User talk:Stephfo

If I first already left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will try to respond here. Thanks!

Welcome

Hello, Stephfo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia • 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 Wikipedia 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

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

You have been blocked for an indefinite period

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing despite previous warnings and blocks. This has included continued edit warring in the Objections to evolution article (this edit, which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago) and this disruptive edit to the policy WP:EW. In addition, the following aggressive talk page posts made in response to concerns about your editing indicate an unhelpful battlefield mentality and associated disinterest in consensus-based editing: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 3 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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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 advice 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 the 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 Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters? – Lionel ^(talk) 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)

Green means they're open to mentoring you if you contact them. If any have experience with dispute resolution, those should be your top choices. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, then the choice is easy as there is only one such editor available, namely, KuduIO, how do I approach him if I'm blocked? He does not have e-mail contact hyperlinked as others seem to have.--Stephfo (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you go to KuduIO's user page, there's a link "email user" available, either in the pull-down menu at the top of the page, or in the tools column on the left side (depending on which skin you're using). I'll copy the email link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:EmailUser/KuduIO&action=view ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, seems to have worked out.--Stephfo (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Following up the advice on finding mentor preferably experienced in dispute resolution

It seems my selected mentor is not active at WP around these days, please advise how to follow up further. I have not managed to find other in-dispute-resolution-experienced mentors on the list. Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well hello Stephfo! If it's ok with you, since you can only edit your own page, why don't I see if I can find a mentor for you. I'll be right back... – Lionel ^(talk) 09:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Lionel(t), it is OK with me to search help of mentor on my behalf, if you are willing and able. You're correct, I'm not able to post invitations myself.--Stephfo (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As a note to any editors following up on the mentoring request, Stephfo recently removed an extensive discussion of the block from this talk page which might be of interest as background. Nick-D (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Stephfo, Lionelt asked me on my talk page about whether I would be interested in mentoring you. I've taken a brief look at this issue, and I would be more than happy to mentor. I have had some experience mediating disputes for MedCab and for Third Opinion. If you would like me to mentor you, I'll take a closer look and see what I can do to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion, it appears that you are blocked because you edit warred twice, then after consensus had been reached, you continued to argue your point. Which is, by definition, disruptive editing. If that is the only problem, this shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Alpha Quadrant for your analysis - I'm really willing to admit as I already did in the course of previous discussion that my decision to participate in ongoing discussion on the article talk page after a proposition for applying dispute resolution "tools" and means had been made was really unhappy step forward that have earned me this block/sanction just few hours later after such stupid decision. Nevertheless I will for sure have problem to swallow a somersault in logic that call of four editors for 3rd-party resource ("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") should be in fact interpreted as consensus against such addition of 3rd-party resource, I hope such thing will not be required, but even if so, I'm willing to accept such requirement if group of enforcing administrators would put it as one of the inevitable conditions for my unblock. Pls. advise how to move forward. Thanx a LOT again.--Stephfo (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the next step is to acknowledge the reason for the block. You need to understand that edit warring is not permitted, and that once a rough consensus is established, it is usually best to accept it. Arguing the same argument after it has already been discussed usually frustrates other editors. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear explanation, now I really understand that edit warring is not permitted, and that once a rough consensus is established, such as recommendation that further WP:DISPUTE resolution process should involve, e.g. calling a WP:RFC, or making a post on an appropriate noticeboard (e.g. WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN), the best way is to go for that recommendation right away and stay away from article talk discussion. Herby I do declare that I'm acknowledging that in this respect I utterly misunderstood the advice I was given by Nick-D during my previous block as "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." and I clearly failed to identify the moment when the consensus was reached or when seeking it turned out to be unsuccessful. I'm ready and willing to consult future cases with mentor to improve my capabilities in this respect. Thanks for your understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephfo. I'm one of several admins who declined one of your past unblock requests. You probably already have come to understand what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway if it will help you or others with future unblock requests. (Here's hoping you won't have to make any!)

Many unblock requests attempt to justify actions based on the editor's position in a dispute. But when it comes to blocking and unblocking, no admin is interested in the dispute. Unblocking a user on that basis would be a non-neutral act. It just won't happen.

Also, admins are not interested in the blockee's reasons why the block is unjust, although they are open to considering misunderstandings. When unblocking, behavior and preventing further disruption are all that matter.

Therefore, unblock requests that fail to address behavior and/or disruption, and instead focus on a dispute or on justice, are almost universally declined. New editors often fail to understand that. I am sure that by now, with your history of declined unblock requests, that you understand this. Best of luck with your mentor. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helping advice.--Stephfo (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

My reason:Now I believe I really understand that edit warring is not permitted, and that once a rough consensus is established, such as recommendation that further WP:DISPUTE resolution process should involve, e.g. calling a WP:RFC, or making a post on an appropriate noticeboard (e.g. WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN), the best way is to go for that recommendation right away and stay away from article talk discussion. I'm ready and willing to consult future cases with mentor to improve my capabilities in this respect. Likewise, I'm acknowledging I could formulate some of my posts at talk pages in more moderate/civil way so that they would have not earned me a reputation of having battleground mentality and I will try with help of mentor my best to change and respect and implement any of his/her guidance in this regard. My mentor, user:Alpha Quadrant, has been extremely helpful in explaining what is expected of me, and will be an invaluable resource if I ever have a dispute again in the future with a fellow colleague. Thanks in advance for considering my request. Stephfo (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Sounds good to me. I'll leave you in the capable hands of Alpha Quadrant. Best of luck, m.o.p 15:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You will find numerous other editors who do not hold themselves to high standards. Refrain from stooping to their level and you'll do fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Stephfo! – Lionel ^(talk) 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for nice wishes, I'll try to do my best.--Stephfo (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the 5 article edits you have made since your unblock. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stephfo. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John Hartnett (physicist) for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hartnett (physicist) 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.Template:Z81   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing on Hartnett is a little thin. You will need to add more sources for this to survive. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. advise, my article is nominated for deletion and arguments used wrt. person significance in the creatiosist cosmology field by my opponent sound to me all the way wrong and manipulative. I'd like to learn how can I get independent opinion of community that deals with article on creationism and creation science or creation cosmology or Christianity. Or how to get the debate included in the respective project(s), similarly as someone did for other fields: ("Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.") Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC) I also would like to learn if I as creator of article I do have right to vote in discussion and who is the ultimate authority to close the discussion and make final verdict on article existence, and at what date&time. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added it to the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. You will get independent opinions, because many people spend time looking at these deletion debates and contributing where they think it useful. There is no similar deletion-sorting list for Creationism; there is WP:WikiProject Creationism, and you could post a note on the talk page of that project, but be careful to make it neutral, a notification that the debate exists, not an appeal for people to come and back you up - that would be considered WP:CANVASSing, and canvassing is strongly disapproved of and is usually counter-productive.

As article creator, you may !vote once in the debate: note the ! sign, to be read as "not-vote" because the decision is made not on a count of heads but on the arguments advanced in terms of Wikipedia policy. The debate will normally run for seven days (though it may be "relisted" if it seems inconclusive) after which an uninvolved administrator will assess the arguments and make a decision.

Please try not to think in terms of "my opponent". We have a principle of assuming good faith, that everyone is here to improve the encyclopedia, even if we may disagree about how to do that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions, yes, you can "vote" in the AfD, but you should identify yourself as the creator of the article to avoid charges of conflict of interest. Start out your answer with the words "I am the creator of the article", and you are safe. The pertinent rules are listed in WP:AFD. Most importantly, do not attack or harrass other editors, and assume good faith.

The AfD will be closed by an yet unknown disinterested administrator, ususally seven days after the AfD is opened. If there are not yet enough comments to make a decision, the administrator may relist the AfD for another seven days, at which point another disinterested administrator will close it.

In both the AfD and the discussion at Intelligent Design, you have fallen back into the same bad habits that got you indefinitely blocked. To accuse another editor of being "manipulative" or seeking "revenge" is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And to characterize other editors as your "opponents" is a poor approach to editing on WP (see: WP:BATTLEGROUND).

Carrying on deadhorse arguments and demanding that other editors answer questions they have already answered repeatedly is disruptive and unlikely to contribute to establishing consensus (see: WP:DEADHORSE and WP:DE). Argumentum ad nauseam is a sure-fire way of driving consensus away from your viewpoint. In the Intelligent Design discussion, you made 31 posts in a period of only 10 hours. This indicates that you are not taking the time to read and understand the posts of the other editors. The other editors and I have been VERY nice to you, and you are expected to return the favor.

You have made some very combative edit summaries like "Weird argument", "Bias", "Odd Q", "Double-dealing", "Fixes after vandalism" and "Deletion as revenge", and have made lots of comments attributing bad faith to other editors in your talk page comments. If you continue doing so, you will soon end up indefinitely blocked again.

Frankly, Stephfo, your knowledge of creationism-related topics is very limited and uninformed, and so is your knowledge and understanding of WP policies. The creationism-related articles are probably not an area of WP that you constructively contribute to until you learn a lot more about the topic and get a lot more experience editing non-controversial articles as you have been doing since your return. You have a lot to learn, and editing on controversial topics is the worst place to do that, as your mentor has already told you. You should have a very serious discussion about your behavior on the AfD and the Intelligent Design article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I regard word opponent for neutral without any pejorative context, stemming simply from the simple fact that somebody is opposing my edit as it was already explained in the past. In my region it is often used for per-reviewer of some rigorous papers and it is impossible to attribute to such person a battleground mentality intentions. I regard your reaction for manipulative because your pattern of behaviour is such that you ignore my arguments and just keep harping on your assertions, for example, if I ask you to enlist creationist cosmologist that are in your opinion ranked above Hartnett, you arrogantly start to pretend as if this question would never been raised and keep asserting he is creationist cosmologist of 3rd tier at the very best. I classify such behaviour as manipulative, and I apologize for any inconvenience in that respect.

As for my knowledge, frankly, I doubt you ever had any book you are discussing in hand (I do dare say I did), and from this perspective your effort to move attention from actual topic to my persona is a clearly argument Ad hominem. Should you have problem finding policy where it is explained why it is wrong, let me know, I can navigate you. Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on your mentor's page for him to have a long talk with you about this. I advise you not to do ANYTHING on WP until you do. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but bearing in mind that my article is nominated for deletion you effectively are denying my rights to defend my work and react on objections raised, and advising me just passively witness my article to be deleted. As for ID, I do not have problem to go for 3rd party mediator should you declare the failure of dispute resolution from your site. As for ID, I do declare that whether I like it or not, I can enlist number of Qs that had been just ignored and I'm able to defend my position in this respect should the 3rd party mediator join the dispute. Ignoring questions classifies in my understanding as arrogance, not nice behaviour, I apologize for that. --Stephfo (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not denying you anything, nor am I suggesting anything of the sort. I advised you to discuss things with your mentor before making any moves. There is no hurry. The AfD will not be closed for another four days, so you will have time to consult them and vote. My advice was given so that you could avoid doing anything that will lead to another block. You can take it or leave it, for all it's worth.

There is no dispute for a third party mediator to resolve. I've made my case very clear on the talk page. I've answered your objections in exhaustive detail. That's the end of the matter for me.

Take my advice, and do yourself a BIG favor by discussing this with your mentor ASAP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm threaten to get blocked, I'd like to ask whether it is up to WP standards to make such threats, from my perspective I perceive it as escape from using arguments in discussion and applying Argumentum ad Baculum instead. I'd like to learn whether it is regarded as legitimate for user to make such threats towards other fellow users and whether I'm obliged to refrain from editing at WP after such threat as it is suggested. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a threat there, but a warning and advice. You were unblocked after repeated blocks for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, on your assurance that you understood the problem and would try, with your mentor's help, to change. It is not unreasonable to remind you that the block may be reimposed if you do not in fact change your behaviour, and to advise you to consult that mentor; unless actually blocked, you are not obliged to refrain from editing, but it would be prudent to consider the advice you have been given. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion discussion, it has established that the subject doesn't meet the academic notability guidelines. Continuing to argue that the subject does won't get anywhere, because it has already been demonstrated that the article fails the guideline. The subject appears to meet the general notability guidelines based on the current coverage. In order to establish a strong argument for this, more sourcing is needed. Right now, there is possibility that the subject is notable. It has not been clearly established. As an example, I currently haven't commented further in the deletion discussion, as I have not found such coverage to lay out a strong argument. If I were to continue arguing on a weak argument, the discussion won't get anywhere.

I know I have suggested this earlier, and I'd really like to emphasize this now. I strongly suggest you refrain from editing creation/evolution articles for the time being. As you don't have a strong grasp on Wikipedia policies yet, you are encountering issues on these often controversial articles. There are over 3,000,000 other articles on much less controversial topics. Editing those articles to gain experience and policy knowledge will be quite beneficial. After you gain more experience, then by all means, you can edit the topic. Right now, due to your lack of policy knowledge and strong feelings for the topic, your actions are being viewed as disruptive. If this continues, it is quite likely that you will be blocked again, or a topic ban may be imposed. I am trying to help you avoid either events. You can choose to ignore my advice, but be aware that it may result in additional problems for you. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in direction of PROF notability, but in creationist cosmologies perspective, as I already mentioned in discussion.

I'm very open person and able to admit mistakes, but if someone only accuses me in general terms and is not able to explain which policy applies to accept assertion that, for example, my question what is the difference between creative super-intelligence and intelligent agent was answered, then I'm not able to understand such accusations. Please advise why it is regarded to be WP policy to pretend that some Q was answered if that answer is nowhere to be found. Did Dominus answered that there is difference between creative super-intelligence and intelligent agent or did he answer that there is not? Or should I go against my own conscience because it is requirement of WP policy and accept that there is something wrong with me when I cannot find what his answer was? Thanks in advance for kind explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You argued WP:PROF in the discussion. In this diff, you cited it three times. Information in Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable in reliable third party sources. Information that cannot be verified is considered original research, and should be removed. This means that information in articles isn't always "true". When writing articles, you need to stick to writing in a neutral point of view and refrain from letting your personal opinions affect the way you write articles. As I have said above, you seem to have a strong opinion on creation/evolution articles. It really isn't the best way for you to gain understanding of policy. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation, "I'm not arguing in direction of PROF notability" was meant that I do not regard the fact that he is professor for being important and worth of notice at all, but for things he is doing with sapphire clocks (side issue, but still interesting, and I do not care whether he is doing it as professor or what-ever else) and major argument is in line of theories he is presenting like solution for starlight travel problem as creationist. Which information cannot be verified in your opinion and which do you ascribe to me as "my strong opinion" out of NPOV? What's wrong with these sources: [8]? --Stephfo (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edit a few days ago to Intelligent design was fairly non-neutral. Your response on the talk page suggests that you have a strong opinion on the subject. Similar issues appear to have occurred on the Big Bang article. Regarding sourcing, a source needs to be completely independent of the subject and have a strong reputation for fact checking in order to be considered a reliable source. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wilhelm Busch (priest)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wilhelm Busch (priest) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. help me, my articles one of which is basically based on German WP is nominated for deletion, what should I do and why it is acceptable there in? As well as in other national WPs?--Stephfo (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephfo. I looked at the article (I assume it's the one heading up this section about speedy deletion) and saw that it contains a claim of notability, which renders the speedy deletion tag invalid. I removed the speedy deletion tag. If anyone wants it deleted, they will have to go through the standard WP:AFD process.

As to your question: Each Wikipedia is independent and each has its own critiera for inclusion. An article that's acceptable on the German Wikipedia may not merit inclusion here, and vice versa. The controlling document on en-Wiki is Wikipedia:Notability. In there you will find links to other documents detailing inclusion criteria for people, music ensembles, companies, etc. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Wilhelm Busch (priest)

Hello, Stephfo, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Busch (priest) whether the article Wilhelm Busch (priest) should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Wilhelm Busch (priest), which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Template:Z82   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I view this act of yours as a revenge for dispute we had at the ID article, at least the specific timing from which on you are proposing these articles for deletion, i.e. just after the encounter we had there suggest so. I'd like to ask some independent editor if we could take into consideration this fact when evaluating your increased activity in relation to my articles (promoting their deletions). I know it is not very good faith assumption, but it is extremely hard to believe it was just coincidence. --Stephfo (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephfo. This isn't "revenge" for anything. If you'll notice, I'm still quite civilly discussing things with you where our domains have intersected. However, after I saw some problems come up on the ID article, I took a glance at your contrib history, and happened to notice your first article creation. Out of genuine interest, I read over the article, and made a few positive changes to it, even added a reference where I was able to track one down. However, I also noticed a possible copyvio problem, and that the article (AFAICT) quite clearly doesn't meet the general notability guidelines after searching for sources for some time. Since I noticed there were obvious issues there, I went back to your contrib list to see if you'd created any other articles recently that had similar problems, and I was able to find this one. This isn't anything personal, and I'd encourage you not to take it that way. If you can find reliable, independent sources for these two bios, I'd very happily withdraw the nominations. Indeed, creating articles for notable people who are not yet covered on wikipedia is a great thing, and I'd encourage you to continue... just, ensure they meet WP:N first.

Now, with that all said, I'd ask you to read through WP:VAND, as labeling good faith contributions from another user as "vandalism" is very strongly frowned upon, and has frequently gotten users in trouble in the past. Doing so here, in reference to my copyedits and addition of a reference (which clearly does not qualify), is not helpful. As always, if you have questions about anything, I'm happy to help out. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note I regard your changes for act of vandalism, your removed from article reference to book that is one of the most notable for given person, you removed the quote even WP provides tools for quotes and many other articles are using this tools and demonstarbly contain various quotes. What for is tool for quotes if in your opinion it should not be used?--Stephfo (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:VAND as I suggested. None of the things you describe are vandalism. Individual quotes are fine, but "Quote sections" are generally frowned upon, as with trivia. See, for instance, WP:NOTDIR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you, quotations make biographical articles more attractive for reader and not so dreadfully facto-graphic.--Stephfo (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about quotations. It's about entire sections devoted to quotations. I'm not debating my opinions, I'm only describing the general attitude editors have had to quotation sections on other articles. If you disagree with that precedent, you could always take the issue up at the village pump and get a broader opinion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you if you declare in weasel words "Since I noticed there were obvious issues there" why you have failed to mention the single one on the article discussion pages? Are these issues using stealth technology? --Stephfo (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I either resolved them myself, or (in the case of the notability concern) I could not, and indicated as much in the AfD nominations. Typically, when you run across a brand new article which is missing sources, you should search for them yourself. However, if after an extensive search you're unable to turn up anything, the right thing to do is propose the article for deletion in accordance with WP:N. Then, one of two things will happen: editors will find sources you missed and correct the article, or they will be unable to, and the article will be (rightly) deleted. That's what happened here. When I discovered the articles were improperly sourced, and after searching extensively to meet WP:N, I was forced to conclude the articles do not meet our notability guidelines, and per policy, I nominated them for deletion. Obviously, you're welcome to find sources which solve this problem now. If you can get them to meet WP:N, the AfD nominations will fail, and the articles will (rightly) stay. However, the fact is that if they don't meet WP:N, then the community has decided that they don't belong on wikipedia. That has nothing to do with you personally... it's just how our policies work.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience (it might sound less civil but I cannot betray my conscience), but this is pure hypocrisy, WP keeps many articles as stubs for very extensive periods of time w/o any proposition for deletion, you are using just weasel words and general descriptions without challenging anything in particular so that at the end you can declare anything you like and delete the article, an act for which you are preparing your position. If issue is not mentioned in particular, it cannot be fixed or improved. Both articles have cited sources, apart from those that you removed by self-made claims.--Stephfo (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the tone of some of your recent posts (here, here and here) is noticeably more civil. I appreciate the efforts you're making to this end. Keep it up. Those three are a marked improvement. :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

....But this is a lot worse. Calling out the religious convictions of other editors is out of line. Please see WP:PA. That sort of comment has no place in the discussion. If you have a problem with another editor, take it to a noticeboard.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

THanks for advise, I will try to do my best.--Stephfo (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it was not PA but rather reflection of reality that whether I like it or not, people who support atheistic position in article are strongly biased, first they oppose the edit if they do not know its origin, and when they learn that it was by atheist used in favor of atheist article, the very same text suddenly miraculously turns into acceptable one, no problems whatsoever. That's just observation of fact, no attack. --Stephfo (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a personal attack. DO NOT speculate on the religious beliefs of others. DO NOT assume someone is atheist just because they don't promote a Christian viewpoint. DO NOT assume neutrality is "atheistic" just because it lacks a religious bias. It may surprise you, but you may find that many of those participants in the dispute are not atheists. The contradiction that you insist exists has been explained to you repeatedly. Disagreement with you does not automatically imply anything about the religious beliefs of others. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the objections was that "attributing the second source to New Atheists when atheism isn't even mentioned other than in the bibliography and keywords" - when discovered that source and text is actually from New Atheism, it is no problem any more, why?--Stephfo (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Who says it isn't a problem? If you see a problem, fix it. Not all of us have ample time on our hands. I spend a few minutes per day here and there, and can't monitor every article on Wikipedia. Just because something exists in one article isn't an argument to put it in another article. If I have a good hour or so free, I will dig into it further. Before today, I didn't even know that New Atheism existed (and I appreciate you pointing it out). ~Amatulić (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's say you're right. It's still out of line to speculate on the religious convictions of other editors. You will end up blocked if that behavior continues. This is the last time I'm going to repeat this: If you have a problem with another editor, take it to a noticeboard.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have well noticed that from your first time you have brought this issue I have not violate your advice IMHO so that your sentence "the last time I'm going to repeat this" comes somewhat odd. --Stephfo (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:PA's notice to "comment on content, not on contributers" still applies. Commenting on the religious convictions of other editors is always inappropriate. Please don't do it again. If you have problems with editor conduct, you can take it to a noticeboard, like WP:ANI.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for that but I regard the sudden changes in questioning article sources in dependence on knowledge who the author is for EXTREMELY BIASED and it is very difficult to accept such treatment. I'm acknowledging there is room for improvement in my ability to come to grips with such methods.--Stephfo (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a good step that you can recognize there's room for improvement and work towards that. One way you can do that is to take the advice of other, more experienced editors when they offer it. I'd suggest speaking to your mentor about some of these issues, and asking him for impartial advice. I imagine he'll make the same recommendations we have, but working with him to address this sort of problem would be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice job on the article. I have a feeling this will survive--but it needs inline cites. Next time you ceate an article I'd like to strongly recommend that you get recognition for your work. You can do so by nominating your new article here: WP:DYK. TTFN – Lionel ^(talk) 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Stephfo, regarding the discussion at Talk:Intelligent design discussing your edit to the article, I have a few observations. The edit you made contained several non-neutral words. For example, you added "...and many scientists are investigating...". The use of "many" is unspecific, and implies that there are a large number of scientists working on the project. (if there is a good number of scientists working on this, approximately how many?) The information you added to the lead isn't discussed later in the article. In order to include the information in the lead section, it needs to be discussed later on. I would also suggest that you use additional sourcing. Several reliable third party sources are preferable, as they help establish proper weight. As the edit was disputed, it would be best if you proposed similar changes on the talk page before making them. Regarding Mann jess's suggestion to take user issues to noticeboards, I can't say I fully agree. Noticeboards should only be used after all other alternatives have been exhausted. If you have a problem with another editor's conduct, the first thing you should try and do is calmly bring it up on their talk page. If that doesn't work, you can consider asking an uninvolved editor for assistance. Usually an uninvolved party can help resolve the issue. If not, it can be taken to Wikiquette assistance, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a similar noticeboard. The Administrators' noticeboard and ANI should only be used if administrative action is needed. I have tagged both of the article you wrote for rescue. From a quick Google search, there appears to be a good amount of coverage. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my suggestion to take issues to a noticeboard was in reference to this comment, which Stephfo defended by claiming there had been misconduct on the part of numerous editors on the page. My intention was to explain that such comments were not appropriate, and that if Stephfo believed there was an issue with editor misconduct, then he should bring that misconduct up at a noticeboard, rather than inject religious accusations on the talk page. I stand by that suggestion. Quite obviously, I agree that noticeboards should be used in only appropriate circumstances, my intention was not to say otherwise, but to indicate that making such comments for any reason was not acceptable, and that other avenues were available. You are correct that WP:DR is another one of those avenues.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that it is vital comments be kept on the content issues, rather than contributers. Issues regarding other editors should be brought up on the editor's talk page, not on the article talk page. If that doesn't resolve the issue, dispute resolution may be needed. I just wanted to make it clear that AN (or specifically ANI) should not be used for dispute resolution. It has been (and is) used for this purpose. With that said, ANI usually causes more harm than good. There are more viable dispute resolution methods that don't cause near as much drama. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

John Hartnett (physicist)

I have removed the research interests section because it was copied and pasted from here... http://internal.physics.uwa.edu.au/~john/ All content should be in your own words.Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to learn opinion of independent editor as it is not possible to come up with research interests completely independent from actual ones, and the copy was not 1:1 and at least few items has been modified.--Stephfo (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll let someone else answer this so I won't cancel the help tag. My opinion is that the material should be included in the article, and I agree it's hard to reproduce a short bullet list in different words than the original. And I hardly think that Dr. Hartnett would object to its duplication, although Wikipedia couldn't reproduce it without permission from him. My only suggestion would be to get rid of the bullet list format and change it to a sentence, "His research interests include....". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added them back in sentence form.Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Wilhelm Busch (priest) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no indication whether any specific action is needed from me to achieve for implementation of consensus on renaming Wilhelm Busch (priest) to Wilhelm Busch (pastor) (i.e. consensus) and in the meantime another editor moved the content from (pastor) where I paste it (copy from "priest") to (clergyman) instead and declares an administrator is required to get it onto Wilhelm Busch (pastor) page where it belongs (as a result of consensus). Please advise. My understanding is that the above text on moving articles is generic guidance for future (I'm not aware of any other WP pages that I would copy&paste and this one priest --> pastor you are aware of) and that no specific action is required from me. Q: Is there anything required from me to achieve renaming former article under "Wilhelm Busch (priest)", currently already under name "Wilhelm Busch (clergyman)", to end up under the name "Wilhelm Busch (pastor)", what was the broad consensus reached? Some editors seem to advise an Administrator intervention is required to achieve for that while making references to above text at my talk page what makes impression as if I should somehow initiate that action, please advise. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've informed Jess of the situation. Remain patient. You don't have to do anything. Amantulic said he would take care of the move for you. I will tell Jess to contact Amantulic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dominus.

Please read this [9] I can't explain it any simpler than this?Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

But the nomination for AfD was withdrawn. Pls read:

:Yup, that's what I'm waiting for. I withdrew the nomination, so whenever an admin gets to it. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's a clear consensus that keeping the article is not controversial, you don't need an admin. As the nominator you can close your own AfD if you withdraw it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(emphasis mine) --Stephfo (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I give upTheroadislong (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from John Hartnett (physicist). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I do not understand your point, all these things are properly explained as you are requiring at all places you're referring to. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang

I explained the revert in the edit summary. Non-scholarly sources were used, which we can't use, and criticism sections are discouraged on wikipedia. I don't really know what else I'm supposed to say. New Scientist is your only scholarly source, but the citation does not support the statement.Farsight001 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trolling me or something? I DID explain the reasons for the revert in the edit summary. I again explained it just above. There's nothing more to say. I did EXACTLY what I was supposed to do. If you don't like it, discuss it on that article's talk page and perhaps garner a 3rd opinion. There's really nothing more I can say. I referred to the relevant policies and I explained how your edits didn't line up. I literally did exactly what you claim I did not, so I really don't know what else I'm supposed to do.Farsight001 (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If possible, please respond to my Qs at your talk page where I initiated the discussion, otherwise it is difficult to keep the track. Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing else to say. Your questions were answered before they were even asked. I don't know what else someone is supposed to say.Farsight001 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Well let me start of with saying I will not be corresponding with you anymore on my or your talk page. I mentioned relevant policies. I explained the reason for the removal. Simply stating to me that I did not do these things does not make it true. You are using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I really don't want to bother with someone who won't listen. So as you ignore what I type, I, too, will ignore what you type. Bye.Farsight001 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's really very weird, to declare you have mentioned policies when you demonstrably have not state a single one.--Stephfo (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, if I may butt in here.... He did state the policies. WP:RS ("non scholarly sources were used") and WP:CRITICISM ("criticism sections are discouraged") are both mentioned in the second sentence of this section. While WP:CRITICISM isn't actually a policy or guideline, it has wide community acceptance. Don't expect everyone to provide you with links to policies that are well known and obvious. Repeatedly demanding answers to questions that have already been answered isn't exactly collaborative. If someone has answered you twice already and you still don't understand the answer, it may be best to ask your mentor for help. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I completely missed the explanation why, for example, a WP:RS should apply onto given text if all of it was coming from scholars that have established a distinctive articles in WP and why New Scientist should be considered a non-scholar source.--Stephfo (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, no one said any of that. In fact, Farsight said exactly the opposite in his first reply. "New Scientist is your only scholarly source, but the citation does not support the statement." Stop. Take a break, and compose your thoughts before responding to this discussion any further. Right now, you're not reading or understanding what other editors are saying to you, and it's causing everyone you interact with to become frustrated or angry. That's going to lead to you being blocked again for disruption. Take a breather, and talk about this with your mentor.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to talk with my mentor should you have any particular problems with me. I do not have problems with it. Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, WP:RS applies to the other source you used, not New Scientist.

Stephfo, pardon me for asking this, but after seeing several exchanges like this from you, I have to ask: Is English your native language? This question has occurred to me because I have seen multiple instances where an answer given to you seems clear but for some reason you give the impression of ignoring it, or misunderstanding it. If you are not accustomed to conversing in English, that might explain the difficulties you seem to be having here. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but if you drop yourself to the very bottom of the WP:DR pyramid [10] and start using Ad hominem argument, I have to ask you the very same Q: do you understand the meaning of sentence "Pls. note neither of the sources was non-scholarly. All inputs were from reliable scholarly sources that have even established articles at WP, just have a look if you do not believe: Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar,Hermann Bondi, Eric Lerner etc. I cannot imagine more scholar source."? Pls. stay cool and avoid personal attacks ("Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."). I can assure you I understand very well and as a matter of fact anybody can verify whether a policy allegedly violated was clearly stated or not and rationale why these aforementioned scholars should be regarded as non-scholars. Thanks for you understanding. Pls. let me know whether you advise to go for WP:RSN or what is your point. I believe you also understand if the second source signed by all these scholars reads "(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)" what that means in term of verifiability.--Stephfo (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reaching my last straw too... Those comments are not personal attacks. Please read WP:PA carefully. You may go to WP:RSN. Before you do, please read this conversation again. You do not understand the problem. RSN can't help you with this problem. We are trying to help you here. Is English your first language? You do not need to answer that question if you don't want to. If you answer that question, we can help you more. Please talk to your mentor about the problems you're having communicating with other users.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm doing: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

"Is English your native language?" - in my reading it relates to contributor, pls. advise, in yours to content?

"Ad hominem: Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer w/o addressing the substance of the argument"

"Is English your native language?" => Ad hominem: Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer

w/o addressing the substance of the argument => Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar,Hermann Bondi, Eric Lerner notable by wikipedia are allegedly non-scholars; NRK alias Norwegian BBC should not be reliable source etc.

Fine, you seem managed to cool down and return the discussion from editor to content, that's great! Thank you.--Stephfo (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Stephfo, but you are incorrect.

What part of "non scholarly sources were used" in at the beginning of this section do you not understand?

What part of "criticism sections are discouraged" do you not understand?

What part of "New Scientist is your only scholarly source" do you not understand?

What part of "The citation does not support the statement" do you not understand?

What leads you to believe that a non-notable petition signed by a tiny number of scientists (who appear to be non-notable) is meaningful, and a reliable source for any claims? Have you looked at WP:FRINGE?

What leads you to believe that a non-notable documentary film is a reliable source? What part of WP:FRINGE do you not understand?

The fact is, you inserted three sources: New Scientist is scholarly, the question is whether you misrepresented it. You also inserted a link to a petition, and a link to a non-notable film. These things have been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you have failed to understand the answers, hence my question, which was an honest attempt to understand your difficulty. You are correct, WP:RSN can help, but I recommend you read WP:FRINGE first.

Please succinctly describe what you are having trouble understanding and I or someone else will be happy to explain it to you. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are interested in answer any more, as you seem to participate in ANI case against me, but basically I provided 3 sources, one of them is New Scienist, 2nd points to the very same source, i.e. New Scientist and is signed by academical people mentioned in discussion and above and recognized by WP as notable scholars worth of having dedicated articles and 3rd source is documentary by Norwegian national TV named NRK where there are mostly the same above scholars with established articles at WP being interviewed or otherwise participating in documentary. Thus I really didn't get it with which source out of these three do you question and why you refer to alleged "tiny number of scientists" as "who appear to be non-notable" if WP clearly proves otherwise (=> Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar,Hermann Bondi, Eric Lerner)? That's really weird argument. To summarize your Qs:

Add.1:What part of "non scholarly sources were used" in at the beginning of this section do you not understand? - I do not understand why the verifiable source that points to New Scientist is labelled as non-scholarly as the very same article that it points to is regarded as scholarly, an on top of this there is a great number of scientist signed below it who are recognized by WP as scholarly.

Add.2:What part of "criticism sections are discouraged" do you not understand? -> I do not understand why I can find multiple articles with criticism sections while here it should be a edit-stopper. Anyway, should this be the only problem, it is not difficult to rename the section to something not making references to criticism.

Add.3: What part of "New Scientist is your only scholarly source" do you not understand? -see Add.1 about the reference of 2nd source to the very same article and New Scientist ("Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004") --> i.e. Verifiable

Add.4: :What part of "The citation does not support the statement" do you not understand? --> I do not understand how the text taken from that article and case reported by documentary cannot support the given statement.

Add.5: :What leads you to believe that a non-notable petition signed by a tiny number of scientists (who appear to be non-notable) is meaningful, and a reliable source for any claims? Have you looked at WP:FRINGE? --> The very fact that people who signed it have established pages at WP, i.e. that are recognized as notable (Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar,Hermann Bondi, Eric Lerner) as well as the fact that the very same source is already present and used at WP.

Add.6: :What leads you to believe that a non-notable documentary film is a reliable source? --> The very fact that it was done by NRK, Norwegian National TV that has reputation on the level of BBC and that people there in are recognized by WP as notable.

Add.7: :What part of WP:FRINGE do you not understand? -> I'm not aware I would declare anything like that, but the authors concerned have their theories at WP: plasma cosmology, steady-state cosmology, that means you either must be wrong, or WP is publishing WP:FRINGE.

Add.8: I'm happy we can agree WP:RSN can help without the need to continue attacking me. I suggest in future this to be one of your first suggestion prior to making such long attacks, something like: "Although I disagree with your sources, pls. feel free to verify their acceptability via WP:RSN. Should they be accepted there, they will be fine with me as well.". Thanks a lot for your understanding. --Stephfo (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

I have restored your edit with all it's faults. I don't have the energy to argue.Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked over that discussion and contributed. Stephfo, as a reminder - I know this has been pointed out on multiple occasions now - do not label other users' contributions as vandalism that do not meet WP:VAND. That is a serious problem. Please stop doing it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, please do not make any more article edits until the current concerns by other editors have been addressed. [11] followed by [12] is edit warring. Restoring your changes without discussion given the current discussion on this talk page is not a good idea. Editors can, and have been blocked in the past for fewer than three reverts. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but this [13] action of mine has appropriately explained reason in the edit summary where it is explicitly stated that I'm reverting the previous deletion because the reason provided as "not being reflected anywhere in the article" is in blatant contradiction with reality and thus is false ("not being reflected anywhere in the article" ->false-> Christian attitude to terrorism). If someone wants to start discussion at talk page, then he/she should initiate such discussion at talk page clearly stating the topic and not delete edits by making false accusations that have nothing to do with reality, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you've received requests from multiple editors, including your mentor, to stop making changes to articles until concerns have been addressed. Per this comment, it appears you have refused to do that. This is one last request to stop and speak to your mentor, and to address the numerous issues other editors have brought to your attention. If you can't agree to do that, I plan to take this back to WP:ANI. I know you're active on-wiki now, so I'd appreciate it if you could respond to this soon with your intentions. Just a quick "yes" or "no", would be fine. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this, yes you can argue against other user's claims. However, it is usually best to let other editors do that for you. Alpha Quadrant (alt) ^talk 16:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Kristina Royova.png needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Kristina Royova.png appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Stephfo}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Back the hell off

Hello I think you may be confusing the meaning of this expression. It was said in your support and it is basically a request to "leave you alone" or "stop criticizing you or telling you what to do" Hope this helps. RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for explanation, However, why he then asked to delete that message "Sorry 'bout that, feel free to delete this, my mistake." right after reading:

• "(1) Kindly get your sorry butt "the hell off" my user talk. (2) If you want somebody to "back off" I would suggest you address yourself to Stephfo, who initiated this fiasco. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)"[14]

Was he interested to support me by advising to leave me alone and later designated advice "to leave me alone" as mistake and that's why asked for deletion of that message? Was it mistake to advise stop criticizing me? If he was genuinely interested to support me, why he did not stand up for his support but requested to delete it? Pls. explain. Thanx --Stephfo (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You will have to ask him that, I have no idea.Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, and from where did you know that "It was said in your support and it is basically a request to "leave you alone" or "stop criticizing you or telling you what to do", did you ask him about that? --Stephfo (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I was asking you, Stephfo, to back off. To stop doing what you were doing. I am sorry to you for the confusion, I have apologized separately to Hrafn. I hope this clears things up, and again, I am sorry for the confusion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies I was wrong in my interpretation!!Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm confused even more, "Theroadislong" assures the phrase means that you supported me and asked Hrafn to leave me alone, you declare you were asking me to leave Hrafn alone. That's quite blurry dual interpretation of the very same sentence...OK, Hrafn's explanation prevails, but then it is at least demonstration that even people who declare to be superior in English are able to interpret the very same thing differently. Thanks for explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it demonstrates that my wording was, perhaps, unclear. It was not intended to be of course. Now that you know what I meant, I imagine we can move on right? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well,it depends in what direction, I hope you do not mean I should "Back the hell off" = back off from Wikipedia entirely, if you de-facto suggested that I should not have a right to question Hrafns accusations of me to be a disruptive editor just because I questioned a controversial claim that was not backed up with in-line citation, at least the one he asserted it is there had no such content whatsoever. I hope I might have some say if I deem something to be inappropriate. --Stephfo (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Move on, to other things. That is all I meant, there was no other intention. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanx a LOT for expressing your good-faith intentions. --Stephfo (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic Banned

FYI: [15] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your information, however I totally fail to understand based on what I was found guilty and what my actual guilt is. If you could comment I would very much appreciate it. If possible, I'd like to ask you to inform me what are my possibilities to appeal this block. Thanks a lot in advance!--Stephfo (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You aren't blocked from editing, you are just not permitted to edit the topic areas of creation, evolution, and articles critical of Christianity. The topic ban will automatically expire in 6 months. So on May 29, 2012 you can edit in the topic area again. The topic ban discussion decided that it would be better for you to learn policy outside of the contentious area. It didn't necessarily "find you guilty" of anything. The discussion just decided that, in order to avoid further problems, it would be best for you to avoid the topic for the time being. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's weird, should I understand that I was found innocent and that's why I've got blocked?--Stephfo (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not blocked. You are simply restricted from editing in certain topic areas. However, you may become blocked if you edit in these areas for the next six months.

You are free to contribute anywhere else on Wikipedia. Your contributions to other Christianity-related articles, such as Wilhelm Busch (pastor) have been welcome, and I hope you continue creating or improving other Christianity articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish you luck Stephfo. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that's why you voted for my block and suggested even indef one later on: "*Support. This is I think the last hope for this user to show (s)he can become a more constructive editor. I also agree that if there will be another block it should be indefinite. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"--Stephfo (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I think you have passion about stuff, and want to contribute, and those are good things. You have to learn policies etc, and in that I truly wish you luck. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your genuine effort to improve my skills, what are the 5 major policies that you found I need to improve the most and would would be the hyper-linked 5 cases you have managed to identify where I failed to apply them properly?--Stephfo (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was afraid -that your truly wish of good luck would not be followed by any truly action due to objective hindrances, but still thank you at least for nice wishes and at least declarative support, it is definitely better than nothing, it's much different feeling when you feel such strong benevolence behind your back, you know. --Stephfo (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not, currently, have the time to go into that sort of detail. However, I think the key ones are, in no particular order, WP:TRUTH, which is not a policy, but an essay, WP:AGF (which can be very hard sometimes I know) WP:NPOV and oh let's go with WP:TLDR which again is an essay. Feel free to leave me a message on my page or email me if you wish. I honestly want you to do well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Currently it is a matter of timing. It is the end of term, I am grading papers and making up exams and doing other much less interesting administrative work. Over the Christmas holidays I would be happy to have an email exchange with you. You can email me from my user page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I found your declaration "Your contributions to other Christianity-related articles, such as Wilhelm Busch (pastor) have been welcome, and I hope you continue creating or improving other Christianity articles" in direct contradiction with sentence "you are just not permitted to edit the topic areas of creation, evolution, and articles critical of Christianity." I'd like to bring to your attention the opinion of Galileo who stated on one occasion: "However, consider that, as I just said, whoever has truth on his side has a great, indeed the greatest, advantage over the opponent, and that it is impossible for two truths to contradict each other; it follows therefore that we must not fear any assaults launched against us by anyone, as long as we are allowed to speak and to be heard by competent persons who are not excessively upset by their own emotions and interests.". I suggest that if this rule about two truths is in force, then one of the aforementioned sentences must be false, I either am "welcome to continue creating or improving other Christianity articles", or "not permitted to edit the topic areas of ... articles critical of Christianity", both of them cannot be valid at the same time, IMHO. --Stephfo (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You can edit Christianity related articles, just not articles that critical of Christianity (for example Criticism of Christianity). Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am curious, how is the article on Wilhelm Busch in any way critical of Christianity? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, this makes sense. Pls. advise what is the official reason (which policy is applied) for my ban and how it is enforced, is it automatic by system or I have to take heed myself and evaluate case-by-case.

If latter, pls. advise what are the objective criteria to find out whether an article is eligible for this ban.

I hope you've managed to notice my Q: "If possible, I'd like to ask you to inform me what are my possibilities to appeal this block." If yes, then pls. note I have not managed to notice your A. Thanks, kind regards--Stephfo (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

AQ, pls. advise whether this edit of mine can be found at ANI board, my browseer seems to cease to display it, is it my local technical problem or someone have removed it; if latter, how it is then wrt. to your assurance that ":Regarding this, yes you can argue against other user's claims. However, it is usually best to let other editors do that for you."?--Stephfo (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is a technical issue with ANI. I have noticed on the 23rd that new comments weren't always appearing. It can be solved by purging the page cache. I will note that in some cases, if you log out and clear your browser storage and come back to it, the page will appear unpurged once again. I am not sure what causes this bizarre issue. I tend to just ignore it. Your comments are still there. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

To answer your questions: (i) You can see here for info on appealing your ban - that page should also any other questions about your ban so I recommend you read the whole thing. Essentially, you can request arbitration or you can post at AN/I. I'll just put it out there now that there is almost no chance of this happening - community consensus on issues like this is generally the final authority.(ii) The exact text of your ban is "Creation/Evolution topics and topics critical of Christianity, including atheism and creationism, and all areas of the natural sciences relating to creationism, including pertinent areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, broadly construed." This means that you cannot edit any creationism articles at all, or anything even remotely related to creationism. You also cannot edit scientific articles that relate to creationism; as the ban says, you cannot edit in the areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, broadly construed. This means that Evolution is off limits, so is Astronomy, so is Big Bang, so is Allen's rule, etc. "Broadly construed" means that if you have to ask, then it's probably off limits. This should be very clear cut - if you can look at an article and make a connection to creationism or anything that could be critical of Christianity, then you can't edit it. (iii) You were not blocked under any specific policy, you were blocked by a community consensus. However, in determining that consensus both in this AN/I and in past discussions, such as those on Talk:Objections to evolution, and previous AN/I reports, many policies were mentioned such as WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, etc. (iiii) The ban is enforced by you not editing any of those articles. If you do and get caught then you will be blocked and a community ban may be enacted. If there are borderline cases and you cannot tell then you may ask on AN/I. N^oformation ^Talk 06:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban violation warning.

You have violated the terms of your topic ban by editing the article on Big Bang. You are not allowed to do this, and you can be indefinitely blocked for doing so.

Just in case you didn't see the terms of your topic ban, they are as follows:

Stephfo is banned from all "Creation/Evolution topics and topics critical of Christianity, including atheism and creationism, and all areas of the natural sciences relating to creationism, including pertinent areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, broadly construed" for a period of 6 months. This is a modified version of the original proposal, which there appears to be consensus for. While opposition to the original proposal has been based on the fact that it was too broad, there is a general consensus here that a topic ban of some sort is necessary to assist Stephfo in learning the policy that governs this site. In enacting a topic ban, the community expects Stephfo take a step back, slow down, evaluate his/her position on editing, and work closely with his/her mentor to learn the policies of the project.

Don't do this again. It's a very big violation of the rules. I've informed your mentor so that he can talk to you about this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see the terms of the blocks: 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." I do declare that I demand objective examination of the matter related to my sources, i.e. my activity area used in relation to my block. --Stephfo (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Being an opposing point of view, the Big Bang article is related to creationism. Under the topic ban, you really shouldn't edit such articles. Repeated violations can lead to blocks. If you aren't sure if an article falls under the category, please consider asking me before editing in the area. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume this is the concerning edit. While you aren't editing an article under the topic ban, you are discussing an article that falls under your topic ban. Discussing an article that falls under a topic ban can be interpreted as violating the topic ban. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Stephfo I recommend you read very carefully the Ban policy page I linked above. This time nothing is happening but you are expected to follow this ban to the letter. Also, just to clarify something AQ said: violating your topic ban will almost certainly get you indef blocked from the whole site for a long time, like 6 months long. It's not a matter of "repeated" violations - a single violation is enough. N^oformation ^Talk 00:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This should go to AN/I as there is absolutely no excuse for this. In my above explanation of the topic ban I specifically mentioned that Big Bang was off limits. If someone else doesn't do it I will when I get home tonight N^oformation ^Talk 00:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We had not told him that he couldn't discuss the topics. Now he knows this. There is really no point in taking this to AN/I. If there are future incidents, then we may need to. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I have not edited Big Bang article since 20th of nov 2011 well before the ANI was initiated. I have no intention to perform any edit of the given article, however since I have right to appeal the block that was enforced upon me, I deem for appropriate to learn 3rd party opinion prior to going for the arbitration. Pls. explain according to what policy I should be not allowed to do so. At the same time, I'd like to ask you to lead the discussion wrt. given source being a contention point leading to my blockage on my behalf, if you deem it as more appropriate. Thanks. --Stephfo (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Ref. [16]--Stephfo (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, Stepho. A topic ban means you are not allowed to do anything in the topic area whatsoever, either in article space, on talk pages, on notice boards or even your own talk page. The ONLY exception would be during discussions about appealing your topic ban in an appropriate venue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dominus for your kind explanation, may you please also refer to policy you are quoting? I hope it is not this one: "I'm not at all interested in hearing you protest, object or defend yourself anymore. ...Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)"--Stephfo (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake and my apologies. I did not check your contribs, I just saw this section. Not sure why DV posted it. N^oformation ^Talk 00:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already answered this question: "You were not blocked under any specific policy, you were blocked by a community consensus. However, in determining that consensus both in this AN/I and in past discussions, such as those on Talk:Objections to evolution, and previous AN/I reports, many policies were mentioned such as WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, etc" N^oformation ^Talk 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I do declare that I am not aware that any of the disputing opposing parties would ever proved any of the accusation above by means of using non-involved party and thus I regard making references to such polices for vain.

Moreover, your standpoint implies that Wikipedia is not governed by policies but by argumentum ad populum alias appeal to the crowd (Why it is claimed that I should "learn" policies if they are not in force at all?) and at the same time that you acknowledge that there was nothing wrong with my edit in Big Bang article wrt. sources used.

Please note that most of the community members who voted for my block based on this argumentum ad populum seem regard it for bad approach (cf. level of support for evolution: "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.") and are trying falsely to attribute such methods to creationists: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory." --Stephfo (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pls. Also note that your answer does not fit question at all, you are explaining that I was blocked without using appropriate WP policies while question was why I should not be allowed to go for WP:RSN in preparation of my defence in arbitration. Such topic was not mentioned at ANI and your answer is not addressing it whatsoever. --Stephfo (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, please read WP:TBAN. The community has prohibited you from editing any Creation/Evolution topics and topics critical of Christianity, including atheism and creationism, and all areas of the natural sciences relating to creationism, including pertinent areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology. As the community has prohibited you from editing in this area, you should not edit in this area. Once the topic ban has expired (May 29, 2012), you are free to continue editing in this area. You could appeal the topic ban, but, given the length it would be easier just to spend time editing elsewhere. Alpha Quadrant (alt) ^talk 00:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I'm not aware that I would edit any article in that topic area. I was blocked by making references to my edits that took place after my last unblock, that's why I naturally assume there was something wrong with these edits from perspective of people who got me blocked. From my perspective they were wrong (this group of people who blocked me) and I have right to appeal their block of mine. To be able to make my appeal reasonable, I naturally need opinion of the 3rd party. Based on what I should be denied of defending myself?--Stephfo (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I used that reference because of reference to logical way of disputing matters without noticing and realizing it can be misused. My mistake, pls. accept my apology. --Stephfo (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Stepho, do not post anything about a banned topic anywhere, including RSN. If you need an answer to a question about a topic that you are not allowed to discuss for your arbitration, inform your mentor and they can post the question for you if they think it is appropriate. If you have any questions, ask them.

I have to agree with your mentor that there is little hope that appealing your topic ban will succeed. Your time would be better spent constructively editing in other areas and reading up on WP policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But then they should be first used, if they are not ("You were not blocked under any specific policy, you were blocked by a community consensus"), what would be benefit of it? It is obviously not policies but power what decides at the end. --Stephfo (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You were not blocked. You were topic banned. There's a BIG difference. Read the policy: WP:Banning. VERY carefully. In other words, you were given a last chance. If you violate the ban, you will be blocked indefinitely. There is no room for error here. Be very careful and follow the policy to the letter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and no one need justify this to you. The fact is such that you are not allowed to edit these articles and this was determined by a consensus of your peers. If you disagree you may appeal at arbcom or on AN/I but in the meantime if you edit in that topic area at all, even on ancillary pages or even discussing the topic itself, you will be blocked and will likely not be unblocked. Deal with this information how you wish, I'm just giving you the facts of the matter (whether you think it's logical, justified or not is irrelevant). Technically you could already be blocked for having posted on RSN but we are cutting you some slack, once. N^oformation ^Talk 03:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pls. feel free to block me if you are really so malicious and do not allow for defence against the false accusations, I hope you can enlist the edits I allegedly did to article on intelligent design before my last block, otherwise I suggest that in line with the rule on civility you should apologize for false accusations. --Stephfo (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be really blunt here because you do not seem to get the message and I cannot think of any way to put this nicely: you were banned because no one wants to deal with you. No one wants to read walls of text, most of which is incomprehensible. No one wants to explain simple concepts to you over and over again that you can't understand due to a language barrier or for other reasons. Your peers have decided that it's better for our sanity and for the encyclopedia for you not to edit on these topics. Working on WP is a privilege, not a right, and part of the privilege has been revoked. Time to move on. I'm done responding here. Either stick to the topic ban or get blocked, no skin off my ass. N^oformation ^Talk 03:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that the capability to understand always ceases exactly at moments when arguments that nobody is able to refute are presented, such as:

• • the one that claim by user:Dominus Vobisdu (that I was allegedly editing article on Intelligent Design before my previous block) is clearly false,
  • or that accusation of my edit content "isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" is in blatant discrepancy with reality.

Add. "no one wants to deal with you": I suggest that the truth might be very well quite opposite, that's why you can find announcements like this one: Resignation from Wikipediamaking references to "self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police" and discoveries like this: "I've found lately that if you try to contribute anything at all, somebody immediately deletes your contribution, citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies." Maybe the key to real remedy is given in this proposition to return to the origins: "When Wikipedia first started, it was a very nice project. You could contribute to existing articles or start new ones, and it was fun to watch other users improve on what you had written -- expanding it, making it clearer, adding more information, etc. It really worked well for a number of years." Please note, if someone doesn't want "to read walls of text" then he/she should perhaps think about this trend at WP, an properly resort to WP:DR tools instead of arranging for block of fellow editor via back-ally administrators who do not have even a vestige of civility to answer the questions they were given[17]. Moreover, when objective 3rd party is called in, false accusations do not get through, argumentum ad hominum on incomprehensible texts, language barriers etc. is not accepted, and that's what this topic ban is about, to avoid inconvenient truth, IMHO. Should you stand up for what you say - then I challenge you to allow for WP:DRN process in any area pertinent to my block to prove your point.--Stephfo (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Stephfo, you are not blocked - yet. The community has decided that your behaviour is too disruptive to allow you to continue to edit in certain areas. It's not a matter of guilt or innocence - its a matter of competence - you are currently editing very badly, and causing a lot of problems in these areas. Your editing in other areas - such as articles about various clergymen - is not causing a lot of problems, so you can carry on doing that.

However, if you post in the areas you are topic banned from, then you will be blocked. Can you understand this? If you want to appeal the topic ban, then follow the steps at WP:UNBAN.

Do not do things like this-which violates the ban or this-which asks another editor to violate your ban by proxying for you, or this-endlessly rehashing the argument you made before about your ban, and demonstrating that although you can cut and paste quote Wikipedia policies, you don't seem to understand them.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The "community" is very misleading and manipulative term because it does not account for votes that have been opposing such decision ("Rather that enforce this unreasonable topic ban, I would request that a Dispute Resolution regarding the matter take place, where a neutral user can mediate between the two parties here."; "Considering he is no longer edit warring and is following his mentors advice I see no reason for drastic measures such as a topic ban."). If I'm "currently editing very badly" please identify these article edits of mine that you are referring to (not inevitable defence at talk pages, if possible). There is nothing wrong in asking for clarification if someone sees discrepancy between WP rules and actual reality. I already expressed intention to go for arbitration and explained I need to collect inputs for that reason, hence I do not understand what your problem is. On the contrary, the rule that administrator should address the quality of arguments when closing ANI case is impossible to be misunderstood and if you are able to point to place were these specifically enlisted by me have been addressed, you are very welcome to do so. Thanks in advance--Stephfo (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Add. "this-which asks another editor to violate your ban by proxying for you" -Elen, another editor cannot violate my ban since ban is imposed on me not on him. If you are good-faith intended editor that it should be of your highest interest to find out whether the article can be improved to better quality by including content that is potentially to be found meeting the WP quality requirements. As for proxying, I hope you know the policies well, it was explained to me multiple times that edits at WP are not "yours" (it was addressed to me that time) and everybody can build up on them and use/change them, consider them worth of verification at WP:RSN etc. Please let me know if I should search for this explanation for your better understanding. Thanks, kind regards.--Stephfo (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I say, you cut and paste bits of policies, but you don't seem to understand a word of any of them. You are banned from editing in a certain area. If you ask another user to make edits for you, that is called meatpuppetry and the editor is proxying for you. So do not ask anyone to do that again. You are not going to get dispute resolution, because it is not a dispute between two editors - the Wikipedia community was torn between blocking you outright, topic banning you permanently from half the project, and the shorter and smaller topic ban that was imposed.

You need to focus on demonstrating that you can edit productively in the rest of the project, and not spend your time endlessly asking people to justify the topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"I found it: "If it is in the article, it is not 'yours'-- see WP:OWNERSHIP & Wikipedia's licensing terms." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)"--Stephfo (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE. If you are unable to actually understand Wikipedia policies, then you will not be able to continue editing here. Nothing I have said is about licencing. Everything I have said is about trying to get round your topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that you read that policy yourself, otherwise you could not state it here if the claim inside reads like this:

"Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, and seek comments from other Wikipedians or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining."

Pls. note I have not recruited "friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with [me]" let alone "new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia". I'm following the WP rule on WP:Mentorship (Mentorship is an arrangement in which one user assists another user, the protégé. Depending on the nature of the mentorship agreement, the mentor may give the protégé advice on more effective editing habits and help the protégé resolve disputes). I hope you have noticed that:

• it was not my idea to go for this kind of mentorship arrangement alias "well-tested process" to "pursue dispute resolution" designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another, what I'm strongly convinced is taking place in here
• mentor is not "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose" and acting on my behalf as his protégé when involved in dispute is exactly what mentor is here for to avoid escalation of the tensions
• I believe you understand that I have no intention to edit any article but follow the advise of your policy to "seek comments from other Wikipedians", namely WP:RSN for purposes of dispute resolution wrt. my block, which I and obviously also some other editors regard for biased. Thanks. --Stephfo (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Stephfo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:WilhelmBuschPriest1.png

I have once again removed the image [File:WilhelmBuschPriest1.png] which you uploaded, from the article on Wilhelm Busch (pastor) as it was clearly copied on your admission from here [18] without permission of the copyright holder.Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I do not understand how it is possible, I'm 100% percent sure I haven't once again uploaded anything, I just discovered that the picture is still displayed at Wiqiquotes, and as my impression was that someone made a note that the picture will be removed from Wikimedia but can be kept at WP, I came to conclusion that is the reason why it has still remained kept shown at wikiquotes and essentially I just made the link the same already present picture, IMHO. By the way, the picture was not copied from Amazon, but taken live directly from hardcopy book cover "Ježiš náš osud" (1993), a book that does not contain any copyright statements whatsoever. Sometimes things that other people feel as being "clear" might have nothing to do with reality at all.--Stephfo (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You have copied an image from a book, that is not allowed, the copyright belongs to the original photographer or the publisher and clearly NOT you.Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I took the photo of the book, as I already mentioned, a book that has no copyright statements whatsoever. If the copyright belongs to original photographer, then based on what if in the book itself it is not stated?--Stephfo (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's a dustjacket. It may be acceptable to use an image of the dustjacket, or part of the image on the dustjacket, under fair use. The chap is deceased, so no-one can go take a picture of him now. There is a question as to whether whoever created the Amazon image has copyright in the derivative , but in the US, there would not be enough creative element to justify this just by taking a photo of the bookjacket. I expect the problem is that it was uploaded wrongly (with no source and no FUR). Let me check into it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. It is not free, and will be deleted from Commons. However, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use. Stephfo, could you re-upload it to Wikipedia rather than Commons. Don't say it's your own work - you only scanned it, and that doesn't give you copyright. Rather select the option that it is a page from a book, and fill in the Fair Use Rationale as far as you can (don't worry if you make a mistake, I can fix it later). If you made the scan, then under 'source' say that you scanned it yourself. If you cropped an image on the web, give the url. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In case you're not following, the image itself may still be the copyright of the original book publisher, and Gloria.tv have paid them a license fee. Even if it isn't, Gloria.tv's own terms and conditions [19] say "Any commercial use of contents of this website is forbidden." This makes it incompatible with Wikipedia licenses, so any content has to be used under WP:NFCC ie Fair use.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried hard but when I was about to upload it, it gave me no reasonable option that would match reality. (Now I mean when I did it 1st time onto Commons, I have not yet tried to repeat the trial onto WP instead per your advice.) I didn't like the option I picked, but there was really no better one in spite of my impression that before I could see wider choices during upload (and I think even one specifically mentioning book cover).--Stephfo (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you're trying to upload the file to Wikipedia - the page it brings up offers 'book cover' as an option. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm completely puzzled about your reasoning making references to Gloria.tv and I have no clue where are you aiming at. When I wrote "the picture was not copied from Amazon, but taken live directly from hardcopy book cover "Ježiš náš osud" (1993), a book that does not contain any copyright statements whatsoever" then I really meant that I took a picture by camera from hardcopy book cover being on the table in front of my eyes and reference to any web page makes no other sense then give a notion what the book looks like for those who cannot touch it. I'm 100% no gloria.tv has anything to do with the book on my table, they just put the different piece obtained who knows where onto their web after they perhaps made a scan of it, as far as I can say, but it has nothing to do with my hard copy and my photo of it.--Stephfo (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I can see the book on Gloria.tv but not a picture of a dustjacket. If you look immediately below the scrolling text of the book, there's a little box that says "License" If you click it, it comes up "all rights reserved", so I'd go with the book being copyright, or at least reserved for non-commercial use. Also, it's not clear who holds the copyright of the photo. So I'd stick with uploading it as non-free, fill in the fair use template as best you can.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that the book cover is under copyright. Though you made a copy of the image with a scan, the image is still under copyright. Similarly, if one were to take a screen shot of a copyrighted film, the screen shot is still under copyright. The image can be used on Wikipedia, but it can only be used under fair use because it is copyrighted. If you need any assistance, I would be happy to assist you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not mind under what condition a picture can be used, for me under fair use is perfectly OK, however I truly do not understand your reasoning "It does appear that the book cover is under copyright" and "because it is copyrighted" where do you have such informaiton from? The book itself clearly does not contain such information, and here you can see the cover of this book multiple times: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] ,this is by the way publisher: [25]. Please explain where do you have it from that the image is copyrighted? --Stephfo (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, see WP:COPYVIO. In particular, note "media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable." In many countries, content is copyrighted to the author automatically, and so if the author does not explicitly release his work under a free license, then it is copyrighted. Copyright violations are a big deal on wikipedia, so you should be extra cautious not to upload something you're unsure of. Ask first if you don't know. However, your default assumption should always be that the work is not under a free license, unless it says that it is.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds strange to me, where did you get the information that the cover of my book that does not have single copyright statement is automatically copyrighted in country of its origin? How you managed to discover that I allegedly violated any copyright? The whole book is available for download at multiple web sites, even with preparing the text for Copy and paste ("Copyable text").--Stephfo (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added the photo again. The image is part of a book cover and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book. It could be used to illustrate an article discussing the book in question using fair use but not for any other purpose.Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was advised a short while ago: "So I'd stick with uploading it as non-free, fill in the fair use template as best you can.".--Stephfo (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you missed the part about providing a rationale for fair use. You have to explain why using the picture falls under fair use. Try this:

"The image in question is a photograph taken by me of the dustjacket of a copy of "Ježiš náš osud" (1993), which contains no information about the provenence of the photograph, nor any copyright information at all. After an extensive search, I have found no other suitable pictures of this person. As the person portrayed is deceased, there is no hope of new photographs becoming available. My efforts to identify the photographer or the copyright holder, though thorough, have been in vain. I submit that use of the picture can be justified as fair use. The picture is being used solely for non-commercial, informational and educational purposes to illustrate the subject of the article Wilhelm Busch (pastor). Use of the image here on WP is unlikely to have any impact on the commercial interests of the photographer, the copywright holder or the publisher. The image represents only a small portion of the content of the book in question.

Hope that helps. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at what's there currently - Alpha Quadrant and I have both had a hack at it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• The text of the book must be copyright in Croatia because Croatia follows the Berne convention "life of author plus 50 years", which would bring us to 2016 at the earliest. The Church or the publisher may have made the text available to download, but that does not make it public domain. Gloria.tv's licencing clearly shows that all rights are reserved - I suspect the rest of the TOS (that I didn't translate from whatever language it is in) says that the content can be used for preaching sermons. It definitely says that it cannot be used for any commercial purpose, so it definitely is still in copyright.
• Theroadislong would be correct if you were trying to use a photo of the book cover itself, but you are only using the photo (which incidentally was taken in 1962 [26] so it is also almost certainly still in copyright). It seems to be the only available photo that shows him at work with young people - the very thing he was known for, so it has a historic significance for the Pastor that the other existing photographs (of him sitting at desks) don't have. The German Wikipedia seems to have a bit more info about the photo (I think, my German is hopeless) - it would be worth including that in this article if it is the case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the section on non-commercial use and lack of commercial impact. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:WilhelmBuschPastor1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WilhelmBuschPastor1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, per your following advice: "However, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use. Stephfo, could you re-upload it to Wikipedia rather than Commons. Don't say it's your own work - you only scanned it, and that doesn't give you copyright. Rather select the option that it is a page from a book, and fill in the Fair Use Rationale as far as you can (don't worry if you make a mistake, I can fix it later). If you made the scan, then under 'source' say that you scanned it yourself. If you cropped an image on the web, give the url." may you please help me out? Thanks in advance--Stephfo (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the fair use rationale and I removed the deletion tag. It should be fine now. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed I had "save" conflict w/ you when I was trying to do the same.--Stephfo (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with Alpha Quadrant LOL. Should be no problems now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And I had an edit conflict with Stephfo. Too may people trying to help all at once. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I just wrote a rationale and posted it in the section above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to all.--Stephfo (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Wilhelm Busch (pastor), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Evangelist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello from Wekn

Hey, Stephfo! I understand you are having some problems concerning creation-related articles, a topic ban warning, and possibly language [is Serbian your native language?]. Let me know if I can help on my talk page. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's not a "topic ban warning", it's a topic ban. It's probably not a good idea to discuss creationism anywhere, including your talk, as it could be construed as a violation of his current sanctions. Of course, this doesn't mean you can't help Stephfo generally, which could very well be productive, but it's important you first understand the situation so you don't unwittingly get him to break his sanctions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Noformation asked him to see if he could help. The copyright discussion above shows where having someone who speaks Stephfo's first language might be useful - everyone was being very co-operative, but I bet Stephfo still isn't convinced the image is copyright:)Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I'm very thankful for your help related to this image upload, but in spite of that I have to strongly protest about attributing me such opinion that I do not hold. My only standpoint was:

• 1. The book, at least the one I have on my desk as 1993 edition, provably does not contain any copyright statements, let alone ones related to photo on the front page.
• 2. Nobody provided any evidence proving that the photo on the first page of the book I have on my desk is under copyright.
• 3. Conclusion: Copyright status of the photo at front page is unknown. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks for your understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said "you probably still aren't convinced that the photograph is copyright." It's not a criticism of *you*, it's that the explanation may be too truncated and complex if you're having to translate everything, and may have left you unconvinced that the argument that the photo is copyright is the correct one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, I'm not convinced since no evidence was provided, and the one presented as "The text of the book must be copyright in Croatia because Croatia follows the Berne convention "life of author plus 50 years", which would bring us to 2016 at the earliest." sounds to be absolutely strange to me, as Croatia has nothing to do with book whatsoever, it sounds the same as if someone would claim that some US-origin book used in US must be copyrighted because Papa-New-Guinea follows some local law related to books in their country.--Stephfo (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Google translate told me book was in Croatian - I presume it meant Slovakian. This may have caused part of the confusion. I certainly wouldn't be able to recognise the difference. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, we ALWAYS assume that ALL published books and the images they contain are protected by copyright UNLESS there is positive evidence that they are not. It doesn't matter whether YOU are convinced that the book and image are not under copyright. The burden is on YOU to prove that it isn't. Just because a book or image has no explicit copyright information in it does not mean that it is not protected. Copyright protection is a matter of INTERNATIONAL law, not merely local law. Slovakia also follows the Berne Convention [[27]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I've NEVER been convinced that the book and image are not under copyright, I was just convinced that it is unknown since nobody have proved by any evidence that it is under any copyright and there are absolutely no copyright statements whatsoever in the book itself. That's it. Your argument on international law etc. is the 1st one that is exhibiting some vestiges of logical coherence, and even then it was very tight: Edition of the book is 1993, Contracting Parties > Berne Convention > Slovakia > Entry into Force: January 1, 1993.--Stephfo (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Before that date, the convention was in force in Slovakia as part of Czechoslovakia, which signed the Berlin Treaty in 1908 and the Berne Convention in 1914. The 1993 date is only a CONTINUATION of the policy, a promise by independent Slovakia that it will continue to abide by the treaties signed by Czechoslovakia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I realized exactly the same thing just shortly after making my post as the date would be otherwise very suspicious. Making reference to logically coherent argument is much more welcome than making argument just by bare/mere assurance, at least in my case.--Stephfo (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jess. I'll look up topic bans later. Meanwhile, I do speak his language (if it is Serbian) and was wondering how I might be of assistance. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just read the topic ban page. Thanks (and sorry). But would explaining to him the right approach to editing WP articles be breaking the current sanctions? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That would really help. As you'll see if you read thru the talkpage, Stephfo often quotes snippets of policy, but he seldom seems to have understood the document in its entirity, suggesting he might be struggling with translating the full item. And of course there are a lot of 'unwritten rules', that catch all new editors out, even if they have the English perfectly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Explaining how to better approach editing articles generally could be a great help. Just try to avoid talking specifically about the areas he's topic banned from, so creationism, some science areas, etc. For instance, talking about his editing of Wilhelm Busch (pastor) or policy generally would be fine, but talking about Intelligent Design probably would not. The topic ban is "broadly construed", so I'd suggest trying to play it safe just in case. His mentor, Alpha Quadrant may be able to help clarify, too, if you're unsure. I think Elen's suggestions would be a terrific place to start. Thanks for agreeing to help out, Wekn!   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you ! I'll begin tomorrow. In this part of the world, it is night time. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Wekn. @Stephfo: I first ran into Wekn on Creationism pages maybe a year ago and he picked up policy quickly. Since he also speaks what I believe is your native language I figured he'd make a good match as a mentor. It is probably correct that you shouldn't discuss creationism on site, but (and Elen will correct me if I am wrong) perhaps he can discuss this subject with you through email so that when you return to the topic in 6 months you will be apt to do so. Good luck. N^oformation ^Talk 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Email is fine, particularly as Stephfo will want to know *why* saying X got him into trouble, or why WP:WORDSALAD didn't apply to Y. It isn't his beliefs that are the problem, it was his approach to editing Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wekn, I really appreciate your kind willingness to assist me in my case. I think it was a very great idea to involve you in here, although I'm not sure how your native language would help it. Still, the basic problem is, as far as I could understand it, that Noformation as well as possibly other editors would like to have better understanding of my question raised in ANI discussion. You can find it at the bottom of the discussion in this section [28]. Please let me know if you would be able to rephrase it in an English that would be more comprehensible for people who would be otherwise very happy to answer it in collaborative civil manner, but due to my limited skills they unfortunately have no chance. Once more thank you very much in advance for your help and effort to maintain succinct, concise conversation.--Stephfo (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Stepfho, my apologies but I thought that Serbian was your native language, am I confusing it with Slovakian? I remember reading that you had been active on another language Wikipedia and thought it was Serbian. N^oformation ^Talk 22:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I speak a number of slavic languages. Which one is your native language (if so). Before helping you rephrase things, you might have to wait until the topic ban is up though. I understand your predicament, as I too struggle with English on occasion. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 18:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your way of thinking. The very fact that the Q pertains to process that took place at ANI prior to my topic ban suggests that I have some objections against the way how my case was treated and that the closure of the voting grossly ignoring all votes and arguments in my favour indicated that I might not be that mistaken to consider that act for biased. Topic ban was imposed for 6 months, it was based on several false arguments, made references to period for which I was already blocked once, ignored suggestions of other editors etc. Now Norformation would like to have better understanding of my point, and that's why you are welcome to help him. When my topic ban will be over in 6 months, it will be not up-to-date any more to return to this point unless I'd like to clean my reputation that is constantly defamed by using false arguments such as that I'm disruptive editor just because I correctly point out that given citation is not supporting the self-invented claim. Thus, please let me know if you would be able to help Norformation as it is needed now. Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Never even noticed you weren't a native English speaker, Wekn. The only reason I know you speak Serbian is because you had mentioned it at some point. If you hadn't, I would have assumed you were from America/England/etc. N^oformation ^Talk 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are still convinced that your topic ban was unjust and in error I'm not sure why you're yet to appeal it on AN/I or to arbcom. Secondly, I did not ask Wekn to get involved so that he can explain to me your points, I asked Wekn to get involved because you clearly have an issue with communication on Wikipedia, you still do not understand why you were topic banned, and you don't understand why your editing is disruptive (which it is; never does a topic ban get passed with that much support unless you have ticked off a lot of people). I assumed that Wekn could bring down the language barrier and better explain it to you. Now that you are essentially treating him as though he is a means to your end of proving you right to me, et al, I regret asking for his assistance. Wekn is an experienced contributor who speaks your language, what you should be doing is respectfully appreciating the fact that you might actually have someone to understand and help you here. Your attitude needs serious adjustment if you plan on continuing to contribute on WP. If you come back in 6 months and pull the same crap you've been pulling then it will be a quick rebanning. That is not a threat, that is cautionary advice - use it as you see fit, or not. N^oformation ^Talk 22:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very simple answer: because I'd like to be ready for it and not waste a time of arbcom to go through things that can be prepared upfront. For example, before that I'd like to get answer on my questions that you would like to answer in order to maintain succinct, concise conversation, but unfortunately due to my limited English skills there was no chance. My hopes are associated with Wekn and I can promise you that when he will manage to rephrase my Qs into form you will understand and able to answer, I will get very closed closely to post appeal at ANI, beyond any doubt. Another point, if you would like to help it really as you declare, allow for WP:RSN of the contested source of mine. I believe that request at RSN was stopped due to your fair fear that it could be proved that I was right when I was about it was absolutely OK to use it such source. --Stephfo (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

Please note we only wiki link the first instance of a word in an article, not it's every occurrence.Theroadislong (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OKi, thanks for Info.--Stephfo (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

You have accused me of "potentially malicious acts" at Wilhelm Busch (pastor) here [29] and here[30] As I explained on the talk page I removed material that I felt did not have enough relevance to the article's subject. Please assume good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd very much like to assume good faith, that's why I used word "potentially".

• 1. However, please explain if you had good faith, why you removed also formatting and book by Busch that had nothing to do with your objections whatsoever.
• 2. Please also advise, if you assumed a good faith of mine when creating the edit. If so, why you felt like being in need to remove it rather than waiting to opinion of others whether they would agree with your position and only remove the text afterwards when broader consensus would be reached. Why it could not be like that if you assume a good faith of mine? Would it harm Wikipedia to keep true information until consensus would be reached? Thanks for explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, please see WP:DR. The first step in dispute resolution is to go to the talk page. I see there is a discussion already on the talk page about that content where other editors have agreed it is not relevant. You should not be going around to 4 different wikiprojects before even engaging those editors on talk. Theroad is also correct that WP:AGF is important here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have noticed, I've been on that page. And also you might be quite early with your conclusions after just few people stopping by. I doubt conclusion is so speedy as you are trying to suggest, especially pls. have a look at deletion discussions that take at least a week or so.--Stephfo (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about consensus. I said discussion was ongoing and other editors had agreed it was not relevant, which is observably true. Now you've posted to the talk page too, which is good, but that should have been your first and only response to being reverted. I know where this is going, and I'm not going to argue about it. Please follow WP:DR (including WP:BRD) and WP:AGF more closely. Take my advice, or don't, but know that it was given with your best interests in mind.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have labelled given deletion as potentially malicious for aforementioned reasons, and will be very happy to see fixes of deleted items that are not addressed by the edit summary, otherwise it is difficult to assume good faith.--Stephfo (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Difficult or not, assuming good faith is not optional. Quoting from WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you if you personally assumed a good faith of mine when I created the edit that was deleted. And also espspecially when you participated in discussion when Hrafn accused me of being DR just because I stated the truth that given claim is not supported by citation given and that's citation that would support it is missing. Why you did not defend me that time? Have you agreed with bad faith of Hrafn that was proven as wrong at WP:DRN? Tell me, is it expression of good faith [disruptive editor to accuse someone of disruptive edit] if it can be proved that he was right, my fellow fighter for WP policy adherence? I like when people do not apply double standards. Just FYI.--Stephfo (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) Pointing the finger at someone else when you've done something wrong does not make your action right whether the other person was right or wrong. (ii) An editor can be disruptive and still be editing in good faith. Assuming good faith means that you assume that any given editor is here because they want to help make the encyclopedia better. At no point that I have seen has someone treated you as if they don't assume good faith. Editors have claimed you are disruptive, yes, but no one has claimed that you are purposely disruptive, as that would be bad faith. It is a matter of consequences vs. intentions. Your intentions have been viewed as good faith, the consequences of your edits are disruptive. Big difference. N^oformation ^Talk 23:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you "At no point ... have seen has someone treated [me] as if they don't assume good faith" and that's why you believe they make propositions like this: "I prefer an indefinite block. If a topic ban is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. I don't think he will ever be able to edit in those areas contructively. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)" In your logic, this is how people express good faith, isn't it? Do you also suggest I should adopt the very same pattern of assuming good faith of others, pls. explain. Thanx. --Stephfo (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I said carefully. AGF refers to intentions, no one thinks your intentions are nefarious. But having good intentions does not necessarily translate to good or competent edits. For example, imagine if a 13 year old really wanted to contribute but his spelling was so bad that he had to be site banned. We would assume good faith that he was here to help, and then we would ban him for not being competent enough to contribute. Dom thinks you should be indef blocked for a number of reasons, but at no point that I saw did he accuse you of acting maliciously. N^oformation ^Talk 00:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please confirm: "I don't think he will ever be able to edit..." is clearly expression of good faith in your opinion: yes/no? Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It says absolutely nothing about your intentions and therefore has nothing to do with good or bad faith whatsoever. He is commenting on your ability to edit here, not whether your intentions are good or bad. N^oformation ^Talk 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, he/she believes my intentions are very good here at wikipedia, but only my abilities are to blame, that's why he/she wants to get me blocked indef, to save me from my abilities...

-) --Stephfo (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, the accusation of me for alleged edit warring (Add. “Recently, he's begun edit warring”) just because [I corrected deletion that was based on false accusations, namely that article does not contain given content summarized in article lead even if it clearly did (you have not lifted up your voice against these accusation while demanding good faith) that was also assuming good faith in your opinion? Please, advise. --Stephfo (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even if you were correct, it would be inappropriate to assume bad faith of Theroadislong just because Hrafn had assumed bad faith of you. Previous disputes have nothing to do with this one, and another editor's poor behavior would not excuse you from meeting the expectations editors have of you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith of Theroadislong, let alone in any connection with Hrafn. What I was proposing was that he/she could be potentially performing malicious act, because he/she removed in deletion also article sections, that had nothing to do with his/her reasoning and if he/she would not show any interest to fix his/her error, it could be regarded as bad faith edit. Now he/she corrected himself/herself, and thus everything is OK at least from potentially malicious behaviour.--Stephfo (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that he may be "potentially performing [a] malicious act" is assuming bad faith. The two are the same. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion further. My only interest was in pointing out that this behavior is problematic. Take that notice as you see fit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Potentially means that two options are still under consideration and after clarification it will be shown which one is true, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Then pls. take the notice that I assume for problematic ignorance of calling for assistance when being asked in polite manner. --Stephfo (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember reading that, but I'll note that I'd already informed TParis of the discussion. Posting a lengthy request in a section of your talk page I'd never been a part, especially after I'd repeatedly indicated elsewhere I was done responding, probably wasn't the best way to get my attention. I come here now and then, but your talk page isn't, like, the highlight of my watchlist or anything. What could this possibly have to do with your Willhelm Busch dispute? Frankly, I have work to do, so I may not be back. You've read my notice above, so there's nothing more to say. Time to move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with your trials to accuse me always of something, to remind you that your own behaviour is not that ideal as you might think. In given situation, the first word is specifically mentioning your name hence the length of message is not that relevant. You were very well aware of my situation that my talk page is the only place I could post that time, hence I do not understand if you are suggesting that I should avoid block or what. You've been appointed as my "welcomer" at wp and in situation I was in you could imagine how much I depended on you to get in contact with other people to attract their attention, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't "appointed your welcomer". I welcomed you to the site of my own accord as a friendly gesture, and I've worked with you for months with constructive and civil advice to try and help you become a collaborative editor. I took it upon myself to notify TParis of your situation when necessary then, as I did with Alpha Quadrant recently when I noticed behavior I thought might result in you being sanctioned. It turns out I was right. I'm glad you're so appreciative of the countless hours I've taken away from living my life in order to help you, apparently to no avail. I'm done here. Your behavior has not improved, and you're going to get yourself blocked. You need to take help when it's offered, which it is still, by Noformation, your mentor, and Wekn to name just a few. I don't know what you're trying to do here, but it's clearly not succeeding, and it clearly has to stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if this was offending you anyhow, I appreciate your time spent with me, but please note I also spent quite some time in good faith that I will improve WP, countless hours I've taken away from living my life and you approved one-click erasures of my effort w/o second hesitation and when I tried to find out whether my edits might be acceptable outside the group of people you are part of, you haven't even bothered to give a chance to find out. I apologize for any inconvenience, but as a matter of fact you have not notified TParis when I kindly asked you to do so after I reacted to his post. Anybody interested can verify that. If you do not know what I'm trying to do here -the answer: I'm trying to defend myself against your accusations that there is always something wrong with me whereas there is always everything perfect with you. That everybody has right to delete my edits whatever reason even a lie can be used, accuse me of anything he/she likes, but I cannot use even the things I was "told" I should use such as WP:DRN; WP:RSN [31]; etc. That's it.--Stephfo (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stepho feel free to add back the material I removed, you can do whatever you like, I've had enough, I helped to save the article from deletion when it was first created, but I care not, what happens to it now.Theroadislong (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Theroadislong, I cannot find any other post of yours in the deletion discussion than this one "It would appear that the article has been moved by Stepho but not it's history, I'm not sure how to fix this? Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)" I believe it is too strong claim that this was supposed to be help "to save the article from deletion" (you actually deleted picture from it while making a claim it was copied from particular web site although it was not, but that's not important). Still, if you believe this was your expression of empathy with the article I will accept such proposition and be very thankful to you for it, thanks a LOT once more.--Stephfo (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of these edits [32] and [33] but as I say I've had enough, I wish you good luck.Theroadislong (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Theroadislong, I appreciate your grammar and typo fixes, they are very welcome, my understanding was that you are trying to propose that you voted for the article by your "keep" vote when it was nominated for deletion, and that's the way how you helped to save it from deletion. Clearly, by improving its grammar etc. you greatly contributed to the acceptance of it, that cannot be disputed and I'm acknowledging it. Do as you like, I'm trying my best to improve WP myself, if you deem my editions are harmful and I believe the contrary, then we have dispute that must be somehow sorted out. I hope I can have my own perception of things different from that of yours and try to explain my rationales without being attacked. Thanks for your understanding. --Stephfo (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

and there you go again! I am NOT attacking you!Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But then why you are reacting as being offended by providing my rationales?--Stephfo (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am NOT offended by you providing your rationales, but I AM offended that you consider I am attacking you which I can assure you I am not.Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But then something must be wrong on time-line - I only mentioned attack after your expression of offence in form of sentence "feel free to add back the material I removed, you can do whatever you like, I've had enough". This implicitly might suggests that you had "enough" of my rationales and you think I should not have right to present them any more to make you feel good that nobody is in dis-accord with your position, what you'd perhaps appreciate more than "listening" to opinions of others. Under these specific conditions I used word "attack". Attack on my freedom of opinion by suggesting it is wrong because it makes you feel bad and offended.--Stephfo (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, for the upteenth time, please read the following policies and understand them VERY thoroughly: WP:FIVE, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE, WP:NOT, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:EQ, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:Banning and, most of all, WP:DEADHORSE. You have violated all of these policies multiple times. I'm afraid you still don't know what WP is and how you are supposed to behave here. Read the policies carefully, and a lot of your questions will be answered. You'll be able to understand what all the other editors are saying to you and why they're saying it. If there is something you still don't understand, discuss it with your mentor. You're not going to last long unless you know the policies well and adhere to them very strictly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DV, you always seem to do the same - pick up as many policies as you come across to make impression of your case to be a big matter, but then you fail to demonstrate the simple case and avoid providing any rationale why they should be applied there in. Everything is based on mere Argument by assertion (cf." repetition of a proposition may be cited as evidence of its truth").--Stephfo (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Referring to templates

I saw that you referred to Template:Primary sources at Talk:Wilhelm Busch (pastor). If you just write {{primary sources}}, you will add an instance of the template to the page. Instead, you might want to use {{tl|primary sources}}, which will look like this: {{primary sources}} Yours, Huon (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I'm aware of this feature, although I truly have not remembered the exact format how to disable displaying the banner (I have it somewhere within my personal wiki.guidebook currently at external disk due to my recent PC re-installation). However in my particular case I wanted to have it displayed, thank you for your kind advices.--Stephfo (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette assistance

The reason it's over is because it's not factually accurate. You provided no diffs of the actual offending actions. Several editors, including me, came here and read all of the comments that you claim to be attacks and we didn't find anything. That was our comment and after we added our comments it was obvious that consensus had been formed. That's why I closed it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But I hope it would not be deemed as against Wikiquette to wait for person to react on arguments presented and give a chance for response.--Stephfo (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC) It is strange the discussion is not allowed and even if a person presents his/her opinion, it is erased, does not sound civil to me:

[34] I've found it strange that the case is closed before I even got chance to react on arguments presented. I did not suggest that Jess have done anything especially wrong but I reserve the right to claim that they are not fair in his/her judgements towards me what is causing lots of tensions and I perceive for the best solution the one proposed as "From their last edit, it appears Jess would be willing to leave you alone". I posted here only to try to do my best to calm down the situation. I appreciate their effort for mentoring me but for me it would be perhaps better if I could use for that purpose someone else w/o the record we have in our mutual relations with Jess. For example, if someone declares something like this: "I most strongly disagree with this proposal. It would essentially enable enforcing administrators to decide content disputes, because they would have to determine which of several contested versions of an article is of higher quality. This necessarily requires a judgement about the merits of the contested content. Consequently, this proposal runs counter to what is practically a constitutional principle of Wikipedia, i.e., that administrators do not adjudicate content disagreements. Apart from that, of course, this sort of catch-all exception could be used to contest almost all applications of 3RR, and would therefore enable many more edit wars and substantially weaken what may be our most important safeguard against disagreements getting out of hand" such person seems to me to have qualities of mentoring that I would find worth of following. I also feel sorry that Jess regard the time they spent with me for waste of time, but also do dare suggest that to prevent such disappointment in the future, the best for them would be to find someone else to spend time on, and I will try to keep with those advisers that I feel more compatible with when it comes to fair unbiased assessments of acts. I hope my effort to calm things down and looking for solutions consisting in involvement of 3rd party would not be perceived negatively. Thanks for your help and understanding. --Stephfo (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, my report did not mentioned anything about attacking but as I expressed, was an attempt to calm things down, especially after their threatening "I don't know what you're trying to do here, but it's clearly not succeeding, and it clearly has to stop" which I interpreted as announcement of their repetitive trial to get me blocked, possibly again by making false accusations that the first-time text addition made in line with spirit of WP:BRD that neither ever had been presented before nor had a chance to become a subject of any objection should be classified as edit warring.--Stephfo (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Add. "I've unarchived the section to avoid WP:LASTWORD syndrome. No one is required to continue to discuss, but neither is anyone prohibited.Gerardw (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

   Update, OP indef blocked for continued disruption. Gerardw (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) "

"neither is anyone prohibited" and "indef blocked" does not much together, IMHO. Anybody seems allowed except the one whom it concerns.--Stephfo (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for being unable to edit Wikipedia with sufficient WP:COMPETENCE. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is your way how you react on presented arguments [35] [36] let be it so. "temporary" seems a WP:WEASEL word to me. --Stephfo (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, Argument by assertion w/o any explanation whatsoever why it should apply at all.--Stephfo (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

cf.: "I most strongly disagree with this proposal. It would essentially enable enforcing administrators to decide content disputes, because they would have to determine which of several contested versions of an article is of higher quality. This necessarily requires a judgement about the merits of the contested content. Consequently, this proposal runs counter to what is practically a constitutional principle of Wikipedia, i.e., that administrators do not adjudicate content disagreements. Apart from that, of course, this sort of catch-all exception could be used to contest almost all applications of 3RR, and would therefore enable many more edit wars and substantially weaken what may be our most important safeguard against disagreements getting out of hand. Sandstein 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)"

Stephfo, it's not that you didn't want to create an article on the other chap, the problem is that you don't seem to understand/believe a word that anyone else says. You just keep going round and round with the same argument, totally ignoring/not understanding/not believing anything ever said to you, asking people again and again the same questions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I can assure you that I understand very well and react to the point(s) as much as possible, but if you block me, I have no chance to react. I do not have anything against creating article about Parzany, but if you manage to get me blocked before I manage to save my reaction, then naturally my standpoint is not fully presented. If you stand up for what you claim, it would be nice to provide some evidence.--Stephfo (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That discussion did indeed only feature a few people, and does not represent a community ban discussion. If you can make an unblock request in which you demonstrate how you would (say) propose an edit to the Busch article that meets the concerns of the other editors on the talkpage, an independent admin will review it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to let you no I'm not in support of appealing this block, but defining a time period. I believe Stephfo's editing habits, although not yet of the constructive type, can be unlearned. He does seem to have potential as an editor, if given time to think, could become one. Just my two cents. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps defining the time to about a month? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion Wekn reven i susej eht. An expiry should be set. Though when he does come back, it would be advisable if fewer editors tried to help him. As was the case here, too many users are trying to explain things to him. The discussion became quite complicated and difficult to follow. I had originally stepped back so as to not complicate the discussion further. I believe the AN/I was closed way too preemptively. It was opened and closed within three hours. Which was hardly enough time for others to fully evaluate the issue or make suggestions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Once the block time is set, I (for one) will lay off the whole advice thing. Although we may cross paths again some time, considering our similar interests. Maybe ross nixon and the other Creationist editors could give him advice after the topic ban is up. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 18:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think reducing the block period without community input and without Stephfo even acknowledging a problem is a good idea. If there is interest in reducing or overturning the block, the ANI discussion should be reopened. I agree that it was closed prematurely, but that's a problem that can be easily rectified. It should not be used as an excuse to overturn a block where the only community input we had yet received was leading towards a community ban.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think in a way Stephfo is fortunate, because I think that would have turned into a community ban discussion, whereas I only wanted to check if anyone's initial reaction was that I was too involved. Gerardw has done him a favour by hatting it off in the middle of the night. I would recommend that Stephfo do some work here on his talkpage with a mentor for a period of time - say a month or so. If at the end of the time he can show that he understands what was causing the problems (I'm interested that Wekn doesn't think it's a language issue), why he seems to end up in constant arguments, perhaps even what other people mean when they use Wikipedia shorthand at him, and can suggest how he would edit productively going forward, then an unblock appeal would have some prospect of success. I don't think he can be readmitted to article space until whatever causes the issues is bottomed out and dealt with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I too cannot support a time limit for the block. I think it should remain indefinite unless and until Stephfo can demonstrate that he understands why his editing is problematic, and for that I'm honestly not holding my breath. Ellen I do believe you are correct that he was lucky that thread closed, although I think what we need is a site ban. Way, way way too many chances for this user. N^oformation ^Talk 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, I'm not sure whether you meant it genuinely when you wrote "unless and until Stephfo can demonstrate that he understands why his editing is problematic". If yes, I believe the great contribution to my understanding of my blocks would be if you answer the questions related to it in a collaborative civil manner, otherwise I'm not sure where my understanding should come from. I'm afraid I might be condemned to stay blocked also due to your inability to maintain the succinct, concise conversation related to this understanding. Pls. advise whether you ever plan to answer in polite way and help me understand my blocks or whether the rephrasing would perhaps help out. Thanks also a LOT for your genuine capability to assume good faith. --Stephfo (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am no longer interested in helping you because I do not believe that you can achieve the level of competence needed to edit here. You have been a huge negative to the project, wasting much time on behalf of other editors. I'm not sure why you think other people should be obligated to hold your hand through what most people understand very intuitively. You bring nothing to the table but a creationist POV and you demand much of others. No dice. N^oformation ^Talk 22:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Add."what most people understand very intuitively" because maybe for some remaining minority such intuition, when call by 5 editors for 3rd party source is intuitively interpreted as consensus not to include such source, sounds extremely strange.--Stephfo (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet millions upon millions of editors seem to have no problem fitting in. But of course it's not your fault, no way, it's everyone else. N^oformation ^Talk 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, if it is not good for your health or whatever else, honestly, I may better stay off. I really do not want to wreck your health by being in way to your ambitions here whatever they are. I believe to claim "we need 3rd party source" and then "you are blocked for inserting 3rd party source" is strange, at least from my perspective. I do not know whether these millions upon millions of editors experience things like that. Or if they ever witnessed situation when somebody claimed a lie such as that content of your text in lead is not included in the article, although objectively it could be proved that it does, and nobody acknowledged this obvious truth but insisted that you were edit warring when you tried to fixed this deletion made based on lie. People have different standards. AFAIK, I never said the fault is only on other side, but I could never go against my own conscience:

• If someone states that he found many errors in a source, but is not able to state single one, for me it is not valid argument
• If someone declares how he is trying to help me, but he places my première-edit never discussed before in article I never edited before into ANI report as EW, I do not buy such claim and naturally protest
• If someone puts a warning on my page, and immediately afterwards get me blocked, although other editors abstaining from editing articles after warnings evaluate as rejection for block requests
• If article claim is not supported by given inline citation, I mark this fact by template and consequently I'm accused for DE

etc.

• I'm certainly not holly, but I strongly believe I do accept rational arguments.

I hope I can have some right to protest if I deem something is not within fair-play rules.

Thank you Elen for nice explanation of doing me favour by hatting it off in the middle of the night. I very much appreciate it and cannot imagine how bad it would be with me should I be spared of such favor. It is always nice if you can rely on such civil acts of your fellow editors, you know.

• As for your other points, I would not go as far as to say that I might perhaps only have problem with those editors who one disillusioned editor designated on one occasion as "self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police", but I do dare to suggest that I might not have problem with all WP editors (e.g. cf. "But check out the editor - he's says he's anti-religion, so no surprise his edits about a pastor are not particularly helpful! But how do we achieve balance without an edit war?").
• I'm not sure whether this disillusioned editor was right in his/her conclusion on this group of editors, but I definitely can relay to his/her observation that there is something changed in the atmosphere at WP, "to watch other users improve on what you had written -- expanding it, making it clearer, adding more information, etc." doesn't seem to be the trend any more and what's currently "in" is a very new style of editing based on following scenario: "somebody immediately deletes your contribution, citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies" - I will add that such person will very likely disregard those policies which do not fit his/her perspective and cite, very often probably in misused way, only those which support his/her deletion while rarely bothering to provide rationale why they should apply at all. I do not remember that I would delete other's contributions, what ever hard time I had to accept it. Even if something is not perfect from first trial, good-faith people usually use templates to give chance to article to improve if it is obviously not absolute nonsense (cf."Of course, citations are important, but let's give the editor a chance, rather than reverting his efforts.").
• I disagree with your sentence "he seems to end up in constant arguments" - I'm accepting rationale arguments, but if someone declares what my mind identified as irrational,like that book printed in one country should be copyrighted based on other remote country following some agreement ("The text of the book must be copyright in Croatia because Croatia follows the Berne convention"), I tend to try to make a hint that there might be something wrong with such argument. Pls. note such discussion might be long also because other editors are not able to agree among them on "book cover vs. picture from book cover" Copyright status while taking this discussion on my talk page. I do agree there is a room for improvement and learn how to present my opinion in a way that would not make impression of being harsh and also I definitely sometimes react snappily when somebody accuses me for being DE when it is crystal clear that citation does not support given claim and even WP:DRN later acknowledges my point.
• I will dare to point out that there might be something wrong with your conclusion also when you look at this evidence:

[37]

[38][39] - to me they seem no UFO editors able to come to the same conclusion as me w/o having any "conflict" whatsoever

• I would conclude from that post that there are editors who we can mutually reach the very same viewpoint.

Thanks a lot for your kind understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Since you cannot post to AN/I, if you wish to comment you may post here and someone will transfer it over. N^oformation ^Talk 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I do not see any discussion at ANI "currently" going on, the only one I could find is this [40] and that one was closed before I could comment anything, after only 1h:33minutes ("Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)-->02:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)) when only people (except one) who had disputes with me in the past joined and naturally voted for my block. Argumentum ad baculum, is also argument, although personally I'm not so convinced whether it is the best one. --Stephfo (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

cf. "Stephfo has been indefinitely blocked and it's unlikely we'll see his return, so I don't think you'll come across opposition to your proposal. Noformation Talk 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC) "

This is what is your block about, I guess.--Stephfo (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Stepho blocked, no need for further discussion. Gerardw (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)"

"[Cyber] Death solves all problems — no man, no problem." Problem solved. ;-) --Stephfo (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I admire the strong sense of WP:Etiquette granting the full night hour (cf."Note:I have notified Stephfo of this thread Noformation Talk 01:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)") for "if you wish to comment you may post".--Stephfo (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

RIP: "this guy [took] up the time and energy of productive editors, eventually driving them to despair" Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC) --Stephfo (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Add. "when only people (except one) who had disputes with me in the past joined and naturally voted for my block"

Invited for voting:

1. -Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC) "I don't know what you're trying to do here, but it's clearly not succeeding, and it clearly has to stop. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC) " - so he stopped it.

cf."Please see WP:CANVAS. Asking for clarification on policy is one thing... but you have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV to recruit him into the discussion. If so, that behavior is not appropriate. Please don't do that. See WP:DR if you're looking for wider input. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)" IMHO, there seem to be exceptions in s.o.'s own standards, selecting editors with certain POV is obviously not that big problem any more and wider input might not be that welcome on some occasions. --Stephfo (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

2. [41]

3. [42]

4. For some strange reason, Hrafn is missing, wasn't invited to participate into putting another nail into my coffin. I reserve this place for him.

Very "independent" committee, really. I wonder what they had to do with discussion that preceded to my block. It would be nice to leave up to 3rd party editors to evaluate such case, not up to the ones permanently trying to get me blocked all the time, IMHO.

Noformation, if you meant your proposition "if you wish to comment you may post here and someone will transfer it over" seriously, I wish to post following comment:

Matthew 7

Judging Others

• 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
• 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Luke 6

Judging Others

• 37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap.
• For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

-- Stephfo 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Invoking the Bible to gripe about a website strikes me as close to blasphemy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This was not about website but about the way of running AN/I discussion (in other words about measure of evaluating the proposal for my block applied there in and about associated practices shown), when you get message at 01:19 (UTC) that "there is currently a discussion" and 02:28 (UTC) the decision is "cooked" the very same night [12 December 2011] granting you full night hour and full 9 minutes (?!) to take part in via your own talk page, "if you wish to comment". Maybe you'd like such treatment being applied onto you, wouldn't you? --Stephfo (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No one gives a shit about bible verses, Convervapedia is that way ---> N^oformation ^Talk 20:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Harsh words. We shall all end up in the Judgement Hall of Osiris, where Thoth will weigh all hearts in the end. Rather I would advocate 'avoid ending up in a court of law, because the only winners are the lawyers', and 'do try to understand where other people are coming from, it prevents many arguments'. I have to point out to Stephfo that he has spent a huge amount of time judging people - that they are acting in bad faith, that they are attacking him, that they are ignoring policy etc etc. Not a problem for me - it's human nature - but as his god is picky about this judging stuff..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough. Sarcasm on religious topics is a good way to spark an unneeded dispute. Opinions on religion don't matter here, as it has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia or reaching an solution to the issue at hand. Stephfo, you should consider the Bible verses that you cited. They apply to you as much as they do to the other editors involved here. Noformation, your above comment really doesn't do anything but add fuel to an already contentious discussion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 07:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was aware of that almost immediately after I had posted. Never in my tenure as an editor on WP have I been that personal before. It was over the line, and yet part of me refuses to recuse the statement. I will stay away from this talk page for a while (hopefully indefinitely). N^oformation ^Talk 08:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Add. "Stephfo, you should consider the Bible verses that you cited. They apply to you as much as they do to the other editors involved here." - I fully agree AQ, absolutely, and I apologize to anybody who feels I was bad in doing so.--Stephfo (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In the Future

Hey, Stephfo! Sorry I'm a little late. It looks to me like your English is fine. Sorry you got blocked. When unblocked, try making fewer edits of a more neutral type for a while. Like correcting spelling, fixing dead links, and tagging stubs. That helped give me time to think after my block. Have a good day! Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wekn, but as you can read the conclusion of good faith assuming fellow editors in their hastily pseudo-discussion making sure no opposing vote would make it to be presented, the sentence "When unblocked" is coming in vain and can be regarded as nice science-fiction. --Stephfo (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I hope you eventually are unblocked. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You can still request an unblock via the {{unblock}} template, but I do not expect such a request to be successful as long as you blame everybody but yourself for the problems. See WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, I just would like to learn in the meantime if you agree with opinion that in the discussion I had with you my arguments were done in bad faith and w/o containing any rationale or avoiding to address the concerns you raised. Pls., advise. Thanks in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with the opinion that you acted in bad faith, and I have not seen anybody actually advocate it. I believe everybody agrees that you intend to improve Wikipedia. Despite that good faith, however, your edits were deemed not to be of a net benefit to the project. I cannot deny that the discussion with you was a tedious experience, and I do agree that you ignored many of the arguments that were made by others. See my latest list of concerns on Talk:Wilhelm Busch (pastor) - concerns nos. 1, 3, and 5 had been raised before. For nos. 1 and 3 especially I had multiple editors at various venues agreeing with me - you ignored that completely. (And no. 1 is, of course, the most basic of those concerns.)

In my opinion, what's even worse is your inability to recognize you might be wrong, or at least that being right may not always be enough. If policy disagrees with you, those pointing it out are wikilawyering. If the majority of involved editors disagrees with you, your reply is "argumentum ad populum". In the past I too have found myself on the wrong side of consensus when I was convinced I was right - but in such cases it will not help you, the article, or Wikipedia at large if you try to persist. In such cases it's best to step back, grudgingly accept consensus, and maybe, just maybe, re-visit the issue at a later time, preferably with new arguments and not just with the old ones all over again. Your general assumption of bad faith against everybody disagreeing with you (and the reciprocal assumption that people disagreeing with you believe in your bad faith) comes on top of that. And this is not the first time the finer points of good and bad faith have been explained to you, either - add that to the list of things you either cannot understand or don't want to understand. Huon (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

May you please give me some example when you recognized you were wrong? I give you mine: Although I'm honestly acknowledging I have not addressed that proposition when it was presented first time.

• Add. "If policy disagrees with you, those pointing it out are wikilawyering." pls. provide reference which policy you are refering to and which occasion, to be able to understand what went wrong. --Stephfo (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Add."If the majority of involved editors disagrees with you" - most of the time we had 1:1 discussion hence please advise whether you refer to yourself as "majority". Also I disagree that I was holding that opinion alone, other people might just be more easily prone to give up what does not necessarily mean they are wrong.
• nos1: Add."Graham does not belong in the Busch article. That's what everybody who ever commented on the issue, including Mr. Stradivarius at WP:DRN, said." That's first time presented like this after my block. Nevertheless I dare to disagree per this evidence: [It's about Busch's legacy and if he's influenced an important successor to someone like Graham, that seems reasonable enough to say.]

I believe there is some contradiction in your conclusion. You also originally objected Parzany and now you state you opposed Graham: "I don't see how the influence Busch may have had to Parzany is relevant to Busch. This is the Busch article, not the Parzany article, and we should not provide information that is irrelevant to Busch or over-emphasize what is, from a Busch point of view, a minor incident." Pls. note I also tried to solve your concern by removing the text and moving it to marginal notes, giving rationale (for situation when no article on Parzany was present):

• WP:OBVIOUS:State Obvious: "State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader." I doubt common WP reader is knowledgeable of Parzany and I prefer to comply to this policy than to other propositions.
• WP:PCR: Provide Context for the reader: "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." Context of mentioning Parzany is that he is successor of famous evangelist Billy Graham in ProChrist campaigns that are broadcasted ca every 3 years to more than 1000 places in Europe.

I learnt only after my block that it even that trial to address your concerns have not satisfied you. Your original proposition was "Right now, the most I can see as justified would be a one-liner along the lines of: "Busch's pupils included Ulrich Parzany who said he was strongly affected by Busch." Of course it would be nice to have an article about Parzany so the readers can learn why Parzany is significant, but in the absence of such an article that information still does not belong here. Talking about Graham or ProChrist in this article is a direct violation of policy (NOTE: you did not state which one!!! -by Stepho) unless that connection is made by a reliable source." Personally I regarded your proposition running contrary to aforementioned policies OBVIUOUS+PCR as common WP reader after reading "Parzany" in red color would not understand anything at all, IMHO, and allowing for at least temporary marginal note as suggested by me would solve this problem. I'm not sure why I had to get blocked for such suggestion. --Stephfo (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As for nos3, I did not ignore you, I just adhere to presumption of innocence. You made the conclusion for plagiarism, my style is first to learn facts. I may land at the same conclusion as you, but first I'd like to approach the author and learn his/her opinion. I need also better understanding of licensing. To me to imply that Wikipedia is a licensed bullshit seems too strong. --Stephfo (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have changed your mind:

• 1. "Whether Parzany should receive an article of his own is hard to say. He seems to be of borderline notability, and if we omit the sources which directly or indirectly originate with Parzany himself, little remains. He's usually just mentioned in passing with next to no information about him. Google News results were not promising. ProChrist may be more notable than Parzany himself. If you feel he does satisfy the GNG, go ahead and write an article - I expect the claim of notability will be sufficiently strong that the article would survive a possible AfD, but that does not mean I consider it a good idea." (emphasis mine -Stephfo)
• 2. A redlink is not the end of the world if we do not yet have a Parzany article. Should Parzany be deemed insufficiently notable to ever receive his own article, we should not mention him here either. I tend to that opinion, but as I said he's a borderline case and I believe an article could be written which would probably survive a possible AfD (so in effect I acknowledge that my personal opinion will probably not become community consensus). I might even get surprised: Maybe one could write a better article than I now believe possible. Please do not expect me to start writing that article, though; I have more worthy topics on my to-do list. Huon (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• It seems unworthy topic considered to be no good idea at all, out of to-do list, suddenly came to life - why? But pls. don't take it negatively, I appreciate your contribution, honestly and seriously, w/o any side or bad ideas whatsoever. And if you consider my arguments for being stupid and harmful, let it be that I stay outside Wiki, if I have that detrimental effect on the project. --Stephfo (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me point you to one obvious example where I admitted I was wrong: Here I gave Bogdan a barnstar for showing me spectacularly wrong in another notability case. The sources he dug up must have been much, much harder to find than sources about Busch or Parzany. Quite a while ago, but I haven't been that wrong all that often. In our recent discussion I changed my stance from "we shouldn't mention Parzany at all" to "a short mention of Parzany is appropriate" - I did the deed myself. (I dont't think you're trying to hold my being swayed by the sources you provided against me, are you?) Since both policy and community consensus supported my point of view throughout, I still don't think that I've been all that wrong in that discussion, except by allowing a little too much snark into my comments at times. Even if I had been, that would not help you.

Regarding policy disagreeing with you and wikilawyering: In this edit you dismiss "citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies" as a wikilawyering strategy (though you do not use that word) - the policies which I did cite were WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:DUE (which is part of WP:NPOV); these three are Wikipedia's most important policies regarding content.

The "majority of users disagreeing" comment was a reaction to this edit where you proactively dismissed wider community input. The majority, however, did include every editor but you who ever said something about the dispute, in particular Theroadislong (before he gave up in disgust), Mr. Stradivarius at WP:DRN, and Elen of the Roads.

Regarding Graham belonging in the article, Bermicourt went on to say: "Of course, citations are important, but let's give the editor a chance, rather than reverting his efforts." If you had shown sources linking Graham to Busch, the matter would be different, and Graham would belong in the article - but such sources were never given. You had your chance, you did not use it. Mr. Stradivarius explicitly said that Graham is one step too removed from Busch here. Here is an earlier edit where I go on at length about why Graham and ProChrist are unsuitable for mention in the Busch article and what kind of reference would be necessary to make it otherwise.

WP:OBVIOUS and WP:PCR are parts of an essay; while it of course does have a point, it is not policy, and I'd counter with the essay WP:COATRACK. If the context of mentioning Parzany is Graham and not Busch, he should not have been mentioned at all in the Busch article.

I had mentioned WP:COATRACK earlier - and yet you persisted in hanging a Parzany article stub into the Busch article. You continued to do so after Elen of the Roads had agreed that a meaningful Parzany article could be written, and while I was not yet convinced it was a good idea, I had said that I expected one to survive a possible AfD (predicting that my personal opinion on Parzany's notability might turn out wrong). At the very beginning of this entire debate, Theroadislong said that things might be different if Parzany was notable enough for his own article. It's hardly as if the idea of filling the redlink with a Parzany article was entirely new. Here I wrote about that subject and why a redlink would not be that bad. That was immediately before you wrote your draft with its explanatory note. (And yes, I did change my opinion and wrote that article myself because you, whom I would have considered better equipped to do so, at that point had been blocked, and I already had most of the necessary sources for a small article at my fingertips. The fact that Elen of the Roads advocated a new Parzany article didn't hurt either. The article I wrote is still a bad one, and I was tempted to tag my own creation as needing better references.)

I believe I have answered your questions at sufficient (probably exhaustive) length. One final remark which may not be of immediate importance: Please, please do something about how you indent your replies. Maybe have a look at the essay WP:INDENT for advice. When the level of indentation in your talk page messages varies almost at random, it becomes unnecessarily hard to see who said what. It's rare for you to have a lengthy reply at a single level of indentation. Huon (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are attributing me wrong intentions I never had - As for "...you persisted in hanging a Parzany article stub into the Busch article. You continued to do so after Elen of the Roads had agreed that a meaningful Parzany article could be written, and while I was not yet convinced it was a good idea" I TOTALLY agreed with her on this point and considered it to be excellent idea, however when there was no article present, I perceived as temporary solution making a marginal note about Parzany into Busch's article, as due to your negative standpoint towards article on Parzany, I have had no big hopes this article would make it into its existence and expected it might not appear any time soon. As mentioned earlier, this Parzany-article-replacement marginal note was done in good faith per AUDIENCE and PCR for WP reader to understand the context. When I was writing the post about this proposition, she managed to get me blocked before I was able to save it at DRN. But still this standpoint of mine is clearly present in our discussion: (cf. "What is the sense to refer by wikilinks to article you do not like to be present? In such case IMHO to inform WP reader who Parzany is sounds more reasonable to me, at least until the given Wikilink would start working.")

Also on ideas of rejection of the Busch in Legacy section I used counter-argument from Hans_Nielsen_Hauge#Legacy that you have seemed to ignore entirely, similarly like my references to teacher-pupil relations between Greek philosophers. I agree w/ you though on WP:INDENT, there is really a room to improve for me.

As for catch-22 - I was "speaking" out of my experience. It was maybe premature to expect from you the same approach, but as usually the pattern of behaviour of people who use that kind of argument resembled quite a lot to your behaviour at beginning, I apologize I was getting alarmed maybe too early.

You also owe me answer to my question we had at the beginning of discussion: What should be the benefit for Wikipedia in limiting peoples' knowledge? --Stephfo (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In this rather short answer you show quite a nice collection of the problems that got you blocked. First of all, I owe you nothing, and I begin to wonder whether I wouldn't be happier by removing your talk page from my watchlist. Since hope dies last, I will answer your questions once again. Regarding the "owed" answer, I have already done so here, where I not only name the policies which support not including everything, but also explain why including everything might be a bad idea. As an aside, "limiting peoples' knowledge" is pure propaganda since a) we do not prevent people from gaining this knowledge in other ways and b) this knowledge is now contained in Wikipedia - in the place where it belongs, not someplace else.

Regarding Hans Nielsen Hauge, I'd say the legacy section's first paragraph seems unsourced and should probably be removed for that reason. I believe you wondered why the Eidsvoll assemblymen are mentioned; I see no reason. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia in need of improvement, and you seem to have found one. The second paragraph, while not ideal, shows the influence of Hauge's work in later organizations - as supported by secondary sources. If Parzany had renamed ProChrist the "Busch Synod" and a secondary source reported on Busch's influence on Evangelicalism in late 20th century Germany, using the "Busch Synod" as an example, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Regarding the Greek philosophers, I did have a look at the Socrates article, and while it mentions his pupil Plato repeatedly, sometimes also Xenophon, it always (with possibly a single exception, and good luck if you want to find it) does so in relation to Socrates. For example, it does not mention at all that Xenophon is famous for participating in and chronicling the march of the 10,000. I really don't care about doing a more thorough study of Greek philosopher articles. (I also had a look at some scientist articles, and they routinely only mention students notable enough to have their own articles, and then without an explanation of those students' fame.) Huon (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I dislike manipulative answers, and I'm sorry to say that the one above I regard for being one in some aspects. You definitely would be happier to remove my talk page from your watch list, I have no doubts about it. The key on Hauge's article is not on a word Synod, but on a subject that feels it was influenced by someone else. Your original point was: "I don't see how the influence Busch may have had to Parzany is relevant to Busch. This is the Busch article, not the Parzany article, and we should not provide information that is irrelevant to Busch or over-emphasize what is, from a Busch point of view, a minor incident." meaning even if the sources would support it, you, contrary to evidence from article on Hauge, do not see a room for such information, because how the influence an individual person can have on other subject is irrelevant to that individual person - that's the reading of your original objection. But according to your latest point presented above, it should actually had been formulated something like this: "I see that influence Busch may have had to Parzany is relevant to Busch. Even if it is the Busch article, not the Parzany article, we should provide such information that is relevant to Busch, from a Busch point of view, it is not just a minor incident, everything we need for doing so is however to back it up with the reliable sources." At least that's what seems you did at the end.

Add. "this knowledge is now contained in Wikipedia" - IMHO, I believe the reason why it is so might be that someone have not escaped the discussion even though he was met with harsh opposition and still have tried to present arguments why this information should not be superficially dismissed, even though some party presented opinion: "A redlink is not the end of the world if we do not yet have a Parzany article. Should Parzany be deemed insufficiently notable to ever receive his own article, we should not mention him here either. I tend to that opinion," and proposed "a one-liner along the lines" without any further information about him whatsoever. It was at high price, but maybe my block was at the end worth of some achievement, just compare:

• "The other book's statement that Parzany was pupil and co-worker of Busch is nice for Parzany, but rather irrelevant to Busch, who likely had many pupils and co-workers. In particular, there is no indication what Parzany learned, how he was influenced by Busch, or why someone interested in Busch, not Parzany, should care."
• I guess that's why your proposition deeply addressed what Parzany learned, and how he was influenced, and mainly, avoided statement that Parzany was pupil of Busch, that was rather irrelevant to Busch: "a one-liner along the lines of: "Busch's pupils included Ulrich Parzany who said he was strongly affected by Busch." ;-)
• I guess that's why we have this information included, although I'm not that sure whether you found the "indication what Parzany learned, how he was influenced by Busch, or why someone interested in Busch, not Parzany, should care" that important at the end. We have "insufficiently notable" Parzany received his own article, we should not mention him here [in the article about Busch] either, but we do. I'm very thankful for your contribution at the end, honestly, like it or not.--Stephfo (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, one more time: Regarding Hauge, it's the secondary sources which draw a connection between Hauge and the Haugean Synod (and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, too). If we didn't have secondary sources drawing such a connection, I would immediately advocate removing those organizations from the article. Saying I was not explicit enough in asking for secondary sources is ridiculous. I note the importance of secondary sources here, explicitly here, here, more obliquely here (where I note that the sources linking Busch to Parzany are primary sources only, and explain why that is problematic), once more at legth here, here, here, and here. When you found a secondary source noting the connection between Busch and Parzany, I did change my stance on mentioning Parzany in the Busch article, and I began proposing a one-liner mentioning Parzany as Busch's pupil here. (I would almost have believed that it took me longer to abandon my old stance; I'm not perfect. But apparently I did change my opinion on including Parzany straight away as soon as a secondary source was given.) This list of edits includes all my edits to the Busch talk page up to that point (and I could probably go on, but I'm too lazy), and at worst there's one where I refer to the importance of secondary sources only obliquely (and my wording in the first of those edits could have been better). Do you really want to repeat your claim that I was not explicit enough in asking you to bring secondary sources for the Busch-Parzany connection? How much more often should I have done so?

You know what? You're right. I will be happier for removing this page from my watchlist. You have just demonstrated that you managed to miss my point in all my posts, and I can't think of how I could have been more explicit. You will probably complain that I did not address all the other points you raised, but honestly, why should I? It's rather obvious that you will ignore significant parts of my replies anyway. Goodbye. Huon (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is turning out the way it is. I must point out there is more talking about what he did wrong that what he did right. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wekn, do you fancy having a stab at that. Starting a separate dialogue, that we'll all keep out of, about what Stephfo does right, and what he can achieve perhaps? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll start maybe tomorrow. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 19:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What Stephfo Is Doing Right

First off, back in October you didn't try to "Wikilawyer" your way out of that block. =) That already demonstrated good skills on the Wiki: if you think you're right, look for something you did wrong. If you think someone else is wrong, look for something they did right. A policy all of us can use.

Secondly, not giving up even when things don't look good. Where would Wikipedia be today if all the editors quit after the first sign of criticism? I believe that in a short amount of time (maybe a month), with this quality you will 'be able to understand Wikipedia policy in a constructive way'. Personally, I think the early decision regarding your WP:COMPETENCE was without a solution in mind, and hinders your constructive way of editing from being 'brought out', which should be the goal. Like creating a problem that only the creator of the problem can fix, and then choosing to deny the problem the privilege of being fixed because the problem is too great. If Alpha Quadrant spent some time explaining to you the basic policies which were somehow missed (over a period of a few weeks), I could explain whatever he said that you don't understand, the "rehabilitation" could be soon over.

Lastly, I like your comments when you, instead of being defensive, switch to a more open attitude. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I will add that Stephfo has, for the most part, adhered to WP:BRD since coming off the previous indefinite block. That is a good step in the spirit of collaboration. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Stephfo, you are on the right track! Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Stephfo! I hope you're doing well. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anupam, I'm not sure if it is great idea to congratulate someone for being indef blocked, but anyway thank you. It was very strange inquisition process when apart from my mentor, only people "going after me" were invited and they managed to reach very speedy consensus, of course. I'm not sure whether this case is accessible somewhere, I cannot find it. I'm not sure whether there is something wrong at my side, but in original post at AN/I it seemed to be after topic "Personal Attacks" but if I look at AN/I, I cannot find this discussion leading towards my block any more... Is there anything wrong at my side? --Stephfo (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong on your side. WP:AN/I is frequently archived (automatically, I believe, once a thread is stale for a certain amount of time). The thread can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Block review requested. Huon (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. You see, on pages as busy as that, things get placed into archives very quickly. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Huon for coordinates. You seem to keep my page on your watch list, but I have nothing against that, I will refrain from further comments of your last [but one] reaction, I hope it will be OK with you. I'm thankful to you that your stubborn approach in positive sense motivated me to look for sources and arguments that you hopefully have not founded completely odd. Or at least some of them. And if you agree with others that our mutual kind of harsh discussion was entitled reason for my block, I respect your opinion. --Stephfo (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You know, Stephfo, you can still appeal the block if you promise to contribute competently in the future. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I would back you up in the above given case. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's just one vote against at least 6 (Elen of the Roads, Noformation, Dominus Vobisdu, Jess, Dbrodbeck, Hrafn), not high chance of getting through. I like your advice on "time to about a month" though, I think the best would be for everybody to cool down and then re-evaluate with fresh head. --Stephfo (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think the good faith assuming editor Hrafn is getting back to their form after wikibreak, they [first erased] all sources Dominus Vobisdu were [calling for] from "creationist community" to establish notability of John Hartnett (physicist) as creationist (something what I consider for Catch-22), and then they got surprised that after they erased it the sentence in article has not been supported any more by sources. Consequently, they erased the whole section. After recent tag of our good-faith-assuming fellow "productive" editor I think we can start countdown for existence of this article. I just wonder if all editors would be as productive as they in removing whether there would be anything more than single blank page left at Wikipedia at the end.--Stephfo (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, your continued lack of good faith ensures your continued remaining blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen is right. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wekn reven i susej eht, I'd like to ask you to do me a favour and on my behalf ask User:Unscintillating to let the article on John Hartnett (physicist) die. He (User:Unscintillating) is very likely to end up indef blocked just like me if he is going to continue arguing rationally and it is not worth it, there is no objective criterion that would keep that article live, anything can be declared what suits deletionists' wishes. There is just such strange era that digging in private lives and giving information on divorces is regarded for encyclopaedic while developing and constructing the most stable clock in the universe and receiving IEEE award for that activity is not, especially if given person is Christian, what is inconvenient circumstance determining the destiny of the article and level of tolerance to it. It plays no role that the nomination for deletion had been discussed with result "no consensus", if editor with power decides that article is not allowed to exist, it will not exist and it makes no sense to get blocked for opposing it. Please help User:Unscintillating to stay unblocked. Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen for expressing your opinion, however pls. help me to comprehend how it should be possible to assume good faith (I'm really trying my best) if the very same user who are well aware that there is following unsupported claim: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory.[126[not in citation given]"] have no problem to keep it there at one hand and on the other are removing sources and then consequently the text afterwards at other place - I'm not able to fool myself and play to be blind against evidence everybody can plainly see that it is not good faith but a world-view of editor what determines their behaviour. Please provide your explanation how is such double-dealing possible. Thanks in advance --Stephfo (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence ""Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory." as it is not in the reference given. Regards and happy winter solsticeTheroadislong (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanx, Happy Christmas season too.--Stephfo (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Open-letter-answer to request for translations

Add. "Hello steffo

This is to notify you that there are three new requests for translation that were added yesterday: "Jimmy Letter 004", "Jimmy Mail" and "Problems donating". Two of them are variations of "Jimmy Letter 002", so you can re-use large parts of the texts from that translation. The last one is a very short FAQ about different problems users may encounter when donating, which would also be nice to have.

As always, you can find the new texts by going to the translation hub.

Again, thanks a lot for your help! :-)

Jon Harald Søby Translation coordinator"

Dear Jon Harald,

In the situation:

• when Wikipedia administrators do not regard for polite to grant a room for defence against their accusations and keep practices of inviting into AN/I discussion only the editors who are likely to agree with their propositions on my block, even though the very same editors regard such practices for inappropriate canvassing,
• when admins do not regard for polite to answer question on their strange reasoning of their block applied
• When première-edits in line with spirit of WP:BRD never discussed before in article never touched before are reported to ANI as EW with approval of admins
• When warnings at talk page are not used as real warnings but are reduced to announcements of coming block irrespective of whether editor reacts on given warning or not
• When challenging unsupported claims is accused for being DE with approval of admins

etc.,

Under given conditions, I do not feel my effort to help Wikipedia project with my translations has been the best way how to spend my time. I'm surely not absolutely holly but still I regard keeping certain level of dignity when dealing with people for good practice to adopt. If the practices at Wikipedia should not have changed, I suggest that this request of yours would be forwarded to other "productive contributors" who allegedly "waste[d] time, energy and motivation working with unproductive, uncollaborative, or ill-intentioned newcomers" [as me] and thus would have finally chance in line with their wish to avoid their wasting of time etc. and do something more productive than deleting my articles. I apologize for any inconvenience and my thanks for your understanding. --Stephfo (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)