Hello, I noticed you reverted my edits in the article about [[intelligent design]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=164241745&oldid=164241421] following the [[Wikipedia:Accessibility]] policy. I suppose the change in structure you mentioned is the reorganization of section "Notes" before "External links" ([[WP:HEAD#Standard appendices]]). Due to the large number of references maybe the best option is to leave the Notes section at the end, but please don't revert the rest of changes to remove the accessibility problems. Thanks —[[User:Suruena|surueña]] 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you reverted my edits in the article about [[intelligent design]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=164241745&oldid=164241421] following the [[Wikipedia:Accessibility]] policy. I suppose the change in structure you mentioned is the reorganization of section "Notes" before "External links" ([[WP:HEAD#Standard appendices]]). Due to the large number of references maybe the best option is to leave the Notes section at the end, but please don't revert the rest of changes to remove the accessibility problems. Thanks —[[User:Suruena|surueña]] 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:What utter nonsense, your edits were paper shuffling at best. The layout of the article was carefully chosen, and is supported by [[WP:CON|consensus]]. If you have a specific issue with it, then once again, I suggest you take that up on the talk page of the article. [[User:ConfuciusOrnis|<font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis</font>]][[User talk:ConfuciusOrnis|<font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙</font>]] 01:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Good to see the nice work that you have done on Portal:Atheism. I had a little plan to have the atheists in Portal:Atheism/Selected biography in an alphabetical order for the first 26. Got myself stuffed up at H. Not sure if there is actually an atheist for every letter of the alphabet but there could well be. BUT that is not a very formal and encyclopaedic manner for one to go about creating the worlds foremost source of knowledge.... -- Alan Lieftingtalk 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right...lol, I just threw them in at random (except for douglas adams), sorry. I was thinking, that since the best articles are basically the biographies, that it might be nice the theme each week around a bio, so for instance dawkins might be associated with metaphysical naturalism, hitchens with antitheism, d'holbach with history of atheism, rushdie with apostasy in islam, for instance. It might be a stretch though to find appropriate articles. Oh and how do you like the colour scheme? ornis(t) 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the colour scheme is a bit nicer that the rather washed out colours that were there originally. The theme thing sounds like a nice idea but it may go over the heads of most visitors (or perhaps won't be so obvious). I don't have a lot of time at the moment. I SHOULD be studying and am spending TOO MUCH time on WP. Will keep in touch when I have more time. Cheers. -- Alan Lieftingtalk 09:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was thinking of it as more of an organising principle than anything else. I might knock together a couple of preview versions tomorrow to see how it looks. ornis(t) 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe POV pushing at black hole
You stop. I haven't introduced anything non-factual into the black hole article. If you think I have, the burden is on you to either show that I haven't espoused the consensus view or at the very least defend your changes in talk. I look forward to your response in the black hole talk page. You may begin by citing non-factual information you suggest I inserted. I'll wait a reasonable amount of time and then I'll simply revert your nonsense. SteakNotShake 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No the burden is on you to provide a reliable source. You appear to be pushing an extreme fringe point of view, against consensus, and introducing weasel words. Also there's nothing I can say to you that hasn't already been said on the talk page regarding your edits. I notice further that rather than responding to it, you are engaging in a slow edit war. I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV and pay close attention to the section on undue weight and pseudoscience. ornis(t) 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that ConfuciusOrnis is incapable of taking constructive criticism and even of having links to his edit history posted here on his talk page. For the sake of brevity I will not reinsert the evidence I placed here which has been deleted. Instead, I will simply post a link to the material that ConficiusOrnis seems to be so ashamed of that he deletes it wholly from his talk page. Are these the actions of an innocent user? SteakNotShake 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're funny. ornis(t) 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,I truly did not know where to report this as I usually don't get insulted. I usually simply revert minor cases of vandalism but I fear that this case is getting out of hand, and I am not interested in a slug-feast. Must I do anything else? Flamarande 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep an eye on the thread and and answer any questions reviewers might have. Beyond that, you may end up having to go through some sort of dispute resolution, depending on the situation. ornis(t) 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, I truly wasn't expecting such a quick answer and such quick action. Now I need to know how someone can restore the affected articles. I mean, can I simply restore them? Is there a deadline or something similar? As for dispute resolution, fine by me. I have nothing to hide. I placed the incidents page in my watchlist. It may take a while before I answer though as I'm not always at home (I do have a live besides Wikipedia :). Flamarande 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that really depends on how many times you've reverted today, remember if you violate the three revert rule you can be blocked. So if you've only made one or two reverts on that article today, you should be ok if you restore it right now. It's better though in all cases to discuss the matter on the talk page if possible and try to get consensus. ornis(t) 16:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Hello ConfuciusOrnis! I am RS1900. Thanks for infobox you created for atheism. I am also an atheist. I think you have done a great job for the article 'Atheism'. All the best. RS1900 05:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: I read some comments on your talk page and few users suggested that 'there is no real proof of Evolution'. Who are these people? They don't understand anything about evolution. RS1900 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be too concerned about such poorly thought out AfD's as that. Just keep an eye on his contribs, he also likes to tag smaller atheism related articles that don't get much attention for speedy deletion, without notifying the articles creator, and unfortunately admins don't always check the article actually meets the criteria unless someone contests the deletion. As for the people above suggesting there is no real proof for evolution, I think you'll find that all but one of them is joking. ;) ornis(t) 07:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A thought — would the article Introduction to evolution be better placed in Wikibooks? One thing I see a lot of on the C++ and Java articles are complaints about Wikipedia not being for tutorials, etc. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, see to me, that sounds like a variant of the "..that's what simple english wikipedia is for.." argument. Wikibooks is a different project, with different goals and a different format for presenting information. Certainly there should be a wikibook introducing evolution, genetics, relativity et al, but that's no reason why we shouldn't also strive to make technical subjects as accessible as possible to all readers within reason. Intro forks are simply just the neatest way of achieving that. ornis(t) 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with other intro forks (and I'm also pretty sure that the wikibook suggestion was not the motivation for the AfD), but looking at the policy in question (4th point), it does seem ambiguous. Obviously (to me, at least), this article is both presenting facts and "[teaching] subject matter". Don't get me wrong, this is not a crusade I'm on, and I don't really care if that policy subpoint is strictly adhered to, but I did think it prudent to throw it out for people to be aware of. OTOH, this article does not have "leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples", so perhaps one could argue that it's not teaching subject matter. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I just read Sander Säde's comment on the AfD and I thought it was very well said. I don't really have anything to add to that discussion (and there already seems to be an overwhelming consensus), so I'm curious as to whether WP:VOTE would suggest I not leave my comment, or whether that guideline is just stating that the arguments matter more than the vote, etc. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 13:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec+exp)The articles in question, either are, or are striving to, present the material in essentially the same manner as their parent article, with the difference they take a less technical approach to make them more accessible to younger or lay readers. As for the AfD it's not just a vote, so voicing support is always useful though in this case, it's pretty much snowballed. ornis(t) 13:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My ocd
The reason I was adding the category was to get it alphabetically correct in the category itself. I'm doing this to all of those "I" items that aren't really "I" items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I noticed that, I'm trying to fix it so the template sorts them properly, give me a bit. ornis(t) 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, they should now sort properly without manually including the cat. ornis(t) 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have not yet taken to playing with templates myself. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 14:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's actually pretty straightforward, I just had to pipe the article name variable to the category's sorting argument.[1]ornis(t) 14:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. After looking at the diff, and then the full template (and {{Introduction/doc}}), I think I have a good idea of how they work now. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs) 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on deletion page
Hi there, this isn't really relevant to the matter in hand - if the article meets the criteria set out in deletion policy. I have asked the original nominator to remove this comment. Would you mind if I move the discussion about User:Memestream to the discussion page of this deletion discussion? Tim Vickers 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all, I wasn't planning to continue it, I was simply reacting to the implication of bad faith on the part of the nominator. ornis(t) 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the discussion to the talk page and hidden the offending comment using noinclude tags. Hopefully the nominator will respond to my request on their talk page to rephrase their nomination. Tim Vickers 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound a little odd with the offending phrase excised. ornis(t) 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, shit happens. :) I'm not rewriting it for them! Tim Vickers 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was considering sticking [the nominator] into the sentence so it's at least grammatical. ornis(t) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
afsfdsa
blocked from wikipedia or editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked from editing. ornis(t) 11:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. ornis(t) 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valid source
So you really think the author of a book is a valid source for the number of books he has sold, especially when there is not other documentation for that number?.......standards have really come down on wikipedia if this is a valid source for this claim. Hardyplants 10:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, rather than whinging and edit warring, with even a brief google search could you could have turned up better references. Just a thought. ornis(t) 13:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've blocked the IP you reported to AIV. Just a quick note however, when reporting to AIV it's not really accepted that anonymous IP's are known as accounts let alone a vandalism only account. This rationale is only really applied to a registered editor who's sole aim is to disrupt Wikipedia, and having only vandalism edits to the account, we would then block the account indefinitely as a vandalism only account. As we are unsure if it's the same editor behind an IP address at any given time we cannot issue a permanent blocks to anonymous IP's. Oh and let's not see any more of this please? Any problems please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Righty oh then. ornis(t) 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just having a look at what you're editing alot, and you most probably have it bookmarked, but hope it helps all the best. Khukri 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yes I've got it bookmarked! Cheers all the same :). ornis(t) 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted 2 edits by 72.91.75.209 identified as vandalism?
How was that vandalism?EMSPhydeaux 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You realise I have no idea what your talking about right? Got a diff? – ornis⚙ 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Dave Souza has much improved the section, the argument is moot. •Jim62sch• 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SparkPeople speedy deletion
You marked my article SparkPeople for speedy deletion. This page had been live and running for about a year when it was deleted. I re-created it with relevant information including citations to being named Best of the Web by BusinessWeek two years in a row in the Health category as well as being listed by Hitwise as the 6th most popular health site in January 2007. The company is a legitimate player in online health. I'd be happy to take any constructive criticism you may provide.Jknepfle 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a very low tolerance for companies using wikipedia as free advertising. If you've left a note on the talk page, then it's up to the reviewing admin whether it stays at all. If it does, then you're probably going to have to re-write it from scratch, loose the peacock terms, the mission statment and the glowing marketing copy. Keep it to when the company was formed, what it's done, and any notable independent media coverage it's had. – ornis⚙ 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I readded it. It's a damned advertisement, hence it is Spam. •Jim62sch• 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least discuss? I'm REALLY trying to make a legit entry, and used other Web companies as a template to create this. I'm happy to listen to constructive criticism.Jknepfle 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WEBSITE for the criteria. You may be able to get this article in under Criteria #2 (Awards) but take ConfuciusOrnis's recommendations to heart. As it is, the spam red flag has gone of multiple times in my head. Think layman, not marketing. Spryde 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This, SparkPeople was founded to empower people to make life changes using health and fitness as a springboard to achieving personal, relationship, and career goals. is an advertisement (as well as being piffle-prose). •Jim62sch• 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific constructive criticism. I've made a change. Hopefully it addresses your concern. Jknepfle 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made some more edits, but it still needs a lot more. Things like "...which uses tools, content, and support to lead to help users make lifestyle changes." rankle the hell out of me. What tools? What content? What does it mean? If you want, contact me on my user page. •Jim62sch• 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch
Very, very good catch.[2]EVula// talk // ☯ // 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... well, I can't actually take credit for that [3] ;) – ornis⚙ 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it
You've been reverting my edits for no good reason, I know you dislike me, but that's no reason to revert good-faith quality edits.
You've been banned before and if you keep reverting good edits you will likely get banned again.
What edit...are you reffering to ConfuciusOrnis--Angel David 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are what I'm talking about. Don't do that please, it's incredibly poor etiquette to change someone else's choice of spelling, particularly when that choice is for religious reasons, and we don't mess with each other's sigs. Ever. – ornis⚙ 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remember User:rbj who got banned for numerous reasons, one of which was vandalizing my spelling of G_d. It's not poor etiquette, it is anti-Semitism, plain and simple. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's only eleven, so I wouldn't read too much into it. – ornis⚙ 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ornis, I need help. Someone called 'dudesleeper' is continuasly putting the wrong info on joe anyon even though I have warned him many times. Ive tried to semi-protect the page, but it doesnt work. Any help?
I'll reply on your talk. – ornis⚙ 11:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issues?
No, I have no issues with anyone, and I certainly didn't intend for my comment to come across as "snippy". I was just wondering why yourself, OM, Filll and Jim62sch show a continued tendency to reply to third-party posts on each others' talk pages as if you were the intended recipient, which is unusual etiquette here on Wikipedia. I can certainly say that if someone presumed to reply on my behalf on my talk page then I would be none too pleased, to say the least. However, it's clearly no big deal. Can I humbly suggest based on this that you may have a tendency to overreact somewhat? Badgerpatrol 11:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've still completely failed to address why is was that you felt the need to make that remark on OM's talk page. I mean let's face it, it added nothing to the discussion, hell it wasn't even tangentially relevant. Was it just to provoke a reaction? If so then why would you wish to do that? What interest do you have in the matter? I don't think you've ever edited the homeopathy article, so it's rather mystery isn't it. – ornis⚙ 12:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever you think. I rest my case. All the best, Badgerpatrol 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You rest your case? What case? You still haven't answered what you hoped to achieve by this. – ornis⚙ 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So badgerpatrol, you come in here and make a false accusation. But no balls to try to prove it. BTW, I haven't posted on CO's page in months. Filll's probably longer. Jim's the same. CO recently posted on my page because he noted an unfair block. So you better apologize NOW, or write up a sockpuppet and RfCU today. I know you won't because your MO has been to make accusations and slither away. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on your talk page. You have some pretty serious civility issues and a bad temper, OM. Badgerpatrol 14:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments have taken a decidedly creepy turn BP. I don't particularly wish to talk to your now or in the foreseeable future, so please stop posting on my talk page. Thank you. – ornis⚙ 14:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem- please delete this and any previous comments as you wish. Badgerpatrol 14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. First BP demonstrates extremely poor judgement at one of OM's articles. Then BP violates some of the rules associated with admin priveleges. Then BP arises to accuse us all of being socks, when it is clear we edit different things at different times and live in different parts of the world. This would mean we never sleep I guess.
I would think that our styles or editing are sufficiently different that anyone could tell us apart quite easily. We sometimes edit conflict with each other, which might be a bit difficult to do if we are all the same person, unless we are signed on simultaneously to two or three or four computers with different names, all routed through different IP addresses. This just is a bit much to suggest, frankly.--Filll 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BP isn't an admin. Oh and whoever said you were the puppet master eh? ;). – ornis⚙ 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, But I need help
I'm sorry to keep bothering, but "Dudesleeper" keeps repeatadly deleting everything I write. Everytime I write something on an article, when I visit again he has deleted it. I've left messages on his talk page and in articles histories, and tried to do a mediation thing, but he still does not listen. Any help please mate?
Alright, give me a bit, I'll have a look and see if I can figure out what's going on. Just sit tight, don't keep reverting, it's not the end of the world. – ornis⚙ 12:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested he do some background reading on how to use Wikipedia. Of course, rather than do so, he deleted my suggestion. He seems to be another in a long line of excited football fans who want to wax lyrical about his team. My patience has somewhat worn out. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I guess, I've left a similar suggestion on his talk page. Have you considered asking for page protection? It might encourage him to use the talk page. – ornis⚙ 12:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion doesn't seem to be his forté. I think it's easier just to keep an eye on his edits. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility issues
Hello, I noticed you reverted my edits in the article about intelligent design,[4] following the Wikipedia:Accessibility policy. I suppose the change in structure you mentioned is the reorganization of section "Notes" before "External links" (WP:HEAD#Standard appendices). Due to the large number of references maybe the best option is to leave the Notes section at the end, but please don't revert the rest of changes to remove the accessibility problems. Thanks —surueña 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What utter nonsense, your edits were paper shuffling at best. The layout of the article was carefully chosen, and is supported by consensus. If you have a specific issue with it, then once again, I suggest you take that up on the talk page of the article. – ornis⚙ 01:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
