Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 30 September 2011

Welcome

Hello, Stephfo! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nomination of Paleoscience for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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, Anupam 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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

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. Nformation 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages-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. Hrafn_Stalk(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 & Misplaced Pages'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. Hrafn_Stalk(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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Anupam 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: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

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.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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 Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_appealing_blocks and Misplaced Pages: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-llists.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

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. ~Amatulić (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. ~Amatulić (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)

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. ~Amatulić (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 16:29, 9 August 2011 whereas the warning about alleged edit warring was formulated ca 4hours later: 20:15, 9 August 2011 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: . 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.

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 (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 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages, 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  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: ). 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 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)

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 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: )". 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  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. Nformation 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 and South Africa with smaller followings in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada."

Until I added Harvard-university press-sourced information 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, South Africa, 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, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada."

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, Anupam 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked without demonstrating any violation of valid WP:rules

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: )". 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 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"

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 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). 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/search/?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  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

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) well before the first editor joined the article talk page discussion at 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC). 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: )". 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.

• 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 Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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). Hrafn_Stalk(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." --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 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. Hrafn_Stalk(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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• Please do not make edits such as your recent one to Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. That was either a deliberate disruptive edit to make a point, or else such a gross misunderstanding as to call into doubt your competence to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Either if those, if repeated, could be reasons for blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for an indefinite period

"A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

You can claim that the discussion is "an edit promoted by a single editor and rejected by a strong consensus (i.e. this was NOT a dispute between just "two parties")" because you witch-hunt everybody who is not in line with your POV and are able to close the discussion even after just 2h:45min 441759190 441781320 if you (alleged "strong consensus" group) do not like the point, so that any editors potentially having NPOV from your own POV get disillusioned about WP and step out, such cases can be found in WP if you search discussion pages of editors, like this one discussion, for example, between two editors: "I am glad that you have the ability to comprehend major flaws in Evolutionary thinking, however, the Evolution talk page is not a forum for debate. I fear that if I brought something like this up they would call it Fringe or find some wiki-policy and close it immediately without further discussion. Or they would simply find some back ally html website that claims to counter that argument as this has happened to me before as well. Thanks for the help, I will keep researching.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)" --Stephfo (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Nick-D! I am chiming in here to voice my concerns. I do not think that User:Stephfo should be indefinitely blocked. In the past, I saw the situation occurring on the article and noticed that User:Stephfo was temporarily blocked; as such, since he was a new editor, I offered him/her advice on the talk page, telling him/her to add and format the references to content that he inserts in the future. When User:Stephfo was unblocked, he/she simply tried to do this at the article; he/she, in my view, was simply trying to follow my advice, as his recent edits demonstrate. Moreover, after his edits were reverted, he did not revert a single time, but tried to discuss his new insertions on the talk page. I honestly think that blocking him/her indefinitely is going a little too far. Rather, I would suggest cautioning him/her from editing that particular article in the future, if that is the problem. If you'll look at some of his/her other edits, it's evident that he/she respects others and does take the concerns of others into consideration. Furthermore, being a very new editor, I do not think that this is an appropriate punishment. I hope that this request is taken into consideration. Have a good day User:Nick-D! With regards, Anupam 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose lifting the block on this editor as he has been a combative SPA here only to push creationist POV. After multiple warnings, previous blocks and countless explanations he continues to systematically abuse horses and his attitude has not changed at all - there is no indication that he understands why his behavior is wrong and at some point WP:COMPETENCE has to come into play. I don't know if it's a language thing or a maturity thing or what, but the consequences are such that it's bad for the encyclopedia.

I propose that the block only be lifted if Stephfo abstains from all creation and evolution articles, broadly construed, though I doubt he'd be interested in editing other articles. And even then, I think he needs to demonstrate that he understands why his editing has been problematic thus far. Nformation 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Before I will officially request for unblock I'd like to ask whom with I can discuss aspects of my block, especially I'd like to learn whether there is any administrator who could navigate me to the claimed CONSENSUS that I was declared to breach (''", which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago"''), namely: Who post that CONSENSUS, WHERE, WHEN and WHAT is the WORDING (Actual statement) of that particular CONSENSUS by time of my disputed edit at 10:01, 3 September 2011, alternatively a link to edit that would provide all these information. I do declare as being blocked, I'm not aware of any other possibility for such request for clarification. Thanx in advance ] (]) 21:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)}}

I've turned off this request as it indicates it is not, in fact, an unblock request. The best person to discuss aspects of your block with is the blocking admin. Anupam has already asked them to comment here. I will mention that the key points here are whether or not you were edit warring and the perception that you have an overly combative attitude that clashes with Misplaced Pages's collaborative style. Whether your editing was in line with or opposed to an established consensus is less important than whether or not you edit warred, which is always the wrong thing to do unless reverting blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

But How can I discuss with blocking admin? I can only do it as non-logged-in and then he will change the reasoning for blockage to block evasion, as he did last time.--Stephfo (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems fairly typical of the attitude that is causing you such difficulties here. You apparently failed to comprehend what I just said, either because you did not read it thoroughly or because you are only responding to your emotional reaction to it as opposed to the actual message. The blocking admin has already been asked to comment here. I've asked him again on your behalf, but he does not appear to be on-wiki at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have much more to add beyond the diffs in my block message above, which I note that Stephfo hasn't responded to. The discussion on the material Stephfo recently re-added to the article is at Talk:Objections to evolution#Revert Explanation - from this discussion in early August there was almost no support from other editors to include the material, with several editors expressing exasperation with Stephfo's approach. This also needs to be seen in the context of Stephfo's aggressive editing of this article and articles on related topics and rude talk page posts over the last few months (see also the last few threads at Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 7). I've set the block duration as indefinite because this aggressive and disruptive behaviour is Stephfo's standard operating procedure, and previous time-limited blocks haven't been successful in altering it. Moreover, Stephfo's attempt to make WP:POINT changes to the core policy WP:EW represents a fairly significant escalation of what was already unacceptable behaviour. Stephfo; you're welcome to appeal this block, but I think that the ball is really in your court here and it's only going to be lifted if and when you give firm and convincing commitments to alter your editing style. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick-D, one thing that we must keep in mind is that when he/she added content to that article recently, he/she did so following my suggestion to add supporting references with the content (which he/she did not do before). In my opinion, this, itself, demonstrates a commitment to improvement. User:Stephfo, the reviewing administrator, User:Nick-D, has stated that he may lift your block if you "give firm and convincing commitments to alter your editing style." I would recommend reading the relevant policies and then offer an amicable statement regarding your future editing. I'm sure that if you do this, User:Nick-D or another administrator will unblock you. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam 23:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong; he thinks it's everyone else that's the problem. This goes beyond simply following your advice this one time, Stephfo has been a problem since he started editing and, as I said above, I'm sure it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Perhaps he should be directed to his native language Misplaced Pages. Nformation 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I do declare I will willingly accept accusation of doing wrong, but first I have to understand what that wrong is, for example, please, explain what I should do differently, for example, in the last enlisted edit:. The user reverted my CN tag even though it was placed in line with WP:source policy on missing verifiability (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable.") and properly explained in edit summary . User:Mann Jess reacted on my kind pointing out that he did not explained his revert by acknowledging mistake and allowing me to put that CN back: "1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." What's wrong with that and why it is deemed as disruptive editing? What I should do differently?--Stephfo (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that was a polite post? You were engaged in a content dispute over material you wanted to add to the Level of support for evolution article with Mann jess (talk · contribs), and that post on his talk page was basically a demand that he undo part of his changes (complete with an uncivil edit summary which read "Removal of template w/o reson might be presceived as EW, I guess that was a mistake from your side"). Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What is impolite in using form "I'd like to kindly ask you..."? I provided the reason for the kind asking and reference to article talk page for more detailed explanation of such kind asking, we have not started the content dispute yet ("On the rest I will react later, Thanks for allowing for CN."). If there is more common/better form usually used in WP than "I'd like to kindly ask you..." I have no problem to adopt it, please let me know what it would be and I can use it instead, if this one is deemed as disruptive. Thanx in advance. --Stephfo (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As for edit summary, it does not allow you to write things as you'd like, I have to cut my sentences there many times, that's why you have to be stating things in as few words as possible. "Removal of template w/o reason might be perceived as EW" is statement of truth, I believe, and "I guess that was a mistake from your side" was assumption that proved to be correct later on ("I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted.").--Stephfo (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What was impolite, as NickD already explained, is coming to my page after being reverted and accusing me of edit warring, then demanding that I self-revert. Since I reverted you once, with a clearly explained reason, the appropriate way to handle that would have been to post on the article talk page, and allow me to respond there. BTW, you're misrepresenting me all over the place, by suggesting that my wording on the talk page supports you in some way. It doesn't. I didn't have a problem with the CN tag because I haven't read the source you placed it immediately before, so I'm in no position to judge. It simply got mixed in during my revert of your other content, and I commented in order to say that I had no particular opinion on the tag. (Note, other editors do have a problem with it, apparently) Please stop using my words as some sort of support for your other editing, which has almost wholly been combative and disruptive. That edit had nothing to do with your block in any case, so bringing it up repeatedly is just sidestepping the actual issue. If you legitimately want to contribute constructively, start at the beginning, and read through the mountains of advice you've received from other editors. It can't be explained better than it already has, which is why you're getting little response to your queries now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note your revert did not actually provide any reason for removing CN tag ("Reverted 3 edits by Stephfo (talk): This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education. Please discuss on talk.") but only for other edit ("the study") and that was actually my reason why I asked you to revert it back (I mean as partial revert, The CN tag was inserted due to "There is no source of such claim by any creationist provided, but just general explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable") which had nothing to do with the study you used as explanation for all edits removals in "one go"). Please also note that I have not accused you of edit warring but provided statement of truth that removing tag w/o explanation "might be perceived as EW" what is conditional sentence, as I expected that you did remove the tag by mistake and I believe your sentence "It simply got mixed in during my revert of your other content" proves that removing this tag was not your original intention. If I'd like to be impolite I would put CN tag back w/o asking as others usually do. Please also note I followed "the appropriate way to handle that" and "have been to post on the article talk page" and even "allow to respond there", but since I was waiting for some time and there was no response coming I was not sure whether you will notice that and thus decided to better secure it and specifically let you know about the talk page discussion. I hope there is nothing wrong with that. Thanx for you understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page one hour after the article talk page, at a time when I wasn't active on wiki. Accusing me of edit warring because I hadn't responded to you within an hour is unacceptable. I'm really not interested in discussing this matter further. I only posted here to ask you to stop suggesting that I've supported your edits. I have not. Our discussion is not related to your block, and in no way indicates any support of your contributions. If you want to get anywhere, you're going to have to understand why you got blocked, and I've done as much as I can to explain that to you already; I simply can't be of any further help. As such, I won't be posting back here again, unless there's a particularly compelling reason. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note again I did not accuse you of EW, but provided general statement of truth why removing something w/o rationale is deemed by WP as wrong. I'm acknowledging my kindly asking you to react was after just short time, but it was because I was not sure if you will notice my post (at article discussion page) at all by next day and since I myself was going to sleep, I decided to try explicitly let you know about it on your own talk page. There was no intention to push you or any other bad-faith intention, I just wanted to bring your attention onto discussion, nothing more and nothing less. I do not suggest that you supported my edits with the only exception on putting the CN back, it would be extremely difficult to conclude that "feel free to put back" should be interpreted as disagreement with such action. Thanks for nice honest wish. --Stephfo (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if User:Stephfo apologizes for any caused offense, that should be sufficient. As such, I have seen that recently, he/she has added references to his insertions and has attempted to discuss them on the talk page, without reverting. In my opinion, this behaviour should not be penalized, especially when dealing with a controversial article. Moreover, I looked at the cited differences and User:Stephfo has also "kindly asked" and "thanked" the users he was working with in comments. I think that we should wait for User:Stephfo to read the administrator's comment and see if he/she replies appropriately, which will contribute to the administrator's decision in this matter. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Anupam 23:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the context of Stephfo's talk page posts: he or she was using 'please' and 'thanks' while demanding that other editors either agree to his or her positions or explain themselves in detail. They weren't polite messages. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I never demand other editors to agree with me, that's quite far from truth, but it is correct that I ask other editors to explain themselves in detail if their standpoint is not clear, especially if they use their arguments in line with slogan "their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion" and do not bother anyhow to prove their claims by any evidence whatsoever. As far as I could read WP policies, there is nothing wrong with that. For example, one such request for clarification was also labelled as disruptive edit: in my blockage reasoning. WP:IDONLIKEIT policy states: "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion". Here I'm admitting I overdid it a bit and my position could be presented in more civil way, I apologize to whoever might feel offended by this edit of mine, but still this was caused by experience that editors who have good faith and collaborative approach normally fix the formatting and grammar deficiencies w/o using them as pretext for content deletion ("poor references; poor grammar and reference formatting"). And if they deem fixing deficiencies as not possible, the WP rule states "the rationale for deletion" (why given claim applies) should be provided, which was clearly not (Pls. note the missing rationale is actually perceived by WP as legitimate qualification of given delete as "IDONLIKEIT" approach thus unacceptable). I wonder, if you do not regard the missing explanation of deletion (why poor grammar and poor formatting applies) as disruptive (but controversially my asking for clarification you do), what is your own understanding what grammar and formatting rule was allegedly breached (I even admire you if you are able to understand it from given deletion) and why in your opinion the editor omitted to state (for example, after my request if not right away as experienced editor) why that policy applies (alleged breached grammar rule) in spite of clear guidance by WP to do so? In my opinion collaborative good-faith editors should do so, otherwise it looks like someone is stating his/her objection in such a way so that it never can be fixed and satisfied. I do declare I'm not able to understand the deletion grammar and formatting deficiencies if they are not presented and if asking them to be clarified is deemed as disruptive, then please provide explanation what other way I should use to find them out. Please also note, contrary to attitude I met after my asking, I would never avoid to provide explanation if I'd be asked for it. Thanks for your kind understanding --Stephfo (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That talk page post basically ignored the comments made by Hrafn about the material you'd re-added to the Objections to evolution article as well as the previous discussion of this material in which there was little support for including it in the article. Instead, you claimed that editors who opposed including the material were acting dishonestly. Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your point, but when my sentence began with "I would like to ask again what is the demonstration of claim "poor grammar and reference formatting" of my edit" then I believe my Q was ignored first what I deemed as impolite and I tried to point out that it would be perhaps polite to answer it first before we move to other topic. Please explain why you deem as collaborative approach to ignore just my Q and then when I demand the answer after the topic was changed w/o providing that answer you accuse me for disruptive ignoring behaviour whereas the other party which started the ignoring attitude first is perceived as OK. Please note: WP:DE "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;" I believe my repeated request for answer was in line with that WP:Policy, as other party did not engage in consensus building and my Q at the beginning of section on deletion explanation had been clearly disregarded.

As for CONSENSUS, please explain: I'd like to ask whom with I can discuss aspects of my block, especially I'd like to learn whether there is any administrator who could navigate me to the claimed CONSENSUS that I was declared to breach ("this edit, which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago"), namely: Who posted that CONSENSUS, WHERE, WHEN and WHAT is the WORDING (Actual statement) of that particular CONSENSUS by time of my disputed edit at 10:01, 3 September 2011, alternatively a link to edit that would provide all these information. I do declare that I really do not understand when the moment of reaching CONSENSUS had occurred on time-line (so that from that moment onwards any my potential edit addition against the given CONSENSUS claim was becoming illegitimate) and I really would appreciate if somebody could explain it to me. I do declare that I have tried to follow the following WP rule: WP:TE "This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" If you investigate the discussion in more detail, you would find out that there is no reaction on my arguments presented at 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Thanx in advance for kind explanations. --Stephfo (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What I said over at Talk:Objections to evolution bears repeating, especially since Stephfo saw fit to totally ignore it, in that "...be aware that consensus may not be assumed if other editors are shunning you for constantly annoying and attacking them with your nonstop tendentious editing and edit-warring."--Mr Fink (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For my better understanding, may you pls. identify the major edits of mine that you refer to as annoying and attacking you so that I know what are you "talking about"? Thanks a lot in advance for demonstrating your claim.--Stephfo (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean besides your incessant edit-warring on Objections to Evolution and Support for evolution where you constantly tried to give undue weight to Intelligent Design and the tiny minority of scientists who support it? What about your constant badgering of Mann Jess which was mentioned above? Or what about the time you kept coming over to my talkpage in order to demand that I explain my actions to your own personal likings in nauseating detail, then repeatedly threaten to report me for vandalism each time I told you to take the thread to the article's talkpage?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not regard first time content add-ons from verifiable sources as edit warring, there is no other way to create Misplaced Pages. It is truth that at the beginning when I did not know how things go around here I participated in revert wars, especially if I regarded them (members of opposing opinion) unjust and unethically stating something without bothering to prove it. I do not care about ID actual POV, but if someone misrepresents position of others and maliciously damages his/her/their reputation, I have strong objections against such approach. I apologize for any inconvenience, but I really do not regard kindly asking with "thank you for your civility" for badgering, again, if you are aware of better form how to approach others, I'm willing to adopt it.

As for you, I apologized above in my unblock requests ("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.") and I can do it again if you like, but you started to constantly erase my question first what made me to react how I reacted. As for reason why I generally prefer 1:1 discussion (cf."Given such debates are generally theatre rather than serious expositions of the subject" stated by Talk on other occasion) - this is based on my experience with "strong consensus group", you start to shoot accusations one after another, without bothering to prove it, and in discrepancy with WP rule on providing the rationale, and when the thread becomes too long, you close the discussion as dead hoarse w/o addressing any of my arguments, even though the WP calls such attitude disruptive editing and non-collaborative ("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"). You often adapt Argumentum ad populum even though it is not right according to your own standards: "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" or "Truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote." Pls. also note during discussion process you made declaration that you were not able to prove ("the "prominent proponents of ID" have repeatedly stated that they have religious and not scientific objections to Evolutionary Biology"), If I were in your shoes, I would have no problem to acknowledge the mistake or inability as an adherence to WP:Civility (cf."Sorry, I have not noticed that the French revolution -chronology - has dedicated page, I'm accepting your point.--Stephfo (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)" 440622711). Asking for verifiable source, for example, of given claim, when none provided, is not that much nauseating detail IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As for pushing POV and tendentious editing, I do declare that I'm convinced the content I'm adding is objectively verifiable and completely independent of my own POV. On the other hand, I believe I can demonstrate the pushing POV and tendentious editing of the members of "strong Consensus" group:

Example#1 (of tendentious editing IMHO): Everybody accepted the sentence which was there Objections to evolution perhaps since the beginning of existence of article or at least for very long 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 and South Africa with smaller followings in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada."

Until I added verifiable Harvard-university press-sourced information 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, South Africa, 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, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada."

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) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Example#2: "Strong Consensus" group evidently pushes POV that to believe Evolution is right and scientific, to believe creationism is bad and just for stupid and/or poorly educated (Please note I personally do not care whether it is better to be evolutionist or creationist, but I strongly disagree if somebody is misrepresenting positions of others and tries to portray them as inferior group): "Support for creationism was stronger among the poor and the least educated." Level of support for evolution#Public support (Brazil). This is obviously "acceptable", in line with the POV of article authors.

WP in general encourages editors to balance articles if they (articles) obviously push just single POV.("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.") Being aware of quite contrary statement, I added it into the article: "Another report on survey performed in 2005 declared "The survey showed education level had only a slight influence on people's beliefs. Only 10% of those with a university degree believed in evolution unguided by a God, whereas among those without a university education, the figure was 6%." 448083392. Huh, this is not welcome, let's remove it immediately under pretext of alleged problems with survey (but do not mention that given problems are actually that creationists deemed survey as biased in favour of evolutionism). I was blamed for pushing POV, but whatever my POV is, the sentence "The survey showed education level had only a slight influence on people's beliefs" is 1:1 citation of verifiable source completely independent of my wishes or opinions, whether someone likes it or not. The only POV that can be attributed to me is the introductory sentence "Another report on survey performed in 2005 declared", and that one does not show much about my attitude to given topic. --Stephfo (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Add. battlefield mentality: I'd like to present my opinion what I deem as "battlefield mentality". As a case study we can use the situation at Level of support for evolution article page. After being encouraged by Jess (He will probably try to claim I misrepresent him, but the wording is clear beyond any doubt), namely by this sentence: "1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." I performed this edit of mine: 448210271 where I explained in edit summary that the reason for putting CN back is not only my own wish, but also I've been encouraged to do so "if want": "See: Feel free to put back in if you want. at atlk page and edit 18:57, 2 September 2011" and at talk page I also explained other motifs why I deemed as appropriate to instert this tag.

User Hrafn, even though the information on "feel free to put CN back" and other explanation on talk page was available in edit summary, unilaterally ignored the indication that there was specific approval for given insertion by 3-rd party editor ("feel free to put that back"), disregarded other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits at talk page ("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") and simply removed the given CN tag 448210528, even though IMHO it asks for complete betrayal of logic if someone would like to claim that that given in-line citation supports the associated claim, IMHO the statements are exactly opposite:

Premise 1: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory."

Premise 2 (In-line Citation allegedly proving such claim): "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum (Introduction to Logic, I.M. Copi, Macmillan, New York, 1978). The only thing that matters in science is if the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. As pointed out by creationist Bert Thompson, "Truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote." (The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science)"

I do not believe there might be more blatant discrepancy between attributed and actual claim, but of course I obviously do not have the licence for truth that "strong consensus" group obviously has.

Inconvenient truth, the convenient reaction at hand:

"As Stephfo has now been indef-blocked" 448357992 let's close the discussion, concerns not welcome, but finally solved by perfect rationale: "User indef blocked." 448493541. Problem solved. (cf."I fear that if I brought something like this up they would call it Fringe or find some wiki-policy and close it immediately without further discussion. Or they would simply find some back ally html website that claims to counter that argument as this has happened to me before as well. Thanks for the help, I will keep researching.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)").

P.S. Pls. note if I were in Hrafn's shoes, prior to trying to remove CN tag I would most likely try to approach Jess and explain him why I oppose his suggestion on putting the tag back and I would try also to address the concerns at the article discussion page, at least to some slight remote extent, before I would initiate a battle by accusing for Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. It is very deep internal Logic beyond my comprehension:

1. Feel free to put it back if you wish.

2. You actually did? Well, you are disruptive editor!

Very nice and civil WP:Civility. But I acknowledge nobody is perfect, neither I'm, but still I regard for nice if people acknowledge as humans when making mistakes, I'm at least open to do so if someone is able to explain what I did wrong. --Stephfo (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'm certainly not convinced by any of this. If you want this block to be lifted you need to file another unblock request that either

1. Explains clearly and succinctly why you were not edit warring and not being overly confrontational with other users
2. Admits that you were edit warring and being overly confrontational and detail specifically what would be different if you were to be unblocked.

Another administrator will come along and review any such requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note I have not filed any unblock request yet but I'm trying to understand why I was blocked first, and not very successfully to be honest. I'd really appreciate if someone, pls., might be able to answer this Q:

As for CONSENSUS, please explain: I'd like to ask whom with I can discuss aspects of my block, especially I'd like to learn whether there is any administrator who could navigate me to the claimed CONSENSUS that I was declared to breach ("this edit, which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago"), namely: Who posted that CONSENSUS, WHERE, WHEN EXACTLY (several weeks ago?)and WHAT is the WORDING (Actual statement) of that particular CONSENSUS by time of my disputed edit at 10:01, 3 September 2011, alternatively a link to edit that would provide all these information. I do declare that I really do not understand when the moment of reaching CONSENSUS had occurred on time-line (so that from that moment onwards any my potential edit addition against the given CONSENSUS claim was becoming illegitimate) and I really would appreciate if somebody could explain it to me. I do declare that I have tried to follow the following WP rule: WP:TE "This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" If you investigate the discussion in more detail, you would find out that there is no reaction on my arguments presented at 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Thanx in advance for any kind explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. IMHO to specify "why I was EW" should the party who did that declaration, if they are not doing so, I will hardly read their minds. I can only learn the reasons they provide, and one of them is that I breached CONSENSUS that was reached at some specific date few weeks ago, but to tell my standpoint, I first need to identify that CONSENSUS. I regard for somehow odd that I should myself find the reasons to justify my block, I believe those who accused me should have clear picture about them and explain them to me.

2. I also take for strange that I should admit that I was EW before being provided with the evidence that the CONSENSUS was reached so that I clearly violated it. I only can detail specifically what would be different in future if I know what was wrong now. The best would be if accusers advise what they suggest to do differently.

--Stephfo (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to bring up: half the time what you write here is nearly incomprehensible. Is English maybe not your first language? For example, from your post right above this one: " IMHO to specify "why I was EW" should the party who did that declaration, if they are not doing so, I will hardly read their minds." If I stare at that long enough I can almost make sense of it, but not really. Anyway, as I have told quite plainly here consensus really isn't the main issue here. Edit warring is edit warring whether you are on the side of consensus or not. You don't seem to be able to grasp that point, and once again you are issuing demands and becoming agitated when they are not met as fast as you would like. This convinces me the block is correct and should remain in place, I won't be commenting here any further and am unwatching your page. I suggest you consider the standard offer for blocked users and come back when you are more able to collaborate with others and communicate effectively without issuing demands in near-incomprehensible wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but CONSENSUS, namely breaching it, is directly mentioned as reason for my blockage, hence it is either reason for my blockage, and then it is an issue, or it is not a reason for my blockage, and then it should not be mentioned whatsoever. Please advise if you suggest that this reason should be regarded as nullified/withdrawn or still in force. Thanx in advance for your kind explanation. I do declare I'm not able to understand how could I breach reported CONSENSUS if nobody is able identify neither its occurrence on time-line, nor authorship, let alone actual wording. I really would appreciate if someone could navigate me in what exact time this CONSENSUS popped up so that from that particular moment on any my edit add-on became a breach of some hopefully objective WP:rules. Thanx again, kind regards. --Stephfo (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after User:Stephfo was last blocked, he/she did not edit war. Rather, he/she took the advice I offered to him/her on the talk page, telling him/her to add and format the references to content that he inserts in the future. User:Stephfo, in my view, was simply trying to follow my advice, as his recent edits demonstrate. Moreover, after his/her edits were reverted, he/she did not revert a single time, but tried to discuss his new insertions on the talk page. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding controversial material which had attracted almost no support in a previous discussion on the article's talk page is edit warring. The other editors who had commented on the talk page didn't support including the material, so your support of it doesn't mean that it was OK to re-add it, and Stephfo's decision to interpret the lack of response to your post as support for the material he wanted to add () runs against the whole point of consensus based editing given the other posts expressing wider concerns about the material and the opposition to his previous changes to the article. Your decision to re-add a version of the material as a 'comprise' and then edit war to try to keep it in the article (including with this misleading edit summary and this edit summary which basically requested that the material be included in the article before a consensus to include it was reached on the article's talk page) was a bad call, particularly given the response to Stephfo's edit (eg , ). Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you opinion on actions of Anupam, however I believe we will agree his/her actions are not justification for my blockage. I'd like to ask you if you could similarly explain when does the CONSENSUS in your opinion occurred on time-line few weeks ago, who was author of that consensus and what was the actual wording. I can only understand what I did wrong if you will explain me when that moment of CONSENSUS few weeks ago came into an existence, otherwise it is beyond my comprehension. Thanks in advance for your kind explanation. Have a nice day.--Stephfo (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The first edit was due to an edit conflict. However, I will accept your statement in saying that it may have been a bad call for me to try to enforce a compromise, rather than gaining a further consensus. Nevertheless, this conversation is about User:Stephfo. I don't see how an indefinite block is the appropriate decision to take, especially in light of the fact that he/she is a new user and was not personally edit warring himself/herself. This comment, however, is my humble opinion and I understand that you might respectfully disagree. I hope you have a nice evening. With regards, Anupam 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Look how large this talk page has gotten over the past few months trying to deal with Stephfo's battleground mentality and walls of text. You can also see the same if you look at the respective article talk pages. That is reason enough for an indef block as it completely wastes the time of numerous other editors. The bottom line is that he doesn't contribute to the project; I've posted WP:COMPETENCE a couple times now, but evidently I still have to reiterate it. Nformation 01:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There could be also other reasons for large talk page - if you have to repeat the same Q 3 times and the other party still pretends not seeing it, turns deaf ear and just continues accusations of EW incl. breaching CONSENSUS while not providing any details when, in what wording, and by whom that CONSENSUS was declared.--Stephfo (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Please also note the completely wasting the time of numerous other editors might very well occur due to other reasons, namely, for example, because some editors are not being able or willing to explain their reverts in 1:1 discussions and prefer to make appeals to the populum, which are then possibly used as final as final justification of their action instead of addressing the questions in line with WP:policies.--Stephfo (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Noformation is, I think, quite right. This talk page provides ample confirmation that the block is right, in various ways, the principal one being the continuing demonstration of battleground mentality. Particularly striking is Stephfo's last post, in which he/she seems to think that he/she is defending him/her-self against accusations of battleground mentality, but in fact simply continues to demonstrate exactly that mentality. I think that there is clearly a very serious WP:COMPETENCE problem here, and it seems unlikely that the editor will be able to contribute constructively, as he/she really does not seem to understand any of the problems which have been patiently explained over and again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have battleground mentality, but I deem as appropriate that if someone declares that I breached some consensus, then he/she should be able to identify that CONSENSUS, otherwise it is not possible to understand what he/she is referring to. Please note understanding is declared as being necessary to move on, but the key to it is not in my hands. I have no problem to acknowledge any mistake or wrongdoing but I strongly protest if somebody forces me by unproven and/or unexplained accusation to defend myself (e.g. against breaching CONSENSUS that so far nobody is able to identify and some already started to designate it as unimportant) and then at the end declares my enforced defence against such unprovable (or so far unproven) accusations as battleground mentality. Thanks for your understanding. How you would react if somebody would block you by giving reason he/she is not able/willing to demonstrate? Do you deem it as OK to make references to CONSENSUS that is unidentifiable? How can be unidentifiable CONSENSUS breached or kept? How we are going to reach CONSENSUS here on what I should do differently in future if you do not "engage in consensus building" and "repeatedly disregard other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" (Pls. note WP refers to such person as disruptive editor)? Please advise. --Stephfo (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe WP:ROPE to end the debate, if he can behave so be it, otherwise there will be no more room for complaint if he messes up again? — raekyt 09:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rope can't apply if the blocked user doesn't understand why they are blocked in the first place. Nformation `

Editors aren't unblocked as an experiment to see if they continue to cause problems. As I noted above, Stephfo is welcome to request that this block be reviewed, but I personally don't think that there's any likelihood of it being lifted given their above comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, that is very true statement that I do not understand why I'm blocked in the first place. Nick-D, do you declare that you understand when the CONSENSUS that according to your claim was reached few weeks ago and that I should have breached came into existence, namely when exactly, in what wording, and by whom it was presented? If being so, please share with me this information. It is impossible to understand that breaching that CONSENSUS was very bad thing causing my sanctioning if that CONSENSUS is not identified. Thanks in advance for your kind collaboration on consensus building process.--Stephfo (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my above post made at 23:01 on 4 September 2011. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I read it, my preliminary comment would be that there is no such information as what is deemed as given CONSENSUS, who declared it and from what moment on it was coming in force, I have more to add but lack of time at the moment, will comment later. Maybe this would help also for my better understanding, pls. try to fill in:

The CONSENSUS WAS (wording):

It was declared by:

It came in force:

Thanx a lot for kind cooperation.--Stephfo (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are miss-understanding the meaning of the word consensus if you look at the article called Consensus it explains it in the context of Misplaced Pages. Teapotgeorge 14:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, the closest indication of what Nick-D deems for CONSENSUS is perhaps the sentence: "The discussion on the material Stephfo recently re-added to the article is at Talk:Objections to evolution#Revert Explanation - from this discussion in early August there was almost no support from other editors to include the material, with several editors expressing exasperation with Stephfo's approach." In my understanding of that discussion the lack of support for inclusion of the material was due to specific reasons expressed by criteria that, I believe, when fulfilled, would be deemed by good-faith assuming collaborators as not valid anymore as material-stoppers. Namely, editors presented several Qs/concerns that I tried to number and answer/address one by one on 15:04, 19 August 2011

(The primary concern was related to absence of 3rd-party source ("Provide reliable sources that meet QP policy requirements!!!!","Finding sources is YOUR responsibility.", "do you ever intend to start editing according to policy, finding sources for your claims", "We have as yet no third-party source") that, I believe, I satisfied by providing quote from Texas university press that addressed all remaining concerns as well. I also believe that if it is due to mention some information in the University press, then the content of this quote should not harm WP either (it is difficult to claim that author of an influential textbook on the chemical origin of life would not be prominent enough). )

(Pls. also note I regard posting Q like this: “Yes, it is questioned” as response on original point “4.Smt. else? (there is actually nothing else in this sentence)” as incomprehensible and even maybe expressing the battleground mentality, the civil answer would be to bring up something else what is allegedly questioned, IMHO).

As I regard for collaborative to allow for enough time to react, I’ve been waiting till 10:01, 3 September 2011 448203342, i.e. ca 15days until I assumed, obviously in line with WP:CON “Consensus ... Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections”, that absence of objections against my 15day-old propositions entitles me to follow the previous advice of other editor “Perhaps, if you add references after the content in the format that I have done in this article (with the title, publisher, original quote, etc.), your edits will not be disputed as much. I hope this helps!”. (cf."Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. ... --Lambiam 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)") What did I wrong to follow this rule and what I should do differently in future? Is WP:CON wrong in stating that CONSENSUS arrives with absence of objections?--Stephfo (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the answer to your question about consensus is that there is no answer. The consensus policy is vague and it appears you've been relying on rarely used provisions of policies that have come back to bite you. Anyway if you're waiting for someone to explain things to you it's going to be a long wait. The real problem facing you, that they haven't told you as of yet, is that you've pissed off too many people. So how do you get unblocked? Well, we're a pretty forgiving group and if you're abundantly contrite and can explain the error of your ways in your request you'll be fine. Just read WP:APPEAL. At this point your situation is, well, let's just say challenging. You have to get a mentor, and they have to be an admin. No admin mentor, no unblock. And turn on your email--we really don't need to, and don't want to see the forthcoming wall of text between you and your mentor. You can throw in some self-imposed stuff for that extra touch... Self-ban from Jess' talk page, self imposed 1RR for 6 mos., you know, promise you're gonna do stuff. I'm sure Anupam will post a mentoring request on the talk page of the admin of your choice. Hopefully they'll neglect to read your talk page, lol. Btw if anyone bothers you in the future just post WP:DONTBITE and drop the name of you admin mentor and if you're lucky they'll leave you alone, lol. – Lionel 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, what would you do if you were in my shoes? Pls. advise. (I do not understand all your sentences, especially with abbreviations, and also have no clue what you refer to as "throw in some self-imposed stuff", "extra touch"; "self-ban..."; "self imposed 1RR for 6 mos.").--Stephfo (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• You have been blocked for "disruptive editing". That disruptive editing included editing contrary to consensus, but was not restricted to doing so. It included, for example, your ridiculous edit to WP:Edit warring. That edit was clearly a deliberate attempt to be disruptive to make a point in retaliation against actions of others. It also seriously misrepresented policy in a way that was either deliberate disruption or such a gross misunderstanding as to indicate that you lack the competence to edit within English Misplaced Pages's framework, as I have stated above. Your disruptive editing has also included various other problems, including harassing and attacking other edits, edit warring, persistently attempting to impose your point of view on article content, endlessly repeating the same points after they have been answered several times, and so on and so on. Therefore your endless harping on about consensus as though it were the only issue is somewhat missing the point. However, since you attach so much importance to the issue, let me explain. You have repeatedly made changes which you have known perfectly well the other editors involved have disagreed with. That means that you have repeatedly edited contrary to consensus. No amount of wikilawyering about exactly what constitutes consensus will alter that. Taking quotes from various places out of context and demanding that people spend their time addressing the exact wording of those fragmentary quotes is not constructive. Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies are not legal statutes, and they do not work by exact legalistic analysis of the precise meaning of each sentence and each phrase and clause within each sentence. They are rather general descriptions to give an indication of the essential framework in which we work. Your endless attempts to lead others into such pedantic wikilawyering discussions are disruptive. Your endless protracted posts explaining why you are right and everyone else is wrong are disruptive. Both in your editing before you were blocked and in your posts to this talk page following your block have been disruptive. A blocked editor is usually allowed talk page access to allow them to make constructive requests for unblock, and to engage in constructive discussion relating to such requests. You, however, have been using talk page access in ways that are disruptive, and which have wasted a considerable amount of time for a number of people. If you continue in the same way then your talk page access is likely to be withdrawn. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to address your points later, but preliminarily I can say that from my perspective disruptive is to claim accusations that are in blatant discrepancy with reality. Please note I really have no problem to accept wrongdoing, but if someone declares that since my last block I "have repeatedly made changes which have known perfectly well the other editors involved have disagreed with" then I have to strongly protest against such accusation. You shoot one accusation after other without bothering if it has anything to do with reality and without demonstrating it (cf. "their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion") and then when I'm forced due to your accusations defend myself, you declare me disruptive. I do believe I did only single repetitive action since my last block, namely putting back CN flag that other editor explicitly allowed me to put back after he removed it mistakenly with other edits in one go and I only added material when I knew that it addressed the concerns of community expressed at talk page (IMHO this is the very basic principle of WP, to address the concerns of others) and when I have not received any objections in 15 days. (Please note I'd like to have constructive dialogue, I'm trying to find out why I was blocked and what I should do differently, but when I ask, nobody responses how differently I should have acted when others had raised concerns and I've tried to address them).--Stephfo (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You were told exactly what to do right above, but let me restate it in case you missed it: "You have to get a mentor, and they have to be an admin. No admin mentor, no unblock. And turn on your email--we really don't need to, and don't want to see the forthcoming wall of text between you and your mentor. You can throw in some self-imposed stuff for that extra touch... Self-ban from Jess' talk page, self imposed 1RR for 6 mos., you know, promise you're gonna do stuff." I would recommend you agree not to edit articles in which you have a strong, vested interest as well. Nformation 06:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, you obviously misunderstood the nature of the Q referring to the past, namely to accusation that I had allegedly breached CONSENSUS, whereas in my strong opinion I was just abiding WP rules, namely:

1.) I addressed concerns of others expressed at the talk page (cf."Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion.")

2.) I provided enough time to react (15d) (“Consensus ... Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections”)

From this perspective your answer does not really answers the Q raised, i.e. what I should have done differently on that particular occasion, referred to as reason for my current block (please note I'm aware that not only one (i.e.reason) but still presented as valid reason, I'm also able to address all others one by one, if necessary later on).

If I understand my "challenging" situation, before I give try to appeal to ArbCom, I have to make one more formal unblock request here. However, to be able to do that, I have to first understand why my addressing concerns of others and granting them 15d for reply was deemed as disruptive, what I clearly do not understand (some already have suggested that it might not have been real reason for my blockage at all but then I do not understand it even more, namely whether it implies that this reason is invalidated or still in force).

Before I make this last unblock request preceding appeal to ArbCom, I have 2 Qs:

1.) I'd like to kindly learn what was the triggering event for Nick-D to block me since my last block expiration on ca 07:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC), whether Nick-D acted on his own initiative or whether there was any ANI report (or any other report or complaint) that made him to block me after the expiration of my previous block. If such report does exist, I'd like to see the reason(s) provided there in for my blockage. Thanks.

2.) I'd like to ask whether I can discuss my case 1:1 (prior to making unblock request) with some admin that was not involved in my previous unblock request declines (I consider this group of admins for possibly biased, I apologize for that, I'd like to assume a good faith but the evidence does not support that faith, I can explain why but at the moment to make the story short I will refrain from that); preferably I'd like to discuss my case with TP if someone can let him know on my behalf. Thanks a lot in advance. --Stephfo (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I notified Tparis of the discussion. I'm not endorsing (or not endorsing) anything here in doing so. I just thought he should know because he was mentioned by name. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't an ANI report or similar - you would have been notified of this by the reporting editor and I would have also noted it in the block message. Following the previous block I watchlisted this talk page and the Objections to evolution and I responded to your disruptive editing after it occurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since WP:IDHT seems to be your MO, let me quote from above once more from James: "You have been blocked for "DISRUPTIVE EDITING". That disruptive editing included editing contrary to consensus, but was *NOT RESTRICTED TO DOING SO*. It included, for example, your RIDICULOUS EDIT TO WP:EDIT WARRING. That edit was clearly a deliberate attempt to be disruptive to make a point in retaliation against actions of others. It also seriously misrepresented policy in a way that was either deliberate disruption or such a gross misunderstanding as to indicate that you lack the competence to edit within English Misplaced Pages's framework, as I have stated above. Your disruptive editing has also included ***VARIOUS OTHER PROBLEMS***, including ***HARASSING AND ATTACKING OTHER EDITS***, ***EDIT WARRING***, ***PERSISTENTLY ATTEMPTING TO IMPOSE YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON ARTICLE CONTENT***, ***ENDLESSLY REPEATING THE SAME POINTS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED SEVERAL TIMES***, and so on and so on. Therefore ***YOUR ENDLESS HARPING ON ABOUT CONSENSUS AS THOUGH IT WERE THE ONLY ISSUE IS SOMEWHAT MISSING THE POINT***. However, since you attach so much importance to the issue, let me explain. You have repeatedly made changes which you have known perfectly well the other editors involved have disagreed with. That means that you have repeatedly edited contrary to consensus. No amount of wikilawyering about exactly what constitutes consensus will alter that. Taking quotes from various places out of context and demanding that people spend their time addressing the exact wording of those fragmentary quotes is not constructive. Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies are not legal statutes, and they do not work by exact legalistic analysis of the precise meaning of each sentence and each phrase and clause within each sentence. They are rather general descriptions to give an indication of the essential framework in which we work. Your endless attempts to lead others into such pedantic wikilawyering discussions are disruptive. ***YOUR ENDLESS PROTRACTED POSTS EXPLAINING WHY YOU ARE RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG ARE DISRUPTIVE***. Both in your editing before you were blocked and in your posts to this talk page following your block have been disruptive. " Bold, caps and emphasis mine. Nformation 09:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, as I had mentioned earlier, there is such big flood of accusations (as there is no demonstration of their validity, preliminarily I'm forced to consider them for Argument by assertion- and Guilty by Suspicion -type of arguments) that I will need quite some time to react (what will perhaps cause "good faith"-assuming collaborators again to perceive me as incurably "disruptive", but I am not aware of any other way how to clean my name from accusations that are IMHO not 100% fair). Still, in the meantime, I'd like to ask you whether you agree with proposition that I "have repeatedly edited contrary to consensus" since my last block, and if yes, whether it would be kindly possible to identify these repetitive edits of mine, so that I can clearly understand what went wrong in my attitude, i.e. why it has been labelled as disruptive wrt. repetitive activity. Thanks in advance for your patient explanation.--Stephfo (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Arb break

I've reviewed the (lengthly) talk page and I can't see any help I could provide. I was supportive during the first block because at this 3RR report I feel that User:Dominus Vobisdu grosly violated procedure when he gave levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 warnings at the same time in this edit. However, this latest block was done with full knowledge on what edit warring was and was done after some disruptive edits. I can no longer support an unblock unless there is some serious self reflection. What I am willing to do is hear User:Stephfo out and maybe clarify some things, but I'm not willing to revert User:Nick-D's block. I can't see how much more help I can provide after what has already been given by others though.--v/r - TP 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your opinion, I will need some time to react, in the meantime I'd like to ask Nick-D whether he could answer the Q addressed to him; Thanks. --Stephfo (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jess, I’d like to ask you to approach TParis on my behalf and, if possible, to inform him that I’d like to accept his offer for explanation of things wrt. my blockage. After reading my above case he obviously identified himself with opinion that this edit of mine could be classified as disruptive. I do declare that I honestly do not understand such accusation that he approved and would like to have better grasp of it to prevent ending up in this cyber-prison in future cases, if there is a chance that I ever will be unblocked.

In my strong opinion, while still respecting opinions of others, the following in-line citation: "As pointed out by creationist Bert Thompson, Truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote." absolutely does not support the preceding article claim: “Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory.” and in fact they are in blatant contradiction. Please, advise: Do you believe the given in-line citation supports the preceding claim? Even if yes, does it mean I have no right to challenge such, from my perspective clear contradiction if not even absurdity (I really believe this contradiction is not compliant to WP standards and potentially spreading notion about WP as poor-quality resource), by inserting template and if doing so, it is legitimate to label me as WP:DE? Please explain so that I know how to change my behaviour in the future up to satisfaction of enforcing administrators. Thanks in advance. --Stephfo (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Stephfo, sorry about the wikijargon. Why don't we take this step by step. We'll get you back in wiki-good graces in no time.

1. Click on "my preferences" on the top of the page, scroll down and enable your email. This is how you will communicate with your mentor.
2. Look over the list of mentors at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, pick two and post them here on your talkpage. I'll notify them of your interest on their talk page. – Lionel 12:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Lionel for your kind advice, however, my e-mail has been enabled since the very beginning of existence of my WP account as far as I can tell, thus, please advise whether there is any other required on top of it. I'm not sure whether I understand my situation correctly, but my impression was that I can ask for mentor only when getting unblocked, and to get unblocked, I need to go for ArbCom as an unblock request of last resort where I have to demonstrate that I have used all other means before, last but one being unblock request in here. My problem however is that to prevent decline based on argumentation that I do not understand reasons for my block, I really first should understand why I'm blocked, which is quite challenging. I believe if e.g. nobody is able to identify the consensus that I allegedly breached (neither its wording, authorship nor "birth") then it is absolutely natural that I could neither identify nor breach this UFO-type of consensus either (I noticed the consensus has usually even voting taking place at WP and clear conclusive declarations, e.g. "A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Closing discussion. Suggestion to remove POV tag went 8 days without response"), in the same way as my accusers are not able to identify it and fail to explain what I should have done differently on that particular occasion when I followed both advise of other editor and WP:rules on consensus arrival with absence of objections against my addressing concerns of others clearly expressed at the talk page (please note I'm aware this was not the only argument, but still it makes no sense to move disruptively to others before making conclusion on first one). To me it follows it makes no sense to file unblock request since ironically I should first understand accusations that are incomprehensible, and not demonstrated, based on pure assertions without bothering factual accuracies. Moreover, accepting wrongdoing in many cases would imply absurd conclusions such as labelling addressing concerns of others as disruptive, labelling university press as poor resource, keeping advices of other experienced editors as disruptive, approving removal of material based on self-invented unverifiable claims, promoting controversial article declarations not backed up by in-line citations, considering kindly asking for fixing mistakes with detailed courtesy explanation of mistake at talk page as harassment (but I still can apologize if someone misunderstood it that way), and so on. Please note I do not have problem to accept wrongdoing when explained in logically coherent way and clearly demonstrated (what I routinely did in the past (See e.g.If so, then I apologize)), however due to aforementioned absurd conclusions I'm not able to do so in relation to imposed accusations. I also have to admit I do not have enough trust so far such unblock request would make sense, especially when someone is able to declare as during my previous block that I breached consensus before even 3-rd party editor joined discussion on a article talk page (this would imply another absurdity that given editor objecting my edit has some kind of a priori privilege to have his POV becoming automatically consensus regardless of opinion of others) and could at least dream of any consensus to start shaping, it gives me all grounds to assume the same biased attitude now towards my request. Pls. advise whether I should try my accusers to get their accusation explained and demonstrated in logically coherent way or whether there is other way to move on wrt. mentor (I still plan to address emphasized points by Noformation later on). Thanx a lot in advance --Stephfo (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in dispute resolution, so I can't really help out on the particulars of your situation, that's what a mentor does. Anyway I'd get a mentor before the unblock request, and since you're a new user I think you may be able to find a mentor. Take a look at "Enable e-mail from other users" on the Preferences tab. It should be checked. Did any mentors interest you at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters? – Lionel 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pls. advise what status I should look for when reviewing mentors, for me it is quite confusing how to interpret green status "Now adopting!", does it mean the given mentor just have assigned himself/herself to someone so that he/she is not available for others anymore or does it mean that he/she is currently idle and ready for mentoring? Thanks in advance for your explanation.--Stephfo (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)