Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RicoCorinth (talk | contribs) at 07:33, 29 July 2009 (→You appear to be involved in an edit war...: resp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sorry, it was during school and i did not have time to finish what i was saying. Ok, that has cleared it up. I was more seeing the two communities as seperate, wheras everyone can use and edit it. Thanks for that. Stakingsin (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) i sometimes forget the four swirly things, i will get the hang of it though.

No problem. :) Biofase (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

partial list of well-respected creationists (who no credible academic has, or would, ever called pseudo-scientists)

• Meredith G. Kline
• Henri Blocher
• Stanley Jaki
• Richard H. Bube

So this exchage does not seem off topic. Contributors seem to be talking past each other. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Firefly322 is wrong (as usual). Bube is a well-known theistic evolutionist, and there is no indication on their articles that Kline, Blocher or Jaki are/were creationists. Given that Creation–evolution controversy‎ neither places quote-marks around 'scientists' nor calls anybody "less than scientists" or "pseudoscientists", both the thread & Biofase's final comment are clearly off-topic, per WP:TALK. A clue would be a wonderful thing (but I doubt if a WP:TROUT would be appreciated, or sufficient to induce one). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV/UNDUE discussion

Biofase, I think that an edit conflict caused confusion. My comment about personal remarks was directed towards Dreamguy, not you. Sorry for any confusion, I know my post ended up below yours, so the confusion seems easily understandable. I was just trying to express my opinion that project pages should avoid targeting specific editors. I agree completely that there are issues, but might perhaps disagree on their exact nature and substance. Resolving these differences and achieving consensus is exactly what the discussion is designed to achieve, not where it's supposed to start, so I look forward to further dialogue. Thanks for your patience and understanding, Doc Tropics 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite alright. Was a bit confusing but didn't really take any offence at it. :) Biofase | stalk  18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting fix on your comment on ThaddeusB's RfA

Hi. I took the liberty of fixing the formatting for your two comments on ThaddeusB's RfA, so that my neutral showed up as the eighth neutral and not the first (as it did here.) I hope you're alright with that, since I didn't edit anything else in your comments. One two three... 21:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Biofase | stalk  02:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be involved in an edit war...

... concerning the deletion of content I have put into the WP:NPOV talk page. Please be aware that continued edit warring may result in your editing privileges being blocked. -- Rico 04:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war. My edits have not been destructive like you claim and this is your third attack against me. As I have already said please use the edit button instead of making multiple edits that are disruptive and look at people's changes to see is they make sense before hitting undo. And please reinsert my comment. Biofase | stalk  04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is obviously an edit war. The reason is because you keep mangling, editing or repeatedly deleting a section I've created -- with the end result always being that the section title no longer exists -- and you don't have the right to do that.

You've done this four times in the last few hours.

I created this section, not you.

I don't know what you mean by, "reinsert my comment." I'm unaware of any comment of yours that could be reinserted. If you know of one, why don't you reinsert it?

You move people's posts all over the place, including my posts -- and it's a little complex just keeping track of it, and trying to restore content of mine you've damaged, and put posts back where they were.

Also, you keep changing a subsection I made, into a section.

You can't just take these liberties with other people's content. It's not up to you whether or not I can have a section I made.

Also, you made two comments, one after the other, and now you are preventing me from replying to one of them -- again and again moving my reply out from in between your two comments.

I warned you I would take it to ANI, and you kept it up, so I did. -- Rico 07:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rico 06:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)