User talk:ConfuciusOrnis/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * If you have any questions you can always go here for help too:WP:Village Pump Aaron Bowen 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the 24 Hour Knowledge Factory article
User ConfuciusOrnis:

I am the creator of the 24-Hour Knowledge Factory page, one listed as spam and 'created by a pair of single purpose accounts' by you. I implore you to please check the Social Science Research Network for this global work paradigm and read over some of the many papers that deal with this new framework. Many companies including IBM have adopted and are in the trial stages of testing the efficacy of this paradigm. A link to one of the most recent research grants given to [Dr. Amar Gupta], the creator of this paradigm, is here:

http://www.eller.arizona.edu/news/2007/01/09_IBM_honors_MIS_and_Entrepreneurship_professor_Amar_Gupta.aspx

Please do some research next time before marking something as spam. Also, I take offense at your pompous manner in labeling my article as spam partly on the grounds that it was created by single-purpose accounts. Does this mean that I cannot be a contributor unless I spend a significant amount of my time to contribute to different articles? I doubt that this contention is correct. I would appreciate your help in retrieving all the information that was written on that page. If you have access to it, I would appreciate it if you would please place it back in its original form and then contact me with any edits that you think would make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuu.david (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

"The correct transliteration is Qur'an"
Really? What is it that makes this correct? A q in English remains the same sound as a k or even a c preceding o, and there's nothing in the Latin alphabet that indicates the sound of qof, since the sound itself isn't found in any European language (not that I know of, certainly not in English). A ' indicates nothing at all in English, certainly not a glottal stop. ("Ten green bo'lz"). Does the u indicate the vowel sound following the qof? But in English useage, the combination qu equals kw, which gives us..kwran? All I'm saying is, I think you could be a little less didactic. PiCo 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Flood Geology
Nice work on the article. Cheers. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. cornis 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hey, I saw you blanked the page (except for the tag) on a page I'd tagged for speedy deletion because it was an attack page. Whilst I can understand your motivation, it is preferable that the page is left intact so it's easier for an administrator to see the current state of the article before making a decision on the deletion (as well as not placing the tag out of context and essentially making the page empty -- both of which are speedy deletion criteria in their own right). Just a heads-up since it looks from your talk page as if you're fairly new to Wikipedia. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Huxley
Well, thank you for the response. I'm just used to the system which is general in science publishing; and undecided about whether there is any objective merit. My way I can refer to different page numbers for the same author; with in-line you need to put in a new number for a different page. It can't be easy for you, either; I notice you have two Bibby refs to page 155... When reading the text myself I find it awkward not seeing what I've referred to, but that can be handled by opening a separate window so refs can be read alongside text.

Although I had hoped I was finished, actually I've got a notebook with items not yet covered; also the portraits are second-rate, and I have better ones (including one original Woodbury print in pristine condition). I'm about to visit a graphics freak who has a decent scanner. All my photos are are genuinely out of copyright. I've also got original prints for some other scientists, and the complete Vanity Fair chromolithographs for all characters relating to evolution (picked up on the Portobello Road many years ago). I think I'll end up with, say, 4 to 6 Huxleys. Then you, Fred.e and others can see what they think about them. Macdonald-ross 15:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy and Flood geology
I'm sure there's more. Good work. We have to fight the POV warriors. Homeopathy is dangerous to medicine. I've been editing an article, Herpes zoster, and I've had a couple of editors telling me how great German doctors are (and I'm Jewish with numerous close relatives not sitting my living room with me, so don't get me started about German doctors) because they use the eye of bat or ear of cockroach (OK, I know cockroaches lack ears, but I'm taking literary license here) to cure shingles. They had 10 paragraphs or so on some plant or this thing helping with the disease, when it takes just one paragraph to say, "use antivirals within 72 hours, and you'll be fine." Frustrating. As a doctor, I despise these BS claims. Anyways, I'm there with you in spirit and in editing. I'll try to keep my rants to a minimum. Orangemarlin 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your statement to fight PoV warriors. For the sake of neutrality, as is highly valued by Wikimedia, it is important to allow articles to display a point of view in addition to the plain facts, because these facts are in many cases biased by the PoV of the initial writer of the article. For example, it would be biased to remove a claim about the earth being several thousands of years, which in their case was issued as a reaction on a "plain fact" that the earth is at least 14 million years in age. I hope you see my reasoning and agree with it. Roadrunner84 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I neither see your logic, nor agree with it. Removing claims that the world is 6000 years old is not biased, if you're removing it from an article on geology, biology, cosmology or astronomy. There's not a single scrap of evidence to support the notion. All the evidence in fact points to a world that is about 4.5 billion years old, and a universe about 13 billion give or take. I suggest you read wp:npov and pay particular attention to the section under undue weight. And before you even suggest that well [insert-big-number] people believe the earth is 6000 years old so it's a significant view... those people aren't geologists, biologists, cosmologists or astronomers, so their belief has no real bearing on the scientific consensus. I mean when a US newspaper runs opinion polls to gauge dubya's approval rating, they don't bother polling voters in Holland do they? ornis 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is stubborn and flawed, I mean not to insult you, but merely to clarify your thinking. You state the undue weight section, but seem not interested in the amount of people supporting a certain world view, according to your insert-big-number scoff. Then again, your reasoning about voting is flawed simply because all Americans (age given) are allowed to vote, no matter their knowledge about politics. Your way of separating them with knowledge from those who don't is certainly based on how much of their assumptions are coherent with yours, not on their knowledge in a certain area. If you want, read some articles on Answers in Genesis especially those about the difference between faith/religion and science, and those about Christian scientists. By removing comments about (for example) young earth views you are not maintaining neutrality of an article, in fact you are censoring it, pulling it away from neutrality. You might be certain there is too much (as the undue weight section proclaims) information about a certain view, that's okay. However I encourage you to research the popularity of a given view (is it really as unpopular as you deem it to be?) and instead of removing, shortening the section. By removing article data you do not contribute, yet vandalize. By compacting it's data you increase neutrality, information density, richness and completeness of the article. Roadrunner84 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mate, don't you dare presume you can "clarify my thinking", you're really wearing my patience thin. You also don't seem to have grasped the analogy about US magazines not polling dutch voters... they don't poll them, not because they lack political nouse, but because Dutch voters don't have vote in US elections... just as Joe Creationist ( not being a geologist ) doesn't have any input on current theories of earth... you see the analogy? No I don't suppose you do... oh and don't talk to me about the difference between faith and reason, you aren't doing your position much good... lets see... You accuse me of being wrong-headed and stubborn, you either deliberately misrepresent ( or simply fail to understand ) what I said, you basically repeat what you said the first time... oh, and you ignored the physical evidence... how appropriate. ornis 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to insult or hurt you, I'm sorry if I did. Why may people with another world view than your own not mingle in a discussion about world views? If you just read any of the articles on the website I mentioned earlier you can see that there are quite a few honored scientists who believe, and found convincing evidence, and support the young earth view. In short; Joe Creationist can very well be a (honored and accepted) geologist. 89.98.229.86 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. A Creationist in the natural sciences cannot study the field because they fundamentally are not scientists.  There are no "honored and accepted" Joe Creationist geologists.Orangemarlin 07:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Herpes zoster
If you're bored, can you stop by this article which I just got to GA status. I've got a couple of Euro-POV Homeopathic warriors trying to get the article to say that if you go to a tribal herbalist in Uganda while standing on your head during a full moon, you can cure shingles. Orangemarlin 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. User:Jagra is getting on my nerves.  He is using quote mining and other techniques to prove a point.  Like the one about Pubmed and shingles + treatment.  95% of the peer reviewed (not review articles or articles from the Journal of Herbal Medicine in the Arctic) articles stress that antivirals within 24-72 hours are your only choice.  After than, some of the articles suggest what else can be done (including going to more powerful antivirals).  I am so freaking tired of these POV warriors.  It's reminding me of Creation science.  Orangemarlin 06:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jagra is beginning to push it. Am I seeing things wrong, or am I correct that his edits are not supportable?  He seems to be taking one or two sentences out of context in a couple of peer-reviewed journals, none of which, in total, support anything close to what he's claiming.  Everything I read indicates that these alternatives are really out on the fringe of medical science.  I accept that science will find alternative drugs, such as Paclitaxel which derives from a botanical source.  But it was thoroughly tested for safety and efficacy before it was widely used.  You just can't cut down a Yew and put it on a cancer and expect a cure.  I'm tired of this junk medicine.  And I'm really tired of Jagra's edit warring.  Orangemarlin 07:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are bored, please see what our friend is writing. I'm really frustrated with his babbling (which frankly is incoherent), so it's your turn.  Please :)  Orangemarlin 05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Duncan Campbell (revivalist)
I have undertaken a major expansion of the article. Would you please reconsider your vote for AFD? Peterkingiron 15:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Hi Ornis,

I noticed that the Homeopathy talk page got a big heated over the weekend. Tony Mobily has shown himself to be cooperative and understanding when we assume good faith. You might want to reread the discussion and notice the change in tone after your initial comment. The discussion has gone downhill and I can't really blame Tony for this.

Please keep in mind that the discussion isn't about Homeopathy's effectiveness. Rather, it's about neutrality in the intro. It would be more useful to help Tony understand how negative comments can actually make an article more neutral. I hope you can continue to contribute to the discussion but please AGF. Thanks Ornis!Pdelongchamp 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science
I agree with you...Ugh. This from thie IRC is priceless, "...radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error..." Gee, what mechanism might explain the change in decay rates? Well, depending on how you play with relativity acceleration could, but since the earth moved faster earlier on, the rate would actually be slower. Hmmm. Oh wait, that's only in the scientific view that the Earth moved faster, I keep forgetting the planet is only 10K years old. Anyway, cheers. :)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's pretty sad when the other loonies in the loonie-bin think you're a loonie. Sometimes I can't decide if these guys are trying to convince others that creationism is true, or if they are merely trying to convince themselves.  (It'd be a bitch to miss the Rapture, eh?)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen Blackadder (although not that episode) -- it's occasionally on BBC-America. I'm also partial to Monty Python, Are You Being Served and AbFab.
 * As for the Rapture, it's an interesting study in how the hyper-religious can create "something" out of absolutely nothing. Besides, the Rapture reminds me of Heaven's Gate and Hale-Bopp.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd never heard of Black Books, I'll have to look for it, especially as it is described as being "surreal" and as having "a lot of word-play" -- sounds good to me! I think I've only seen about half of the first season of Blackadder, and I must've missed that one.  I'll just have to look for the series on DVD.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing disputed tag
Please be aware that removing a disputed tag without responding to the objections that give rise to it is considered a violation of guidelines and common practice in Wikipedia. I would recommend that you revert your edit, respond to my points, and see if we can arrive at a consensus. If you do not, I will revert you, and if you persist will report you to the incidents board. --Leifern 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will you? Considering the fact, that you made unilateral changes without discussion or reference to the consensus, then started a disruptive edit war when your changes where reverted... all I can say is "Please Brer Fox! Don't go to the incidents board!" ornis 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not reverted once. You and your compatriot have reverted once each. --Leifern 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Rev POV edits - look up weasel words mean and see Talk" That is your edit summary isn't it?ornis 01:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be COMPATRIOTS. More than one.  Those of us who think the article is NPOV, not because it allows all claims equally.  Nope, NPOV insists that much more weight be given to verified references, which the article has.  Please continue to threaten edit warring, because it will certainly help your cause.  Orangemarlin 07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Even more help
Watch Atheism. Edit warriors no attacking. Orangemarlin 17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please look at what you moved to my talk page
If you analyze what you have moved you will see that most of what was 'clogging up the talk page' was not me. Why have you not chastized the others that were 'clogging up the talk page'? Octoplus 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * no it was pretty much just you that was disrupting the talk page. ornis 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I suggest you read with care the guidelines at wp:troll, Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newcomers, and that you stick closely to the procedures outlined at Resolving disputes. Banno 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Herbalism
Time to clean up this pseudoscientific piece of dung. Hopefully, you're up for it!!!! Once more, into the breech. Orangemarlin 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Improved, but I cannot believe this crap. Orangemarlin 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's coming along though. Wonder how long before the herbal healer turn up. ornis 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

More help
Our favorite POV warrior from Herpes zoster has been editing Chronic fatigue syndrome and Postherpetic neuralgia with the same unsourced junk science. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Orangemarlin 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The CFS article is filled with junk. I'm editing, but a couple of POV warriors are reverting.  Orangemarlin 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Our favorite pseudoscientific herbalist is back at Chronic fatigue syndrome. Orangemarlin 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He's back]!!!!


 * You certainly know how to pull peoples strings orangemartin? I wonder what Orin really thinks of your rantings after the Break in Shingles, he doesn't comment here, though? Your unsubstantiated personal attacks are wearing thin with me, let me see homeophathy, crystals, pyramids, pseudoscience, herbalist, fringescience, when all the time it was your RS and V that you were defending? I wonder if you class me as a POV warrior or is that just for Orin's benefit? cant be as I have yet to revert anything on CFS yet?.I wonder what the CFS folks would think of your rantings?

I respect Orin for his neutrality and balance, yes i am guilty of OR, it is an old professional habit, hard to break, but at least i stay away from personal attack, hardly professional?.Jagra

(RI)Yes, well, wikipedia is not a research journal, so OR, for better or worse is not acceptable, and the sooner you can accept that the better. Honestly, fighting an edit war isn't going to make any of the articles any better. And he's not 'pulling my strings' I looked at your edits, read your source and concluded that they where OR. And I don't tend to reply here, because I prefer generally to reply on the talk of the person messaging me. ornis 07:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch
Could you explain your edit? --Ronz 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I must. ornis 08:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Folklore
I will rename the other categories when i have time note this is Java7837 76.216.84.3 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just undid all of Java's/anon IP's POV-pushing edits, per the warnings given last time. This person just doesn't learn. DreamGuy 14:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Why can't I correct an error I made some time ago in the article? I provided several sources. Why does anyone revert and deny discussion? --rtc 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Silly rabbit 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism== ==

Have you read the pseudoskepticism article and QW Talk page material? I saw no discussion at Talk from you which is often considered customary and constructive in these situations.--I&#39;clast 11:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved
Moved off topic ranting to rts' talk page ornis 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this userfying to minimize Rtc's disruption, and for not only his rants, but for any repeat objections to article content or objections that misrepresent or ignore sources. FeloniousMonk 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now go look what some POV warrior did to Talk:Creation science. This is tiresome.  Orangemarlin 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biology
OK, fighting wars against the POV warriors is one thing. But we need you to help build an article that needs it. Surprisingly, Biology is rubbish, given that it is the basic precept to a whole host of articles. Can you help build it? I don't care if you're a biologist or not, you can clean up language, add thoughts, fix the structure. Orangemarlin 07:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look then. ornis 12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion on talk:Creation science
Please do not re-insert vast amounts of archived material into the article. Doing so may be considered vandalism. Please feel free to re-insert any text that you think is needed to get the discussion going again - but keep it short. Banno 12:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Take this as a polite warning. If you again re-insert a large block of archived material into talk:Creation science, as you did here I will consider it vandalism, and I will place a temporary block on your account. But please feel free to enter into a productive discussion on the talk page. Banno 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a twelve-hour block on your account after this edit. You will be able to edit again after that period expires. Please take the time now to consider what you are doing. Archiving material on a talk page is standard procedure on the Wikipedia. Your re-insertion of large blocks of archived material is disruptive, since it prevents some users from accessing the page, and pointless, since all that material is accessible in the archive and page history. You are welcome to re-insert material that is germane to the development of the article, provided you explain why. Banno 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Time to get the opinions of other Admins I think. Also, Spartaz' reply appears to have been based on a lack of understanding of what was really going on on the talk page.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my assessment, seems to me he didn't bother to read the talk page in question. ornis 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You got blocked for cleaning up the mess of another editor? Oh, this needs to be fixed.  Orangemarlin 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Banno over-stepped and over-reacted, and his sole defence sems to be "let's move on". Uh, no.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(ri) I'm still mystified as to what his reason for wanting the talk page blank could possibly be.ornis 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask someone without broadband to explain it to you. –Fatalis 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * piss off. ornis 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ornis, watch WP:NPA (I know you're mad, but...)
 * Fatalis, do you make the same request of websites you are using to research an article? It is no one's fault that you do not have broadband, and pretty much every website out there today requires broadband to load properly.  We cannot archive pages containing active threads simply for convenience purposes (or really, for any other purpose).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First, my comment does not say that I don't have broadband, and second, 200 to 400 KiB talk pages are not appropriate by any measure. It was clearly suggested both after the original archiving, and re-archiving by Banno, that you should restore the active threads, but he was restoring some long dead ones too, even after being personally warned not do that. –Fatalis 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will you stop missing the point? And no, neither I nor ornis nor anyone else should have had to resore the active threads -- Banno should have been more careful in basically repeating your error.  Also, as I noted elsewhere the warning was bullshit and out-of-process, in fact several other admins weighed in to support my take on the block and the archive process.  See, if you do something wrong, you just admit it and say you're sorry.  It's quite simple.  I sincerely hope you've learned from this.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't make unsubstantiated accusations, and wind down a bit. –Fatalis 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

appeal block
I'm going to grant the unblock request. The claim of "vandalism" justifying this block appears to be baseless. There's nothing at WP:VAN that supports blocking an editor who, acting in good faith, repeatedly restored an archived discussion. Not even close. In fact, WP:VAN says just the opposite: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Looking over the history of Talk:Creation science, it seems to me ConfuciusOrnis was trying do the right thing. FeloniousMonk 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)}}

Keep the faith
I think that Banno needs a reprimand for his actions herein. This is appalling. Orangemarlin 05:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also surprised this happened. The block is very short, but I'm not sure why a block was necessary. Many of those comments were old, and could have been archived, but a block for restoring them...? Firsfron of Ronchester  05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See here and follow his advice. In fact, check out his talk page, his replies are pretty combattive and don't seem to be in Wikipedia's best interests.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This situation has gotten completely out of hand. Look at this.  I am flabbergasted.  Orangemarlin 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ornis, e-mail me if you wish.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
Suspected sock puppets/Raspor. Thanks. Orangemarlin 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Creation science
Just a note to let you know that I have asked for comment on this issue at Administrators' noticeboard. Banno 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My block on you
While I continue to think that your editing was disruptive, I now accept that it was more likely to be the result of ignorance of the archiving process on your part than deliberate malice, and that I acted hastily in blocking you. I apologise, and I formally withdraw the block. Banno 11:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Ornis, I have started this RfC: Requests for comment/Banno. The lack of apologies and pointing of blame to others is not acceptable. Even though you wanted it to end, his continued intransigence in this matter was unacceptable. Orangemarlin 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at Naturopathic medicine. While reverting vandalism is an exception to the three-revert rule, the edits you reverted were not vandalism. You have been blocked before for this exact same thing, so I strongly advise you to take some time during your block to read the vandalism policy; edits made in good faith, no matter how bold, are never vandalism, and labelling them as such does not mean you are free to violate 3RR. Kafziel Talk 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding here. Ornis was trying to keep a vandal from ruining the article.  Several other editors jumped in to help out too.  These were not good faith edits by the anonymous vandal, it was vandalism.  This is so unfair to him.  Orangemarlin 23:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me some vandalism, and I'll reconsider. I've looked through the edits and I don't see any. Kafziel Talk 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't think 14 reverts qualifies as some level of vandalism? I guess I have a different definition. Then the anonymous vandal deserves 10X the punishment you give CO. Orangemarlin 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have a different definition, then you're wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion - it's Wikipedia's definition, not mine. By my count, ConfucisOrnis reverted the article 14 times today. There is absolutely no excuse for that; even if it was vandalism, a report should have been made at the vandalism noticeboard long before that. Kafziel Talk 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I might have to drop Ornis an email on how file a 3RR report, because this should have ended long ago.  Orangemarlin 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)