Hi, Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message here, watch the page; I will respond here. Thanks!

Welcome!

Hello, Aunt Entropy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!} . . dave souza, talk 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is dispute on the following contribution, I thought I would post a draft here and see if we can reach consensus on the appropriate language.

Another piece of evidence cited by YEC advocates that points to at least an inconsistency in the dating of dinosaur of fossils is the discovery of soft tissue in Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil bones.^[1] "^[2]

Does the qualifier "cited by YEC advocates" address your NPOV concern?--Nowa (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tissue was not flexible until rehydrated. There is no evidence that the tissue was unfossilized, and soft tissue has been known to fossilize. Stokstad, Erik. 2005. Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue raises tantalizing prospects. Science 307: 1852. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Can you incorporate your points in the above draft?--Nowa (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"One the one hand, the site where the bones have been found has been dated to 65 million years ago. On the other hand, there is no known mechanism for preserving soft tissue for this length of time." This is a non-sequitur. Not knowing the mechanism for preservation of soft tissue doesn't change the fact that fossilized flexible tissue has been found in specimens dating to 300,000 years, which is by a couple of orders of magnitude too old for any YEC justification. It's weaselish and makes an implication that doesn't hold up.Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, NPOV includes requirements regarding NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" all of which have particular relevance to such topics. Highlighting this specific creationist claim gives it undue weight in an article about the topic as a whole, so removing it from the Young Earth creationism article is correct. If it does appear anywhere it has to be put in the scientific context of the overwhelming majority expert opinion on the subject. However, Wikipedia isn't aiming to duplicate An Index to Creationist Claims, which unremarkably enough does cover this specific claim.[1] Nonetheless, thanks for highlighting the Smithsonian article, which is interesting about the subject, and also includes her comments on creationists – “They treat you really bad. They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” Just so. . .. dave souza, talk 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Great links. I agree that "Wikipedia isn't aiming to duplicate An Index to Creationist Claims". I would imagine, however, that some articulation of creationists claims is necessary for the YEC article to be meaningful. Which ones should be included and how should they be presented? What is the overall goal of the article?--Nowa (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that's best raised on the article talk page, there's already some mention of creationist claims under the various headings, but perhaps they're such a major part that a section could be devoted to them. One possibility would be removing the "criticism" heading and making the :Scientific" subsection into a new main section about such claims, with the theology section becoming another main section. A bit of rethinking would be needed, so best to discuss it with the regulars first. .. dave souza, talk 14:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Those are excellent suggestions. My thought on vetting these issues here first was so that I would be more prepared for future discussions on the talk page.

It appears to me that the issue of surpisingly well preserved tissues in mineralized bones is important to YECs. It came to my attention while watching a recent program on Discover about the possibility of "recreating" dinosaurs. I was curious to see how YECs viewed this but didn't see anything in the article about it. This seemed like an omission considering how much coverage Dr. Schweitzer's discoveries have received. Hence I did a bit of my own investigation and hoped to make a minor addition to the article. Apparently something in my wording has created a POV problem and I was hoping to understand what it was.

Let me phrase my question differently. The following excerpt from the current article appears acceptable.

For many years, YECs referred to supposed associated human and dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas as proof of coexistence, though most now have abandoned these claims, as careful scrutiny has shown them to be either fabrications or spurious phenomena.^[1]

Do you see any difficulties with the following proposed addition to immediately follow?

More recently, YECs have cited the discovery by Mary Higby Schweitzer of organic tissue in Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil bones as evidence that these fossils are at most a few thousand years old.^[2] Dr. Schweitzer, however, has vigorously protested this interpretation of her discoveries citing the geological age (65 million years old) of the site where the bones were recovered.^[3]

--Nowa (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving it to the talk page. There's a tension, in that something more concise would be appropriate for what's just one example. At the same time it's important to cover the point that the impression's given that they broke the bone open and found soft tissue with blood on it, when the article describes her as dissolving the fossil fragment in acid and looking at it through a powerful microscope to find the remains of "soft tissue". You've already edited Mary Higby Schweitzer with this info, I'll suggest some more sources on the talk page there. In terms of the main YEC article, the point needs to be in the context that they make many such claims, and these are just a couple of notable examples .. dave souza, talk 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So moved. It will be interesting to get the input of other editors.--Nowa (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for fixing the vandalism on my user page. The vandal battle was intense today! Thanks again - cheers Geologyguy (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The great achievement of Big Bang cosmology has been to show that matter can be created continuously out of nothing or destroyed into nothing. It has been shown that the principle of conservation of energy can't be valid in an expanding uiverse. Something that is now taught to all general relativity students around the world. If the principle of conservation of energy were valid then the universe couldn't be expanding and yet most astronomers maintain that it does.

So why are you trying to fix texts without understanding what they are about? Are you trying to promote your personal opinion about the physics? Jim (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does the BB come from "nothing" --- presumably you have a source for that? --Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that "the BB come from 'nothing' "?

I said though (see above): "It has been shown that the principle of conservation of energy can't be valid in an expanding uiverse" and "If the principle of conservation of energy were valid then the universe couldn't be expanding" which you may check it in any general relativity course in any university where it is taught by a physicist or a mathematician. Jim (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote on the discussion page. Once you do you should realize that you are vandalizing this site. How can you possibly prove to me that creation is not a scientific theory any more than I can scientifically prove to you that evolution (or just the big bang)is. The world began at one point and nobody (no human) saw it happen, so therefore any account of the world and universe's origin is a theory. And how in the world can you tell me it is not a theory when a theory is like this website says (as I stated on the creation discussion page) an analysis of facts. Creation is certain people's analysis, and evolution is other's people analysis. You are vandalizing this site by being biased against creation. And if you agree with your own advice then you should be banned from editing. If you have not read what I wrote on the discussion page of Creation, please go read it. As a result of the fact that Creation is an analysis, not scientifically provable, yet an analysis, I will change the page back. MusicFoot822 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musicfoot,

Adding information that is untrue, after being told it is untrue repeatedly, is vandalism. And I repeat myself by saying that "Creation" is in no way a scientific theory.

A theory is not an idea, or guess, or conjecture. From the Wiki page:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

...

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Now, if you can explain how "Creation", a widely-emcompassing term, is a scientific theory using reliable sources as outlined here WP:SOURCE, capable of being tested and verified, please add your findings to the Talk page. But I must tell you, "Creation" is not considered a scientific theory by the community of scientists, and according to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE the definition of what constitutes science will be determined by the mainstream science community, not by fringe POV-pushers. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my other edits, you will see that I have WP's best interests at heart. YEC either needs to be self-corrected by us or deleted before there are problems. It is best to expose the problems ourselves and to fix it. Otherwise, it appears to involve malice with no mechanism for self-correction. That is how other publications have gotten in trouble. As a person that has been in litigation for a decade, believe me, we don't want to go there. It would be a shame to see WP going down over people who are basically trying to say: "Creationists are stupid" and misusing published information from icr.org and its principals, who rasie millions of dollars per year as a 501(c)3. I don't like what icr.org does either, but this is an encyclopedia. If xyz wants to say "Creationists are stupid" and our editors are not playing dual roles, that's fine to enter as an encyclopedia. However, our editors have no conflict-avoidance statement in place. Please note, I am fully disclosed as being doug@youvan.com, my actual name. WP Anonymity is transparent in a court of law of competent jurisdiction. Please also note that I am a biophysicist, yet a Calvinist, and not a lawyer.50MWdoug (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aunt Entropy, if you think you are right then explain to me WHY my edits are disruptive. I can clearly see that your edits that undid my edit are disruptive, and I told you why, so I request you to tell me why. Your edit denies a conclusion which cannot be disproved the right to be called a possible answer to ours and the earth's origins. Therefore you are being unequivocally biased, and therefore disruptive, vandalizing, and disobedient to the policy that you tell me I am disobeying (when I am in fact not). Your edits to the one sentence I put on the "Creation (theology)" are not neutral, and therefore not allowed to take place on this website. As I said I would like you to explain to me why my edit is wrong. If you do not I explain, I will take it that you don't have an answer. Without an answer, all you have is bias and not neutrality. MusicFoot822 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider WP:AGF regarding your attacks on me.

Undoing nonfactual edits is not disruption or vandalism. Neither would undoing say, an edit to the Jesus article that added "Jesus was married and had four children." Some people may believe that is true, but it is not considered true by the relevant experts.

The experts of what constitutes a scientific theory are scientists, and the scientific community does not accept "Creation" as a scientific theory.

It may be something with which you don't agree, but it doesn't change reality.

I've been trying to tell you this from the beginning, even showing you the theory page. You did read it, right? It clearly explains how a concept or idea becomes a theory: through the gathering of large amounts of evidence and vigorous experiment. I don't think I've left you in the dark here.

Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MusicFoot822: Aunt Entropy is correct, and so is the other editor (John D. Croft on the "Creation" discussion page) who has responded to your concerns.

In undoing your edits, Aunt Entropy is not being disruptive, biased, vandalizing, non-neutral, or disobedient to the policy. She is simply reverting an unsupported/unsupportable claim, and maintaining the accuracy of Wikipedia articles is a primary goal of editors. If she hadn't been around to revert it, I would have, and for the same reasons.

There are several things wrong with claiming that "Creation" is a "scientific theory". Aunt Entropy and John D. Croft have already given reasons why, and directed you to links which further clarify the point, but since there still seems to be some confusion, I'd like to clarify a few key issues:

• The term "scientific theory" has a specific meaning, with specific requirements that have to be met before something can actually qualify as a "scientific theory", and "Creation" does not meet those requirements. You've been given descriptions and links which explain what the phrase "scientific theory" means. Here are a few more that might help clarify it, this time from Brian Dunning's excellent "Skeptoid" podcast: "A Primer on Scientific Testing" read, listen, and "How to Spot Pseudoscience" read, listen.

• A "scientific theory" is much more than just "an explanation", or "a conclusion", or "an account" or "an analysis", or even simply a plain "theory" (without the "scientific" qualifier). When you argue that "Creation" is those things, it does not help make a case that "Creation" is a "scientific theory", because none of those things are enough by themselves to qualify as a "scientific theory". If you can't actually make the case that "Creation" actually has *all* the features which are necessary for a thing to be a "scientific theory", then it is quite simply not correct to edit the Wikipedia to declare that "Creation" is a scientific theory, because it isn't. Period.

• Furthermore, even if *you* could lay out such a case, that's still not good enough. Wikipedia doesn't present the view of any one editor (or even many editors). It presents material that can be properly supported or sourced to the world at large, not the private views of the editors. And like it or not, the consensus of the scientific community is the source that gets deferred to when it comes to determining what is or is not accepted as a proper scientific theory. And unless you can find some statement from some major scientific organization that we've all missed, in which the scientific community at large has indicated that it considers "Creation" to actually be a "scientific theory", then you have no business trying to insert into Wikipedia your own personal POV that "Creation" is somehow a "scientific theory" after all.

• Even if you do insert such an edit anyway despite the lack of a proper citation supporting it, all other editors have a responsibility to revert it.

Finally, in order to be a "scientific theory", among other things an explanation needs to be specific and detailed. When you attempt to edit the introduction to the "Creation" article in order to declare "Creation", type unspecified, a "scientific theory", it doesn't even make much sense. WHICH "Creation" scenario, exactly? It's at least possible in principle for *some* specific "creation" scenario to meet all the requirements of a "scientific theory", even while the thousands of other Creation scenarios (e.g. Hindu, Greek, dozens of Native American, etc.) don't. It makes no sense to say that "Creation", period, is a "scientific theory", because there are so *many* Creation scenarios across different cultures and historical eras. In order to have any meaning at all -- in order to meet the specificity and testability requirements of being a "scientific theory" (to just name a few), it would be necessary to identify *which* Creation scenario, in detail, is being declared "scientific" among all the possibilities. Scientists would never be so sloppy as to say that "gravity" is a scientific theory, they would instead refer (albeit perhaps by implication) to a *specific* gravitational model. "Creation", as a concept, cannot possibly be a scientific theory -- it's way too broad, it covers too many contradictory viewpoints, it's far too nonspecific.

--Ichneumon (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you recently made edits concerning this category. You may wish to participate in the CfD on it on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 10. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to be cautious about removing this category from articles while the CfD is under consideration -- WP:CFD states: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." It's a pain I know, but strict adherence to rules can often ensure that these processes go smoothly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor had not just added a new category, he had modified the original Category:Evolution. I consider that vandalism, and reverted it. The category itself was not at issue with me. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AE, this is just to let you know I removed the sock template from NCdave's user page per the comments, and as someone who has been following the situation. Ultimately the IP's actions are much more consistent with the user who originally put the template on NCdave's page, not with NCdave. If there are any issues feel free to let me know; Raul would have more information, but otherwise I imagine you'll see there wasn't anything to this. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, but I'd probably want to bring it up on ANI first. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, give him a 24 hour block for disruption, and take it to ANI to see if it should be longer. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you aren't? Never mind, then =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why aren't you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nm, I see why. Goodness, we must edit all the same pages, I thought you were much more experienced. My apologies, keep up the good work! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? --Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, dear. Is all clear now, or do I need to explain? Sorry for being confusing, I did not intend to be. Its a gift, some days. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment (blush). I'm not much of a writer; I just try to keep the crap to a minimum so the writers for the Reality Cabal don't burn out (as fast anyway). --Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in Category:Documentary films. If it's in this category, we call it a documentary film. The fact that it is a disgusting, propaganda polemic does not mean that it is not a documentary. We also avoid making value judgements in the first sentence. FCYTravis (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies, Aunt Entropy, for my misguided inclusion of your username in my sock puppet list on Talk:Theistic Evolution. I misunderstood your edit of 05:45, 27 April 2008. I've removed your name from the list. I shall check more carefully in future. -- Jmc (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not randomly reinsert erroneous information, as you did on Da Costa's syndrome. If you have something to say, use the talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted material with cites from reliable sources. I can see no reason for such an edit other than the fact that it doesn't square with your POV. I am aware of your conflict of interest here, and if not a direct violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, certainly a violation of the spirit inherent. May I suggest you stick to editing articles that you have no apparent COI in. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aunt Entropy, for your support in Da Costa's syndrome. Let me encourage you to be involved in the article; please don't let this terse and IMO inappropriate "warning" from an editor (who has a history of being blocked for exactly this sort of edit warring) scare you off. Your participation is welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such history, thanks. Please stop your continuous personal attacks and don't put lies and insults in your edit summaries. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log is visible to any editor, Guido. you were blocked for edit warring on 13-Dec-2007, 16-Jan-2008 and 01-May-2008. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being completely irrelevant and not constituting a 'history', block logs, like all things on Wikipedia, can be misleading. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However no misleading that WP:3RR is not a licence to revert against consensus of other editors upto 3 times and I've blocked GDB again for edit warring (progressive step up of 1 week). Also warned re incivility, as per start of this thread. David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted against consensus, and have not been editwarring, thanks. Why do you leave user's false claim that I have a COI with this article unaddressed? Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aunt Entropy, have we met? I think I recognize you from evo/creationism pages, but I was surprised to see a vote of confidence from someone who I can't really peg a memory to. Usually I'll get that rosy glow of affection or deep red penumbra of rage if I know a user, but I don't believe we've ever interacted directly.

Anyway, I would like to say thank you for your vote of confidence - I've long been curious about a RFA for all the wrong reasons; I want to see what the gossip would be. That someone I don't 'know', knows me enough to venture a positive opinion on my talk page goes far beyond flattering. I'm touched, and heartened that someone thinks I'm doing a good job. Thanks thanks thanks, and thanks! I'd trade in all my barnstars, even my socratic barnstar, for an opinion out of nowhere that I'm doing a good job. And that's what I got! So thank! Do you like pie? I've the best recipe for pie crust EVAR, and 'tis the only way I can say thank you in the information age! WLU (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here :). I've seen your work, and wish I could contribute as well as you and some of the other better pro-science editors on wiki. I'm just the evening cleaning lady, trying to keep WP from becoming a FRINGE paradise. BTW, are you still adopting? Because I've been wanting to be adopted by someone like yourself. I've also been trying to register my email here, but they send me a confirmation link that won't work.

Anyway, my email is my name at Yahoo with a dot in between the two words. Feel free! Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ashamed, that wasn't even archived that long ago.

I don't think I'm particularly remarkable in contribution quality, I've just done it a lot. 24K worth of edits I'm not ashamed to brag about. You'll get there, just keep reading the policies!

Regards adoption, I now don't feel there's much value added in adoption - if you find someone who is on wiki daily or near so, and willing to answer questions, you've got the best part of adoption right there. User:SandyGeorgia has never turned anyone away, even when it was to her detriment I believe. I am also quite happy to answer questions to the best of my ability, I always love a chance to show off my shortcuts. But if you'd like something official, feel free to update your page and mine with adoption notices. My starting advice is always a) install POPUPS, WP:TWINKLE or some other editing tool, b) read this and c) become familiar with citation generators. I'm thinking of modifying my final point to say "bookmark diberri and put links to them all on your talk page." In case you're wondering, here's my standard paste.

• Citation templates
• Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
• ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates
• pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the [www.pubmed.org pubmed] number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubemd or ISBN

Really, adoption only seems useful if a third-party is seeking info about the adopter or adoptee; anyone listed on WP:ADOPT is going to be willing to ask questions so 'agreeing to adopt' via the userboxes is kinda pointless. Though it does up your edit count.

I'll try sending you an e-mail from my account, I don't know much about the e-mail system so unfortunately that's one area I can't help you with! WLU (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading Mr. Dawkins book he specifically points out "I am only talking about supernatural gods." Page 20. I think this selectivity should be pointed out in this entry. Also things he selectively (consciously or unconsciously) skipped in his book dealing with questions of the [past history (morality)] chemistry and physics. What do you expect barbaric, unobjective, primitives to envison and express thousands of years ago accurate science and critical history? Mythology and brutality is the language of the area and time. Give me a break. Memes is the answer. Yeah sure. Let's see a meme in a microscope. Kazuba (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love your username. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bwrs is doing some unusual things. Bears watching, I suppose.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I hate to sound whiny and persecuted, but thanks for the support. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not holding my breath waiting for enlightenment upon this matter.

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

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

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

Dear Ms. Entropy;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fuck God, Fuck Jesus, Fuck Christians," -Demonique666 Enough Proof?--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, it`s good you have spoted this vandalism, which I didn`t spot. But I don`t understand why reverting my image change? It`s better than previous. --Sfu (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, somehow didn't see that. I have no quarrel with your image; feel free to revert that. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask what the meaning of this edit was? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, changed back. I didn't see the need for change, and you didn't give one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, and if you don't mind I'll give explanation here. The reason for the edit was that the wording "only 6000 years old" implies that the earth is exactly 6,000, whilst the word "roughly" eliminates that misconception. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 02:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It may be unsourced, but that doesn't make it untrue, and there's no need for you to remove it so soon without giving me any time to find references for this. Gabr-el 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It read like commentary or opinion, so without sources or quotes, it's not encyclopedic. Are you saying you don't know whose opinion it is yet? Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

And outdated conversations don't count; they are for outdated tags. Gabr-el 04:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Assume you knew nothing of Christians? Oh I assumed you knew something, just not correct information. Gabr-el 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

So, here are my two opinions on the problem:

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

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

To sum up, it's not really the topics so much as m:Don't be a dick, and be particularly careful to be fair with biographies, and you should be OK. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless GRBerry notices you.[2] Poor We66er - we're trying to think of a way to help out this poor newbie at User talk:Jim62sch#Question, but I think anything we do will merely worsen the unfair situation that poor innocent guy is in. Or how do you explain Kyaa calling Jossi "IDCab's new attack dog"?[3] feh. Sxeptomaniac, I think in this regard you are being more optimistic than my experience has led me to believe is warranted. Still, I hope you're right, as I think Auntie is a good editor and hope she isn't tarred and feathered with that particular smear, or any smear for that matter. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a bit confused what you did on Talk:Wilson v. State of Georgia -- where exactly is the discussion archived? I don't see an archive link. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is on the heading I created of the discussion; I've tried to find the relevant wikipage that talks about that kind of archiving but couldn't. I've seen it done hundreds of times before on talkpages for irrelevant postings though. Best, Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course we assume good faith of all our editors, at the same time being suitably cautious without saying as much.[4] Regrettably, it's probably not the toughest neighbourhood, with arguments rumbling along even in the British Isles, and ferocious battles over pure water at homeopathy. But I digress. Huxley was in some ways a bit of a nuisance, dashing Darwin's hopes for endorsement of natural selection at the same time as upsetting Darwin's carefully drafted conciliatory position. Great fun, however, and Darwin enjoyed hearing about the battles as much as anyone. Not perhaps an ideal model for WP, but certainly top quality. . .. dave souza, talk 11:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aunt Entropy has not broken the 3RR rule on this article. This warning appears to be retaliatory for a good faith warning placed early, I have warned the IP about WP:POINT here [5]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sorry, I keep forgetting to get back to you. Take a look here: [6]. Do you want (me or you) to go ahead with doing this? As you know, I've been involved, but I will if you want. Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Take a look at [7] and [8] and let me know what you think. Doug Weller (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like a good faith edit to me, and NPOV means reflecting prominent expert viewpoints rather than an idealised "neutrality", so I've responded on Tjbergsma's page,[9] and advised the IP editor on policies. dave souza, talk 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure why you would delete stuff that was over 2 years old here. Doesn't seem to matter much now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry the vid is on youtube.com/playitalready but you should wait till after the youtube boycott ending Dec 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the old "Saying ALL parts of Darwin's theory are true" argument again, haven't these people read about pangenesis (or, for that matter, the roads of Glen Roy)? Anyway, some admins are over 17, and I've replied to your comments on my own talk page. One thing's for sure, Arbcom will be under a lot of scrutiny now, and undue secrecy on their part is being discouraged. . dave souza, talk 10:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

LOL! Why would you want to do such a thing to me? ;) No really, not dead set against the idea, but it would surely be a sign of masochism to consider a run of the gauntlet anytime in the near future.

But I do appreciate your consideration, it means a lot. Thanks. :)

Aunt Entropy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that is your opinion, although I feel that you have misinterpreted some of the information at hand. I have explicitly stated that neither party is blameless. The last statement, which you have quoted to me ("find a cave somewhere") was posted after my last comment in that discussion. I read that statement and agree that is unacceptable behaviour. I have not accused Hervegirod of anything other than perhaps slightly inflaming the situation by continually pointing out things which actually aren't attacks, but comments (i.e. "You have insulted my character, my faith, my contributions"). I'd also be "gobsmacked" if you found that comment to be offensive, rather than a simple comment. However, I agree that certain comments from Jimmi have been offensive. On the other hand, I feel he has been aggrevated to and his good-faith contributions have been ridiculed with little basis.

The fact is both parties are inflaming the situation, and both have come as close to an apology as we can get. It would be far more beneficial for the two to walk away now than to provide a block for Jimmi, which could potentially outcast a user who has editing the encyclopaedia at heart. I will have a word with both parties and ask if they are happy to try and walk away with no hard feelings, as that would be the best solution. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already wrote that in my own user page: I don't agree of course with the "his good-faith contributions have been ridiculed with little basis", because I did not ridiculed anything (or you/he must have been fooled by my English - as I am not a native English speaker). Just for the record ;) Hervegirod (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there. I have a question about your recent edit to Kirk Cameron. Believe me, I want as much information as possible included in the article, particularly of the nature of the statement in question, but the deletion that you reverted (unfortunately) seems reasonable to me. The editor who made the deletion left a note on the talk page explaining that the referenced link no longer shows any information at all about Kirk Cameron (and I verified that it's true), so I left it. I don't know that we should have a statement that's that controversial without a good reference. So... I'm not going to change it back, but I'm wondering whether you might want to. Your choice, of course. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the whole situation. Thanks for your attention to the article (it's an important one to me!) and for your help with this. :) -- edi(talk) 16:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's suggestion that it was made up are clearly wrong, there's a trail in the blogosphere of that Yahoo article. However, is that a sufficiently reliable source? If not, we should delete the "God, family, career - in that order," quote as well as deleting the bit of him saying that decision has had negative consequences on his career. . dave souza, talk 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have been clearer about that. The link as given is broken, but it's clearly (technically) a sourced comment. I'm just saying that if the comment is left in, the link definitely needs to be more stable, and it would be even better if we could find a more reliable source as well. Any ideas? (My strengths are writing and copyediting; I seriously suck at the sourcing thing so I'm probably going to be of little help here, though I'm happy to do what I can.) I apololgize for any confusion my previous comment might have caused. -- edi(talk) 18:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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