User talk:Cheemsforever

Misleading ES

Your edit summary at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates: "replaced link repaired broken link": This does not appear to be a factual report of your action. If, indeed, I am wrong about you, your 10+year history here, and your ill intentions, can you then explain, please? AukusRuckus (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Similarly this is not a "stray ref" but the removal of a statement. This seems to be a new tactic: Usually, if you do not wish something to be in an article, you try stating that it is "repetitive" or "overbearing" or your version says "essentially the same" thing; all of which rarely, if ever, turns out to be correct. Others point this out to you too, but you never reply ... Why is that, I wonder? AukusRuckus (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You interrupted my message here. Hold one a moment. Now federal law as remote as it is does allow death penalty I noted it as a remote possibility on top of other penalties that you found acceptable, (fines, floggings, deportation, and 1-15 years in jail. Now 1-15 years federal laws do not trump Emirate laws so I listed 1 year minimum. As for combine statements, it's not to do anything other than combine them for keeping the information in one area and I see no harm in combining statements that seem similar to make one conhisive point. I'm replying now. I was trying to type a second ago but you adding a second statement made it so I got an edit that said you have to refresh to the newest version of the page to type. Anyway I'm here let's talk.Cheemsforever (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You are a deceptive sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It was a stray because the statement was already noted in the combined statement where I said the three sources all feel like it can be interpreted this way and don't note enforcements that they know of. Then the rest went into a partial statement that got cut off that was leftover from the edit. It ended halfway through the sentence. You are looking too deeply in it and taking too much personal offense at my edit. I have no bad intentions. I just made the information clear and took it from multiple paragraphs that are repetitive to a statement that combines all sources and what they say. Cheemsforever (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You must be so contemptuous of me and others, to think you can just do whatever you like, and no-one will see through it. So, so, entitled you must be: to know you are doing the disallowed things and then writing hand-wringing comennts about how others are mistreating you. The stuff you put me through when I was trying to discuss in a collegial way with you, prior to 2022. Uggh. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Utterly, utterly shameless. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no ill will here friend. That's all i have to say. Cheemsforever (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

And last year?: Nothing, nothing, but ill-will. Do not besmear that good word with your deceit and insincerity. Shameless. That means nothing to someone who has no shame, I realise. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

And you still haven't learnt the very simple etiquette of indenting your talk page posts! As I say: Contemptuous of your fellow editors, even in such a small matter. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no deceit and insincerity. Wording I used in the message against talkpage protections and anywhere else that offended you I apologize for, even as much as I may feel upset I should regard your feelings better and not let me passion for editing get the better of me. I do have shame. Here, I'll indent. There is no rebellion in my lack of indenting. Here I did that. Cheemsforever (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your very editing here as a sock puppet of Jacobkennedy is deceptive; from this flows, naturually, that your responses are insincere: You must know it. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You may not be able to tell but I am being sincere. However, any conversation not related to in wiki conversation is unnecessary. I will be hatting this I find it inappropriate. Going back on topic, the sources that are found are used. I honestly do my best and avoid having a "slant" or pov. There is no intention to be awful but I apologize if you feel that way.Cheemsforever (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You aren't being sincere. This is wholly related to your Wikipedia editing: every bit of it. What you do with hats and so on, is your own business. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your indenting is still not correct, it needed one more colon. How can you have edited here for over 10 years, and not mananaged managed this? That's why I think you just don't care about anyone else here. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I am occupying myself here on your so that I don't think about the awful thing that happened today. My justified frustration and anger at your Wikipedia behaviour, over your very bad edits and appalling behaviour–much more minor, trivial stuff, that it is–can overpower and block out the sheer terror that will overcome me if I stop to think on the stuff that's confronting me here. So, you do have some use, after all! AukusRuckus (talk)

I can't do real edits atm because I find the concentration's going and if I stop to think what I should do, you know, calmly, I start shaking. So, you know, I've got plenty of free editing time. Fun! AukusRuckus (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with this. After what you put me through 2021–2022, this is infinitesimal in comparison. After all, I'm hoping to spark a genuine discussion and gain insight into why you think you're a special case. Have you noticed that a very large proportion of your edits are reverted (both when you register an account and when you edit as an IP)? And I've noticed that when you don't have an answer you move the argument on to other ground ...

It wasn't so bad being called a bully by you today, after all, you called me that very early on. And then said you retracted—but that, too, was untrue ... would you like me to provide diffs? You have also accused me of making stuff up: (most recently "out of thin air" on Talk:Capital punishment for homosexuality), in the past of making up quotes (which I only inserted in the first place to prove to you that my edits had backing.)

You have the gall to speak of gaslighting? Do you know what that term means? You gas lit me the entire time on Talk:LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates:

• First you said the existing edits weren't true
  • I added more sources
• You: No, still not true
  • I added quotes from the sources
  • not only not true, you said, the quotes were made up
  • on eventually establishing they were real, asked for them to be returned
• No, you said, they were too overbearing (although, they were mostly placed within the references not in the body text)
  • asked for acknowledgement that I had not made up quotes
• no, you denied implying this

In, fact, you said what you've said here, that I was taking your aspersions too personally. And I've noticed you saying that to other editors also.

• Later, when you asked me not to be so negative about something, I reminded you that you could not even be bothered to admit I had not made up the quotes. In reply, you misleadingly stated you had retracted, but your post had got "lost" somewhere.

You hadn't though. Perhaps you cannot follow a talk page, but I can. No such retraction was ever made. That is a bald fact which could have been easily proved. Now that is what gaslighting is. (And why I believe you have a low opinion of the intelligence of others.) Then, when I made a half-arsed joke at my own expense you took offence and deleted it! In contravention of policy! FFS!

Just yesterday, you told me in an ES "no need to be a smartass".

Still, you say your intentions are good! And, apparently, only you may take offence at the comments of others, which you are quick to do. I am being open here, and probably not doing myself any favours on WP, but I'm in just enough of a raw state to not particularly give a damn, just at the moment. I may wake up in the morning with the WP-posting equivalent of a hangover and regret this. Sobeit.

Why were you upset about the page protection request?: You edited against consensus. The poor editors on Criminalization should have been the upset ones. And then you took it out on me: We both know my accusations aren't "false", or whatever else you called them.

Finally, to be clear, my offer was to reinstall your existing hat properly (it's malfunctioning, as it's not formatted in the right way), or alternatively, remove my comment about the anti-LGBT groups online. Nothing else here that worries me but I understand that your mileage may vary. That is your right. (My asides "wierd" or whatever as they may be, are to illustrate that I'm a real life person, with feelings, which you are happy to trash. At least I do not say on article talk pages things like "She was kind of gross and had IBS", ffs! What kind of talk is that?)

I'd like to fix the formatting, if you give your permission, because otherwise my reply posts are not below your posts to which they are responding. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

About your hatting adjustment: You need to fix this immediately. It gives a misleading view on what was said. I'm happy to remove my post or restore the whole thing within properly formatted hatting – but not this, as it misrepresents the posts. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to fix this. It gives a misleading view on what was said. I'm happy to remove my entire post or restore the whole thing within properly formatted hatting - but not this, as it misrepresents the posts. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The context matters. You don't seem to realize you give off a condescending tone with everything you have written. As for any insults I made to you I apologize. Gaslighting was done on your end as well trying to talk in a harassing way toward me but I apologize for any tone I've taken to you. We're moving forward into a new future positive for both of us, let's do that together. Cheemsforever (talk)

Do whatever you wish with the hatting as long as your comments that are irrelevant are hidden as they are not related to wikipedia. 10:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

On second thought remove the comment. Thanks.Cheemsforever (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the context matters, exactly. That is why it's so important to 'hat' the entire post, or remove the entire post. (That choice is entirely yours, but not half-and-half. And again, I say to you, my discussion here is entirely on-topic (your behaviour, attitudes and tendetiousness), but you are entitled to your view, and it's your talk page. But you don't get to mangle my posts, as you have in the past.

I knew I should not have believed you and softened towards you. That, too, is your pattern: Come across semi-remorseful, then double-down and attack. Do not continue to try any more of your excuses and not-really-veiled insults on me. I know who and what you are, and I am not the tendentious editor here. (This is especially priceless: "You don't seem to realize you give off a condescending tone with everything you have written.")

I refute absolutely any gaslighting and, especially, harassing of you. Utterly, baseless on each and every level. Please provide a diff, or withdraw it. (I know you won't do that, but I can hope that you might do the right thing one day.) When are you going to stop socking? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[Comment by AukusRuckus, removed at Cheemsforever's request. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)] I'd love to stop editing in this LGBT area, but I cannot put up with poorly sourced, misunderstood, and most of all, done with an ill-intentioned, POV slant, counterfactual edits. I often wish I'd never stumbled on to that first page I went to disambiguate though: then I would have been blissfully unaware of this particular kind of awfulness from which I am usually sheltered! AukusRuckus (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I again have great attentions. Sorry again. 08:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You may not be able to tell but I am being sincere. However, any conversation not related to in wiki conversation is unnecessary. I will be hatting this I find it inappropriate. Going back on topic, the sources that are found are used. I honestly do my best and avoid having a "slant" or pov. There is no intention to be awful but I apologize if you feel that way.Cheemsforever (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You aren't being sincere. This is wholly related to your Wikipedia editing: every bit of it. What you do with hats and so on, is your own business. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You can't read my heart. But I tell you my true feelings. Cheemsforever (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)}}

Lightening your view of me of great, I appreciate the progress that would be on your end. Unfortunately in this edit you said you asked "Why aren't you ashamed of yourself and your deceptive behaviour?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&oldid=1173096755 and then in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_the_Middle_East&oldid=1172770823 you said "When will you cease your dishonesty?" Those are both very serious attacks against others. How do I know you wouldn't do things like this? That is what I mean by gaslighting and being condescending. I feel like these snippets alone justify my concerns I feel. I've only called you out after you've said these things in your edit history recently. I have stayed civil with you have I not until I mentioned these harsh things you've said. I would love it if we can both be kinder and more patient with each other. I think I have been despite the challenging circumstances but I'm willing to apologize if this is not the case. Cheemsforever (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)