Jump to content

User talk:Stephfo/Archive 1

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

Nomination of Paleoscience for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paleoscience is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleoscience until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  --Lambiam 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

McIntosh

In reference to your question on my talk page, read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. It's all expained in there in great detail. You're going to have a very difficult time editing here if you do not make yourself familiar with WP policies and stick to them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So please explain in great detail what rule was violated, otherwise such critique is not valid if no reference to real violation is provided and just claim itself cannot be accepted as proof, but rather just a logicall fallacy -Argument by assertion. --Stephfo (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

EW warning on Objections to Evolution

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Objections to Evolution. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I did not performed revert but added a text.
2. I provably discussed the objections at the talk page w/o any counter-arguments to be raised:
   :A. consensus =?
   :B. the numerous objections above:
   :1.?
   :2.? etc.
There are no arguments presented.
3. If the claim is that consensus should be reached on discussion pages and at the same time only one-sided text is allowed to be left displayed at main article, I considered such situation as HIGHLY UNETHICAL. In my strong opinion both side's texts should be then removed or both left and a label warning on ongoing discussion flagged. Please explain why in your opinion only an opinion X should be displayed w/o even allowing for neutrality flag if you are admitting that the topic is disputed and the discussion trying to reach consensus is going on, what is exactly the message of that flag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
It does not make sense to formulate warning if you are at the same time failing to address the presented arguments.
Pls. explain what it is a discussion in your opinion, because I do not see any real evidence for given claims presented, and it obviously does not make sense to formulate warning if other side is not collaborating in discussion. --Stephfo (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Asking for help on assumed vandalism

Dear Stephfo, thanks for trying to seek help regarding your problem. If you go to WP:RFM, the Mediation Committee will be able to help you sort out the content dispute. Also, if you want to know whether a reference is acceptable for a Wikipedia article, post it at WP:RSN. Since the article pertains to YEC, I would also suggest that you discuss it at the Young Earth Creationism WikiProject, where you might get some input. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Policies in your native language

We don't have any non-English versions of our policies so it's impossible for you to have read them in your native language. If you mean you read policies with a similar name on another language version of Wikipedia, those are not our policies. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "our" but as far I can tell, they are obviously WP policies and they are pretty much the same - translated. Moreover, I consider it for argumentum ad hominem if appeal on reading general rules is made w/o being able to quote any particular sentence from proposed text and demonstrate that it clearly violates any particular rule (preferably also quoted) within those general policies.--Stephfo (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Warnings: Objections to Evolution

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.

That's exactly what I did, see Yobol's talk page. He is not able to write single answer, it seems there is a positive correlation - less he is able to explain his objections, more he is sure I should be blocked, similarily like you.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume it but if someone constantly removes NPOV without even giving the chance for reply, something is wrong with courtesy behaviour on other side. It sounds somewhat awkward to reproach someone for having not enough "good faith" if you know very well the other side does not have any vestiges of it at all. --Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please specify what exactly you percieve under such attack. Thanks. --Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please specify what exactly you consider for such my addition. I do not accept vague unproven claims. Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Pls. also note: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down."

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Somewhat awkward: I was advised "discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page" and I'm doing nothing else since then, no single main article edit. Stephfo (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Discussing does not mean that you keep on going and going and going. Your viewpoint was taken into consideration and rejected by how many, 7 editors? When you don't get your way on WP you either move on or you attempt dispute resolution (and if that doesn't work in your favor then you definitely move on). What you don't do is rehash the same crap over and over again. When your block expires, either go to DR or find some other pages to edit, but don't come back with your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality trying to force your viewpoint upon other people. Noformation Talk 02:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
And what should I do if 7 people all hold view X and they do not let any other opinion to come across, clearly violating the NPOV dispute rules? When I asked Jess why he removed NPOV flag, his reasaon was "I'm not involved in your content dispute, so I can't comment on the details." Is it normal to remove NPOV flag if you do not know what's going on in disussion? DR states I should pick up 1 opponent and discuss the case at his talk page, I did, you can check it at Yobols page:"
Objections to evolution
1. Pls. explain why you are not able to enlist your objections against my text that you erased: [6]. Do you still hold a position that the text should be kept out? If yes, what is your reasoning? Stating "Numerous objections" without specifying a single one is hardly to be considered as valid evidence that my text is violating any of the WP rules. Should I interpret your refraining from objection specification in a way that your position has changed and you do not dispute my text anymore? Pls. explain. :2. Pls. also explain why you had erased the Wikipedia-sourced image. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)"
He is not able to state his objections that leaded him to erase my text, do you deem it up to WP standard that people keep erasing texts w/o knowing what their objections are? Isn't such approach to be called vandalism? --Stephfo (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A propos of discussion, I've experienced in my life many things and thought there is hardly ever something going to surprise me, but if someone calls discussion a way of behaving when one side does not even wait for its opponent view to be presented and right away one-sidedly declares the consensus has been reached, that's really very weird. I've been involved in many disputes and cannot recall single case that I would not allow for NPOV flag to be raised even for one minute, for me it never made any difference whether in my article a NPOV flag was put on or not, and I'm keeping these flags raised by my opponents in some of my articles until know if they feel it should be so from their perspective, without escaping the actual discussion or applying so manipulative measures (atacking article without bothering to prove the accusive claims) I witnessed here. Thomas Aquinnas was famous for always letting his opponents to formulate the strongest argument and only then he started with his position, strangely enough, this virtue seems not honored in english WP. --Stephfo (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Add. "don't come back with your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality trying to force your viewpoint upon other people" - I'm not trying to impose my viewpoint on anyone but I strongly protest if someone is treating me in unfair way and keeps accusations without bothering to prove them.--Stephfo (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring others' comments

Do not refactor others comments, as you did here. That you wish to quote a different articulation of McIntosh's argument (you were throwing versions of them around left right and centre) and include a copy of a diagram does not give you the right to overwrite my comment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not refactor you comment, but I fixed my own text that was quoted in altered version within your comment. I fixed it to the original version. Please if you declare you quote someone, do not refactor that text.--Stephfo (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a direct copy of this. If it is in the article, it is not 'yours' -- see WP:OWNERSHIP & Wikipedia's licensing terms. I am under no obligation to quote the version of McIntosh's argument that you want me to. And it is not my problem if you can't keep track of material you yourself added to an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If so then I apologize, but still personally I would not have problem if I quote someone to let him update that quote onto the latest one if he deems there been something missing or containing typos in his version that I picked, as soon as he clearly does not alter my text outside quotation marks and it would be possible to demonstrate that later versions of given text in original article really followed that updates. --Stephfo (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag placement and removal

As a general rule I, personally, wouldn't remove an NPOV tag if I wasn't familiar with the dispute ... unless it was one placed a long time ago in a lightly-edited article or section where I could read it and see that there was no problem with the text anymore.

However, in looking over your recent edit history on the subject, I could see why it was removed ... because the action of placing it and replacing it because you thought the issue was still present, against consensus discussion on that page, becomes disruptive edit warring, which administrators are supposed to act to prevent.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity. And even if it doesn't, I would request politely that you not follow up on this, at least for a while. I have noted your aggressive canvassing of other admins, like myself, only tangentially involved in this, and I should make a friendly warning to you that this, should it continue, would be seen as harassment and lead to another block. Many of us feel we have more important things to do, like write and improve articles. I would also, as several other people have, commend this page to your attention.

Maybe you should take a break from this subject for a while, and try editing articles about topics less controversial, such as where you live or your favorite food. Many editors have found that doing so after stressful arguments about difficult topics is a refreshing reminder of why they were drawn to editing Wikipedia in the first place. I'd also consider that your English skills, while certainly competent, are not at the level they should be for this kind of interaction, and that (as others have suggested) editing in your native language might be more preferable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, I strongly disagree with you, the NPOV tag was not allowed even for a minute in the whole process; then it is not true statement that it was removed only after consensus had been reached. (and for me it is really extremely strange that NPOV cannot be raised even for minute and that administrators are even supporting such approach) To state "issue was still present" somehow does not follow the track of events, beceasue then you basically declare that NPOV was justifiebly removed becasue someone already forseen as prophet that the consensus will be reached, let alone to mention that what you call consensus is really just cover name for very unethical behavior when one side does not even wait for its opponent views to be presented. I'm not agressively canvassing, but defending against manipulative behavior, exactly in line with:

"Request for Comment on user conduct." -seems to me to be justified rule if you come across of something what you deem as not appropriate, and in the contrast to your viewpoint, I think that allowing for obvious breach of polite behaviour to happen is what creates a nasty environment to end up in.

As for your last section, please read:

Placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, ... is a common form of harassment.
Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.
Avoid sarcasm

I'm ackwoledging though it is much better to work on articles, but if someone keeps erasing your contributions instead of discussing them first, that's somewhat awkward. I have no problem moving on other subject, but if you are utterly convinced that something is clearly biased and damages reputation of other person by falsely atributing him opinion he is not holding, it is not that easy, as far as I can tell. Thanx for not ignorring the question, although it seems your reaction is that you justify the behaviour that is somewhat odd in my strong opinion. I like constructive critique - I believe it would be mcuh better if people would follow this rule: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." I think it would be much better off, this is in my opinion the core problem, people do not allow for other opinion to be expressed but prefer hasty removals than upfront discussions even though it would not harm anybody if they would leave it for a while t settle things in discussion. --Stephfo (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification

Jess should have informed you of his ANI report. If I had noticed it, I most certainly would have informed you, as I did Hrafn. However, I was unaware of the report at that time.

As I said, I happened to be at the ANI board on an unrelated matter when you made your report. If you don't believe me, look at the report that was made immediately before yours (Legal threat at Talk:Polish cuisine). It was filed by me. It was pure chance that you happened to file your report immediately after mine.

There is no "conspiracy" against you, and I am not your "opponent", nor is any other editor here. Wikipedia is NOT a forum. You cannot come here to argue or debate, but to write and improve articles in cooperation with the other editors.

Policies on English Wiki are far more strictly applied than on the Slovakian Wiki, especially on science and medicine articles. I've warned you before that editing here would be an unpleasant experience for you unless you read and stuck to the policies. If you want to continue editing here on English Wiki, you are welcome. But if you continue to violate the policies pertaining to content and etiquette, you will be banned again, possibly permanently.

I see that one of the administrators has told you to take a break from editing controversial topics for a while, and build up some experience editing articles about topics you know about. That was good advice. You got off to a very bad start here on English Wiki, and other editors have good reason to doubt your good faith, especially with your personal attacks and forum shopping. You made a false report at the ANI noticeboard, and it backfired against you. That matter is not yet settled and it may turn out that you will be blocked for that as well. The best strategy for you is just to STOP and WALK AWAY.

It's time to move on and start doing some constructive editing elsewhere to rebuild your credibility as an editor and to learn about WP policies and how they are applied on English Wiki. I've advised you before to ask for a mentor. That was very good advice, and I'll repeat it now.

Again, it would be best for you to stop protesting and defending yourself. That will only get you into further trouble. Move on to other, non controversial articles for six months, and learn to work together with your fellow editors, and not against them.

Now, the only correct answer to this post is "Yes, sir. I understand, and will comply". I'm not at all interested in hearing you protest, object or defend yourself anymore, nor is anyone else. You've already wasted a lot of many editors' and admistrators' time, and if you continue to do so, you will be permanently blocked in a short time, and nobody will miss you. Don't let that happen. I'll again welcome you to English Wikipedia, and wiish you a lot of luck and fun! And you will, as long as you follow the policies and work together with your fellow editors, instead of against them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, however I do not accept ungrounded accusations. If you are able to prove your claims, demonstrate it. I promise I will be very happy to change my standpoint if instead of general accusations a concrete violations will be demonstarted what I did wrong. You may again block me if you wish so or even intimidate if that is your way of cooperating, but I don't think the Wikipedia has then moral right to call itself "free" if such methods are governing how people who have administrative rights treat other editors who do not have them. And pls. do not blame Slovak Wikipedia for having low standards if you have no notion about them, I doubt you ever had an account there. This is neither kindergarden nor army, if you are looking for people who will reply to you "Yes, sir. I understand, and will comply", I can tell you that you've obviously mistaken the place in my strong opinion. I do not mind if it will turn out to block me, such risk will for sure not make me to put off some standards that I believe it is important to adhare to in one's life.--Stephfo (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Not particularly relevant... but I didn't post an ANI report regarding Stephfo. If I had, I would have informed him, obviously.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
That's correct. No notification was necessary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Stephfo, regarding this edit, drawing an old dispute on to unrelated talk pages is inappropriate. Every editor you have spoken to about this issue has agreed that it is settled, and that you should let it drop. Your block should have been evidence enough of that. You basically have two options right now. 1) Let it go, and move on to productive editing, or 2) Take the issue to WP:ANI to get a yet even broader opinion. I'll note that option #2 is probably not a good idea, and may very well lead to another block for disruption. However, that is your current avenue if you seriously feel slighted. Either way, this issue has nothing to do with me, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped stalking me around trying to drag me into it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective it is inappropriate to appply double-standards, I have nothing personal against you but I just want to show you that on one ocacssion you're doing to others the exactly same things that you don't like on other one occassion when others do it to you, and your criterion applied is demonstrably not very NPOV-friendly. Think twice, nothing more, otherwise you're taking a risk that someone might take it for hypocrisy.--Stephfo (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If your goal was only to make a point, then see WP:POINT. Again, if you feel slighted, the appropriate avenue is WP:ANI. Once again, I'd strongly urge you against that, and instead to just drop it. I think I've been fairly clear, so I won't be responding back here regarding this issue unless there's a really compelling reason.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm admitting I'm pointy this time, but I believe there is a justified reason for that, I really do not like when people apply double-standards, sorry for that. I have no other goals than make you think twice. Pls. accept my apology if coming somewhat awkward. --Stephfo (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

Dear Stephfo, thanks for your contributions at the militant atheism article. I was wondering if you could please kindly provide the original quotes from the references you inserted in the article as the other references in that article do. This will help us ensure that the content is verifiable. Cheers, AnupamTalk 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want 1:1 translations this might take some time (after all, the original article on Barbaric night and book on described trial has quite some pages) but the content of references I provided constitute virtually all my contribution (there are even pages enlisted), I can add some more if these are not rearded as sufficient. I'll try to do my best, BR!--Stephfo (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Aside from English translation there are only 2 edits citations for a huge block of material. Potentially controversial should be backed up with more even if not in English. French and German are more widely understood in the West "if you gotten smoke 'em" Thanks.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW, the most of my contribution is based on the NMI pages that I guess nowadays every literate person would manage to translate by using e.g. google translator.--193.219.198.36 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you can provide a rough translation on your user page?Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

  1. Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
  2. Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
  3. Free subscription to our informative newsletter
  4. Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
  5. Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
  6. Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
  7. Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

Talk pages

Re: User talk:Apokryltaros. You are not allowed to revert someone on their own talk page. Please don't do it again. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But the rule is that if someone performs undo, should be able to explain it, discussion is basic principle how WP works. If you perfporm undo and then provide no explanation and avoid further discussion by erasing the queries - that is vandalism in my strong opinion.--Stephfo (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism is described in WP:VANDAL. Please take care not to misuse the word. Editors can remove anything from their own talk page, see WP:OWNTALK. It means they have read it. Apokryltaros responded to you in the edit summaries e.g. "please explain at the article talkpage", see the history tab of his talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not call vandalism what user do on their own talk page but the erasing content at article pages and consequently avoiding to discuss their undo and providing no explanation whatsoever when being questioned.--Stephfo (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't vandalism. According to WP:BRD, it is now YOUR responsibility to justify your addition on the article talk page, backed up with solid reliable sources, of course, and to get consensus there. Discussions about article content are to take place ONLY on the article talk page, not on user pages. What you are doing is simply disruptive editing, and it can get you blocked again.
It is not disruptive editing but avoiding manipulation, it was User talk:Apokryltaros who did undo of my edit and not article talk page, are you claiming that he doesn't know why he did what he did and he needs your help to explain his acts? You again want to use the same tactic - start shooting claims w/o bothering to prove them and when the discussion becomes too long due to your own contributions (while still avoiding answering my question) you will declare it a dead horse.--Stephfo (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not a negotation. Don't do this again on anyone's talk page. He asked you to discuss it at the article talk page. Either do that or do nothing. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
But can you guarantee that the questions will be answered there and that the topic will not be closed before that by declaration of "dead horse" while all the long chain of various declarations without bothering to prove them will purposefully tactically avoid answering my questions? Otherwise it make no sense to discuss in such way, it is not discussion but witchhunting. --Stephfo (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
What happens at an article's talk page is not relevant to issues related to WP:OWNTALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I did not get your point here. Pls. see also "such debates are generally theatre rather than serious expositions of the subject" (actually opinion (on different occasion) of one person quite active at currently discussed article page)--Stephfo (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
For the last time, if you want to edit here, you MUST read the policies carefully and strictly adhere to them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I read the policy, it is that you should be able to provide reasoning for your acts and if you are not able, something is obviously wrong...--Stephfo (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked you repeatedly to take the conversation to the article talkpage, you responded by accusing me of vandalism and threatening to have me reported for vandalism simply because I wanted to continue the conversation at the article talkpage, and not mine. Stephfo, this is not "avoiding manipulation," this is harassment.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not harassment, if I would not have bad experience from the past I would never do it. I'd never have problem to explain to anybody what I did and I would not need the support of audience for that.--Stephfo (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Apokryltaros HAS provided a reason ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE. You are also reading the policy wrong. Read it again. It doesn't mean "whatever the hell Stephfo in his infinite wisdom thinks it should mean". Furthermore, WP:BRD is probably not a good strategy for you to use anyway unless you know WP policy inside out and stick to it. If you have any additions to make, it would be best if you discussed them first AT THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE and get consensus. Of course, you better have good sources, or your proposal will probably be rejected. It's difficult for other editors to argue with solid, reliable sources. Read very carefully WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DE and WP:VANDAL. Also read WP:HARASS, which you have just violated by pestering and threatening Apokryltaros on his user page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Dominus, this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid, you are very good in shooting various general pages without being able to demonstrate anything in concrete from them. Let me remind you of your finding of McIntosh making various mistakes in field of Biology, in fact you found so many of them that at the end you were not able to state a single one. That kind of argumentation is not acceptable for me, I hope you do not need to explain why. --Stephfo (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:EW warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Objections to evolution. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pls. also note: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down."--Stephfo (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you read that quote before posting it? I'm not involved in the edit war. You've been blocked before for edit warring on this very same page, and it looks like you're gunning for another block soon. I'd very strongly suggest you take a break from editing, and seek a mentor.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
But this is very strange tactic -you participated in previous edit wars, how you call it, from my perspective it is witch-hunting, you never write to others that they should stop avoiding my questions and address them appropriately. Your acts are in obvious cooperation with them. They in a very manipulative way start blaming my edit without bothering to prove their claims, ignoring my arguments and you do not intervene in my defence, but support their arrogant behaviour, why it is so?--Stephfo (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not cooperating with anyone, Stephfo. I'm simply asking that you abide by our editing policies, which you currently are not doing. When you come back in one week, please take a pause from editing and seek a mentor to help you be a more productive editor. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
So please demonstrate what particular sentence in what policy was violated by my particular act. Thanx. --Stephfo 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you are so even-handed, pls. explain why it is OK for you to accept declaration ""the biologists, particularly those who are members of the Discovery Institute, have repeatedly stated that they reject "evolutionary position" for religious reasons, not scientific reasons"" w/o any prove and why you do not feel the necessity to contact author to provide proving support for such claim, whereas you feel necessary to embarrass me on multiple occasions. --Stephfo (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Jess, you also reported me to ANI board if I'm not wrong. Dominus wrote on one other occasion "Jess should have informed you of his ANI report." and I believe it is also in the rules that it should be so. In your report, you manipulatively combined my unrelated edit add-ons (in particular one about ID group incl.Kenyon and other about Brazil) to make your case look stronger. That's not fair.--Stephfo (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That was my mistake. You asked me why I informed Hrafn about the ANI you brought against him. Then you asked why Jess didn't inform you. I assumed that Jess had filed an ANI against you (he didn't) and said that he should have notified you. However, Jess filed a 3rr case agaisnt you, not an ANI, and in that case, notification is not required. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
But it is very strange that text add-ons, one about Kenyon and other on Brazil, are regarded as warring, this is absurd, because then any 2 consequent text add-ons made by single editor should be reported as warring if logic of this proposition should be followed.--Stephfo (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Stephfo, you're being hostile to everyone who's engaging you, including each admin you're asking for an unblock. That's clearly not getting anywhere, and at this rate, is very likely to result in your talk page access being revoked. You really need to calm down, understand that you've been blocked repeatedly and therefore there's probably some problem, and start making an effort to read through the input provided by the multitude of experienced editors on this page to understand what that problem is. If you have legitimate non-confrontational questions, then post them here, not in a new unblock request, and someone may be nice enough to help by answering.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Jess, I'm not hostile to anybody, but if someone declares something in discrepancy with reality, I have no choice but to show the difference between given false declarations and real situation. If you, for example, my fist-time content add-ons designate as edit warring, then something is highly unethical, because articles at WP cannot be created other way. You should correctly relate to situation and point out that I did only single revert at article page and that this single revert is something what you relate to as edit warring on that page.--Stephfo (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Warnings: Objections to Evolution: Round Two

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pls. also note: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down."--Stephfo (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, and a general warning

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

From reviewing the edit history of Objections to evolution, its talk page and your talk page, it is clear that you do not have support for the material you want to add to the article, have not responded to previous warnings and blocks and have exhausted the community's patience. This is being made much worse by the confrontational tactics you are using. I came very close to imposing an indefinite block on you, but have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, it is very likely that you will be blocked for an indefinite period the next time you are reported for edit warring and/or editing with a battleground mentality as this appears to be a strong pattern of behaviour. My advice is to move away from the Objections to evolution article and articles on related topics and find something else to work on, doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's rules on civility and consensus-based editing. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's quite ridiculous, the material I added has direct support at Wikipedia pages, and can be easily verified by hyperlinked article pages. Pls. prove your claim - what particular sentence is not supported in your opinion?
  • 1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?
  • 2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?
  • 3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?

--Stephfo (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Please explain your term "confrontational tactic" and demonstrate what you mean by it. Also, what warnings in particular you are mentioning?--Stephfo (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have any confrontational tactic, I just add text in good faith that it is increasing quality of article by adding NPOV and after few minutes I'm condemned to defend my edits because the texts are generally unacceptable by people who propose Dawkin's views as the only politically correct ones in this world and no other allowed. If you want to demonstrate what I state, just let me know. --Stephfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.239.134 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Pls. also explain how you want to reach consensus if other side is not able to explain its objections and ignores your questions and arrogantly throws a deaf ear onto your arguments. I do declare that in my strong opinion such objection that declares my sentence is "questionable" but then at the same time provides no further specifics what in particular should be questionable out of my above three propositions, is invalid. It does not take too much literacy to verify that Jonathan Wells, Scott Minnich and Dean H. Kenyon are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID, there are direct hyperlinks in the proposed text. Likewise, co-authorship of Biological Predestination is directly at Dean H. Kenyon's page, with ISBN number, from this point of view your declaration that "it is clear that you do not have support for the material you want to add to the article" sounds very awkward, I apologize for that.--Stephfo (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It is also extremely strange that you accept without second hesitation a statement like "the biologists, particularly those who are members of the Discovery Institute, have repeatedly stated that they reject "evolutionary position" for religious reasons, not scientific reasons" and completely ignore my request for citation of such proposition, thus proving that you are biased (accept this unsupported claim at one side but at the other side declare my material which is very well provable, is w/o support - that's double-dealing!!!) and not interested in even-handed processing of this case.--Stephfo (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is a false claim that I'm edit warring. My last edit on article page is demonstrably 16:29, 9 August 2011 and since then I do not perform anything with page but just try to bring opponent of my edit to collaborate on the text at talk page what he is arrogantly avoiding and ignoring all my questions. An edit war occurs by definition when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, I'm not overriding anyone's contributions. As for sentence "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus." I do declare that I'm doing nothing else but just exactly follow that guideline. Further on, as for sentence "If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution" I'm ready to seek dispute resolution, but the opponent of my edit has not declared he reached a final point and is not willing to discuss the issue any further, thus I have no reason to conclude such seek for dispute resolution is already required. Stephfo (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obvious edit warring, despite your attempt to redefine it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, if it is so obvious edit warring, please let me know how many repeatedly overridings of any other editor contributions performed by me have you counted on the "objections to evolutions" page, if you are so certain about it. I do declare that I performed only single undo, in mistaken belief (based on User:Apokryltaros erasing of my Qs at his talk page) that he is purposefully avoiding discussion ca 4h before the edit warring warning was issued by User:Dominus Vobisdu at my talks page above.--Stephfo 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Challenging a block

Stephfo, per your question on my talk page here is an explanation on how blocks can be challenged. The guideline is Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks and Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. The first thing you can try is to use the {{unblock}} template. It's important that you understand the reasons for your block, in this case edit warring, and provide evidence that you understand the cause of the block, promise it won't happen again, and explain what you will do differently next time. That is the quickest way to be unblocked. If you are having trouble explaining that you understand why you were blocked and won't do it again, you can try emailing the blocking administrator User:Nick-D by clicking "Email this user" on the right hand side of your screen while on their talk or use page. You can try discussing it with the blocking administrator. Very rarely, and I strongly do not recommend this as you're block will expire before anything is done, but in the spirit of full disclosure you can appeal to ArbCom. You do this by sending an email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Cases generally take more than one week and they usually only hear cases of permenant bans; which yours is not. Good luck.--v/r - TP 13:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion

Per your comments on the Talk:Objections to evolution article under an ip, evading your block in this way is not going to get you anywhere. It is also likely to get you indefinitely blocked for socking. Please read (and, if necessary, ask questions about) TParis' advice in the section above. At this point, you are likely going to have to wait out the week until your block expires. However, when you return, if you have any interest in contributing to this encyclopedia constructively, please ask questions of more experienced editors who can explain to you how your editing can be improved. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not get your point, are you trying to point out that the above recommendation "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" was a catch and in fact it is something I should never do, and that administrator who put the label with this suggestion was actually trying to mislead me? I do declare that I have not performed any changes at any article pages ca 4h before edit warning was issued, if you deem discussion for something that should be avoided pls. explain. I believe you removed my discussion content because you're not able to refute my arguments and the only remaining one you have in hand is to silence me with whatever means available, even by doing such unethical things like removing my discussion content clearly proving appropriate sourcing of my material. YOUR "LOGIC":
First it should be tried to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus
That's why my discussing of changes is removed by you.
Sorry, but that's really strange approach. --Stephfo (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My request was refused by declaration: Obvious edit warring, despite your attempt to redefine it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I challenge this statement, if it is so obvious edit warring, please let me know how many repeatedly overridings of any other editor contributions performed by me have you counted on the "objections to evolutions" page, if you are so certain about it. I do declare that I performed only single undo, in mistaken belief (based on User:Apokryltaros erasing of my Qs at his talk page) that he is purposefully avoiding discussion; and this only undo was performed ca 4h before the edit warring warning was issued by User:Dominus Vobisdu at my talks page above.--Stephfo 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see multiple attempts to add contentious content to objections to evolution without any attempt to explain your edits in edit summaries. That is edit warring. It is also obvious edit warring, as jpgordon stated in the previous declined unblock request. It is also clear from your comments above that you have not understood the reason you have been blocked. If you wish to be unblocked, you must convince us that (a) you understand the reason for your block, and (b) you will cease the activity that led you to being blocked. ~Amatulic (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block extended

As a result of this attempt to evade your block (which you acknowledged was a post you made here), I've reset the block so it will expire in a week from now. Any further block evasion will lead to the block's duration being extended for a much longer period. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not evading your block, IP addresses are assigned automatically w/o any active contribution from my side and you clearly encouraged me to "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" so I behave exactly in line with your proposition. I have not changed any article page content and I would be very surprised if you could prove otherwise. It sounds like catch-22 if encourage person to do something and then you reproach him for doing it. --Stephfo (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm strongly convinced that you are misusing your powers, you shoot one accusing declaration after other w/o bothering to prove it. You declare that:
  • "it is clear that you do not have support for the material you want to add to the article" but completely ignore my arguments at the same time:
That's quite ridiculous, the material I added has direct support at Wikipedia pages, and can be easily verified by hyperlinked article pages. Pls. prove your claim - what particular sentence is not supported in your opinion?
   1.That the members of this group are biologists and at the same time proponents of ID?
   2.Co-authorship of Biochemical evolution?
   3.Declaration of Kenyon why he abandoned evolutionary view?

The only response of you when I challenge your false accusations is arrogance and blockage. That is not behaviour in line with Wikipedia:Civility. If you stand up for your statements you should demonstrate they are valid, or accept they are not otherwise. If you regard that your powers give you a chance to declare anything without bothering to prove the validity of such claim, then I think something is wrong.--Stephfo (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, perhaps you are failing to understand a couple of things. Let me try to explain:
  • You are not being blocked for content, you are blocked for disruptive behavior. It doesn't matter at the moment whether your content was valid. The points you made about your dispute are irrelevant to your block.
  • You must not attempt to edit outside your talk page while blocked. That includes attempts at dispute resolution outside your talk page, until the block has expired. Rather, you must convince adminstrators that the disruptive behavior leading up to the block will cease.
Because you have not understood the above two points, and instead have evaded your block and failed to address the behavioral concerns (instead choosing to attack others for "abuse of power"), your block has been extended. It's really that simple. ~Amatulic (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If these points are irrelevant ("are not being blocked for content") then why the legitimacy of content ("it is clear that you do not have support for the material you want to add to the article") was used as reasoning in my 1st blockage? If my behaviour was disruptive, then show me exact instances where it was so after I was warned at 20:15, 9 August 2011.
  • "You must not attempt to edit outside your talk page while blocked." This is first time I read it. Before, I was encouraged "to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus". I promise to take into consideration this new information.
  • I think that you yourself do not understand the 1st point at the very minimum if you declare that "you are not being blocked for content" while at the same time that is demonstrably the reasoning for my initial blockage: "it is clear that you do not have support for the material you want to add to the article". If you are a person of high ethics and moral, you should at the very minimum acknowledge that it was a wrong reasoning if you want to keep declaring that "You are not being blocked for content".--Stephfo (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Add. "instead choosing to attack others for "abuse of power"" --> please demonstrate in which WP rule the missing edit summaries are regarded as legitimate reason for user blockage as proposed by given administrator, and I promise I will be extremely happy to withdraw my statement, really. --Stephfo (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My latest ublock request was declined: "I see multiple attempts to add contentious content to objections to evolution without any attempt to explain your edits in edit summaries. That is edit warring. It is also obvious edit warring, as jpgordon stated in the previous declined unblock request. It is also clear from your comments above that you have not understood the reason you have been blocked. If you wish to be unblocked, you must convince us that (a) you understand the reason for your block, and (b) you will cease the activity that led you to being blocked. ~Amatulic (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)"

  • 1. I do declare I did not perform any edit add-on since I was warned and I would be very much surprised if anybody would be able to prove such false declaration. My latest activity at article page is provably [1] 16:29, 9 August 2011 whereas the warning about alleged edit warring was formulated ca 4hours later: 20:15, 9 August 2011 [2] Thus, it is false accusation that I did anything with the article page after being warned.
  • 2. Add. "I see multiple attempts to add contentious content to objections to evolution without any attempt to explain your edits in edit summaries. That is edit warring." I did no single attempt to do anything with article page after being warned. Moreover, the above declaration is provably in discrepancy with edit warring definition in WP:edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I did not revert anyone's contributions. If someone lacks the edit summaries, it is possible to solve it by simply stating so, and I can fix it, still, WP is full of edit add-ons which are self-explanatory by its content and the fact that you do not stand up for what you declare (that missing edit summary should lead to blockage) can be demonstrated by following edits lacking any summary that will not trigger you into blocking of respective persons: [3] [4]. I have no problem to add edit summaries if the content itself is not regarded as sufficient for someone and I do declare that I regard my blockage for violation of WP rules if this should be the reason for my blockage, as there is clearly no such rule in force.
  • 3. You declare "it is obvious edit warring", but at the same time you are ignoring my question on how many of my interventions at article page text did you manage to count after I was warned - it is obvious that this accusation is false because you cannot find even single such intervention. You "speak" about "the activity that led you to being blocked" but you are not able to prove your claim by quoting single instance of such activity after I was warned 20:15, 9 August 2011. That's highly unethical.
  • 4. As for accusation of block evading, it is logical fallacy, I'm not doing anything with article page, but just exactly follow the instructions of User:Nick-D given to me 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC): "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus." It sounds like catch-22 if you encourage person to do something and then you reproach him for doing the very same thing. I do not assign IP addresses to my computer and do not understand the IP-range and activity range during blockage period. If I access a page and it allows me for edit, I assume the blockage is not in force for that particular activity but main purpose is avoid editing article pages.
  • 5. It is not my fault that someone regards facts such as that biologist Kenyon, emeritus professor at University, abandoned evolutionary position, for contentious. Direct wikilinks prove the reality of this fact.
  • 6. Add."edit summaries. That is edit warring. It is also obvious edit warring, as jpgordon stated in the previous declined unblock request. It is also clear from your comments above that you have not understood the reason you have been blocked." Pls. explain how it could be understood from my initial blockage that missing edit summaries were the reason for my blockage. There is demonstrably no such statement whatsoever. You are shifting the reasoning after failing to identify the edits of mine that should be eligible for edit warring. I challenge you: Pls. enlist the exact edits of mine that I did after being warned 20:15, 9 August 2011 that you regard as activity of edit warring. Thanx. Stephfo (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(1) You have made multiple attempts to add essentially the same material to an article. that is edit warring. (2) While you have been blocked you have edited without using this account so as to avoid the effect of being blocked. That is block evasion. If you persist in making these ridiculous unblock requests that don't recognise reality there is a likelihood that your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My request for unblock was refused with following reasoning: "You have made multiple attempts to add essentially the same material to an article. that is edit warring. (2) While you have been blocked you have edited without using this account so as to avoid the effect of being blocked. That is block evasion. If you persist in making these ridiculous unblock requests that don't recognise reality there is a likelihood that your talk page access will be removed." : 1. However, I demonstrably did only single attempt to add material on group of biologist incl. Kenyon [5](after all, this is the only way how articles on WP can be created, by adding content, there is no other way AFAIK) and single revert [6] of undo of my add on, when I mistakenly concluded that given user did revert while avoiding discussion. Nothing else. The other single add on I did was on Brazil [7], and there is no correlation whatsoever with first one ("essentially the same material" demonstrably does not apply). I believe it is ridiculous to regard adding first-time-content to page for edit warring (then anybody who contributes to article twice should be ridiculously regarded as performing edit warring). Moreover, I did no single text manipulation after I was warned not to do so at 20:15, 9 August 2011. If you declare that "You have made multiple attempts to add essentially the same material" after 20:15, 9 August 2011, please prove it is so, I do declare you will not be able to do so as I did nothing like that. Ridiculous is to declare something that is not in line with reality - please prove your claim by specifically pointing to my edits that you refer to as "multiple attempts to add essentially the same material to an article". The correct statement is that I did single attempt "to add essentially the same material to an article", I acknowledge my mistake when I concluded that user erasing my text is avoiding discussion, but at the same time I express my strong doubts that there is any WP rule that classifies such single attempt made by mistake as eligible for 7d blockage. 2. As for "While you have been blocked you have edited without using this account so as to avoid the effect of being blocked. That is block evasion." I acknowledge my mistake in this regard, but it was caused by blocking administrator encouraging me to "you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus". You should be fair and not overlook this fact and assume a good faith rather than bad. Moreover, to explain legitimacy of blockage on 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) by actions (mere answering the Qs on talk page) happening 20 hours later (20:26, 10 August 2011); caused by misleading advice and classified as violation only because the 1st blockage was possibly illegitimate, should not be logically possible. I'm not able to violate the physical laws and travel in time. Stephfo (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
How in one short sentance can you say only added the data once, and then follow up with the fact that you reverted it - that's two additions of the same material - the mechanism of adding is illrelevant. Also the unblock request is far too long, please keep it short.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC) It is difficult to understand the reasons for my blockage if the blocking administrators constantly shift reasoning w/o mutual consistence and are not able to prove their declarations (1. material was not supported, 2.missing edit summary as eligible reason for blockage, 3.multiple attempts to add same material whereas only single one 4. unknown "other reasons")and when WP states that there is a 3rr rule in force eligible for blockage that I clearly did not violate. You cannot declare first-time attempt as adding essentially same material because there is no previous material (to be referenced to) that was added and there is no other way of creating articles. The three-revert rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period... Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert (what is actually my case: [8]). First add-on of own material thus clearly does not classify as revert eligible for edit warring. The only lesson I can take from this is that it does not make sense to follow rules, because even if you stop edits after being warned and reduce solely to discussion, they will block you anyway w/o bothering to reason appropriately. What is then the meaning of warnings if taking it seriously has no effect? Pls. explain based on what you have classified my contributions [9][10] as disruptive. Thanx in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stephfo, you recently reverted my comment on this page, stating Ref: "You are not allowed to revert someone on their own talk page. Please don't do it again. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:36 pm, 9 August 2011, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC-4)". I'm not sure if you're suggesting that my edit reverted yours (it didn't), or if you don't want my comment here and are warning me against reverting (I didn't). If you don't want me posting on your talk page, all you have to do is ask. However, the distinction between EW and 3rr I pointed out in the comment you removed is important, as you seem to not understand it. I'll take your revert to indicate you read my comment, and now understand that distinction. If not, you should ask someone for guidance before requesting another unblock, or continuing to edit. With that, I'll take this as indication you aren't interested in discussing the matter further with me, and leave you to your page. Feel free to remove this comment if you feel so inclined. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are manipulating with my text moving it from one place to other, I have nothing against your comments but please don't touch my own contributions.
As for EW, there is clearly 3rr within EW and I clearly did not violate anything mentioned in that article as definition of EW: WP:EW#What edit warring is Please read properly there in: "What edit warring is: 1.1 The three-revert rule"; "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." and compare it with your sentence: "the distinction between EW and 3rr" --Stephfo (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked your comment. My response would be: "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Please note I did only single revert at article page, not s series. Thanx for your understanding. --Stephfo (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My unblock request was refused with reasoning: "How in one short sentance can you say only added the data once, and then follow up with the fact that you reverted it - that's two additions of the same material - the mechanism of adding is illrelevant." However, the WP:EW#The three-revert rule clearly states that first-time add-ons of content does not count as reverts increasing the 3rr counter. I do declare that I regard my mutually not correlated content add-ons [11] [12] as done in good faith as useful (there is really no other way how to create the WP article than adding the content, it would be ridiculous to regard such add-ons as disruptive and eligible for 3rr counter increase), someone with different POV might not like them, but then should start discuss them at talk page, and not block me and declare them as disruptive (especially if I do nothing else but discuss my removed content at article talk page). There is no support in any WP rule for such act. Likewise, I do declare that I performed only single revert of my own contribution, by mistake when I expected that it was removed by someone who purposefully avoids discussion, but even then still within the following WP rule: ""An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period... Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert (what is actually my case -single revert: [13])". I regard it for awkward that I should be blocked for keeping the WP rules. Stephfo (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I never mentioned 3RR, you were claiming that the phrase used You have made multiple attempts to add was incorrect and you had only added the data once. Then you state that you reverted the deletion of that data - QED: You added the data twice, and that phase used was therefore not incorrect as you claimed. I would also suspect that it's unlikely that anyone will unblock. I would suggest just sitting this one out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just a piece of advice

It's almost a guarantee that an admin is not going to unblock you before the block period is up and the more you abuse the unblock template the higher the chances that you're not getting unblocked. I realize that you feel like people aren't understanding what you're saying. What you need to understand is that your behavior is getting you blocked, and unless you change it then the blocks will escalate until you eventually get banned. It's true that normally a 7 day block would be overboard for edit warring, but (i)that's not the only reason you've been blocked and (ii) you've been blocked before and it seems to have had no effect on your behavior, therefore the block period increased. At this point you are not contributing to the project, you are wasting people's time and it's disruptive. I'll say the same I said for your previous block: when you come back, change the way you act. You probably shouldn't be editing articles related to creationism/evolution because it's obvious you are trying to push a POV and that's not what WP is for.

No one here is interested in hearing all your arguments about this or that; if your ideas get rejected over and over again then it's time to move on. I know you claimed it hasn't been logically explained to you why your edits shouldn't be in the article, but in fact they have been explained, just not to your standards. However, no one is obligated to explain everything to you until you're satisfied. You either have to accept the explanations given and move on, or you're just gonna get topic banned, and quickly. On that note, if, upon your return, you act the way you've been acting, I will propose a topic ban myself, and with the way you've been editing I don't think it's unfair to assume that it will pass. You have to think that if you have a problem with almost every editor on a page, and then multiple uninvolved admins also tell you that you're wrong, then it just might be you who's the problem. And before you craft a lengthy response to this: don't bother. I am not here to discuss the topic with you, I am simply pointing out to you what is obvious to everyone else so that you just might "get it" and stop the disruption; thusly, I will not respond even if you do waste your time. Noformation Talk 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone declares that I did "multiple attempts to add essentially the same content" whereas in fact I demonstrably did only single one, then something is obviously wrong at other side, especially if the only response to my defence and pointing to this fact is further threat like this one of yours instead of proving the validity of the original claim or acceptance of my point in line with WP:civility. Likewise (as for past cases), if someone declares e.g. that particular article contains mistakes in the field of biology, but in fact is not able to state single one, I guess that way of argumentation should not satisfy anybody who pursues elementary rules of logic. --Stephfo (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Add. "it's obvious you are trying to push a POV and that's not what WP is for" - Quite the opposite is true, the article is pushing POV and witch-hunts any other independent opinion. Example of evidence:
Everybody accepted the sentence which was there perhaps since the beginning of existence of article and I don't even know who the author was:
"While objections primarily originate from the United States, there is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world[8] and South Africa[9] with smaller followings in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada.[10]"
Until I added Harvard-university press-sourced information [14] about the countries that do not look up to wishes of POV of article authors:
"While objections primarily originate from the United States, there is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world[8], South Africa[9], South Korea ("the creationist capital of the world in density") and Brazil (in 2004 governor of state of Rio de Janeiro announced that public schools would be teaching creationism) with smaller followings in Israel[10], Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada.[11]"
From that time on, previously ever-present acceptable sentence became unacceptable, after more balanced NPOV was added: User:Hrafn:"geographic extent of Creationism is mentioned nowhere in article body; nor is it related to the article topic which is the THEMATIC extent of creationism".--Stephfo (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Stephfo, I have left some advice for you here. I hope it will help you out in the future when you edit. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked without demonstrating any violation of valid WP:rules

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by reasoning that I allegedly performed edit warring at article page. At WP:EW there is however clear statement: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.""An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." However, I in fact adhered to provided rule there in: Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert (what is actually my case -single revert: [15])". I do declare that I regard my block unjustified as there is no demonstration provided of any rule that I would break (criterion are objectively enlisted in the edit war definition: WP:EW#What edit warring is - pls. note there is nothing like "adding the data twice"), and my single revert is demonstrably in line with WP rules, as well as my behaviour when I started solely to discuss at the article talk page immediately after my allowed single revert did not get through. Thus, after being warned, I clearly followed all the recommendation to restrict myself to discussion at the article talk page hence it sounds a fortiori as even higher nonsense to punish someone for keeping recommendations. I also do declare that I did not override contribution of anyone else.

  • P.S.: Please do not purposefully overlook my points but provide any rationale why you deem a warnings are there at all if keeping their advices leads to blockage. You also seem breaking a rule of WP:civility and of assuming a good faith when you perhaps purposefully overlook my reasoning that I did that single revert (that is still in line with WP:rules) only because I was convinced that the person who erased my content was escaping a discussion (assumption based on removing my Qs).
  • P.S.2: In my strong opinion a single revert should cause blockage only if it would be clearly explained that it is so (if it really is) at WP:EW page because otherwise the sentence "experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert" is clearly misleading the readers into a trap. Thanx
  • P.S.3: I'm convinced I will manage to find instances when a editor(s) who previously added a content later reverted it again after it was erased by someone else, if you regard this single revert for legitimate reason for blockage, I wonder if you would block respective person(s) as well, pls. confirm. Thanks. Stephfo (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were repeatedly attempting to add content against consensus; this has been explained to you above. You do not necessarily need to be undoing edits to make your actions disruptive, however that is in essence what you were doing anyway by ignoring the established consensus on this article. The block is justified, more so given your recent evasion of said block which you make no effort to address here.

  • P.S.: Adhering to the letter of policy, rather than the spirit, is destructive to the project and in no way convinces us that unblocking early would be a good idea. See WP:LAWYER.
  • P.S.2: Again, not blocked for a single revert, but a series of edits against consensus.
  • P.S.3: Don't bother. This block is due to your actions, not those of others. See WP:NOTTHEM. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unfair reasoning by referring to non-existent alleged "consensus"

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My last request for unblock was refused by following reasoning: "You were repeatedly attempting to add content against consensus; this has been explained to you above. You do not necessarily need to be undoing edits to make your actions disruptive, however that is in essence what you were doing anyway by ignoring the established consensus on this article." (italics added by user:Stephfo). However, this is demonstrably in discrepancy with reality as I did my last manipulation with page at 16:29, 9 August 2011 [16] whereas the second editor reacting on the initial explanation of undo of my add-on at article talk page only expressed his opinion at 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[17]. Thus, it is clearly impossible that any consensus could have been reached (consensus requires at least 2 editors I believe) by the time of my last touch with the article page, which was 1 hour before the first editor has noticed the discussion being triggered. I apologize for any inconvenience, but such reasoning sounds awkward to the highest degree. Thanx for your understanding. *P.S.1: Pls. note I'm admitting that I did this SINGLE REVERT BY MISTAKE (but still within allowed 1-revert rule) when based on erasing my Qs I mistakenly assumed that the person who undid my content addition is trying to escape discussion and thus I regarded it for vandalism thus performed this SINGLE REVERT; - from this perspective I regard the accusations that I'm ill(disruptive)-spirited for extremely awkward. *P.S.2: By the way, this discussion is still going on, there are Qs raised addressed to me that await my unblock to be answered. Thus, even from this perspective it is difficult to imagine a consensus has been reached if there are still open Qs. Stephfo (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No evidence that the user understands the reason for the block and no indication that the disruptive behavior will not continue. causa sui (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

We seem to be totally focused only the on Edit Warring - may I remind you that you current block summary is ?(Edit warring: Block reset for block evasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=444130691) - I don't any explanation for those actions. I'll let someone else answer the unblock, but since the block expires in three days, I wouldn't be optimistic, and I would think that many more unblocks might well stop access here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
If you are focused only on Edit Warring, pls. stop it, but rather focus on WP:civility, righteousness, and appropriate meaningful reasoning in line with WP:rules. Pls. do not play to overlook my arguments: "I acknowledge my mistake in this regard, but it was caused by blocking administrator encouraging me to "you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus". You should be fair and not overlook this fact and assume a good faith rather than bad. Moreover, to explain legitimacy of blockage on 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) by actions (mere answering the Qs on talk page) happening 20 hours later (20:26, 10 August 2011); caused by misleading advice and classified as violation only because the 1st blockage was possibly illegitimate, should not be logically possible. I'm not able to violate the physical laws and travel in time." Thanx a LOT in advance for your kind understanding in line with WP:civility.--Stephfo (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No evidence that administrators understand the reason for the block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stephfo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My recent unblock request was declined with following reasoning: "No evidence that the user understands the reason for the block and no indication that the disruptive behavior will not continue." :However, it is quite natural as nobody who adheres to elementary rules of logic should understand how the declared consensus could be reached and broken at 16:29, 9 August 2011 (my last touch with article page) [18] well before the first editor joined the article talk page discussion at 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[19]. Likewise, it is not possible to understand how adding a first-time content in good faith (THERE IS NO OTHER WAY HOW TO CREATE ARTICLES!), adhering to one-revert rule WP:EW("experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of ... limiting themselves to a single revert") and restricting yourself to article talk page discussion immediately after warning (cf.:"each editor should be warned and immediately cease reverting and start discussing") could be classified as disruptive, it would require a redefinition of edit warring at the very minimum. Thanks in advance for hopefully adhering to proclaimed "This user believes in civility and assuming good faith" and "This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know". Stephfo (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

All I see here is a rant that does not say anything of substance. I don't see any hint that you acknowledge either the edit warring or the block evasion, nor do I see an explanation of why your actions do not fall under the definition of those actions. Taker this time off to read WP:EDITWAR and WP:SOCK. I will be revoking your talk page, if you wish to appeal this block further you may contact WP:ARBCOM be email as described at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Add."All I see here is a rant that does not say anything of substance." --> I believe if someone values some ethical standards, he should be able to spot that blocking a person using reasoning clearly in discrepancy with reality is somewhat anything of substance.
Add."I don't see any hint that you acknowledge either the edit warring or the block evasion, nor do I see an explanation of why your actions do not fall under the definition of those actions."--> That could be caused by your failure to read my text above. I clearly acknowledged that I did my SINGLE revert by mistake ("I do declare that I performed only single revert of my own contribution, by mistake when I expected that it was removed by someone who purposefully avoids discussion") but "even then still within the following WP rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period... Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert (what is actually my case -single revert: [20])". It is very difficult to acknowledge an edit warring if blocking authority is not able to demonstrate it and identify edits of mine that should be evidence of it. As for block evasion, I acknowledged it several times already ("I acknowledge my mistake in this regard, but it was caused by blocking administrator encouraging me to "you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus". You should be fair and not overlook this fact and assume a good faith rather than bad") but at the same time I did declare that my act could be classified as block evasion only if that block was legitimate ("to explain legitimacy of blockage on 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) by actions (mere answering the Qs on talk page) happening 20 hours later (20:26, 10 August 2011); caused by misleading advice and classified as violation only because the 1st blockage was possibly illegitimate, should not be logically possible. I'm not able to violate the physical laws and travel in time."), what has not been demonstrated ("please let me know how many repeatedly overridings of any other editor contributions performed by me have you counted on the "objections to evolutions" page, if you are so certain about it. I do declare that I performed only single undo, in mistaken belief (based on User:Apokryltaros erasing of my Qs at his talk page) that he is purposefully avoiding discussion; and this only undo was performed ca 4h before the edit warring warning was issued by User:Dominus Vobisdu at my talks page above.")--Stephfo (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Since I have already declined one unblock request I will leave this to another administrator to assess. However, I suggest that if, as is likely, the latest request is declined, then the user's talk page access be revoked too, to prevent further waste of time with these endless unblock requests that add nothing new to the ones which have already been declined. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for any inconvenience, but if someone responds to my point that the reasoning is in blatant discrepancy with reality by suggestion to revoke my talk page while at the same time values like WP:civility and "This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know" are proclaimed, then there is something obviously highly unethical IMHO. P.S.: cf."For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached."--Stephfo (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind as well that the block is on you, the person, under any identity. If you evade the block again it is virtually guaranteed that it will be extended indefinitely, so please don't do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Objections to evolution. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.

This issue has already been discussed to death on the article's talkpage -- with the WP:CONSENSUS heavily against you. If you feel you have a genuine issue (and for myself, I don't think you do), then the obvious next step is to request a WP:RFC, report it to an appropriate noticeboard (see above) or other dispute resolution (also see above). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If possible, pls. let me know if you filed any report to any ANI board before you managed to get me blocked, thanks.
It is becoming strange that you declare citation of University press for disruptive if it is not in line with your POV. My arguments for given edit has been present at article talk page for some weeks with no reaction whatsoever. Moreover, pls. also note: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." [443904383] [441499563]--Stephfo (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
"It is becoming strange that" you seem absolutely oblivious to the fact that (i) your "citation of University press" says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your edit's central claim that this whole thing is an "obvious exception", (ii) that you seem absolutely oblivious to the fact that your edit has been rejected by a clear WP:CONSENSUS on article talk, and that continuing to WP:EDITWAR against this consensus is clearly disruptive. And I would suggest that your entire user talkpage is a testament to why it is an utter and complete waste of time to try to "writ[e] your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation" to you. I have warned you that your edits (both on the article and article talk) are disruptive, I have brought appropriate dispute resolution to your attention, that is all I really intended to do. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Add. (i) Citation of university press confirms that:
- Dean Kenyon is professor emeritus at department of biology and that is blatantly in contradiction to article claim that objections to evolution are coming from religious sources.
- Other University press openly states that "Although Kenyon was a co-author of Biochemical Predestination, an influential textbook on the chemical origin of life, he later concluded that evolutionary science was not equipped to answer such questions. Subsequently, when teaching the standard evolutionary model in the introductory biology course for non-majors, he would explain his own scepticism about these theories…" what is the VERY CENTRAL CLAIM of my edit add-on. If you like, I can strictly state the sentence 1:1, would it help your understanding?
"A disruptive editor is an editor who: Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" --Stephfo (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- The edit provides the evidence that reason for Kenyon to abandon evolutionary position was not religious, but inability to refute his student argument presented as "to explain how first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions". I do not mind if you refute this argument after this sentence, and I very encourage to do it, but you should not misrepresent the position of other people, it is not ethical and it is breaching WP:V policy: “Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”. You're damaging the reputation of living people such as Kenyon by attributing to him religious objections whereas there is no religious book where there would be any mention how "how first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions", what was the primary reason why he abandoned evolutionary position and other ID biologist declare more-less the same if you'd study their positions in detail, contrary to the impression the article page is trying to push.
You only declare my verifiable edits as disruptive because they're not in line with your POV and consequently you are willing to sacrifice even basic WP policy on NPOV even if the information added is properly sourced from university press, IMHO. Again, please note I have absolutely no objection whatsoever if you refute given standpoints, but you should not declare that they are UNDUE if they are clearly verifiable as standpoint of most prominent movement that the article pays attention to and people objectively will possibly come in contact with them outside Wikipedia, so that there is no reason to taboo them.
As for consensus, there was no single oppose presented against the proposition "".--Stephfo (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Level of support for evolution, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — raekyT 16:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephfo/Archive_1&oldid=1079459951"