Jump to content

User talk:Aunt Entropy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthk (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 2 September 2009 (→‎Quick message re. deleting my Gardasil additions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Quick message re. deleting my Gardasil additions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gardasil&diff=next&oldid=297365405
(I hope this is what you meant by "leave me a message here"!) Anyway, it's no big deal, but if you could look at the above link and let me know a bit more about what you meant I'd be grateful.

You said: (rv:youtube is not a reliable source, and the cdc is not Merck).

Quick notes:
(1) My source wasn't Youtube, it was CBS. Youtube is simply the repository for the CBS footage.
(2) I wasn't suggesting that the CDC was Merck in any way and it couldn't be construed as such, but the text as it was, said "with NO evidence the vaccine has caused serious adverse effects" was a corporate point of view written as fact and needed clarification or at least 'levelling'.
Anyway, it's all mute as the article has been revised hundreds of times since then, I'm just trying to understand more about Wiki editing.
Cheers, matthk BFB "Will it to be and you have of it" (talk)

Undue peer pressure

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dang, thought my e-mail was good....well, it is now, feel free to mail me! Auntie E. 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. :) Vsmith (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Xook1kai Choa6aur

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See the article's talk section. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC) A[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aunt_Entropy&oldid=311414240"