't matter that much actually, your low edit count would probably have been more of a factor. Look, it's just some advice...you don't have to take it, but I just thought you should know. AN/I isn't always fair. Auntie E. (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no. I appreciate any and all advice from friendly faces (and since I'm you and you're me, your face is the friendliest around *smirk*) and I have striven to reflect upon it. Thank you. Seregain (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no. I appreciate any and all advice from friendly faces (and since I'm you and you're me, your face is the friendliest around *smirk*) and I have striven to reflect upon it. Thank you. Seregain (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Written by  General  Cheese  06:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

94.136.35.108
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)


 * Oh damn, I didn't see that: self-reverted. I did find it amusing that Seregain is supposedly my sock. Not only am I a member of that eeevoull Anti-ID atheistic cabal, I'm also a fundie Christian conspiracist. How great is this? I'm everything to everyone :). Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I too have been accused of being both liberal and conservative, of being both religious and atheistic. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 23 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)

The Argument is no Myth
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)

Stefaan Vossen
I just noticed that the above individual appears to be self promoting at []. Isnt this a violation of the rules under COI? Wikibacmd 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibacdoctor (talk • contribs)


 * I should think so, apart from the fact that the edit is unsourced. I reverted the edit for both reasons and left a warning on his talk page. Auntie E. (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Request input on upcoming ANI posting
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)

Traditional versus Colloquial Use of the Word "Myth"
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  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. Ryoung 122 11:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your argument is sound. I wasn't the one who switched it back, so I wasn't set too hard on it. I do want to be sure the article doesn't imply that myth = false, only unverifiable.
 * Thank you for the NT references. Those should come in handy in the Talk:Genesis creation myth brouhaha. (Some Christians object to the word "myth" used correctly in the article. They have no policy behind them, but they don't care that fact doesn't concern them. The boards consider it a "content dispute" and bump it back. I have a feeling the Christians will succeed in having the word "myth" removed from the title, and perhaps from the whole article, despite the violation of several policies.) Auntie E. (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with merging
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)
 * Honestly? I've never performed one myself. You might want to try asking Professor marginalia, who was the first to respond to your request on the talk page of the article. He's usually quite helpful about such things. Auntie E. (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. :)  Seregain (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback:Re:Notice regarding IPs
. Arjun  024  10:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI trainee clerk
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, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopening an investigation Sockpuppet investigations/Highyack07
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)


 * Unfortunately you will have to ask someone with more experience as I'm the newest trainee as of yesterday. Auntie E. (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. I will try another non-admin.--Morenooso (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Checkuser question
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 SpitfireTally-ho! 07:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I get the idea. Auntie E. (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, great, if you spend sometime in #wikipedia-en-spi then we should run into each other. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Please be less bitey
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)


 * He seemed to have gotten the message about the link. I am of the opinion that unless someone cannot conceivably become a good editor, there's no need for hostility, especially towards experts in their fields editing in under-served areas. We have a lot of knowledgeable editors here who screwed up mightily before getting it, but luckily someone was patient enough with them to understand the rules, and didn't drop AGF after a handful of edits. I believe the editor felt his edits were to the good of the encyclopedia, and I felt the first personal contact he received on his talkpage was unnecessarily hostile, and it came off to me as if you were personally offended... IOW, a bit over the top. Auntie E. (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
Hi. You declined checkuser because it would be stale when there were socks blocked less than 5 months ago. See Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar. This seems a little odd. Is this usual practice? Polargeo (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IPs are considered "stale" after three months of non-activity. I did think the accounts passed the DUCK test and recommended blocking on that reason. Auntie E. (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Creation myths - Africa
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)

Thanks
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 can't defend something on a holiday
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)


 * You can't play games like that -- and then claim I'm trying to own the page. These aren't even my edits, but another editors that keeps getting the refs deleted.  And then once deleted the portion of the page gets deleted.  You've seen the games -- bogus ANIs, bogus sockpuppet accusations.  And then when I complain you threaten to get me blocked.  Oh, that's rich.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you MISSED all this somehow.  But please don't threaten me just because you missed a lot of game playing.  YOU need to assume good faith as well as anyone else.EGMichaels (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is "playing games?" Professor Marginalia? Me? I hope you have some evidence, because you just seem to dig yourself deeper and deeper. You didn't "complain", you accused good faith editors of vandalism and continued to do so repeatedly after being told it was a personal attack. That's why you got a warning. Ignoring blatant personal attacks to an undeserving editor, in other words, ignoring your show of bad faith isn't showing you good faith. Just stop trying to justify it. There is no justification. Auntie E. (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Aunt, you can report anything you want. Perhaps another editor will see what you apparently have a problem seeing. I've said this before and say it again -- I understand the strict letter of the Wikipedia guidelines about what is and is not vandalism.  I also agree that editing boldly is not vandalism.  However, merely deleting refs without trying to move or improve the refs is not helpful (by whatever name you wish).  Now, I made a simple request.  Did you forget it?  What word would you call it if I simply deleted your refs without trying to communicate with you to collaboratively improve the refs?  I'm happy to use whatever term you would use if I were doing this to you.  And if you want to report this simple request as well, then please do.  Perhaps an admin can come up with a simple term.  But "bold editing" isn't it.EGMichaels (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism
No problem, I wasn't a fan either, hence my moderating edit. --Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Intentional edit?
This edit seems a bit strange. Was it intentional? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was, and the second after it happened a VIP walked in the door, and I couldn't fix it. Auntie E. (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"vandalism"
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)

Got your message...
...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)


 * Done. I put as the reason code, serious pattern vandalism. Is that correct? Auntie E. (talk) 03:03, 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)

re:personal attack
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)


 * You attacked all the previous editors. It was personal in the fact that it was not about the article. You don't get to lawyer around NPA by making it collective. The Wedge Document is my source for a religious motivation. This is a predominantly Christian movement due to religious beliefs. There's no sin in admitting it. Auntie E. (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Modification to your talk page comments
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)
 * I wonder what kind of "punishment", MK would like us to recieve! :-)  That's just too funny. -OberRanks (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384
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)
 * Whilst I have said that I won't go into the reasons for the differences unless you ask, I will clarify one thing. The title "Genesis Creation myth" does not offend me one iota.Mk5384 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I genuinely did not mean to offend you with the word "toots". In my circle, that's a term of endearment. My apologies if you took offence.Mk5384 (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on Excessively Brief's talkpage

 * That is exactly what I meant (by the way I did not know who made the case). Also I feel that as MK was inocent of what he was accused of some kind of appology would I think have eased the tension.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I only apologise if I do something wrong. The case was made in good faith, had what I believe was reasonable evidence for an investigation. Considering that, especially this statement by Mk, I don't feel I erred. I made the case to clear it up one way or the other. Mk3584 got what he wanted, he was vindicated. But he wants more, apparently. His attitude is not helpful. He fails to see how he is not civil, while at the same time accusing me of bringing deliberately false charges just to "railroad" him due to his beliefs. Auntie E. (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A question
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)


 * The complainant stated that Hetoum had pursued him in wikispace similar to the way you did. Also, the fact that you did not use this account in project space, but only in wikispace suggests that the account is being used to avoid scrutiny. It's unusual for an account to only be interested in someone's edits without actually editing alongside them in project space. There is some difference of opinion whether socks are allowed to comment in wikispace, but I am of the opinion it is not fair to create a sock simply to comment about another editor's behavior. Editors should have a right to face their accusers. Auntie E. (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have actually read this account comments. Nowhere did I comment on his behavior or him, I commented on the relevancy of having a specific template in an article on the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts on the Administrators' noticeboard subsection. After an edit or two on that, I was asked to be checked because as a new user have found my way through. But how could I have not, he announced it here in one of the most heated subject in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The allegation of Grandmaster that I was harassing him was taken at face value and the CU was endorsed without checking that my edit was not even personal, please read them. Nowhere did he feal harassed, check his reply here. We were writing about content. There was absolutly no reason to run that CU. While he was answering me and argumenting, in parallel, he asked that I be checked (WHY??), and after it came negative, he requested another CU with another user. At no time he provided an evidence which would justify a check with either of those users. One or two edits about a template inclusion or exclusion, take it anyway you want, can in no way justify a suspicion to request a CU. Ionidasz (talk) 00:49, 10 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)
 * Your first comment came off as hostile, emphatically calling someone's arguments "nonsensical." Now, whether that is a personal attack is borderline. But it just seems unfair for someone to create a sock to use that tone against another. It smacked of SPA socking that is not considered a legitimate use of an alternate account. This was one of those borderline cases that, after reviewing the rules on SPA and good hand, bad hand socks, in hindsight it would have been better not to endorse. I apologise for not showing you more good faith in this case. But do consider the CU's note: the number of socks you do have has him concerned. It can look like avoiding scrutiny to divide one's edits among more than a couple of accounts, so please consider that in future. Auntie E. (talk) 01:26, 11 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)
 * Without comment on Grandmaster making sock reports, allow me to just explain briefly to you the reason why you were checked, and how such things are managed, which will hopefully go some way to allaying any concerns you have over the whole incident. You are running alternative accounts, and as such, the account you are editing under at the moment behaved in a manner that signified it as someone who is familiar with wikipedia, which couldn't be helped, since you are familiar with wikipedia, you also (by coincidence) happened to be behaving in a manner that a previous sockpuppeteer has done, hence why the case was endorsed for checkuser. The privacy policy makes it clear that certain users (checkusers) have access to private information. When you signup for an account, you agree to the privacy policy, and you agree to let checkusers see your IP. However, the privacy policy does have limits on what information checkusers can release and in what circumstances. Technically, a checkuser looking at your IP is in no way a violation of the privacy policy, but releasing the information might be. In this particular circumstance, the information has not been released, as there is not a valid reason to do so. You may wish to see Privacy policy. Also, please take note that the number of alternative accounts you are running at the moment is excessive, sticking to one account may be best in future (by the way, if you had been using only one account then the case probably wouldn't have been marked for CU, as it would have been clearer that you are a long term contributor, rather than just appearing as a single purpose account). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:38, 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)

SPI clerking
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, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think the issue will be resolved to my liking. I don't see any reason why this was done privately...unless we protect underage sockpuppeteers from making themselves look like themselves. If we do that, I don't feel I can continue work at SPI. I already have concerns that the wiki is more reform school than editing environment, and giving children more right to evade scrutiny than adults is IMHO a major step backwards. That plus the smug attitude from the CUs that responded (Amory showing such AGF by assuming my desire for justice was just vindictiveness) just made me want to back off of SPI.


 * Maybe this is me showing bad faith, however; not putting my absolute trust in the powers-that-be without any checks and balances in the system. I'm well aware that corruption exists among the wiki elite. Who governs the governors? (Usually when someone asks, you end up in an archive box with the legend "This is going nowhere. Archiving")


 * I may have to e-mail some people who I trust and see if I can either confirm or allay my suspicions, then we'll see what happens in the future.


 * Thanks for all of your help, though, and I'm very sorry if I've disappointed you, or you felt you wasted your time: at least Brian and Kevin got some of what I learned from you (plus some stuff I figured out on my own) so I believe it was not all in vain. Cheers, and good luck :) Auntie E. (talk) 16:38, 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)


 * I'm still waiting for word on a certain case on whether I return. I do miss it though. Auntie E. (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'm sorry if I hurt you with my oppose. You are a nice kid, and a good kid, and I think you have the integrity that an admin and a checkuser should have (more than many of them as well)....we just both know you aren't ready. (You wouldn't have to give assurances of limiting yourself otherwise). People say wait three months, but it is a given that three months needs to be screw-up free. I really wish you hadn't rushed this, and I was hoping your experience at clerkship (which is pretty basic compared to administration) would have kept you from running again this soon. Auntie E. (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's alright, I got a lot of flak in the RFA and I'm rather glad that someone like you whom I respect wrote an honest oppose. In terms of waiting, yeah I should have remembered that aspect but recently I got antsy and just couldn't wait. Oh well, the past is behind me and I can only look towards the future. Thanks again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum I
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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dwayne  was here! &#9835; 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping
You have mail.  — fetch ·  comms   19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
<b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b> 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC filed
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. Requests for comment/Mk5384. -OberRanks (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion of Christian nation
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 Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 21. Robofish (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)