User talk:Djcheburashka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:11, 11 November 2014

November 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I've brought this issue to the NPOV disputes board instead, and we'll get an NPOV stamp on the pages in the meantime.

Your refusal to discuss any of these issues, preventing there from ever being a consensus, does not entitle you to them claim "no consensus, the page must stay in favor of my bias forever."

Djcheburashka (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

I'm leaving this up as an example of the abuse use of templates by Roscelese. Djcheburashka (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at David Lisak. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? You're in violation of a slew of policies and the matter is up for POV discussion. The person being disruptive here is you, not me.

Djcheburashka (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing votes at AFD

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark figure of crime, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Calton | Talk 13:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist school of criminology, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Try that stunt again, and I'll see to it you're blocked. Calton | Talk 13:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to remove other peoples valid comments as per the above. You also need to stop posting comments like these as they are personal attacks. If you do anything like that again I will block you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I did not remove anyone's comments. I undid someone's attempt to stop two pages from being listed as candidates for deletion. The pages are clearly appropriate for deletion. I left an edit report explaining what I had done. I think either the diff you saw was misleading or someone must have hit a wrong button. Djcheburashka (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove anyone's comments. I undid someone's attempt to stop two pages from being listed as candidates for deletion

Your first sentence is a denial, and your second sentence immediately contradicts the first. You removed someone's comments, and putting a self-serving spin on your actions doesn't change the fact YOU REMOVED SOMEONE'S COMMENTS. Try it again, and you will see that no admin will buy your logic.

I didn't (at least I don't think I did) start and then fail to complete the deletion form for two pages, or improperly remove the template. I started the deletion process properly...

Wrong. I'm not going to do your work for you, but I will give you a hint: "listing". --Calton | Talk 09:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hint #2: Look at this page. Notice anything missing?

It's moot anyways, since it's been closed as a malformed and bad-faith nomination. --Calton | Talk 09:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the instructions on the page for nominating a page for deletion. If you think I followed them improperly, then let me know in what respect.

You're very, very aggressive about this.

Would it be wrong to take the inference, since you've inserted yourself into so much over the last 24 hours, that you're a friend of Rosceles playing pile-on?

Oh and just to be clear -- the articles really should be deleted. I'm letting this cool down and then once the banning/blocking/POV/disruption/etc disputes have resolved, I'm re-nominating them. Again, if you think I went through the process improperly, let me know in what respect and I'll try to make sure that doesn't happen again. K? Djcheburashka (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very, very aggressive about this.

Grossly stupid actions annoy me. Also, given your actions, you need to become familiar with the expression "The pot calling the kettle black".

Would it be wrong to take the inference, since you've inserted yourself into so much over the last 24 hours, that you're a friend of Rosceles playing pile-on?

Would it be wrong to to take the inference that people who ask nonsensical, border-line paranoid, evidence-free, passive-aggressive questions to deflect from their actions aren't as clever as they think themselves are?

Oh and just to be clear -- the articles really should be deleted.

Prediction, you're going to fail badly, and you'll be lucky to avoid sanction given your already-demonstrated bad faith and -- frankly -- incompetent initial listing. But given your unwillingness to pay even the slightest attention to advice or instructions, I suspect you will not succeed in completing the process.

Again, if you think I went through the process improperly, let me know in what respect and I'll try to make sure that doesn't happen again. K?

You mean help you in your little bad-faith war against another editor? Really? You actually asked me to help degrade Wikipedia? What did you think I would answer? --Calton | Talk 09:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm degrading wikipedia. I think the manifest bias, abuse, childishness, bullying and agenda-pushing of you and your friend are what degrades wikipedia. This began because I found sourcing problems while researching something and tried to fix them through consensus, and then through starting discussion in the disputes talk page.

I am comfortable that I am not acting in bad-faith. I will continue to act as I believe is consistent with improving the wiki.

I will not respond to the rest of your post, but I am leaving it here because I don't believe in censorship, and frankly because I think it shows what you and she are about. Djcheburashka (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR. You've been demonstrably wrong about, well, everything, including the most basic processes -- like listing AFDs, a process which comes with step-by-step instructions -- and factual claims, so I'd say that until you give some small sign of knowing what you're doing and not -- as your antics around the AFDs show -- making edits out of spite, you're not improving Wikipedia; quite the opposite, in fact.

Have a read of this: Examples of disruptive editing. You seem to have checked off 4 out of 6 boxes on that checklist. --Calton | Talk 03:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have like an infinite capacity for arguing with yourself? I've told you repeatedly that I'm comfortable with what I did, and that if you have issues you should identify them with specificity. You've declined to do that because you said it would "degrade" the wiki. You, instead, want to continue with an endless series of juvenile personal attacks. According to your page, you apparently perceive yourself as a kind of Batman-of-wikipedia. That's great for you, but I disagree both about your ability and your maturity. If you post again on this page I'm going to ask for you to be blocked for harassment. Djcheburashka (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Djcheburashka, your ignorance, arrogance and lack of humility have no limits, do they? You haven't a clue who you are speaking to, their knowledge, their status, or their experience. You need to listen, accept that they know more about things here, and take their advice.

Let's make it clear:

You: 221 edits since: 2014-04-13
User:Calton: 68660 edits since: 2004-11-04
User:EvergreenFir: reviewer, 22589 edits since: 2013-02-18
User:Roscelese: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 27053 edits since: 2005-11-14
User:Cirt: autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 176425 edits since: 2007-09-22
User:Bbb23: sysop, 70128 edits since: 2008-08-02
User:BullRangifer: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 44269 edits since: 2005-12-18
User:CambridgeBayWeather: sysop, 175844 edits since: 2005-06-11

Do you get the picture now? I hate to put it this bluntly, but you are an ignorant flea among elephants when it comes to experience and knowledge here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist school of criminology) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. Calton | Talk 13:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh I thought I responded to this before... I did complete the process, but it was reverted before anyone had a chance to review. This is an ongoing issue with another editor across a slew of pages, where I've started discussions in the appropriate dispute resolution forums and requested assistance.

Djcheburashka (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Reply to your last comment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of unsourced material at IFALPA page

RE: The dispute at the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations page:

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed that you would give any credence at all to Orange Mike's argument for reverting back to statements that are clearly in non-compliance with numerous wiki rules: Namely that my editing might be risky, BECAUSE I MIGHT DO SOMETHING IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES at sometime in the future!! Please show me where in the rule pages of Wikipedia, the appropriateness of any deletes is to be judged on how you think some editor might act in the future?

If you would please take the time to read the that wiki article, and the deletes that I made, you will see All my deletes were justified by the Wiki Rules, not to mention the tag at the top of the page, because none of the statements had been supported by ANY CITATIONS AT ALL, for over 7 years.

And then, look at the response of editor Orange Mike: Did he offer ANY good reason at all why his wholesale revert back to many rule-breaking statements, complied with Wikipedia rules of editing? If so, please show that to me; I am unable to find any legitimate argument on his side. All he did is make a red herring personal attack; nothing more.

Your comments from your own talk page above:

"Your refusal to discuss any of these issues, preventing there from ever being a consensus, does not entitle you to them claim "no consensus, the page must stay in favor of my bias forever."

Djcheburashka (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude -- In the first place please sign your comments. In the second, I don't run the place. Someone raised a dispute, which calls for discussion and an attempt at consensus. Since I am neutral, I tried to offer assistance.

It appears that you posted a lengthy argument on the talk page, someone objected, and then immediately after you made your edits. Some of those edits seem good, but some go to far.

You are also manifestly partisan on the issue.

I therefore suggested that the two of you go back to the talk page and try to build consensus.

Djcheburashka (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EditorASC

I am in the same situation at the IFALPA page. Editor Orange Mike has done the same; he has refused to discuss the legitimate wiki rules issues I raised on the talk page, so I will respond in the same words you did, when you were found to be in the same situation:

Directed at Orange Mike:

"Your refusal to discuss any of these issues, preventing there from ever being a consensus, does not entitle you to them claim "no consensus, the page must stay in favor of my bias forever."

EditorASC (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the talk page, it did not appear to me that much effort had been made by either of you to try to reach consensus before fighting over the edits. Is it really so hard to try to have a reasonable discussion to resolve it? It looked like some of your edits were removing violative material, but some of your edits seemed unnecessary, excessive, and POV. Why don't you just try to work it out?

Djcheburashka (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist school of criminology

From CambridgeBayWeather's talk page

The feminist school of criminology page does not have a single citation on it.'

<facepalm>. Dude, it has TEN citations from NINE sources, and you were given a DIRECT LINK to them seven paragraphs above that ludicrous claim. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "citation"? --Calton | Talk 09:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- "not a single" was too far. It would be more accurate to say that in three pages of screens, it has seven citations, two of which are actually accessible. Those citations claim, as support for the article, things like Justice Souter's dissent in the Morrison case, which obviously has nothing to do with either criminology or feminism or the feminist theory of criminology.

Djcheburashka (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- "not a single" was too far.

No, it was flat wrong. One-hundred-percent wrong. Not even slightly correct, especially since this particular bullshit claim was part of your alleged rationale for having it deleted.

It would be more accurate to say that in three pages of screens, it has seven citations...,

What possible ACTUAL difference does density make? I tell you, in case it's unclear: none whatsoever.

...two of which are actually accessible

<facepalm>. Yet ANOTHER principle/rule/guideline/practice/bit of reality which you don't understand. Do you have access to a library? Then the sources are accessible. "Having a URL" is NOT -- and never has been -- a requirement for a source. EVER.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources: Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.

Wikipedia:Offline sources: The first sentence reads, "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. [Emphasis in the original]

And even if true -- and it's not even close -- it's STILL irrelevent.

I'm trying to think of one single thing you've been right about so far, and there haven't been any. You seem to have great difficulty with the phrase, "I was wrong", given the elaborate excuses you ginned up to avoid saying it. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow you've obtained the mistaken view that your statements or conduct so far demonstrate a reason why I or anyone else should be concerned with your opinion on these matters. I continue to leave your comments up, because I think they say a lot about who you are, and how your other actions should be views.

I will not, however, take the bait and stoop to the level of responding to you in kind. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your message

Saw where the article was protected by an admin. I understand your position, and consult you to utilize the RfC process for consensus, and avoid reverting edits, especially when it involves editors who are known to be disruptive. Block logs speak volumes. Unfortunately, if you edit long enough, you will likely run into situations that defy common sense, and will tax every ounce of your patience. Walk away from it, and come back later. Familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines - learn them well so you aren't the one who ends up getting blocked. Remember Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare - there is no deadline on WP articles, and no need to edit with a sense of urgency. There are lots of trip hazards - learn where/what they are, and avoid them. Kindest regards... Atsme☯^Consult 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and template competence warning

Thank you for attempting to edit Wikipedia. However, one or more edits you labeled as disruptive, such as the edit at Dasha Zhukova are not considered disruptive under Wikipedia policy. Also, don't use templates you don't actually understand, nor make claims about policies and practices about which are demonstratively wrong or about which you know less than the editor you are attempting to lecture. See also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You attempted to revert an edit you didn't understand on a page you had never looked at before, apparently as part of some sort of odd vigilante campaign related to your views of the POV dispute over the David Liskan and False accusation of rape pages. That is disruptive editing.

If you believe it is not disruptive editing, then please explain to me your reasoning. I will happily revert the template if you have an explanation of how your edit was in good faith. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 [[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist school of criminology]], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. Please make use of the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] if you'd like to experiment with test edits. ''Try that stunt again, and I'll see to it you're blocked. ''<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> [[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 13:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 :You do not get to remove other peoples valid comments as per the above. You also need to stop posting comments like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=prev&oldid=633066268 these] as they are personal attacks. If you do anything like that again I will block you. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]], [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 14:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 83: / Line 82: @@
 Do you have like an infinite capacity for arguing with yourself?  I've told you repeatedly that I'm comfortable with what I did, and that if you have issues you should identify them with specificity.  You've declined to do that because you said it would "degrade" the wiki. You, instead, want to continue with an endless series of juvenile personal attacks.  According to your page, you apparently perceive yourself as a kind of Batman-of-wikipedia.  That's great for you, but I disagree both about your ability and your maturity.  If you post again on this page I'm going to ask for you to be blocked for harassment.  [[User:Djcheburashka|Djcheburashka]] ([[User talk:Djcheburashka#top|talk]]) 05:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
+: Djcheburashka, your ignorance, arrogance and lack of humility have no limits, do they? You haven't a clue who you are speaking to, their knowledge, their status, or their experience. You need to listen, accept that they know more about things here, and take their advice.
+: Let's make it clear:
+:* You: 221 edits since: 2014-04-13
+:* [[User:Calton]]: 68660 edits since: 2004-11-04
+:* [[User:EvergreenFir]]: reviewer, 22589 edits since: 2013-02-18
+:* [[User:Roscelese]]: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 27053 edits since: 2005-11-14
+:* [[User:Cirt]]: autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 176425 edits since: 2007-09-22
+:* [[User:Bbb23]]: sysop, 70128 edits since: 2008-08-02
+:* [[User:BullRangifer]]: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 44269 edits since: 2005-12-18
+:* [[User:CambridgeBayWeather]]: sysop, 175844 edits since: 2005-06-11
+: Do you get the picture now? I hate to put it this bluntly, but you are an ignorant flea among elephants when it comes to experience and knowledge here. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 == November 2014 ==