Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:40, 21 July 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)