User talk:Chealer

Archives

Chealer has been globally banned by the Wikimedia Community from editing Wikimedia sites.

WP:PROD

Yo Chealer, regarding your proposed deletion of Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism: PROD is only to be used for uncontroversial deletions that do not meet the speedy criteria. It's a safe bet that very few political articles will be uncontroversial deletions. Furthermore, not only does the article meet the general notability guideline, it asserts as such in the very article. This article would very likely survive an AfD. As suich, it was a very poorly considered choice to propose it for deletion, and I urge you to be a little more careful and if possible try and research topics before proposing them for deletion in future. Sincerely, the skomorokh 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this deletion is uncontroversial. Of course, this doesn't mean that no one in the world would oppose the deletion. The article doesn't meet the general notability guideline...we'll see if it survives its AfD. --Chealer (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux for PlayStation 2 clarification?

You put up a tag on the Linux for PlayStation 2 article a request for clarification. I read the sentence up to where you placed the tag and was unable to determine what needed clarifying. Could you visit the article's talk page and explain what is confusing or unclear for you? Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I was wondering what PS2 Linux meant. --Chealer (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You again put 'clarification' tags on the Linux for PlayStation 2 article. You put two tags on the phrase "PS2 Linux" however, there are many references to that phrase. The entire article addresses "PS2 Linux" and "Linux for PlayStation2." So again, I am unsure what is confusing or unclear. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article doesn't define "PS2 Linux".--Chealer (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Though you could have probably made the same edit and the issue would have been resolved. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C2Net notability

Hi Chealer. I see you marked C2Net as not notable in May 2008. C2Net played an early history in the first SSL-enabled webservers. SSLeay became OpenSSL. So I think the company is notable from a historical perspective. You deleted some links that established notability as well. Can you clarify? Note: I'm not the author of the article and have never been associated with C2Net, just remember them from the mid-1990's.

Sidfilter (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sidfilter. First, I didn't mark C2Net as not notable, I only marked it as being possibly not notable. The article doesn't give a clear picture of what was the status of SSL-enabled webservers at the time Stronghold was released. I may be "wrong" and C2Net may be notable. Regarding the links, I'm not sure which ones you're thinking about. --Chealer (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feather Linux

This page was deleted after you PRODded it a while back, but has now been restored after a request at today's DRV. You can AFD it if you wish. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I went for the AfD. --Chealer (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentoo ARM/MIPS citation needed

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Linux_distributions&diff=279308061&oldid=278952237 . Why did you add the citation needed stuff? The links provided are clear enough, IMHO.

Thanks --Armin76 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for an actual citation that says that MIPS and/or ARM are supported by Gentoo Linux. The current links show that there was work for getting Gentoo on MIPS on ARM, but they don't tell the status of the projects. --Chealer (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

m68k support

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Linux_distributions&diff=prev&oldid=275844378 <- why did you remove m68k? Armin76 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the distributions listed was known for supporting m68k. The real reason is that nobody uses m68k anymore these days.--Chealer (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're wrong. Have a look at http://www.debian.org/ports/m68k/ Armin76 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually right. Anyway, I reported the issue with this page in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532810. --Chealer (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran 655

Hey Chealer,

I broke the reference because the reference doesn't meet Wikipedia Reliable sources guidelines [1]. (It goes back to a thesis "The Iran-Iraq war: the politics of aggression" By Farhang Rajaee from the university of Tehran that reads like a political tract. It's scholarship that isn't peer reviewed from a well-regarded academic press and has no scholarly citations.

Thanks for letting me know though, the whole page needs work actually and I can't seem to find the time. ````V7-sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by V7-sport (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EduLinux

I deprodded as it has quite a bit of news coverage. Fr Wikipedia has a slightly longer stub, so I'm going to use that and the news coverage to expand the article. Fences&Windows 23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi there, thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. I should indeed consolidate my edits into fewer but sizeable ones, but I've been a bit lazy regarding them, especially when edits are necessary between subsections! Nevertheless, I'll try to make the edits more meaningful. Thanks again. :) --CoolingGibbon (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, can DistroWatch be cited? I'd like to move Trustix and EnGarde back to their respective subsections, but want to clarify it first.

DistroWatch can be cited, though that doesn't mean DistroWatch is always a sufficient source. I don't consider its reliability to be great. --Chealer (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SYS Linux Distribution

The SYS distro exists already some years, without big changes (besides of updates). All Linuxdistros have their short wiki page. Like on them, on the page for SYS was tried to explain within an article of 1-2 print pages, the most important characteristics of the distro - specially what distinguishes this distro from other distros in a positive sense, as required from the wiki politics and discused with or even suggested by earlier reviewers of the wiki page.

Thus, to my opinion, it shouldn't changed too much, and not removed important characteristics.

Last time, was removed f.ex. these characteristics:

1) * Fully-automated installation; 10–30 minutes typically, quick and simple for new users.^{[citation needed]}

2) * Reliable, fast mirrors.^{[citation needed]}

3) * A non-commercial , free distro, independent of commercial or other short-term politics^{[citation needed]}

An important source is the program's project page at Softpedia and at Linuxquestions.org . There are given extended informations. They were readed by thousands of persons, and also made thousands of downloads (see p.ex. the download counter at softpedia), and when there would be wrong descriptions about the distro, then users would have left a comment / reclamation or bad votation.

The wiki page contains only a very compacted explanation of these details.

To 1: It's one of the most important characteristics and origin of the SYS distro, for make it most easy for beginners, that the installation is full AUTOMATICALLY. This is short explained, with a few words (and this proportionally / reasonably short) in the wiki page, and more detailed in the sources just explained. How I could explain this important and unique characteristics of the distro more short ???? Also, interested people can simply try it out, download the install .iso from the quoted mirrors and install it from a DVD or USB key.

To 3: There are some comercial and many no-comercial distros, so that in the wiki page, according to the wiki guides how to obtain it, it's given the information that it's gratis (and downloadable from the mirrors). Also - what's important for the reliability over long time - is given theinformation that SYS will not dependon short-term profit orprofit-deception. Also this is more detailed explained in the quoted sources. And can be verified imediately, clicking the link to themirrors, where everything is gratis downloadable and notpresent any comercial or limited version.

To 2: The most important mirrors are given in he wikipage itself. One can see directly, that this are mirrors kept at university institutes, which keep a certain standard and (at least some of them) check out the distros stocked there. This is an opposite to distros which are stocked only on 1 or 2 mirrors (like, f.ex: paldo, goblinx -which seems to have no working mirror anymore, and many other distros). There were even canceled some SYS mirrors which stopped to work good.

University mirrors are not always reliable. Feel free to restore these claims if you can accompany them with reliable references.

To my opinion, can be improved the english of the article, but I think the contens is already so short that almost nothing can be make shorter without to miss any 'minimum contens' rule of wiki for linux distros. It should be observed that similar informations give also the other distros.

Information on mirrors is rare on Wikipedia. It's granted that a project notable enough to be covered in an encyclopedia should have a reliable and fast mirrors network. --Chealer (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also should be observed, that SYS is not one of these minimum distros; in opposite it's a big distro with many thousands of own packages (and probeably one of the fastest to compile and provide new linux kernel .tgz packages -- whilst a big part of other distros nor provide own kernel packages at all, but take them from others like Debian, RedHat etc). Also, SYS brings already appr. 18 GB programs (lzma-highly-compacted) on the install DVD what installs this huge system between 10 to 40 min. Therefore, I think the wiki page is reasonable short about all relevantaspects of the distro.

There is a 'war' between distrowatch anda very few numbers of other info pages, which don't want to report about SYS. In revange, in SYS in /etc/host are blocked these web pages, and the user is conducted to SYS-friendly concurrence of them. Also, for users in France, the installation stops, because of the open-source-enemy french law (shall theyspend their money to M$ !!). This are also special characteristis mentioned only very abreviated in the SYS wiki page.

wl

RHEL

Hi there. Any ideas on the Distrowatch concerns I raised? Talk:Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_derivatives#Distro_popularity--Rfsmit (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Entanglement

Hi. You added a "clarification needed" tag in the Quantum entanglement article, but was not specific enough for me to understand what you didn't understood. Could you please clarify what does need clarification? Cheers. Tercer (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked to clarify why Alice's measurement would result in an unpredictable series of measurements that will tend to a 50% probability of her half-coin being "heads" or "tails". --Chealer (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's just an assumption of the experiment, that they will assign the half-coins to each other with 50% probability. Actually, that's not important. Any non-zero (or non-one) probability will do. The point of the half-coin story is the correlation: Alice has heads, Bob has tails. I've rewrote that part, hope it's better now. Tercer (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I don't feel significantly closer to understanding the example. I don't see how putting the half-coin in an envelope then getting it out changes anything. It says "Alice then measures her half-coin, by opening her envelopes." Is "envelopes" supposed to be singular? My partial understanding wants Alive to have one envelope for her only half-coin, and Bob to have one envelope for his. --Chealer (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a typo. The point of the envelope is to emphasize that the state of the half-coin is unknown, i.e., can be described only by a probability, until Alice opens it and check what is inside. This simulates the particles: they do not have a definite spin in the up-down direction, and can only be described by a probability of turning up or down when measured.

What I am trying to do is to give a concrete mechanism through which Alice will get a random bit which is anti-correlated with Bob's. A server who generates random bits and sends them to Alice, while sending the negation of these bits to Bob would have the same effect. Tercer (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I understood now. --Chealer (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relativism

Last week you placed on my talkpage an ambiguously worded request concerning the terms relativist and relativistic. I duly replied to that request *on my talkpage* and as you did not reply at all I deleted it all later. Please do not ask people things on their talkpage and then just not be bothered to go back there and see what they said by way of reply. Doing so seems rather rude and cavalier. If you check my talkpage history you will see that I did not know initially what your point was but replied anyway. However, I later realised what you were driving at and changed the wording on the relativism article from relativist to relativistic. Hope this clarifies. many thanks Peter morrell 19:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "just not bothered" to go back to your page, I just hadn't done it so far. I do have tons of things to do, and even if I had known as soon as you replied, I cannot guarantee to reply in 24 hours. I did not even receive anything when you replied. Last time I checked there was no way to do so, but now perhaps putting a watch on the page and removing it when you get a reply would be a fairly efficient way to proceed?

Your change does clarify, thank you. --Chealer (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just noticed this at the end of the notification mail i received when you created this Relativism section: "This email notification feature was enabled on English Wikipedia in May 2011". So yeah, that's a welcome new feature and I'll be sure to try the "workflow" I described above. --Chealer (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, that just works for your own user talk page. So I'm afraid you should keep not expecting a reply in 24 hours - at all (unless you reply on my own page). --Chealer (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'm sorry I did expect a reply on my talkpage but wiki is confusing about this cuz some folks always post and reply on both and others just leave it to pot luck. I wasn't over-concerned about a *quick reply* per se, but was just initially baffled by what you actually wanted cuz I thought the issue was more about the berlin quote and not the wording I had used...so let's leave it if that's OK and thanks for clarifying and I hope my tweek to the article solves the original problem. cheers Peter morrell 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I completely agree that Wikipedia needs to do better for discussions. I did not and still do not realize that my request was ambiguous, but I'm sorry if that's the case. Your edit absolutely solves the original problem. --Chealer (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion arises from the term relativist which means the same as relativistic. The noun and adjective mean the same thing and are used interchangeably over here. Berlin was a relativist and so his position is that of a relativist. Therefore the phrase "adopted a relativist position," which you do not like and prefer "adopted a relativistic position." I would argue the latter is confusing while the former is much clearer. To say it was a relativist position means he adopted the position of a relativist, which he was. To say it was relativistic is less clear because it kind of implies his position was relativistic and so possibly variable and inconstant. It wasn't either of those things; he seems always to have been a relativist. Does this clarify why your comment was confusing to me? Anyway, I hope this tangled matter is now closed! thanks for your help. Peter morrell 06:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. First, I have nothing against the adjective "relativist" if it exists. I just saw that it is not recorded in Wiktionary and only appeared once in the article, so I thought its usage may have been an error. Disclaimer: I am not a native English speaker. If both exists, I would tend to think that "relativistic" would be less ambiguous as it cannot be a noun, only an adjective. Now, I somewhat understand the ambiguity you saw, but I fail to see why the same ambiguity wouldn't exist with "relativist" (considering it would mean the same as "relativistic"). Thanks --Chealer (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compose key

Concerning Compose key ... you don't write number of an Unicode character, but a characters themselves. Take a look for example at /usr/share/X11/locale/en_US.UTF-8/Compose (or wherever it is in your distribution). When you write

<Compose>tm

you get ™

Ceplm (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matej. FWIW, you had not forgotten me, it's just that we discussed the matter via IRC, over 4 years ago :-) I looked at the file though, and it's amazing how many sequences there are! --Chealer (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Réponse

Philipe
Veuillez voir User talk:Peter Horn#Link from Metrication in Canada Peter Horn User talk 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dual calibrated speedometers

Hi Philippe
I am inviting your input at Talk:Metrication/Archive 1#Dual calibrated speedometers. Peter Horn User talk 21:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but unfortunately, learning to drive is still on my TODO list :-S --Chealer (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have "fun". Peter Horn User talk 23:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Petrov

Hi, You have been involved in editing the article about Stanislav Petrov in the past. Following a discussion about splitting biographical data about the man involved from the article of the incident, I have been bold and made a cut at the changes required however I wanted to invite you to have a look at my edits on Stanislav Petrov and 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident and make any changes you think are required. Thanks! --Deadly∀ssassin 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeadlyAssassin. It is good in one way to have 2 articles, but this also causes a fair amount of duplication. The topics are extremely tied. The man clearly wouldn't have an article without the incident. Anyway, I'm not sure what's best. I do note that the internal and external links on Stanislav Petrov are largely about the incident and not personal.

Anyway, I looked at the articles. These are much better than what they used to be. There are still several problems with references and facts, but I flagged all those I saw. It's amazing that our sources about this topic are still so few and low-quality. I hope the articles continue to improve. Thanks for your work. --Chealer (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTML5

Sorry, that part was not supposed to be changed on my edit. Just fixed it (with an IP). Gallaecio (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I made another edit which I hope fixes the problem for good. --Chealer (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spotchecking

Hello, do you have experience in source spotchecking? LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry, I never heard about spotchecking, so I was going to say no, but after looking up what spotchecking is, I guess I did that quite a bit. However, I never made the effort of verifying content attributed to a source which is not accessible online. I am curious to know why you're asking. --Chealer (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone to spotcheck the giraffe article. It failed FA status due to some close paraphasing of the sources. I recently went back and re-pharphased the sources I have available. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, but I don't have the time to do this. --Chealer (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Please see the advice regarding 3RR which I left at User talk:Machine Elf 1735#Your complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. If you were to offer at WP:AN3 to stop reverting and follow dispute resolution that may be a good way to avoid sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I am not sure I understand who you [intended to] address, but I am the reporter. The one reported is User:Machine Elf 1735. In any case, I have no intention of reverting anymore, I am hoping other people will intervene now that administrators were informed. Thanks --Chealer (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, you're the reporter in the 3RR case and Machine Elf is the one reported. I'm still concerned about the behavior of both parties. An edit war that starts in one place and then spreads out to essay or guideline pages (that bear on the dispute) is an event that we have seen before, and it's highly unrecommended. If you still have concerns about Materialism and Naturalism (philosophy) please use RfCs or find some other way to bring in outsiders. I am planning to close the 3RR case with warnings to both parties if the dispute has actually stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do still have concerns about Materialism, Naturalism (philosophy), and in fact, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary too now. Machine Elf 1735's edit summaries in his latest reverts to these articles were:

These reversions are explained based on an assumption of bad faith in the reverted changes, rather than justified for their own merit. If the problem is an assumption of bad faith, I do not think any amount of comments will address that, unless RfCs include requests for comments on intentions... This may not apply to the fourth reversion, whose edit summary I find unintelligible. All of these edits were done after the contributor was pointed to Wikipedia:Civility.

In all this, the contributor went to a Talk page once, but only to rehash the accusation of abuse.

To summarize, the assumption of bad faith mixed with the feeling of ownership prevents change. Resolving any of these issues without civility doesn't look promising. Considering that the contributor is aware of the 3RR, has already been pointed to Wikipedia:Civility and to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, I do not think a warning is necessary or would help a lot. However, if you believe that will suffice, I would appreciate if you could monitor the situation's evolution. Thank you --Chealer (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued warring at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing

The page at WP:Close paraphrasing is one of those which was recently cited at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Chealer (Result: Both warned). You have continued to revert to your preferred version of Close paraphrasing, apparently in the effort to show that Machine Elf was wrong in that a dispute that started at two philosophy articles. One of your reverts was here on 11 March, and you have edited the page seven times altogether since March 1. If you continue to revert Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing before getting a consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I unfortunately could not revert to my preferred version of Close paraphrasing, due to lack of consensus. As the edit summary mentions, the new version is suboptimal. It was only adopted to keep consensus (see the discussion on the Talk page for more information). That edit was not a revert.

Thanks anyway --Chealer (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is something which enjoys general support. The fact that your change was undone by Moonriddengirl suggests that you did not succeed in 'keeping consensus' with your change. I actually could not find anyone on the talk page who agrees with you. If you will consider creating an RFC, that is one way to clarify what does or does not have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a surprise, but "consensus" is not static, it can change at any time. Regarding the RFC, Moonriddengirl just did that. Thanks anyway --Chealer (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.36 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.217 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arfa Karim

Hello Chealer! Can you please clarify a little about the {{fact}} tag you added Arfa Karim? Btw have you seen source for that statement, it may help. Regards --SMS ^Talk 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smsarmad. I saw the source, but it's unfortunately not about Arfa Karim. Her brand ambassador title is mentionned, but the article doesn't specify which achievement is referred to. The parenthesis recently added to our article implies that becoming Microsoft Certified professional at the age of nine years is the achievement that made her earn her ambassador title, but no source is given to support that. --Chealer (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit notice on Free content

The header is there because Free content is continuously prominently linked from the Main Page. See also the header on Wikipedia:Introduction. L Faraone 05:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so presumably you consider that since the main page is more often accessed by newcomers, and since the pages it links to will consequently be more often accessed by newcomers, Free content is more often accessed by newcomers and finally more often edited by newcomers. If that's the only rationale for the notice, I'll add an explanation to that effect. Thanks --Chealer (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. L Faraone 00:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental economics edit

Ah. I'll have to drop a note to the WP:CLEANER folks to get the code updated. From what you said, it appears that every poly line needs a link at the end, so WikiCleaner shouldn't flag those as needless links to the same page. Thanks for letting me know. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 05:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plural (voting)

Hi, Are you willing and able to contribute at Talk: Plurality (voting)#British Usage?

Hi P64, thanks for contacting me. I would like to contribute, but I am not a native English speaker, all I can do is to notice that the article is currently contradictory and mis-structured. I tagged the article as requiring cleanup. --Chealer (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --P64 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page

Nice edits on Wikipedia. Sometimes I really wonder what happened to Knol, or what Google was thinking.. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta general election, 2012

I am confused about your confusion of Alberta general election, 2012. What do you mean by "it is unclear which shares presented"? 117Avenue (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. I tried to clarify. Let me know if I failed. I also did a second try to make it clear when the PC leadership race was. Sorry if you still see an issue. I know that 2011 is mentioned soon after, but it wasn't clear that the promise was also done in 2011. --Chealer (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec City

Way back in February you added a clarify tag to the article which I just noticed. I've tried to explain it but could you have a look and see if it makes sense? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, your note definitely elucidates the sentence, thank you. However, I found it didn't prevent the original "uh?" moment, so I looked for a way to improve the text. The explanation is non-trivial, so I looked for a similar article expressing the same thing satisfyingly and found a proper formulation in Edmonton. I copied that to Quebec City and hope this clarifies. I still left your note for now. --Chealer (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm Aunva6. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Radeon without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! in table, sources are always at the bottom, as per the manual of style -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Aunva6. If the reason for some change is unclear, please ask on the article's Talk page. It would help if you could indicate which change you consider problematic. This could be done by linking to the "Difference between versions" page. You may also notify me of your comment to make sure it is not missed (the Talkback template allows doing this). Thanks --Chealer (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the template didn't say what I wanted, i guess. the manual of style says that tables have their refs at the bottom. there are refs stating that the HD 7000 series is southern islands. please stop removing sourced information from the page. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references. One of the references added supports the HD 8000 series case. However, I don't see any of them stating that HD 7000 series cards are Southern Islands, so the original problem remains. Please quote or refer to them in the relevant cell so it's clearer which reference is supposed to support the problematic cell. --Chealer (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed this; please verify. 7xxx is spread across northern/southern/sea, unfortunately. The marketing-names do not correspond to the engineering-names. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the fix is good. Thank you! --Chealer (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Visio

Hello, Philippe

The first time I reverted this edit, I thought it is done by 62.190.38.62. Otherwise, I know better than to ever use the word "vandalism" in conjunction with a Wikipedia veteran who has been here since 2004 and have done over 8000 edits.

But there is something even worse than that: It is a veteran of English Wikipedia persisting on alerting a healthy English link to a link that points to a French web page. This is an act that bears the very mark of vandalism. Persistence turns the person from one who deserves an apology into a vandal. So, next time, if you feel I have mistakenly labeled something as vandalism, please come to my talk page. I do not shy from apologizing for my mistakes. In addition, if it is not vandalism, then it is an edit dispute and merits carrying out WP:BRD.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Codename Lisa,

Vandalism can be persistent, just like anti-vandalism can be persistent. Persistence does not imply vandalism, deliberateness does. Linking to a French web page on the English Wikipedia was of course not deliberate. Please see vandalism on what vandalism is and how to deal with (presumed) vandalism.

Reversions are not necessarily due to edit disputes or vandalism. Simple errors (like typos) call for reversions (sometimes partial).

Anyway, thanks for spotting the error, and sorry about that. Regarding this specific error, it happened because I assumed Content negotiation was causing the page's translation, while in fact Microsoft's website hardcoded the language in the URL. --Chealer (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, I'm glad we worked it out. You see, only now I understand the original intent of your edit. You meant to change the link from Visio Viewer 2010 to Viso Viewer 2013. There was no way of knowing this before because I don't know French. So, sorry, I had no way of knowing what was deliberate because the one thing that I saw was the "fr-ca" in the link. I promise I'll be more careful in monitoring edits; in exchange, next time, please drop me note. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were 2 reasons for my first edit: updating the link and indicating that it was not to learn on Visio but simply to download it. The main reason was indicated in the edit summary ("update link to Visio Viewer").

I do not understand why you removed the indication the link serves to download. --Chealer (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Well, actually, I though the link also gives info about Visio Viewer 2013 too. But I don't mind putting it back. In fact I am going to do it now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it does too. Information I wish I had read before I downloaded. Thanks, that's good. --Chealer (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenJDK et al

You were interested in this back in 2011. If you have a moment -- [2]. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccessible reference

This is about this query of yours. Sorry for the long delay. In case it still matters to you: WP:PAYWALL contains the info you want. Sad state of affairs, I agree, but currently this is what we have to deal with. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm aware that using such a reference is allowed. I'll take your message as a positive answer to my question. Note that you can use the {{Subscription required}} template to denote a paywalled reference. --Chealer (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress marches on. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Could you please specify the page where the citation comes from? The page is buggy and my browser's search is behaving abnormally, but it apparently can't find that text. --Chealer (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Paradoctor (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to talk page input (ceyockey)

responding to User talk:Ceyockey#Teva Pharmaceutical Industries ... gee, the edit you point out is more than 2 years old. Not sure what I intended in the edit I did there, but I would not do that today, i.e. would not de-template the thing as it appears I did. Do you want me to dig in there and do some work to fix it up, or is it ok to just say "go forth and change it as you desire"? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think you "de-templated" the thing. There were 2 references. The one which was second had its name changed and the first one was moved at the end. The problem is with the reference which was first. It seems you merely moved that one, but I do not understand why. Was it a pure mistake, or did you mean to move it somewhere else? I'd be glad if you could solve this. I simply noticed something wrong, it's not blocking me from anything (I'm done with this article). --Chealer (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Heartbleed". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engage in WP:DRN

We are awaiting your response. Tutelary (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tutelary. Thanks for your involvement with Heartbleed and for seeking to resolve this issue. For my part, I am short on time and would rather consider this as a misunderstanding than as a dispute, so I'd prefer to invest my time in continuing discussion than on trying to establish whoever was right or wrong, unless we're truly unable to resolve this in a civil manner.

Since the dispute was reported, some progress was already made on both Heartbleed and LastPass (software). If you want to accelerate resolution, I'd encourage you to get/keep participating in the relevant discussions. --Chealer (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am a volunteer at WP:DRN. While participation at DRN is optional, I would encourage you to give us a chance at resolving this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy! Sorry for the late reply. It appears we already managed to reach a consensual solution to this issue. Your offer is still appreciated. --Chealer (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chealer reported by User:FenixFeather (Result: ). Thank you. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chealer. At first sight this doesn't look good for you. There might still be time for you to respond (if you are so inclined) before any admin action is taken. If you truly don't have enough time to contribute at WP:DRN, it might be better for you to respond at WP:AN3 and concede the point. Somebody who reverts but then won't discuss (when invited) is putting themselves in an awkward spot if admins are asked to review the matter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed. Rest assured I have already discussed the issue which triggered the DRN at length, though I only did that in the proper channels, as it turned out no dispute resolution was needed.

I'm not sure which point you mean. The accusation is quite an amalgam, but I'll try to clarify a bit soon. --Chealer (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your opinion is that 'no dispute resolution was needed' does that mean you will not make any controversial edits without getting consensus first? EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that dispute resolution was not and will not be needed - the issue has already been solved. --Chealer (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Now that the AN/I business is all over, I wanted to apologize for the harshness of my language toward you. I was stressed and frustrated at the time and took it out unreasonably on you. There were better ways I could have responded to your edits. Here's a kitten to make up for it, and I wish you the best with editing in the future :)

– FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 19:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FenixFeather. I was sick, short on time, also frustrated, and - during the AN case - even short on sleep, and sometimes did not act as I should have. To be honest, my skin is pretty thick and harsh language doesn't affect me much personally, although it may affect my behavior as when it gets to personal attacks, I do tend to replicate at some point, even if I try not to react directly. I had more issues when some people denied their actions.

Don't be too sorry about what you did neither. We all do lots of mistakes, in particular when we're [relatively] new. And even if the mistake one does is small, it can trigger a dispute which can easily and quickly blow out of proportions when we let them get personal. I have been involved in countless disputes since I got involved in Wikipedia and LSSP in general. Yet, I have rarely received apologies, and I don't remember receiving an apology like yours. I certainly didn't receive one with a cute kitten before, that's appreciated.

For my part, I should apologize for the brutal conflict resolution I performed after your revert (as well as the one I performed after Tutelary's revert). And sorry for failing to sign the template I put on your talk page - thanks for making me notice. I'm also sorry for how the discussion on custom memory management evolved. Thanks for bringing it to the article's Talk page. Perhaps I should have started it there or moved it there before you did. Following the recent disagreements, perhaps thanks to you, I'm now aware of Reply to's power. I'm pleased to see this; it may avoid this issue in the future and make the next discussion less painful. --Chealer (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we were able to resolve the problem this way. It was a learning experience for me and made me realize that I enjoy editing much more when it is friendly and collaborative rather than adversarial. Thanks for the kind words. Here's to better interactions in the future! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 22:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

I am grateful for tagging when it is useful. You did catch some genuine errors in my citations. I am having a devil of a time tracking down where I read about the programmer in Delaware, but I'll find it eventually. Ditto for the bug bounty program and cryptographic module validation program: I wrote notes, but couldn't find the source for them when I wrote the article. So they are there to remind me to find the source. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You would be correct to call me an immediatist, but I oppose such notes, in particular outside of stubs. I have flagged the links explaining their role. It would be helpful if editors could have personal notes/to-do lists about each article. Failing that, one can at least use the todo template on discussion pages. --Chealer (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I usually do, but I thought that I would get back to this quickly. However, real life intervenes. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

System distribution commitments

Hi,

Just to notify you that someone (not me, although obviously I support it) put up a PROD for that page. You might want to review. Yoe (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yoe, deletion is pretty much where I was trying to get that article, so I'm glad someone else beat me to it. Thanks for notifying me anyway. --Chealer (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition to Criticism page

Hi Chealer; Some material on the new book "Common Knowledge" was added on the Criticism of Wikipedia page by you without much added notation. It is a book-length study by an admin and I was wondering if you were supporting/opposing the limitations to total policy size approach in his book. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LawrencePrincipe,

I'm rather confused here. Are you not the author of that paragraph? I only added it to Criticism of Wikipedia to remove it from Wikipedia, effectively moving it to a more specific location. --Chealer (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chealer; Yes, that's correct. The author of that book has such a long history at Wikipedia that I thought you might know more about the history of the book and why "Criticism" was preferable as a place for his comments about limitations to total policy size. It was unexpected to me to see a book-length study of this subject supported by JWales as well. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LawrencePrincipe: I don't know much about the history of the book. The paragraph was already in a section titled "Criticism" before I got involved. --Chealer (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia 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. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peristent vandalism by User:Chealer along with edit warring has returned by that User following full protection expiration. Requesting protection against persistent vandalism by User:Chealer. Three other editors have tried to address the tag bombing and deletions. The list of further deletions of cited material by that editor followed by the re-inserting of citation template requests to provide the deleted material, are far too numerous to attempt to provide all the diffs and urls for. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting me

That was very rude what you just did. I asked you a question and expected a good answer. JA 1983 JA (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chealer, after I blocked JA 1983 JA, I ran a checkuser, which indicated the account was a sock of David Beals, who seems to have an obsession with ceiling fans. Anyway, good call in reporting him. PhilKnight (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I always feel strange when I receive such an honor. I do not remember interacting you before, so I must say I feel like I'm receiving an excessive reward for a trivial contribution.

That being said, I think the Barnstar of Diligence captures very well the spirit of my work here. Having already acquired the Editor's Barnstar and the Technology Barnstar, I don't think any other distinction could have been more appreciated. I usually dislike presents, but those who do not cost are the best kind. This was possibly my best birthday present this year :-) And what better time to receive this than 3 days after my first Wikipedia deciversary?

Whatever reasons you had, I am very touched by your gift. Thank you, and thank you for all your other contributions to Wikipedia. --Chealer (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly nudge concerning policies and guidelines

Hello. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia -- I know how much effort goes into improving the encyclopedia. Based on some of your recent edits and exchanges with other editors concerning the Wikipedia article I came across while serving at WP:RFPP, I'd like to encourage you to review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and to utilize the resources there to address any questions or suggestions you have. Ignoring guidelines and essays just because they are not "policies" is unproductive and disruptive. —Eustress 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Eustress,

I must confess I'm far from knowing all policies and guidelines by heart, but I'm not exactly a newcomer here, so I'm not quite ignorant about them neither :-P

I assume your nudge mainly comes from some replies I made to LawrencePrincipe about WP:BRD and WP:Lede. I understand your intervention, but I did not ignore guidelines and essays just because they are not policies. I did not know LawrencePrincipe before getting involved in Wikipedia and originally considered him confused but in good faith, so I did point out both that what he called policies were not policies, and that the essays or guidelines he invoked would not have excused his actions even if they had actually been policies. However, with his latest 3RR violation and its aftermath, it has become clear that LawrencePrincipe is in bad faith, so lately, I have chosen to spend less time trying to teach him. He has now portrayed non-policies as policies at least 10 times just in edits related to Wikipedia, even though I rectified him multiple times, so if he remains merely confused on some things, mere confusion no longer suffices to explain his behavior. I now simply prove him wrong with the shortest route. That may indeed not be really productive, but it's certainly more productive than spending more time arguing with someone who willfully ignores what he's been told :-(

--Chealer (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I can understand your frustration. Given the circumstances, might be wise to more fully explain your edit rationales and be less hasty to revert. On the surface your conduct appears to have been somewhat disruptive, which based on your response above is not your intention. Cheers —Eustress 17:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did a lot of changes to Wikipedia recently, and there's no doubt I could have spent more time explaining some. While I unfortunately cannot retroactively change my edit summaries, I can always elaborate on a change on request.

As for the hastiness to revert, I'm not sure what you mean. --Chealer (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eustress: After looking at the history again, I realize you may have been misled by what LawrencePrincipe wrote in edit summaries and on Talk:Wikipedia. After Lawrence claimed I had disagreed with part of WP:Lede, I asked him where. He then changed the subject and I pointed out he hadn't answered the question. He tried to change the subject 4 more times. So far, he did not reply to my fifth reminder of his failure to answer, which might be considered a passive admission that he was lying.

I recommend to verify anrything he states about those he disagrees with. --Chealer (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting valid content without any discussion.

Recently, on the Wikipedia and English Wikipedia articles, you deleted (without any discussion and consensus) a lot of content that was relevant, important and backed by valid references. Please stop all these blatant deletion edits, as by them, you are undoing other editors' work that may have taken up a lot of time, patience and effort. If you have some doubt regarding whether or not some significant amount of content should appear in an article, please first discuss it on the article's or relevant user's talk-page(s). --EngineeringGuy (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Engineering Guy,

I'm sorry my edit removed the result of your work. I understand that you had put important efforts into the removed part and it must be hard to see it go to waste. Unfortunately, we don't have appropriate data to support an analysis of importance at this point, even though the table on which you based your work seems to say we do. One way to avoid repeating this would be to avoid basing content on primary sources. --Chealer (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with GA?

Can you help with GA of Heartbleed. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work and for your nomination, which I take as a compliment. I am not sure what you expect from me, but I reviewed the latest changes and commented on the GA review. --Chealer (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant it as a completment only!

. Your comments are helpful, I just wanted you to check the changes and the GA. Also, I am not getting much time to spend on WP and am getting delayed in followup. I read the comments and will make an attempt to work on them later today. Thank you! --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest You Fix Your Recent Edit

Bonjour Chealer,

You replaced my use of "Fictional Person" with "Allusion to a fictional...".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia&oldid=640621046

Please note that "allusion" is "an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly". In the case at hand, the Fictional Person George P. Burdell was mentioned explicitly. Therefore, your use of the word allusion is in my opinion incorrect.

Please fix your edit of my entry to reflect the facts. Perhaps you would like "Fictitious" rather than "Fictional" as more in line with previous usage in various articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictitious_people

Megapod (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Megapod (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Sorry. --Chealer (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you thanked me

Chealer, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
YOU'RE WELCOME!
It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX!

18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me for thanking you... but it's a pleasure! As much fun as possible for you too ;-) --Chealer (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Curious as to the specifics of your COI edit to Wikipedia – Do you have any accusations and a specific editor(s) to report? – Paine 18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: To clarify, I simply reverted a [re-re-]reversion of an edit which added the tag, performed by a heavily biased editor. I do not have accusations at this point. The article's bias was discussed on the talk page again a few months ago. I did lots of work largely aimed at addressing that, but did not finish, and several months have passed since then. Before I got involved, the article was generally over-positive, but also very over-negative in some areas. I've started reviewing the new edits and have seen another problematic editor come back from a block with a number of new over-negative edits. The article is likely in a similar state to where it was a few months ago - biased on both sides. So I also did not revert just because the reversion was performed by a problematic editor.

I do not really want to point specific editors. I noticed an administrator pushing an over-positive tone a couple of weeks ago, although he eventually reverted himself. I am sure we would find countless other heavily biased Wikipedians who edited the article if we tried. And if not, then I changed the article a lot. I am very knowledgeable about Wikipedia and think of myself as neither overly favorable nor overly dis-favorable, but that cannot be exact. If an encyclopedia project I contribute to has such a template, it would be hypocritical for me to keep contributing to its article on itself while letting it be removed. --Chealer (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of this, and hopefully you can see by the response that the only way for COI to be taken seriously is to focus the allegation to a specific editor(s) who is too close to the article's subject to be objective. Even then it is often a hike, an upward climb, and yet worth the effort. A Joyous and Happy New Year to you and yours! – Paine 20:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: "The response" is not a great surprise - it happened before. Many Wikipedians who are in conflict of interest with readers can remove the template. It is hard for anyone to ignore their interest in the interest of the public. And that is even harder when you do not even realize our own bias, which tends to affect young people even more.

The article has been semi-protected for months, meaning its authors are even more biased in favour of Wikipedia than those of our average article. Logically, this would be even more reason for warning readers, but socially, that means the people who determine whether the template is displayed are even more biased in favour of Wikipedia... :-( --Chealer (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is there to stop vandalism from the more anonymoussie editors among us. Of course, what constitutes vandalism is sometimes questionable, but the longtime custodians of the Wikipedia article are usually pretty good at spotting true vandalism. Having to deal with it day in and day out sometimes several times a day from IP editors just wasn't hacking it. And I agree that it is very hard to recognize one's own bias, and that goes for all of us. Joys! – Paine

@Paine Ellsworth: I understand what restrictions achieve. I requested the latest increase of restriction myself after having to deal with endless vandalism. I wasn't saying the article should be open. I was just saying that restriction exacerbates the bias in the article, making the template even more necessary, but also even harder to maintain. --Chealer (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, others seem to feel that the COI template should only be used if specifics, without violation of WP:OUTING, are introduced on the talk page. If you feel that the template should be there, then maybe it should; however, if you apply it again, be sure to be prepared to thoroughly justify it at Talk:Wikipedia in keeping with the template documentation. I've gone up against the status quo on that page before, and I found that, while it always helps to have "bullets in your gun", an unerring aim is even more important and crucial to changing the status quo. Joys! – Paine

I think that just having myself as a top 5 contributor constitutes enough specifics to warrant the template. The Talk page already contains discussion of the issue. --Chealer (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My change immediately reverted

Thanks for thanking me, but what I added to Wikipedia was immediately reverted. deisenbe (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia controversies

There is no need to cluter up the talk page by starting a new section on every single edit about the same topic. Talk pages are arranged by topic. I will not respond in any new section but I will gladly discuss the topic with you or any editor in the existing discussion on that topic. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although editors are expected to explain controversial modifications, you are free to refuse to answer. However, you should not hide messages from other editors, and I will not remove my question even if you refuse to answer.

That being said, if your problem is really the question's location, I authorize you to move it (not to remove it). --Chealer (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring at Wikipedia

Hi Chealer. This is to let you know that you are currently at 3 reverts on the page. This is a limit that should not be exceeded. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chealer reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, as you did at Wikipedia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm... ^—X— 02:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Contrary to the block explanation, my edits have not raised multiple good faith objections from several editors, I have not "continued" to edit war on the page and my actual arguments were not contested by several people. The block explanation has also failed to pinpoint even one problematic edit. By the way, there are multiple deadlines on Wikipedia. Chealer (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear pattern of edit-warring and disruptive editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You're kidding, right? This is exactly why you got blocked. You can admit to doing absolutely no wrong whatsoever. You were edit warring over the OR tags while the AN3 report was open. Multiple editors were objecting to your edits at AN3!! It's not hard to see the problem here, anyone can look at the history of Wikipedia and see as clear as day that you were edit warring against multiple users. It doesn't even matter if you feel your "actual arguments were not contested by several people", that's not an edit warring exemption. It doesn't matter if you've explained yourself, if you feel you have the better argument, if you feel you're right and they're wrong, we operate based on consensus, if you edit war and cause disruption, you're going to get blocked. Swarm... ^—X— 06:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Swarm: Rest assured I am not kidding. I will retire should you fail to correct the result.
  What makes you claim I cannot admit to doing absolutely no wrong whatsoever? Again, if you think I was "edit warring over the OR tags while the AN3 report was open", you need to indicate the problematic edits. And if you think I was edit warring against multiple users, you need to indicate problematic edits again. You will be reported if you keep making unsubstantiated attacks. I did not state that my actual arguments were not contested by several people because I thought that was an edit warring exemption. I highlighted that because your block explanation alleged the contrary. I did not say that I feel I have the better argument, that I "feel [we are] right and they're wrong", and I know how we operate.
  Also, you should stick to topic in your block explanations. I know how to game the system and rest assured I would have been able to had I wanted. You should save your fingers and use them to substantiate your claims and verify your allegations. --Chealer (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rest assured, if I modify your block at all it will be to extend it, as you somehow seem to have no idea why you got blocked and are apparently declining to educate yourself on our policies; you claim to understand how we operate here but your behavior does not reflect this. However you are welcome to appeal this block as many times as you want; if you've truly done nothing wrong any admin can review and overturn the block, although it's already been reviewed once and they didn't seem to agree with you. In fact, the reason you got blocked was "clear" to them. I wonder why that is? Also I'm not sure who you're threatening to "report" me to, but I am open to recall (see my user page) so there is a process you can go about to revoke my administrator privileges, if you so desire. I'm fairly certain however that the community will not back you on such an effort. Swarm... ^—X— 21:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Swarm: If a block's victim fails to understand why they got blocked, that most likely signals a problem with the block explanation. In any case, it certainly does not mean you should extend it. I am the primary maintainer of Wikipedia, so I may very well be "declining to educate [my]self on our policies" indeed, if you put it that way. If you think my behavior does not reflect that I understand how we operate here, explain how. I have already given you enough opportunity to correct yourself and have zero intention to appeal again. I certainly cannot help you understand User:Ohnoitsjamie's decline reason, which does not include even one sentence. But I can reiterate that the question you should be asking yourself is why you thought a block would have been necessary. Rest assured I am aware that you can be recalled. I am not asking how to get you recalled, but why you resorted to a block. --Chealer (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know why you're acting as if you haven't received any explanation. Apart from the relatively straightforward explanations given in the block notice here, in your block log, and in your block review, I wrote a paragraph in your AN3 report, and then I wrote another paragraph directly under your unblock request. All the information is there, literally spelled out! I don't know why it's not registering! There has been no failure to explain this block to you—I don't think I can break it down any more clearly. The only explanations I can think of is that either you don't understand the policies well enough to know how you could've violated them, or you're simply not willing to hear it. The explanation has been clearly given. If you don't think the block was justified, again, you're more than welcome to appeal it as many times as you want. Swarm... ^—X— 03:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Swarm: If you really think you cannot "break it down any more clearly", how about quitting speculating and starting by simply listing the edits which you allege constitute edit-warring? --Chealer (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh. See this edit? See how your edit summary says "Undid revision 650964154 by GliderMaven (talk) unjustified rollback"? Since you understand policy, you understand that that's called a "revert", correct? You're blocked for edit warring, which is when editors repeatedly revert instead of using discussion to resolve a dispute. Now, look at your edits in the page history for Wikipedia. See how you kept making reverts, even when other people disagreed? Even when there was an edit warring report against you pending? That's one of the reasons you were blocked. If you don't understand this, again, I will direct you to WP:EW, which explains the policy you violated in detail. I do not need to copy links for each edit here, as if you're not able to identify your own reverts, there's a larger issue at play. The other reason I cited was WP:Disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is not a specific action, but a pattern of behavior that disrupts the productive functioning of the project. Edit warring is one example of disruptive editing, but any behavior that causes disruption falls under this category. Your apparent battlefield mentality and unending refusal to acknowledge negative behavior are other clear examples your disruptive behavior. Swarm... ^—X— 03:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Swarm: Now that you have shown this edit, I do see it. There is no doubt this edit is called a revert. I cannot say I agree that I "kept making reverts, even when other people disagreed". The existence of an edit warring report against someone does not cause their edits to constitute edit warring. I am not asking you for links to each edit which you think constitutes edit warring, but for links to a sufficient number of edits to give your opinion credibility. You need to understand that a revert does not necessarily (and generally does not) constitute edit warring; I am able to identify my own reverts, but that does not mean I can identify the edits which you have interpreted as edit-warring.
      As for your accusation of disruptive editing, neither "battlefield mentality" nor "refusal to acknowledge negative behavior" - whatever you mean by that - feature in WP:Disruptive editing. I admit I was not familiar with that guideline before you made me read it, but unless you explain how it concerns my behavior, I deny having disruptively edited. --Chealer (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Swarm: Thank you for providing at least one concrete accusation. However, you should also explain why you consider that edit constitutes edit-warring, and suggest at least one superior alternative to the course of action I chose. The edit you mentioned reverted an unjustified rollback ("Revert to revision 650947523 dated 2015-03-11 20:07:17 by GliderMaven using popups"). We will likely never know what happened, but there are 4 possibilities:
      1. The faulty editor intentionally performed a controversial reversion without justifying, in which case his rollback constitutes edit warring.
      2. The editor failed to realize that his reversion was controversial. In that case, my revert ensured he would see the discussion on the issue and start contributing to it if necessary.
      3. The faulty editor unintentionally failed to provide a valid edit summary.
      4. The faulty editor rollbacked by error.
    - In case 1, even though my revert was not justified just because it reverted edit-warring, it allowed to confirm that the editor was edit warring, in which case I could then have confidently reported him. In case 3, my revert would have been suboptimal, since I could simply have contacted the editor to ask for a justification instead. However, this case is unlikely, because even if the editor had erroneously failed to justify, he could still have provided his justification via a discussion page.
      Even though my choice might have been suboptimal in the first cases, eventuality 4 remains. While manipulation errors of this kind are rare, in the context where the faulty editor's previous edit was such an edit, the chances of possibility 4 were significant. Unless this analysis is mistaken, I consider my action as entirely appropriate. Unless you propose a superior approach, I even believe I would take the same decision if I faced this case again. --Chealer (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal the block or accept it but I won't be continuing this any more. I've explained this to you far more times than I should have needed to. Swarm... ^—X— 04:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Swarm: I can certainly not accept the block, but if you refuse to correct the result yourself, it would be best to have an explanation of your action before asking others to revise it. You need not to explain this several times, but you do need to explain it.
  As you will know if you edited Wikipedia, justifying your actions often takes much longer than performing these. Unfortunately, such discussion is generally necessary to convince diverging contributors, or to realize the problems with your own stance.
  You are free to refuse justifying, but as explained in WP:ADMINACCT, you cannot both retain administrative privileges and refuse accountability. I do not know you, but I know everyone makes mistakes, so your decision in itself does not mean you should not keep serving via administrative duties. However, if you think this case is exceptional, you need to demonstrate accountability. If you refuse to correct yourself and apologize or to provide a proper justification, your behavior may be reported if someone comes to the conclusion that you imposed a 72-hour global block simply because you were under the impression that one edit was inappropriate. --Chealer (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel the block was justified for the reasons I've provided here and at AN3. All of these messages constitute what I feel is a very sufficient explanation and justification. Period. The fact that you think this block is over "one edit" I felt was inappropriate is simply not the case, as I've explained over and over again. So no, sorry we're at an impasse, but I don't see any reason my actions need to be "corrected" by me. But again, you're right, everyone makes mistakes, which is why block review exists. I've explained this so many times, if you disagree with my given reasoning for the block, just appeal it. If you want to report me that's perfectly fine, go for it, but why you're threatening to hold me accountable when you're block has already been reviewed and upheld is beyond me. Get it reviewed again if you think that was wrong, but there's no need to act as if there's no accountability here. Swarm... ^—X— 18:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Swarm: What makes you claim that I think this block is over "one edit"? I am happy to learn you think other edits were faulty, but you still need to specify which. I already appealed the block, and further appeals would unlikely be productive. This issue is no longer about my inability to contribute, but is now about your behavior. Rest assured I will report you should you fail in correcting the result or in providing a proper block explanation. Administrative accountability does not mean your actions can be reverted - it means your privileges can be revoked if you misuse them. --Chealer (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. You've ignored every explanation I've given while continuing to argue some bizarre point about me needing to provide a link to every revert you made, lest I be "reported", you appear to be contesting the block but are refusing to get it reviewed, you're incessantly making absurd claims about some nonexistent misconduct on my part and continually threatening me if I don't do what you want. I have no idea what you're on about but it seems like you're either trolling or arguing for the sake of argument. Neither behaviors will get you very far after your block expires, but regardless, bye. Swarm... ^—X— 21:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Where would I have "continu[ed] to argue some bizarre point about [you] needing to provide a link to every revert [I] made"? In fact, where would I have even started arguing that?

I warned you early that you would be reported if you kept making personal attacks. Since you just claimed that I am "continually threatening me if I don't do what you want" failing to providing any supporting evidence, you will be reported for violating WP:NPA (unless you promptly substantiate).

Please spare us your speculation on my reasons. It will be much more efficient for you to stick to explaining your own reasons. --Chealer (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. Do not edit the edit warring noticeboard archive again. You've been correctly reverted twice. If you do it again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Chealer (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's disruptive and a continuation of your refusal to accept sanctions for your misconduct. And I won't be pulled into one of your endless discussions on this issue, so the warning stands, and I'll have no further comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bbb23: How would it be disruptive? And which misconduct are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block after warning

You reverted at the archive again after a clear warning not to do so. I've blocked you for one week. See WP:GAB if you want to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I know I reverted. What I still do not know is why you claimed that editing the edit warring noticeboard archive again would be disruptive, and which misconduct you referred to.

Note that if you did block me, you need to provide an explanation. --Chealer (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's improper to edit any archived page aside from your own user talk page archives. This is especially true for Wikipedia noticeboard archives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thank you, but I assume Bbb23 is a grown-up and can answer himself for his actions. That being said, if you believe what you wrote, please indicate why you do. --Chealer (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I have requested an unblock, but I still expect you to justify your claim of disruptive editing. Given your reckless attitude, I will report you should you fail to explain or apologize. --Chealer (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia (Pacific Standard receent article)

Thank you for your kind note on my addition of the Pacific Standard magazine article from October 2014 on the topic of Wikipedia to our WP Wikipedia article. It was a surprisingly interesting read. Best Wishes. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiklrsc: Thanks back. I integrated it in Criticism of Wikipedia too. --Chealer (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Many thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely, for reasons that should be obvious. I'm happy to unblock you when you have come down off the Reichstag and handed back the Spider-Man suit. Seriously, go and ride a bike or something and come back when your usual equilibrium is restored. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "reasons" are certainly not obvious. I am underground wearing pajamas.

Seriously, feel free to expand on "something", but I will not ride a bike any more today unless the advice comes from a health professional. Revoke that block and go edit, or do something else which is productive, but if you leave this block without explanation, you will be reported. --Chealer (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since my reply. Since you have given no indication you would handle this yourself, I had to request someone else to intervene.

Announcing your intention of revoking your blocks should impossible events happen does not make them any less rude.

I'll be happy to overlook your block and your failure to correct it yourself if you explain promising this will not happen again by the time I reported you, but this may happen anytime now. --Chealer (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Jzg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is either ignorant about blocks or thinks pseudo-humor and esoteric advice exempt from WP:EXPLAINBLOCK... which is not the case. A week after I asked him to rectify following his implantation of an indefinite block on this account, the involved administrator has failed to provide any remedy. Chealer (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Bbb23: The field you filled is called "Decline reason", not "Bunch of possible decline reasons, one of which is supposed to apply in this case". If you have a reason for declining this request, please mention that reason and that reason only. If not, please remove your review and leave the request for a qualified administrator to handle.

Please note that while all interventions can be valuable if they are well-intended, you should answer for your own mistakes before trying to fix issues caused by others. You need only look at this very page to find an unexplained policy violation. --Chealer (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from taking unjustifiable administrative actions. Failure to explain declines constitute further violations of WP:ADMIN. I advise you to avoid using your administrative privileges any more until the review of your usage is complete (except for constructive purposes). --Chealer (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Violation of WP:BP (see previous appeal for details) Chealer (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block: disruptive editing. It's be good for you to go read this archived discussion and address concerns that were raised there. The block was supported by multiple editors there. Please address the reasons for your block in any future appeal attempts. You need to convince us that you understand why your edits were disruptive and ensure us that such edits will not occur again. only (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Only: The problem with addressing the reasons for Jzg's block is that - as previously explained - they have not been revealed, assuming they exist. No matter how many editors would have supported the block, it still violates policy as long as no explanation was provided. Which edits are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits are you referring to? Same disruptive line of questioning as in the past, indicating no sign of understanding of the magnitude of the disruption this editor has caused. I suggest withdrawing talkpage access if these unblock requests continue without acknowledgement of the disruption which has caused this editor to be blocked in the first place. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What disruption are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you got blocked indefinitely for no reason? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is you should ask what reason Jzg supposedly had to him, not to me. As you could have guessed, had I known what reason he presumably had, I would probably not have warned him that his failure to explain would lead to a report...

I will not answer any further question from you until you have provided an answer to mine. --Chealer (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this is exactly why you were indeffed. Your inability or refusal to understand or accept your disruption is precisely the reason for your indefinite block. No amount of circular reasoning on your part will lift this block. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What disruption are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to answer that question if you want to get unblocked. No use asking me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why I would have to read your mind to get unblocked.

If even you can't explain which disruption your own comment referred to, I'm afraid you'll remain the only person to understand it - if you do have such an exclusive talent. --Chealer (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why I would have to read your mind to get unblocked. Don't try to isolate this to me. I was not the one who blocked you for disruption but I agree with all the admins who did it. So do many other editors. It seems everyone has the same mind regarding your disruption and can clearly see it, except you. You either get it or you don't. It seems, tragically, you don't. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What disruption are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I already covered that in my previous reply: You either get it or you don't. It seems, tragically, you don't. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After 3 attempts, I would be more affirmative: we certainly don't get… an answer. --Chealer (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After 3 attempts... Unfortunately you got that wrong too. This is not 3 attempts. This is a very long saga, spanning months, of 3RR reports, ANI reports, at least one AN report that I know of, multiple blocks etc., while during all this mess you profess absolute ignorance of the causes of this wiki-mayhem and its consequences for you. I think you have the wrong approach toward this. You want to find a philosophical answer to this problem. I think you should look at the problem more on the empirical side. It is an empirical fact that you are indeffed. It is also an empirical fact that multiple admins and an even larger number of editors have found your conduct problematic. Unless you recognise these empirical facts and empirically accept that you have caused widespread disruption, empirical reality will remain stuck at its present state, i.e. you being indefinitely blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what problem you are referring to, but I am sure the last time I created an ANI report, AN report or block was years before you even edited this page for the first time. What disruption are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what problem you are referring to, but I am sure the last time I created an ANI report, AN report or block was years before you even edited this page for the first time. I think we have a language problem here. I am not referring to the reports you made. I am referring to the ANI/AN/3RRN reports people have made about you recently. Are you aware of those reports? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we have a language problem here. I was referring to my attempts to elucidate your references to alleged disruption from my part, while your answer referred to some actions which are not even from me.

Sorry, but I maintain the condition I set to answer more questions from you. --Chealer (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are unable to understand what I am telling you this is my last post on your page. I advise you re-read my post about empirical reality and if/when you understand it you can try to heed its message if you wish to get unblocked. If you don't you can always remain at your present state. Best of luck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is that notice related? --Chealer (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Directly related to the questions I posed in the section above which you removed and related to your behavior in that section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which questions would you have posed in the section above? --Chealer (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ones you removed and that I linked to in the AN post. You have a habit to put it nicely of asking inane questions. This is the last time I will reply to you. I cannot be clearer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AN post you seem to refer to does not link to that.

Again, please stick to topic and avoid personal attacks. I was not asking you for several replies, just for one answer. --Chealer (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]