User talk:ConfuciusOrnis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stillbirth. You have refused to reply on the talk page before changing a longstanding feature of that article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are WRONG!

Ornis, I really think that you should dig into the Real proof of evolution. In fact, there is NONE. There is no proof to evolutoin, and there is way more proof against it. And you know what, religion is waht holds the world together. I want to help you, but you ARE wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachshundboy25 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... maybe when I stop laughing so hard I can't breathe properly I might reply to that.... ornis (t) 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out why you were flamed on this topic. It's not like you are the only editor who ignores the fact that there is no real proof of Evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, but how about evolutoin? . . ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolutoin? I think the manufacturer is still waiting on FDA approval. ornis (t) 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear that evolutoin is better than Viagara. I know where to buy it in Mexico. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear the side effects are fairly unpleasant though. ornis (t) 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Flood geology

Can you provide an adequate explanation as to why you reverted my edit to Flood geology? Aplomado ^talk 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an adequate explanation for why you made it in the first place? ornis (t) 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change denial

At Talk:Climate change denial you're being too impolite and too profane. Please remove your profanities William M. Connolley 08:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly you've chosen not to do this but have continued being incivil [1]. I've blocked you for 12h William M. Connolley 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That was uncivil? You have got to be kidding. Have you read the crap from the other editors? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling people trolls who are contributing in good faith is incivil, as were a number of more blatant examples by CO. The discussion needs to calm down; a polite request was not sufficient William M. Connolley 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion needed to calm down on all sides -- were similar blocks meted out to others involved? Also, 28 minutes expired between the polite request and the block, if CO, like me ignores the "you have new messagers" banner, he very well may not have seen the message. •Jim62sch• 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to find a diff for profanity from CO. Because if profanity contra bonos mores (beat me up later for misusing latin) leading to a violation of WP:CIVIL then I'm fucked. And why was CO targeted? Because of, and let me not assume any good faith because the admin just didn't like CO as opposed to obnoxious, rude and uncivil comments from the likes of Ben Hocking who made the accusation on the admins page? I don't know, but it certainly looks like it to me. Unless you can show specific diffs where 1) CO did something different than Ben Hocking, 2) where CO used profane language against another user (the use of profanity is not in of itself a violation of WP:CIVIL and free speech may not be allowed where you live, it is allowed here), and 3) where CO violated any of WP:NPA guidelines (and yes I read them, and nothing CO has written is in violation thereof), I think you should remove this block, and apologize to CO. In addition, you should state why, based on a complaint from BenHocking, you chose to ignore his personal attacks, his violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, and proceeded to attack another editor, specifically ornis. And since I am now officially in dispute with you William M. Connolley, don't even consider throwing another rude warning on my user talk page.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(to J) No it didn't - 24h + 28 minutes expired. AFAIK no-one else has felt it necessary to write stuff like this [2]. (to OM) If you want to make a complaint about PA from BH, please use my talk page. And no, you can't gain invulnerability by declaring dispute William M. Connolley 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this block. That's hardly incivil, particularly when both you and I know that BH and others are being completely ridiculous and provoked CO's frustration. Incivil would be to call them 'f'ing idiots.' I'm going to be consulting some fellow admins, and if they concur, I'm going to unblock. FeloniousMonk 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I also see that you've be participating on the talk page prior to the block, you're an involved party, meaning this block being made by you was completely improper per WP:BLOCK. You should have brought this to WP:AN/I where if other, uninvolved admins agreed with your assessment, they would have made the block. But as it is, you should unblock him and apologize before your improper block ends up at AN/I itself. FeloniousMonk 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am curious if William M. Connolley would have blocked him if CO had not used the word "fucking." My intuition is that he wouldn't have, simply because this user has a history of simply removing comments that use "profane" words (and he actually states he did so because of use of "too profane" words). I'm not sure if this user simply dislikes profanity or has regulated speech in his area, but the block was improper, regardless. ~ UBeR 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

<RI>It's MHO, but it is not clear to me ANYWHERE that the use of profanity itself is a cause for blocking or is a violation of WP:CIVIL. If one admin is relying upon a self-developed guideline because he is offended by profane language, then he needs to bring it up in a forum where he gets consensus for his belief. Civility is not defined by profanity, nor is profanity a definition of what makes or does not make civility. In modern English, "fuck" has become a normal term that is used in any number of ways to create a declarative statement. That ship has sailed long ago. There are words (very few, including one that utilizes "fuck" as part of the word) that can be construed as uncivil--racist terms, very specific demeaning language, and some other words. But to become a one-man censor on this project is just not appropriate. If profanity was used in a personal attack, sure, that probably makes it worse. But there were no personal attacks. WMC owes CO an apology and should remove the block, His stubbornness in not doing so indicates many things to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For your very quick and effective response on atheism

		The Template Barnstar
		I award you the Template Barnstar, beacause of the infobox you created for Atheism... so quickly, i thought nobody would even reply to my comment, lol. Connör (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! My first barnstar. Thanks for that, actually I created the template a couple of days ago, and posted it at WP:Ath, but... er... dramas shall we say... sort of sidelined it. Glad you like it. ornis (t) 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW...

Did you realise that you have usurped the user space on the non-existent User:ConfuciousOrnis here? Misspelt your own name! :) Guettarda 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh?&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

D'OH!. ornis (t) 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My scratch pad was there too. ornis (t) 22:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again, 24h, incivility

You've only recently been blocked for incivility, and you do this [3] William M. Connolley 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Unblock

Having looked at this, I agree Profg has been unreasonable and provoking. But please... try harder to be civil William M. Connolley 08:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright... it was intemperate perhaps, but not intended as personal attack or insult. Thank you for reconsidering. ornis (t) 08:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to emphasize, I have not been "unreasonable and provoking" to ornis. Just take a look at the edit war he is engaging in at Creation science. He is being POV unreasonable and rudely provoking in my attempt to insert a tiny edit to insure NPOV in the beginning of that article. Thank you. --profg 13:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. See your talk page William M. Connolley 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Creation science. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --profg 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the 3RR rule is excellent, it seems curious that you're pointing it out: [4] [5] [6] Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This warning looks spurious to me. See your talk page William M. Connolley 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination of Element 21 (golf company)

Please see my comment on my talk page [7] regarding your blatant bad-faith nomination of a notable article I have worked on, solely because I was one of the editors.

--RucasHost 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it because it's a non-notable company, and the article has no content anyway. ornis (t) 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

They paid the Russians to shoot their golf-ball into space! Numerous major news organizations picked up on that! How is that not-notable? --RucasHost 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gonna have to do better than an expensive media stunt. ornis (t) 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Marking as minor

m (Reverted to revision 157461652 by Merzul; restoring improved version before ill considered mass reversion.)

This is not a minor revision and should not be marked as such. It would be best if you self revert your last edit and them you can revert back to the page you want with out marking it minor. Hardyplants 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor? Hmmm... I'll have to look at that, I think that may be a setting in TW. I see no reason to re-revert though. ornis (t) 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pause till morning

I'm going to disengage until tomorrow morning; no more reverts for me tonight. In any case, reverting their removal isn't going to keep the images on the page unless consensus actually develops somewhere to keep them. The fair use review shows multiple editors who feel the images are not in agreement with NFCC. It isn't an issue of rebutting their arguments - consensus needs to develop that this use is acceptable for the images to remain in the article in the long term. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AGF warning

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.

Reference: [[8]] --profg 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tsk. ornis (t) 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Accessibility issues

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edits in the article about intelligent design,[9] 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)

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)

????... OK, let's see. Of course a policy is not written is stone, sometimes it should not be enforced in exceptional cases. Usually I would follow your advice and discuss politely this topic in the talk page of the article, even if I'm following an accepted policy. But I'm afraid you were too rude, so in this case why don't you give the reasons this article is exceptional and shouldn't be applied this Wikipedia policy? Have you ever understand the purpose of that policy, or the nature of those edits? I haven't changed the structure of the article nor any comma, only minor edits to make the contents accessible to all wikipedians. Please, don't say the accessibility policy and the manual of style are nonsense. And don't talk about consensus, those policies are built upon consensus, although it seems you don't really care about the works made by others (please, show me this impression is wrong). Explain the reasons why do you think these policies shouldn't be applied to that article, or let our accessibility team to fix it. Best regards, —surueña 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

surueña, please be aware that Wikipedia:Accessibility is a guideline, not a policy, and explain your proposals on the article talk page so that consensus can be achieved. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave beat me to it. Indeed the accessibility guideline is just that, a guideline. It's not something you can mechanically apply to all articles, otherwise someone would have written a bot for that already. It must be considered and interpreted on a case by case basis, and it's application decided upon by consensus, ( which is a policy ). If you want specific reasons for why I reverted, it was because the edit was a mix of bad and indifferent. Moving the refs and the nav templates, that was bad, and reduced the accessibility of the article. Shuffling the "see-also"s and images, that was indifferent, having no significant positive or negative effect on accessibility. For the last time, if you have an issue with the layout, then take it to the talk page and discuss the matter there, rather than coming here and berating me for reverting you, and insisting I never do such an awful hurtful thing again.  – ornis⚙ 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)