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)

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)

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)

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)