Stho002

Hello, Stho002, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like IO2, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Basket of Puppies 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IO2

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Basket of Puppies 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stho002. You have new messages at Basket of Puppies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basket of Puppies 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata

Hi, Stho002
HMOG: that is soooo embarrassing. Great pick-up! And thank you for refraining from giving me a thoroughly well-deserved fishy fisticuff.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Leviathan melvillei

Please see the talk page. Thanks. Stronach (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikispecies template

Hello, Stho002;

Thank you for adding the wikispecies templates! In the future, could you add them to the end of the article, instead of after the taxobox? Somewhere after the references or works cited would probably be ideal. It isn't usually a big deal, but when an article has a long taxobox and short text, like Taniwahsaurus, putting it after the taxobox apparently forces all of the section editing buttons to come after the template. J. Spencer (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Myuchelys

Please add reliable sources for your additions at Myuchelys. It is part of Wikipedia's verifiability policy to add sources to prove claims. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted for lack of reliable sources, I feel you have edited that page in an attempt to further your opinion on Wikispecies and to taunt Faendalimas, whilst you may find it acceptable on Wikispecies it is by no means acceptable here on Wikipedia. ZooPro 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just let this go Stephen you have your way on wikispecies and it is saying what you want and nobody seems to be able to say any different over there. Let wikipedia be, this is not where you usually haunt. You are the one creating a wheel war here. Your edits have no basis in science as they are personal opinion not published opinions. I have not tried to wheel war with you on wikispecies, that behaviour is juvenile. We have spent a lot of time as a team developing the wikipedia pages your not acting as a team member here. Faendalimas (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Steven, I am not going to change this again, unlike you I do not wheel war. However, misquoting my publications is a low act. I in no way said that there was dispute about the legitimacy of Well's papers and neither did Rhodin et al. You have us as the references for one of your statements, a statement that is plain untrue, we did not say that. Now either you are incapable of writing or you are just so desperate to be seen as in the right here that you sink to very low acts as far as academia is concerned. I don't know which but I suggest if you intend to cite my works that you try reading them. In our papers we said "The more recent attempts at nomenclatural action by Wells (2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2009) are not considered publications for the purposes of nomenclature as they violate ICZN Articles 8 and 9 and Recommendation 8D (see also Fritz & Havaš, 2007). The names that appeared in the documents (Wells, 2007a; b; c; 2009) are not considered available and are not used." You have claimed we said something like "If this is correct, then the name should not be used, but the matter is disputed and the nomenclatural facts are rather unclear." This sentence is attributed to us but we never said that. This is misquotation at its worst. Please fix this. Faendalimas (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "low act", just a very small mistake, but it obviously suits your agenda to blow it up out of all proportion. I have removed the offending bit. --Stho002 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for fixing it I will accept it was in error. I have requested citations for your statements in your latest revision. Please add published references to the interpretation and analysis of the case. Wikipedia policy does not permit original research.Faendalimas (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Hello, Stho002. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. The relevant section is Stho002 and Identity, Four-dimensionalism BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Four-dimensionalism. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I suggest you consider self-reverting the blatant WP:OR and editorial commentary you inserted into the article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

>almost always grounds for an immediate block<

the key words being 'almost always' ... not in this case

Sorry but you don't get to decide that actually; The 'almost always' refers to cases of vandalism, which this is not. This is an edit war, and you are violating 3RR. I also strongly suspect that you are sockpuppeting under IP 130.216.201.45 to attempt to get around the three-revert rule, but we'll let an SPI decide that if it continues. PS, this is what I meant by "Refuses to edit collaboratively". BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again ... anyone can choose to edit as an IP if they wish. Sockpuppeting is only by multiple accounts Stho002 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Read Wikipedia:SOCK BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

well that just goes to show the importance of a good lede, as I didn't read beyond 'the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden' [my bold]. At any rate, editing as an IP is the only way to stop other bad editors from deliberately making one's account history look bad, by making numerous unjustified reverts and heavy handed warnings ... Stho002 (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And to be fair it seems that Philogo is indulging in similar bad behavior and should also be warned about 3RR if he hasn't been already. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

>I suggest you consider self-reverting the blatant WP:OR and editorial commentary you inserted into the article

I have considered and rejected your suggestion: there is no WP:OR at all in an explanation of what eternalism and presentism mean in semantic terms, and I do not know what you refer to as "editorial commentary"

it ought not to be such an uphill battle to improve an article ... Stho002 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor should it be such an uphill battle to get you to read, understand, and abide by established WP norms, policies and procedures which, despite your incessant drumbeating to the contrary, are not and need not be incompatible with contributing to the encyclopedia and improving articles. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Stho002,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 09:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

---

Reported to the 3RR Administrators' noticeboard: User:Stho002 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Four-dimensionalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Excuse me, but whoever applied this block hasn't assessed the situation properly at all. I had no opportunity to contest the block before it was applied because it was night here and I was in bed with flu. I wake up to find that thousands of people who share the same IP range as I do have been blocked for 24 hrs because of one bad apple editor called Machine Elf who insists on interpreting WP policy to suit his own agenda, and has been reverting improvements I was trying to make to one article back to the previous version which is useless. I don't care personally about being blocked for 24 hrs (big deal!), but by allowing rogue editors like Elf to block thousands of innocent people, is quite frankly irresponsible of whoever applied this block. Many of Elf's reversions were based on dubious interpretation of the "Synthesis" policy, the problems of which I discuss here (Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#.22Synthesis.22_indeed.21), and which have been replied to in a constructive way (unlike Elf). The relevant bit of that reply to this situation is: 'But such a "conflict" between reality and policy opens it to abuse, which also happens'. Elf is abusing the policy for his own agenda. Consequently, I wish to report Machine Elf for edit warring. By the way, I am and always was happy to fix up any specific issues with my edits that Elf brought to my attention (provided they weren't totally unreasonable), but I received no such requests from Elf, all he would do is revert the whole lot without consultation with me first. Thank you, Stho002 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the reason given for the decline of unblock ('No grounds for unblock provided') is false. I *did* provide such grounds. Let me put them more clearly: in the interests of not blocking innocent others, I request the block to be lifted. It is not necessary as a preventative measure (and cannot be punitive by WP policy). I *am* (and always was) happy to address any *specific* issues with my edits that Machine Elf cares to raise with me, just on the proviso that they are not entirely unreasonable. That is sufficient grounds to be considered grounds, so the "no grounds" statement above is itself no grounds to decline the unblock! As an additional issue, I suggest that Elf deserves a block far more than I do... Stho002 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To explain in better detail, we generally don't unblock users who use their unblock requests to complain about other editors. You need to tell us why you should be unblocked, why you are a good person etc. And given that it's a 24-hour block, I'd just wait it out as it will soon expire. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Whether I am a "good person" or not is irrelevant. The edit access of an entire IP range (encompassing thousands of potential contributors) is being used as blackmail by Machine Elf, and one or two of his friends, in order to keep me off an article which they consider to be their "territory". It will keep happening for as long as I choose not to give in to their blackmail. As I have said, the block is unnecessary, as I am happy to work through any specific issues with my edits that Elf or any other editor cares to raise with me (provided only that they aren't completely unreasonable) Stho002 (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. See especially WP:EBUR. You have yet to provide any GOOD reason why you should be personally unblocked - more arguments about having been blocked, and how the other person should be blocked too. Instead, you should be devouring WP:BRD, and how to submit dispute resolution. This is a mere 1 day block - a warning shot across the bow, and based on everything you have said on this page, it's a very necessary block for preventing additional such action to this project (especially your comment that you will only discuss things that "aren't completely unreasonable"). Focus on YOUR actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not requesting particularly that I be *personally* unblocked, I am primarily objecting to an IP range which may encompass thousands of people being held to ransom by what seems to me to be a couple of editors who want me "off their patch". A mere 24 hr block changes nothing. Holding an institution hostage to the actions of one of their members will only work for you if that member was clearly in the wrong, otherwise it could easily backfire. So, yet again, I request you to either restrict the block to account Stho002, or unblock even that, but either way for goodness sake do something more likely to actually remedy the dispute than just keeping on pushing the block button, because that won't do it. The block is not necessary (and also achieves nothing) because I am perfectly willing (and always have been) to work through any specific issues relating to my editing of the disputed page. And, yes, those issues have to be not entirely unreasonable, though I am willing to let others be the judge of that, just not the disputants, as I believe them to be biased and or misunderstand policy and technical issues relating to the topic. I am not the one being unreasonable here. The fact that Machine Elf and Philogo are not also blocked will be investigated in due course. Stho002 (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not relate to the reason for the block. Moreover, I've taken the time to review your most recent contributions, including the above string of time wasting unblock requests, and have extended the block duration to indefinite as they're largely abusive. Talk page comments such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] (as some randomly selected examples from the last week or so) are highly uncivil and do not contribute to developing good quality articles. You still have the ability to edit this talk page and appeal this block, but please make sure that any unblock requests are directly relevant to the reason for the block. I would strongly suggest that you take your time in developing any further unblock requests, and make sure that they describe, in detail, how you will edit in collaboration with other editors. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Yeah, threatenting to continue the practice that brought you to this position is not a winning strategy. I will not decline your request so as to give you an opportunity to remove it and contemplate a more satisfactory submission. I'd hurry if I were you...another admin could easily come along and decline your request. Tiderolls 03:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be a "threat", but it is hard not to step over the line when all my cogent reasons for why the block is unjustified are being ignored. You have blocked the wrong person ... or, at very least it takes 2 to have an edit war ... remember? Whatever happened to NPOV, or doesn't it apply to WP admins?? Stho002 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to read specific instances of admins obtaining special treatment you can present. Keep in mind while you I and chit-chat here the clock is ticking on your unblock request. See the addendum at the end of the unblock declines? It's possible your block could be extended if your multiple unblock requests are deemed disruptive. Tiderolls 03:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Now who is threatening? Actually, if you extend the block, it is lose-lose, but mainly WP lose, as thousands of potential contributors to the site will be blocked for longer (assuming the IP range is still blocked ... shall I test it on another computer?), so who loses? Certainly not me! I am only protesting this block on principle. >I'll be glad to read specific instances of admins obtaining special treatment you can present< What are you talking about? This isn't about admins obtaining special treatment, it is about one or two non-admin editors (Machine Elf and Philogo, mainly) who have done everything wrong in this dispute, but have somehow managed to convince the admins to block me, when even a cursory look at all the associated postings (see below) show that it isn't that simple ... Stho002 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#.22Synthesis.22_indeed.21 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#More_eyes_needed_at_Four-dimensionalism

What am I talking about? Why, I'm talking about what you're talking about..."Whatever happened to NPOV, or doesn't it apply to WP admins??" If there's nothing more to discuss, then I'll be moving along. See ya 'round Tiderolls 04:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty more to discuss, though possibly futile anyway, as I don't get the impression that reasoning, however cogent, is going to make a blind bit of difference here. If you had a NPOV on this dispute, then Machine Elf and Philogo would also be blocked (or better, nobody would be blocked, but the article would be locked on the current version). Clearly, this is not the case ... now why is that? By WP policy, a block cannot be punitive, only preventative, but this block changes nothing about the situation, so you are acting against your own policy! So, I challenge you, either block me (and thousands of other innocent potential contributors) indefinitely, for trying to improve an article that Machine Elf and Philogo clearly have control over, or try to resolve the issue in a more constructive manner (and I have already, several times, expressed my willingness to work through any specific issues relating to my edits of that article), but the current block serves no constructive purpose, and only escalates bad feelings ... Stho002 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And, sorry, but I am not going to go for a "oh, I'm so very sorry, Mr. Admin sir, I'm not worthy but please unblock me" boot licking performance. I have been as polite as can be expected under the circumstances (I have got progreesively less polite, but in the face of having my reasoning ignored). You've made a mistake here, so it is your responsibility to fix it, and WP is the biggest loser if you don't ... Stho002 (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok, fair enough. I do sometimes make the big mistake of thinking that the force of reason overrides all else, but of course it does not excuse poor manners, nor offensive comments given in reply to unreasonable comments. At any rate, the main thing is that you don't seem to have blocked anyone but me this time (though it would have been helpful if someone had told me that), and that was the main thing I was worried about. I would quite like to be unblocked, so that I can continue adding WS iws and the other uncontroversial things that I was quietly doing. I will leave the philosophy articles to those who think that they know better, perhaps they do? So, no hurry, but if someone would be so good to unblock me at some stage at their leisure, that would be great! Thanks for the valuable lesson in public relations, and apologies for the time wasting, cheers Stho002 (talk) 6:08 am, Today (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

As an independent observer and after having reviewed the numerous issues above and below especially the sockpuppetry, I am declining your latest unblock request, and because you have still not adequately responded to the other block reasons, or demonstrated sufficient civility. I will further point out, in case you missed it, that continued abuse of the unblock request system will result in you being blocked from editing your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

that's as far as my civility stretches, pal! I will be making enquiries regarding how come a 24hr block got upgraded to indefinite, in one step, and without warning that this would happen ... hmmm ... Stho002 (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore User:Stemonitis continues to make bad edits to Munididae, now citing a publication which doesn't exist, namely:

Komai, T. (2012). "Squat Lobsters of the Genus Munida Leach, 1820 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura: Munididae) from the Sagami Sea and Izu Islands, Central Japan". Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, Series A (Zoology) 12: 1-69.

The journal changed its name, in 2007, to Bulletin of the National Museum of Nature and Science (A), and is already up to volume 34! See: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/vol_issue/nels/AA12230284_en.html and http://ci.nii.ac.jp/vol_issue/nels/AA00587415_en.html

User:Stemonitis has clearly not actually seen the source he cites, because it doesn't exist, but has copied it from another WoRMS page, so, again it is WoRMS that is the actual source, not the publication cited above (which doesn't exist). This is extremely poor editing on the part of User:Stemonitis ... Stho002 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

IP Sock Block

Please see the relevant report relating to the further use of IP 202.36.224.9 to evade this block when considering unblock. Note that that IP was blocked in a manner (user creation allowed) that takes into account that it is a shared IP proxy for NorthTec, as noted on that IP's talk page and which I think Stho002 was alluding to in one of his unblock requests above. Thank you. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that a friend that I mentioned this unfortunate business to may have thought it "helpful" to me to intervene using IP 202.36.224.9, but they evidently didn't understand how things work, and that it would in fact make matters worse. I'm not sure if I am the one who ought to be apologising for this, but I will anyway ... Stho002 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words your Meatpuppet? — Philogos (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin

The unfortunate part of this is that this type of editing behavior was not evident prior to Stho002 being given admin privileges and him using them to chase of any editor who disagrees with his interpretations. Note the general tone of the discussions in the talk page and the first talk page archive.--Kevmin § 19:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Kevmin. Thanks for your comments. Perhaps you can find Lycaon and/or one or two others to come join your party ... I'm sure you would all sing in perfect harmony ... Stho002 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what you are suggesting with this last comment?--Kevmin § 16:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you may ask, Kevmin! Stho002 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What is your answer to the question that I posed please.--Kevmin § 23:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as you are free to ask, I am free to choose not to answer, so I suggest that you follow policy guidelines and assume good faith (perhaps I just think, for some reason, that you have a fine singing voice!) Have a good day, have a safe day ... Stho002 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read the policies and understood them now. Also, I wish to point out that blocks should be preventative, not punitive. In my case, my block was originally 24 hrs and escalated to indefinitely in one go. I also promise not to venture into those metaphysics articles again without better understanding and communication with other parties Stho002 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Please keep your promise and better understand what consensus means. If in doubt, discuss in the talk page first before editing the article. Also, review the policies and ask around if you're unsure. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Third paragraph in lede

Just noting that a reply was made. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. When you recently edited Multiple occupancy view, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A priori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

Please see WP:DEADLINK and WP:WBM; the use of the archiveurl parameter is extremely widespread, while additional text, such as "[dead link]", is not. If it were thought useful, it would be added by the citation templates automatically, whenever archiveurl was invoked. That does not happen, because there is a unanimous consensus that dead links need no further marking. Please undo [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melangyna_viridiceps&curid=11066295&diff=491332694&oldid=491325982 your recent edit] to Melangyna viridiceps, which is not helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Squat lobster, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stho002. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 01:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• From My talk page i have
  Moved to Talk:Squat lobster

   – ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent edit summary ("RV1 for me") suggests that you are counting towards your third revert under the three revert rule. This already counts as edit warring. You must realise by now that consensus is against you. Numerous editors have tried to explain your mistake, but you continue to make ill-advised edits. I strongly suggest you take a step back and stop disrupting the project. Although you clearly believe yourself to be in the right, it must be evident that your opinions are not widely shared, and you should stop immediately. Further behaviour of this kind is likely to result in another block. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pure speculation on your part as to what the edit summary meant ...

Well, feel free to elaborate, but consider yourself warned. On an unrelated topic, it seems odd that you should suddenly doubt the veracity of WoRMS, having considered it an acceptable source elsewhere. I can see little justification for this volte-face. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[copied from elsewhere] That's just the point! No offence, but I am not merely copying stuff from one place to another. WoRMS has stuffed up in a few places, and I can see that, because their info in those cases makes no sense and contradicts everything else ... Stho002 (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But then your first edit must have been unhelpful, because you are obviously using other information to decide which pages are reliable and which are not. If you are using other material, then you should be citing that. If you doubt the four red-linked genera in Munididae (which is probably fair enough), what are your reasons for doing so? What sources lead you to doubt them? If there are such sources, you should cite them directly, rather than expressing opaque doubt. And no, linking to Wikispecies is not enough. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WoRMS is a secondary source. If I can't verify WoRMS info. against primary sources, and it doesn't make sense (WoRMS cited source for Osawai uses an old defunct journal name, and "Osawai" would never be used as the name of a genus, it is a species name (oddly they correctly use lower case, i.e. osawai, but get everthing else wrong!!) then I will tag it as unreliable. I am not going to copy all my sources over from WS. I am just trying to improve Wikipedia information quality ... Stho002 (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You must include your sources. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Whether it makes sense to you or not is largely irrelevant. Having the sources on a Wikispecies page is no substitute for presenting them locally. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that last bit is debatable, but, at any rate, for something like "Osawai", there are no sources - it just doesn't make sense, and is self-evidently a mistake by WoRMS. The point is that it cannot be verified. You can't just go uncritically accepting secondary sources like WoRMS, they make too many errors ... Stho002 (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But then that's your own research. I agree that they are unlikely genera, but where the only sources is WoRMS, we have to include them. Unless there is some published reason to doubt them, they are verifiable, and so must be accepted. It surprises a lot of people that Wikipedia cares more about verifiability than about truth, but that's the way it has to be. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The tag that I used seems to be appropriate for sources whose credibility is doubted (either in general or in a specific case). There has to be a compromise solution. Propagating errors serves nobody, and only serves to entrench them even further ... Stho002 (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, they (e.g. "Osawai") are *not* truly verifiable, because WoRMS is only a secondary source ... Stho002 (talk)

You are still not answering where the doubt comes from. If you are the source (as seems to be the case), then the tags should be removed. Secondary sources are perfect for Wikipedia (see WP:PSS), so that's no reason to doubt something. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you remove those tags, then you are a misinformation terrorist of Bin Laden proportions, feeding the world misinformation due to some misguided ideal about "verifiability over truth". Yes, verifiability is extremely important, but not of itself, only as a means to truth. If something is known to be false, for whatever reason, then some way must be found to flag that fact. There is an analogy with justice. It is better that a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be wrongly convicted. You have made a poor choice of source (WoRMS) for this article, just as you did with the Melangyna viridiceps article. WP is about knowledge, but not every source is a source of knowledge, much of it is just raw data or indications of what might be, somebody's opinion, or whatever, but *not knowledge*. So, by uncritically accepting all sources, you are doing mankind a disservice by propagating misinformation. Sincerely, Stephen Thorpe (Stho002)

Also, as a minor point, you are not even consistently following your own principles, for *you* have changed "osawai" and "paucistriata" into "Osawai" and "Paucistriata", so that they are properly formed generic names, but your source doesn't do that, so where is your source for *your* change to the information?? ... Stho002 (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Once you start talking about "terrorist of Bin Laden proportions", you have clearly lost all sense of proportion. I don't think any further discussion can be fruitful. Please heed what you have been told recently by a number of editors. I have lost patience with this discussion. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll interpret that as you can't think of any way to try to defend your actions any further, so you are ducking out. And please don't quote me out of context, I said a "misinformation terrorist of Bin Laden proportions", clearly an analogy not to be taken too literally. Oh and by the way, are you going to change "Osawai" back to "osawai", etc., or shall I do it?? ... Stho002 (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring again. Stop immediately, or you will be blocked. Admins are not required to wait until three reverts; one can be enough, particularly where there is a history of edit warring, or it is spread over several articles (both of which are true in this instance). It doesn't matter whether or not you think you are in the right. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to forget here. This is becoming somewhat alarming. Stho002, I very strongly recomend that you read what people are telling you then read and understand the various policies you have been referrred to and apply the lessons learned to your editing. Otherwise, if you continue down the path you appear to have chosen, your actions will lead inevitably to another block. This time it may well be indefinite. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Munididae shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — raekyt 22:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The personal attack was a mistake for which I apologise. I meant to say "hopelessly naive if you think". But I understand what I have been blocked for (even though it wasn't a deliberate personal attack), and I will not do it again, but I will make productive contributions instead. Furthermore, the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, for my comments were merely a one-off "throwing my hands up in despair" in reaction to having my requests for help ignored over an edit war at Munididae. However, I have decided to contribute edits which follow policy to the absolute letter from now on, bearing in mind WP:TE ... cheers, Stho002 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The continued arguing, below, suggests that you have not grasped the way Wikipedia uses sources for verifiability, and that you cannot tag sources as unreliable based purely on your own say-so. I know "personal attack" was the given reason for your block, but I consider "edit warring" to be another problem this block is intended to prevent. When your block expires, please discuss any disputes about sources on the article Talk page. (Addition: You made a multitude of promises in response to your previous block for edit warring, but you have not kept them. Any current promises will be evaluated in that light) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(The following are comments added within the unblock request, now moved outside of it and my decline reason restored to its original state...

[This is incorrect: User:Stemonitis agreed that the source was unreliable for the purposes of the Munididae article, but still refused, point-blank, to tag the problem ... Stho002 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)] I know "personal attack" was the given reason for your block, but I consider "edit warring" to be another problem this block is intended to prevent. When your block expires, please discuss any disputes about sources on the article Talk page. (Addition: You made a multitude of promises in response to your previous block for edit warring, but you have not kept them. Any current promises will be evaluated in that light) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC) To quote an email from one of your own admins (who, will, of course, remain anonymous): [quote]The community has become quite toxic and a lot of editors display self entitlement, which chased off a lot of new editors.[unquote] I think that says it all, don't you?? Stho002 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, pls at least try get the reasons for blocking people right the first time ... either it was for "personal attacks", or it wasn't, and don't retrospectively change the alleged reason to suit yourself! Stho002 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC) )

Want to address "as long as idiots are in the majority in the world" while you're editing your unblock request? How about a brief comment about the "shouting"? Hmmm? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, the "idiots" comment was at most a "personal attack" against the idiots in the world, but unless you count you or others here among them, it has no relevance to WP, it was merely a general comment in the heat of the moment, which has now cooled ... Stho002 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't block me for shouting, and I was shouting not in anger or offence, but in defence, as I am the one under attack here by other editors, so I was "shouting for help" ... Stho002 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• And may we know what is the so called Goal for which you are ready to use fire to fight ? Please read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND first.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

you are taking my metaphors in the heat of the moment too literally ... I just meant that my strategy from now on will be to achieve my goals of highlighting bad information in such a manner as to be absolutely impeccable in terms of respecting policy ... you see this as a bad thing???? ... Stho002 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It can be, and I assume you haven't read WP:TE. — raekyt 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and I was including WP:TE as one of the policies that I shall be going well out of my way to uphold and respect from now on ... but thanks for bringing it to my attention anyway .... Stho002 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Stho you have already tried this "fighting fire with fire" (Read as: Asking others to point wiki policies to oppose your disruptive editings) on Talk:Squat lobster and elsewhere , rather than building consensus and opting for dispute resolution. I dont see any benefit this fire fight will bring to you in the near future. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, your words don't make sense to me ... I don't know what you are on about. The "fire" analogy is meaningless, just empty words that sounded good at the time. You seem to want to impose your own subjective interpretation on my words, but how can I make myself clearer? How about this: we all (presumably) want the information on WP articles to be as reliable as it possibly can be, subject to policy restrictions ... well, that is my goal and my challenge from this moment on. Anything that came before is no longer relevant. Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC) BTW, no matter how much I am prodded, I am not going to lose my temper again, as it just doesn't achieve anything constructive ... have a nice day .... Stho002 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that I was blocked for "personal attacks", which, as I have already explained, was the result of a bad choice of words (missing out a word "if"), and is not likely to happen again, which removes the need for the block, at least according to WP blocking policy, thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

While we are at it, I notice a systematic trend in the edits of User:Stemonitis ... I have no reason to think that it is deliberate, so I will, of course assume good faith on his part. Nevertheless, it is something that needs fixing. He seems to choose a suboptimal source for many of his articles, and mention *only that source*. This tends to lead to bad information, and surely is against the spirit, if not the letter of NPOV, whereby *all* apparently reliable sources should be given equal weight and consideration? Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken ... Stho002 (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just one further word of advice. The old cliche that when you have dug yourself into a hole you should stop digging seems rather apropriate here. Instead of commenting on others you should concentrate on your own actions and try to determine how you can work with others in a collegiate fashion to build the encyclopedia. As it stands at the moment, you are only creating more problems for yourself. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the good advice Nick ... can I call you Nick?? I am and have always been more than willing to work with User:Stemonitis to try to improve the factual accuracy of some articles (whether written or not by him is irrelevant). However, "working with someone" isn't defined, in my dictionary anyway, as me making a simple and useful edit (such as adding tags to incorrect bits of information) and him then immediately reverting my edit, despite agreeing that the bits of info. were in fact incorrect! "Working with" is a symmetrical relation, but none of this has any bearing on my current block, nor the stated reasons for it ... Stho002 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just "kicking the new guy", it would be nice to see someone else taking some responsibility over the factual accuracy of WP articles, and what, if anything, we can do to improve them ... Stho002 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We're neither kicking the new guy NOR are we shirking our responsibility to improve factual accuracy. We have processes and policies in place, and they're sacred. For example, consensus+verifiability > truth. That means that yes, sometimes, the crap has to temporarily stay in until we have consensus to get rid of it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Truth by consensus, eh? Very "democratic", but has absolutely nothing to do with truth, and is wide open to abuse ... Stho002 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't, can't you see that??? Given that use of WoRMS as a source for Munididae introduces nothing but crap, and the editor who insists on using it admits that, the sensible thing to do is just to drop it as a source. That way, we don't have to tag it, because we are not using it! Stho002 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Stho002, you have a whole host of messages, warnings, and discussion on this Talk page, stretching back nearly a year. You have been explicitly told about Wikipedia's sourcing and verifiability policies a number of times, about edit-warring, and about making personal attacks on other editors - and you have even been blocked for them before. Yet you carry on regardless, you keep insisting that your own expertise and reasoning should trump Wikipedia's policies, you engage in edit-warring to do things your way, and you make personal attacks on other editors. The time when you could play the "innocent new guy" is well past, and if you're still not listening after a year, the need for stronger and stronger remedies is going to be forced upon us. I suggest you use the remaining portion of your block to read, and *understand*, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EW, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:SOCK. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Blah, blah! To quote an email from one of your own admins (who, will, of course, remain anonymous): [quote]The community has become quite toxic and a lot of editors display self entitlement, which chased off a lot of new editors.[unquote] I think that says it all, pal, don't you? Stho002 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore User:Stemonitis continues to make bad edits to Munididae, now citing a publication which doesn't exist, namely:

Komai, T. (2012). "Squat Lobsters of the Genus Munida Leach, 1820 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura: Munididae) from the Sagami Sea and Izu Islands, Central Japan". Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, Series A (Zoology) 12: 1-69.

The journal changed its name, in 2007, to Bulletin of the National Museum of Nature and Science (A), and is already up to volume 34! See: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/vol_issue/nels/AA12230284_en.html and http://ci.nii.ac.jp/vol_issue/nels/AA00587415_en.html

User:Stemonitis has clearly not actually seen the source he cites, because it doesn't exist, but has copied it from another WoRMS page (which contains nonsense yet again!), so, again it is WoRMS that is the actual source, not the publication cited above (which doesn't exist). This is extremely poor editing on the part of User:Stemonitis ... Stho002 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I would clearly be protecting this project by extending this block to indefinite. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Protecting the project from the truth, you mean? Protecting it from people who can actually notice that an article cites a nonexistent source ... protecting it from people who think that if a source makes obvious errors, then you just don't use it as a source for that article? My God, man, I must be absolute monster! Stho002 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, this is all very amusing, but it is time to fix this particular little problem (i.e. Munididae) once and for all (though the principle still remains, and is of grave concern, regarding how WP actually functions in practice). I have emailed Dr. Enrique Macpherson, who is responsible for the hastily written info. on the WoRMS page for Munididae, and I'm sure he will fix it up at that end very shortly, so then User:Stemonitis will have the self-pleasure of bumping his edit count up even further by modifying "his article" to accommodate the correction in the source (i.e., WoRMS) ... Stho002 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that it's your continued incivilty that's killing you here. If it's worth falling on your sword over an article about lobsters, God forbid you actually edit something that is actually controversial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess one of my many bad (=unpopular, apparently) habits is wanting to stick to principles of rationality, objectivity, and fairness. I don't care about lobsters, but what I do care about is WP articles that (i) cite nonexistent sources, (ii) unnecessarily cite sources that contain misinformation, and, most of all (iii) are such that nobody can fix it without first getting "consensus" [=the permission of the article "owner", User:Stemonitis in this case]. That's all ... Stho002 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, STHO. I happened to come across your talk page while searching the recent changes and even took the time to read through your talk page. Like Bwilkins mentioned above, it seems to be your uncivil comments now that are causing the biggest problem, so it may be a good idea to read up on WP:CIVIL. =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My comments are confined to my own talk page (not that I have much choice at present!), and I think you are confusing incivility with fair criticism. Saying stuff that other people don't want to hear is not incivility, and they can just stop listening. A little bit of sarcasm is not major incivility either, ... Stho002 (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

One final comment, civility and consensus work both ways. A hard-line "be civil or we will block you" response to everything that I try to say is unlikely to be effective. Not once has anybody said "OK, you have made some valid points about problems in an article, so let's discuss what, if anything, we *can* do about it". Nope! Instead, the interests of the established editor User:Stemonitis have been protected against what seems to be seen as an "invasion of territory", and he is all the while busy copying references and material that I have posted elsewhere on the web to "his" WP article. Is this the way Wikipedia is supposed to be??? I rather think not ... Stho002 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

CORRECTION: It may not have been User:Stemonitis who added the citation to the nonexistent source (Komai, 2012), I assumed it was him, but it looks like others have weighed in. At any rate, it needs to be removed ... Stho002 (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To anybody still listening, I have just obtained from Komai a PDF of his 2012 article, which was indeed incorrectly cited on WoRMS (and is currently incorrectly cited on Munididae) ... not much I can do with it here until my block expires ... so stay tuned folks! ... Stho002 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in a copy; I hadn't cited it because, as you correctly surmised, I haven't seen it. (I'd also be quite interested in an apology for the above slanders, but that may be harder to come by.) --Stemonitis (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you are not going to get a copy from me, are you??? Meanwhile I strongly recommend that you remove the mis-citation from the Munididae article, instead of going through my previous edits and making nitpicky reversions (such as removing a statement that there are currently 8 species in a certain genus, because ya reckon this is "likely to cause contradictions"). The mis-cited source is a far more serious problem, because it is being cited as a source of certain information, but by someone (not you) who hasn't seen the article, and has just copied the citation from WoRMS (which is therefore really the source). And I do apologise for assuming that you were that person, but not for anything else, as the rest is all true ... Stho002 (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

However, as a small "olive branch", and if as it seems you judge your very worth as a person by the quantity of edits you make on WP, and if you think I am a reliable source as an editor on ZooBank, you might find some citable information here http://zoobank.org/?id=urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3CE05CD0-E172-4D72-8178-4A083468304E with which you can add value to yourself ... run Forrest, run ... Stho002 (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Well you are not going to get a copy from me, are you???" Why not? I have nothing personal against you; I don't hold grudges. If you are genuinely interested in making the information here correct – and that does appear to be your overriding motivation – then it is also in your best interests to help me and everyone else. I would like to see the source first-hand, rather than a citation of it on an external site, because, as we have already established, papers can easily be mis-cited. Like everyone else, I am happy for you to make constructive edits here, but your continued personal attacks (most recently, a wayward comparison with the hilarious, popular and universally successful Forrest Gump) are likely to preclude that, which is unfortunate. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If the comparison is "wayward", then are you unfunny, unpopular, and universally unsuccessful?? Just curious! Anyway, there is a big difference between holding a grudge and going out of one's way to be helpful to someone who has hindered my every step lately on WP. Besides, you can't realistically see for yourself more than a minute fraction of articles that you really need to see to do a proper job here, so what's the point? You *have to*, and do, rely heavily on secondary sources. The ZooBank information is more than enough for your purposes ... no need to thank me for it ... oh, you didn't ... Stho002 (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, in this one instance, I would like to see the primary source, because I think it may be important. Could you please send it to me? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a saying in these parts which goes "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" Geddit?? Furthermore, I have suggested to Komai that unscrupulous people that he has never heard of might request a copy, and that it may be best to decline, but that is his call. If you have any specific questions about the content of the publication, I will consider requests for answers on their merits (i.e., bearing in mind the greater good, and not to bear grudges) ... cheery, Stho002 (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So you refuse to help, and have even worked to prevent editors such as myself from getting hold of materials that may help us. That seems unspeakably petty to me. Remember that your current block is down to your own behaviour, not anyone else's. You were blocked for making personal attacks, and they have not ceased. I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I would not now be upset if your block were made indefinite, as was mooted above. You are working against the interests of the project, so you should not be surprised if it tries to prevent you doing so. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Total rhetoric! If you weren't so territorial and edit hungry, you would not have been denied access to materials that may help the project, so it is entirely your fault. You are unhelpful to WP not only for those reasons, but because you take certain WP principles way too far, beyond breaking point, in fact, and the inevitable result will be unhelpful articles full of contradictions. You are strangling the project with your own overly zealous adherence to policies that were never intended to be taken to such extremes. Ciao, ... Stho002 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Block extended

Stho002, in the light of your continued incivility, personal attacks, battleground behaviour, and lack of collegial approach, I have upped your block to indefinite. That's not infinite, and your block can be lifted as soon as you can convince anyone that you are going to change your approach to editing.

While blocked, you have access to this Talk page only to work towards unblock, not to carry on your content dispute with another editor. If you get yourself unblocked, you can then discuss the content in a civil and constructive manner on the article's Talk page, but if you continue the argument here any further, I will revoke your ability to edit this page. So, addressing your behaviour is what you should be doing - arguing about the article and/or criticizing other editors is not what you should be doing.

Finally, Stemonitis, please stop contributing to this argument here - you too can discuss it on the article Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no great loss to me, and I think you just proved me and the anon. admin that I quoted above right ... Stho002 (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stho002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An indefinite block for having a frank exchange of views on my own talk page that was a tad sarcastic, but not potty-mouthed, vandalism, or abusive is surely an abuse of administrative powers? I have zero confidence that the blocking admin is impartial on this matter, so I seek confirmation of the appropriateness of an indefinite block from other admins. This admin seems to be telling me that I am blocked indefinitely unless he approves of what I say to other editors on my own talk page, when it isn't abusive, just "heated". This form of censorship is surely an abuse of basic human freedoms and rights? Stho002 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is common for admins to block access to a talk page if they do not perceive that it is being used to conduct a good-faith unblock dialog. If you need one additional admin to confirm that what the others are saying below is standard admin advice, I hereby confirm it. Since your talk access is now disabled, you'll need to make any further requests through WP:BASC. EdJohnston (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Coincidentally, I was writing a message declining your unblock request at the time that EdJohnston was declining it. Since I have taken the trouble to write it, I may as well post my response here, for anyone who may be interested:

OK, here is the "confirmation of the appropriateness of an indefinite block from other admins" that you asked for. I have looked at your editing history, and I saw contentious editing, persistent incivility, personal attacks, repeated refusal to assume good faith, deliberate disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, persistent I didn't hear that, endless pointless wikilawyering, edit warring, attempts to game the system, etc etc ... Then I turned to this page, and saw confirmation of similar problems, together with numerous examples of misrepresenting what others have said, in several cases even though their original words are visible on this page, so that anyone can check them. If you really can't see that you are blatantly repeatedly misrepresenting what others say, then you lack the ability to understand other's contributions, which will mean that you will probably never be able to edit collaboratively. You also appear to lack the ability to understand essential distinctions, such as distinguishing issues concerning the validity of your edits (on which I have no opinion) from issues concerning the acceptability of the methods you use to deal with other editors with whom you disagree. In any case, everything about your editing indicates that you either will not or cannot edit constructively, and that allowing you to edit here is merely wasting a good deal of other editors' time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

---

This is a private website, and there are no "freedoms" nor "rights", but rules and policies exist. One of those rules is on civility. Another is that while blocked, you may ONLY use your talkpage to request unblock. Continuing the uncivil behaviour that helped lead to your block didn't help. Humourously enough, the PDF you obtained is inadmissible as original research. Well done. Remember, "indefinite" means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur" - it's only "infinite" if you make it so, such as by submitting unblock requests like the above (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how people around here seem to think that they can string together English words in the form of "reasons" for their own subjective (and sometimes hilariously incorrect) opinions, hit me with them, and then ignore the fact that the supposed "reasons" are blatantly invalid! It really is strange. So, I have no rights on a private website!!! Please be so good as to explain why the PDF of a peer reviewed scientific paper by a respected authority, published in a reputable journal, could possibly be construed as OR!!! I suspect even User:Stemonitis is scratching his head over that one! You cannot exert censorship over what I say here, unless it is clearly abusive or infringes copyright! Have a nice day, ... Stho002 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You would need to source it to the journal itself, not to the author's original. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you are stringing words together into perfectly grammatical but entirely meaningless sentences ... very strange! The PDF that I obtained from the author is a PDF of the published paper, given to him, as author, by the journal. This is a source of the very highest reliability, and yet you seem to think the opposite is true ... why is that?? Stho002 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I was simply explaining that the journal itself is what you need, but an original submission would not be appropriate - if it is the actual journal you have, that's fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as for "You cannot exert censorship over what I say here, unless it is clearly abusive or infringes copyright!", that is false - unsourced or improperly sourced material can be removed, even if it is neither abusive nor a copyright violation, and improper use of a Talk page while blocked can be prevented. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Here" is my talk page, and I was replying to an unbelievably audacious request from User:Stemonitis for me to help him by giving him a PDF that is currently in my possession! There is no issue of unsourced/improperly sourced material here. If I am not supposed to reply to anyone on my talk page while blocked, then this is a very minor issue at worst, and self-evidently does not deserve an indefinite block, which is clearly an abuse of your administrative powers, and tantamount to enforced censorship in violation of basic human rights ... Stho002 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your block was extended to indefinite largely because of the personal attacks you made against Stemonitis after he had the "audacity" to ask for help with sourcing (which, as it happens, is what Wikipedia editors frequently do - it's supposed to be a collegial environment here, not a battle). I'd be happy to unblock you myself if you addressed your unacceptable behaviour and convinced me that you will not cause further disruption to the project. But even if I should remain unconvinced, any other admin is welcome to unblock you, or modify your block, if they are themselves convinced - they don't need to consult me. Once you get yourself unblocked, you will be welcome to pursue a complaint about my "abuse of ... administrative powers" at the appropriate venue - if you don't know how to go about it, feel free to give me a shout and I'll be happy to help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted your edits to my decline block reason, above, and have copied them outside of the unblock request - please do not interpose your arguments inside other people's unblock decline statements. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you any other orders while we are at it? Stho002 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Look, my reason for being annoyed ("uncivil") is in large part just this: User:Stemonitis insists on continuing to use WoRMS as a source for the article Munididae, and yet it adds nothing but misinformation to what can be sourced elsewhere. He doesn't dispute the misinformation, but insists on persisting with WoRMS as a source for this article nonetheless. I can, but barely, swallow the fact that to tag the errors as errors involves some element of OR, and is not allowed. Fine ... the simple and obvious solution is just to drop WoRMS as a source for this article, just don't mention it! Problem solved! Easy peasy! So why oh why isn't User:Stemonitis opting for that solution??? On another article Melangyna viridiceps, a fly that only occurs in Australia, he has dragged up an archived version of a source which has now been taken down (due, incidentally, to being considered not reliable enough) which suggests that the species is also present in New Zealand! What sort of editor acts in this manner??? One with lots of friends who are admins, it would seem, since I am currently blocked indefinitely for challenging User:Stemonitis's supposed "authority", and told that this is a private website where I don't have basic human rights or freedoms! This is beginning to sound like a story that the press might be interested in ... Stho002 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Seeing as you have continued to use this page to carry on attacking other users, to continue your content dispute, and to make veiled threats, I have revoked your ability to edit here. If another admin should judge your latest unblock request favourably and unblock you, they will restore your ability to edit here at the same time. Otherwise, if you wish to make further unblock appeals, you will need to follow the process described at WP:BASC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• I am more than happy to volunteer as a mentor Stho002 if he wants to come back and edit. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• I am also willing to do so. If he wants me to, that is, after the blunt admonition I have served him about this whole debacle. Circéus (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually I'll make that conditional. Right now he doesn't seem to understand (or accept) that he got blocked for his actions, not any scientific disagreement of any sort. Unless he demonstrate that he understands that, I don,t see that it would be really useful to try and bring him back. Yes he is an expert editor in an area where we have virtually no others, but if he can't understand that he doesn't have any clout behind him here he's just going to cause more problems. Circéus (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• I support this block, the user has been nothing but incivil both here and cross wiki!! I know of editors in the past that have left because of this users bully tactics. I would implore that he not be unblocked for an extended period of time. ZooPro 08:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I came here upon user Stemonitis who cared to mention the blocked user name... I read the whole thing here and came to a solution. If user Stho002 wants he can ask me or Ryan Vesey for assistance. I don't know how to be a mentor, but I do have time, and in case of anything blow me a whistle.:) If Stho002 wants he can also work in WikiProject Insects or Lepidoptera (Butterflies and moths), however, even there some users, like Stemonitis, for example, might seek pursuit and continue harrasing (as far as I can see).--Mishae (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)