User talk:Ushkin N
Community requests are not optional
[edit]Unforchantly, group of people would expect my corrections (@Ruud:, @DeVerm: and others) and I underestimated that they should be immediate and not on lower priority in my list. Where I will review pages and I will fix them in second pass when I will fix many things at once. I was focusing not on improvements and guides but on poorly asking questions if there new rules that I broke. I should stop and go back in my edit log (roughly just about 1400 edits now), with the pointers given by Ruud #May_2016.
It was my mistake to focus on discussions, not on implementing improvements to main/category namespace.
It was a mistake to state they are "minor" at my talk page (even they are or not; and so on), I would never advice anyone doing so at his talk page. I should just fix them so that other editors would have no questions about me or my "competence" or my other (oblivious) flaws.
I should really listen advice about "escalating bans" and put corrections on the first priority in what I'm doing at Wikipedia.
My edit log was corrected and reviewed by group of people and I appreciate this. I should really state it earlier.
I should really use "Thank you" function to notify that "I got my mistake here". But now I can only say it post-factum. Ushkin N (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Comparison of programming languages
[edit]Hi,
I see you're splitting of the sections describing the concrete syntax of various programming languages from the concepts themselves. While I agree that the currently form in which they are presented in most articles is problematic (a subsection per language), I don't think the approach you're taking is proper way to resolve it:
- By splitting of that content, you're only moving the real problem, not solving it. In the past I've solved this by creating a single section "Programming languages" or "Language support" in the article on the concept and put all the information in a more compact table. One row per language instead of one per subsection. See e.g. Function type#Programming languages.
- Those article titles you are using are going to raise some eyebrows. "Comparison of programming languages" sounds a bit non-encyclopedic. These titles have been used in the past for articles that compared two different programming languages with each other, but many of those were deleted. A lists of disambiguation tags (like "types, dependent types") are also never used on Wikipedia.
I've already undone you split of Dependent type, where the information was already in a compact table.
—Ruud 10:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I should ask for a guide about Wikipedia merges instead of asking more questions from Ruud. I will ask way too much questions
|
---|
|
No, splitting pages makes them much harder to maintain. Mainly because changes will no longer show up on the History tab and on people's watchlists. Splitting articles is something that should only be done if the parent article truly becomes too large, and the content that was split-off can stand on its own as a separate article.
It's also better to discuss such massive changes, as you seem to be planning to undertake, beforehand. E.g. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Especially if you are a fairly new contributor. Otherwise we might have to spend a lot more effort afterwards correcting any mistakes. —Ruud 11:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Somebody should point me to the WP:MERGEINIT and Wikipedia:Splitting#When_to_split here, but I will use talk pages to request pages merges splits. Not inherently wrong, but possibly not the best way of doing it
|
---|
|
- I second Ruud's comments, especially those concerning the inappropriate article titles that you are creating. Ruud is a very experienced editor who is trying to be helpful here. In addition to his comments, please make sure that when you split an article that proper attribution is given to previous editors (see comment on my talk page in repsonse to Tea2min here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I should read WP:MISTAKES instead of asking even more questions, but nobody told me these short version of Wikipedia
|
---|
|
At this point, I was busy with my job, I had no time to read all rules yet (even basic merge/split procedure requests).
I understood that I'm doing it wrong. There was 3 people suggesting me how to do it, but I was simply unable to grasp their absolutely legitimate suggestions. For some reason, I will pick Ruud as a person, who is not able to suggest anything constructive. I don't have excuses to this, I will "prove" myself that "he is not good at sources", while I'm not able to fully understand his edit history or all discussions he had.
I don't know why it was so. He made 4-10 suggestions from the almost directly from the rules, but I'm still able to perceive them Maybe this is relevant how lengthy our conversation was with him.
27 May 2016 undiscussed and useless merge suggestion I overreacted to this edit A LOT. Intentionally or not, but I will have a real war later on.
May 2016
[edit]Here I'm overreact to 3RR, I was never told that I shouldn't defend myself. I waste my time and get frustrated even more. IT WILL BE A SERIOUS WAR. I should ask question what I did wrong at noticeboard, but I honestly had to time to read about procedures or to follow them at noticeboards
|
---|
![]() 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. —Ruud 14:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
|
I'm not able to perceive Ruud. BUT I very clearly understand what David Eppstein said
|
---|
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Disuptive editting includes tag bombing articles, including placing multiple inline maintaines templates in a single sentence, like you have done at e.g. Graceful exit and Programming idiom. —Ruud 14:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Last warning
[edit]You claim to be an experienced editor, so start acting like one quickly. Take these edits to Temporary variable. The article already had a huge tag on it, mentioning the text is insufficiently referenced. There is no need, then, to place multiple(!) inline {{clarify}} and {{citation needed}} tags in the lead sentence. It is disruptive. Stop it. Next time I see something silly like that from you again it is going to result in a block. —Ruud 16:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why, but I had misconception that I have to defend myself and explain myself after every "last warning" and "3RR" request. I should fix this small change instead and say done. I wasn't able to perceive Ruud. Not only I WAR but I'm also discussing other pages, which are irrelevant to the request
|
---|
|
Comment Ushkin there are three editors telling you that what you are doing is wrong and disruptive. You are the only one arguing against that; this should tell you that maybe you are wrong and disruptive instead of arguing against it more. About your claims on being experienced, you wrote this: "Thank you for your contributions, but I don't think I'm "new" just because I created new account, you could easily avoid this argument next time. Ushkin N (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)" so Ruud's statements are not false at all... it seems you can't keep track of which statements you made only 5 days before. I urge you to help fix this, not make it worse. DeVerm (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Personally you were asked to provide examples of my "disruptive edits". But you ignore my question, so uncivil WP:CIVILITY.
I can see how 3 users try to assault meand(seems to)ignore my concerns about edits WP:CIVILITY.- This one is especially painful to read. Ushkin N (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was SO confused and exhausted by previous talks. I lost my mind in WARs.
- WALLS of discussions that doesn't help me, as they should. I should simply read guide on this topic. Not to ask questions, not to defend myself.
- My own WALLS of diffs and self-explanation are so exhausting. Ushkin N (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
EDITED: it was wrong to say this, it is easy to make mistakes in such statements. Ushkin N (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- While it is true that 2 citation requests are worse than 1 (according to WP:V) doesn't mean I should be reminded every time I oversight something.
- I don't have go too far in edit history to show how offensive User:Ruud Koot is: "revert more WP:TAGBOMBing and strange, unexplained merge suggestions by"
- Statements about "weird" edits doesn't help anyone in the project. Ushkin N (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not able to perceive Ruud. I WARring Ruud again
|
---|
|
I'm not able to perceive Ruud. I WAR him because I seen "last warning". It is now or never
|
---|
|
- No, using offensive and taunting language would make it more civil. Ushkin N (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did not have to answer your questions because when I got to this page, Ruud had already perfectly answered them. You also seemed to have missed that I was initially trying to protect and help you because I assumed good faith. It now seems I may have made a mistake because you have not hesitated to accuse me and others of assaulting you. Do you seriously not see that we care about these computer/programming related articles and are not interested in doing anything with you?! Last but not least, it seems you do not understand the concept of a last warning. DeVerm (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just stated that you ignored my question. Okay, let's stop this nonsense. But it doesn't help if you state "you doing it wrong" without link/examples.
- Please don't do this, as it confuses editors.
- Ruud addressed too many minor things that were fixed by me or by other editors. There no point in repeating or discussing what was fixed.
- Do you have any concerns right now? What was/is wrong and where? Ushkin N (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did not have to answer your questions because when I got to this page, Ruud had already perfectly answered them. You also seemed to have missed that I was initially trying to protect and help you because I assumed good faith. It now seems I may have made a mistake because you have not hesitated to accuse me and others of assaulting you. Do you seriously not see that we care about these computer/programming related articles and are not interested in doing anything with you?! Last but not least, it seems you do not understand the concept of a last warning. DeVerm (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Link with mistake from Ruud, not from DeVerm. I do not neglect that DeVerm supported Ruud, even back in May 27. We cannot have a talk when we are in WAR, this is "last warning thread".
Stop
[edit]
These page moves ([6],[7],[8]) are inappropriate. You have been told previously that your requested moves ([9]) and choice of article titles ([10][11][12]) were not appropriate either. As some many of your actions have been problematic, I'm at this point I'm not ever sure any more if you simply have some competence issues or are being deliberately disruptive. Several experienced editors have tried to make this clear to you already, but instead of taking their advice, you dismiss them. I've revoked your editing permissions for the rest of the weekend. If genuinely care about improving Wikipedia use that time to familiarize yourself with its culture and to imagine a way how you can contribute without exceeding your abilities. —Ruud 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
|
2 day ban? It's a WAR. I should take an one week break. Not only I had no free time with my job, but I irritated myself with WALLs of self-explanations after every "ban request"
|
---|
Block by User:Ruud Koot suppresses discussion, I'm not able to use talk pages or explain my actions or ask questions how could I improve my actions[edit]![]() Ushkin N (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Even this block may be justified by other admins. Right now, I'm not able to participate in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:Ushkin_N.23May_2016_2 or contact User:Ruud_Koot at his talk page after this block. Decline reason: While it is true you can't edit pages outside of this one, that's not grounds to lift the block. You need to convince us that the block is not legitimate, or that your disruptive editing has stopped. Yamla (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. . As it was recommended to me. User:Ruud_Koot wasn't participating in discussion on the yesterday dispute. Blocking me at talk pages was absolutely unnecessary and User:Ruud_Koot should know this better than me. Ushkin N (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Comment Ushkin, I am not sure but I think you are acting in good faith but just don't know how to help make these articles better. At the same time you are dismissing our remarks which really are attempts to show you the right way. Even now, right above this comment, you are still pointing fingers at others instead of thinking it over. It seems you are out of control and all of us see that and support the block. Do not forget the pointers you got with that block, they are meant to help you: read up on how things go here, check out contributions from others, read the manuals etc. Before doing big edits, study how others did those and check their results, i.e. if they succeeded or not etc. I still follow that procedure myself when I need to do something that I didn't do before or when it was a long time ago that I did that. And I make mistakes as well, we all do, but then I am okay with it when other editors come in and point out my mistakes and I don't ignore their pointers nor accuse them etc. While blocked, you can still edit this talk page and ping Ruud if you want. DeVerm (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
|
I will quit editing soon because of the job. I irritating myself because I don't want to be previewed as "disruptive" but as ordinary editor. WAR Ruud on daily basis. David Eppstein absolutely right, I should explain my behavior in my actions
|
---|
"You need to convince us that the block is not legitimate, or that your disruptive editing has stopped."[edit]![]() Ushkin N (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: @Ruud Koot used past discussions and humble question(s) during discussion(s) as argument to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, while he was repeatedly assaulting me at user page. There conflict of interest at very least as he was involved in these changes. Decline reason: The block has expired already, so the unblock request is now moot. However, the unblock rationale was phrased only in terms of other editors' behavor. That won't work. To persuade people to unblock you, you need to consider your own behavior that led to a block, and agree not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
With best regards. Ushkin N (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC) |
Rhetorical question
[edit]I did mistake sending unformatted and uncomposed message. Because it was "an enemy" I heavily WAR or defending myself from the further "please stop headings". I had legitimate questions about WP:V, but I waste time WAR Ruud about other discussions. I simply mess everything up every time discussing with him
|
---|
Did it occur to you that before pestering other people, you could answer that question yourself by typing 'RAII idiom' or 'Schwartzian tranform idiom' into Google Books? Doing so would make you look like an overall more competent and likeable person. —Ruud 21:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
|
31 May 2016
[edit]I WAR Ruud because because I wasn't aware of his sources because he doesn't addresses my request just immediately. While he still waits for my very-very overlooked mistakes to be fixed. Even I had tight schedule, I should definitely show more empathy here, but how could I review his edit history, if I'm not able to fix all of mistakes in mine first
|
---|
I have closed the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread for multiple reasons. See my comments there. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) is not a forum for discussing the actions of administrators. If you have an issue with the actions of any administrator, first read the boomerang essay and then go to WP:AN. You are very strongly advised to listen to the advice of other editors. The alternative will be a series of escalating blocks. No one wants that. You were already blocked once. That should have gotten your attention to change your editing behavior, since no other editor agrees with you and some have advised you to be less confrontational. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
|
In meantime, page Schwartzian transform was improved with refs (not by me) removal of "Category:Programming idioms" is after Talk:Programming idiom discussion.
Category:Computer architecture folklore has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Computer architecture folklore, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. L9G45AT0 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Replied. Ushkin N (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Memory characteristics
[edit]Hello Ushkin N,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Memory characteristics for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.If you wish to start an article, please refer to Wikipedia:AFC
Meiloorun talk 🍁 21:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello! That was quicker than I could physically edit/paste text from my editor.
- I requested a page split 6 minutes before my "empty page": Talk:Computer_data_storage#Please_split_Computer_data_storage.23Characteristics_of_storage_into_separate_article.
- Then I decided to WP:BEBOLD and split this page. But it would require multiple actions during split. It could be removed as empty or as duplication (if I copied text of the other article first); there a Wikipedia policy against every move :) Ushkin N (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Computer hardware degradation
[edit]Template:Computer hardware degradation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Ruud 11:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Computer storage terminology has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Computer storage terminology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Ruud 11:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
We're done
[edit]![Stop icon](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. You returned after a break of a few months and immediately the exact same problems as those that led to your previous block start again.
- Performing poorly thought-out and undiscussed splits of articles [14][15].
- Performing poorly thought-out mass recategorizations [16]. Even continuing to move articles into a category that has already attracted several delete votes [17].
- Making tendentious edits based on some idiosyncratic beliefs what a particular term should mean. This time resulting in a mass stub-unsorting [18][19].
- Being unable to communicate properly with other editors due to poor English-language skills and an attitude problem [20][21][22].
- Possible copyright violations [23][24].
You're not doing anything productive here, but instead waste a lot of other people's time that have to clean up after you. As several editors told you during your previous block, you should be able to explain what you are going to do to prevent such disruptive behavior in the future. Instead you blamed your problems on others and had to wait out your block. That's not going to work a second time. How are you going to address your behavior in order to become a useful asset to the project? —Ruud 11:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Ruud lies and doesn't deserves admin flag. He lied about my actions before, he continues to do so, without contacting or discussing with me. None of my edits were undiscussed in edit comments or talk pages or bad-faith intended. I performed moves to temporary maintain category. Regarding new category I even requested move everything back. Is category split and merge back is permabannable offense? I never seen a warning or a single polite request from a user "stop category splits". Instead, Ruud issued bermaban without any warning or WP:CIVIL discussion. Ushkin N (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Undiscussed edit by User:Ruud Koot just everywhere:
Merge back requests is not the same 1 as User:Ruud Koot claims. I talk about Category:Computer storage merge, not about simple Category:Computer storage terminology removal. It quite clear that it should be discussed separately: 1 But now, it is UNWP:DISCUSSED with Ruud.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Ushkin N (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is true that there things to improve. I wish I had time do everything in the proper way while following every policy. Ban issued without a direct warning to me, clearly against ban procedure. false statements in the ban request; groundless bad-faith assumptions about my tone and attiture, see comments below
Decline reason:
You absolutely should not be attempting the things you are doing when your command of English is so poor, and the fact that you cannot see that suggests you really do not possess the competence to edit here. Couple that with your blaming of everybody else for your own problems and your accusations of lying, and no, sorry, it would not be to the encyclopedia's benefit to unblock you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I just want to add that I was a little hasty in my response above, and command of English is not the biggest problem here (though I think it probably contributes to the re-categorization problem). The big problem is that Ushkin N is just not listening when multiple people oppose their article restructuring activities, simply insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong - it's clearly evident to anyone who reads the whole of this talk page. I'm seeing an attitude here that is just not compatible with Wikipedia's approach of collegial editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I'm sorry for readers of my user page, I never badfathly intended offend anyone. I'm not a proficient English speaker, not really understand how this is a reason to my permaban. Some of my statements are sharp because I have full time job and other activities other than editing Wikipedia in my very limited spare time. It's personal from Ruud, he lies and being unbelievably WP:UNCIVIL against me for 2 months in a row.
- > Performing poorly thought-out and undiscussed splits of articles
- BEFORE splitting page 1
- I explained myself why this section should be merged first Talk:Computer_data_storage#Please_split_Computer_data_storage.23Characteristics_of_storage_into_separate_article
- I was contacted by other user during split and I do not ignore his message about "empty page".
- I would like to hear from User:Meiloorun if my merge was badly thought, because he objected empty page, not split.
- Talk page was ignored: Talk:Memory characteristics by Ruud as always.
- My constructive edits to Memory characteristics are lost without any discussion at talk page or at my page.
- Regarding 1
- I'm not a lawyer, but I quoted SNIA directly with attribution in edit comment. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I did not copy just everything (their materials are huge), but only 10-20 missing definitions. I re-expressed some of them using my words, but Ruud will pose it as poorly thought content changes.
- At other pages I made this quotation is even more explicit 1.
- If SNIA members (not even lawyers) would ever request Wikipedia or me to stop quoting them with attribution, I will comply.
- I was never contacted by Ruud to stop quoting absolutely WP:Verifable statements.
- Honestly, quoting public copyrighted educational materials makes no sense to me, because there Fair use.
- I haven't seen than SNIA strictly prohibits properly quote their educational materials and dictionaries.
- So, I was perma banned for "possible copyright violations"? According to Ruud?
- > Being unable to communicate properly with other editors due to poor English-language skills and an attitude problem
- I'm using talk pages.
- I never hided that I'm not native English speaker, because of this I'm not making huge textual changes (other than page splits and minor improvements to factual accuracy).
- I don't have attitude problem as Ruud repeatedly lies about me
- For example:
- I deeply respect clarification from Tony Pearson, but nowadays this term (Nearline storage) is used less by major companies - 31 July 2016 about Nearline storage (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Age_matters, WP:IGNOREALLRULES)
- And thank you for the quote
- Plesae open
- Thank you - 30 July 2016
- Hello! - 30 May 2016
- Hello! Sorry that remind of this - 28 May 2016
- In fact, I never heard a single "hello" from Ruud but his requests at my user page like a never ending water-wall of misunderstanding and sometimes lie.
- I honestly would like to improve Wikipedia navigation and texts, not to fight over endless self-contradictory policies (sometimes openly hated everywhere outside Wikipedia).
- I'm not able to write huge well-written and fluent English articles, but I have time to correct factual mistakes and unsourced statements], that cannot be found elsewhere.
- To me, the only problem that reoccurs with "me" is a single admin who lies in the ban statemets and requests User_talk:Ushkin_N#May_2016_2 User_talk:Ushkin_N#.22You_need_to_convince_us_that_the_block_is_not_legitimate.2C_or_that_your_disruptive_editing_has_stopped..22.
- Now he lies about my "randomly selected articles" 1 2 (in fact, selected according SNIA dictionary) "undiscussed edits" (when I used talk page of the article) has something to hide in his edit history and his talk page.
- For example, my fresh page merged back 1 2
- I commented that this page could be possible extended to other mediums, but my note was not commented by User:Codename Lisa or discussed at respective talk page.
- I think User:Jimbo Wales should raise a question to refine ban procedure, because how easily is to abuse it.
- Publicly discussing what is perma bannable offense.
- To me, language barrier or simple opposite position in the views at talk pages 123(not at Main: space pages) shouldn't be ever considered by a person with admin flag.
- If my opponents not able to provide WP:Verifable statements, while I have sources behind my actions. That's not a reason to a ban or claim "that I'm not able communicate or contribute to Wikipedia" (ironically, not everyone thinks that "all of my edits are useless" (except for Ruud).
- Again, I'm sorry if anyone was offended because of my poor language skills.
- If there recommendations what should I follow, I would like to know.
- Ushkin N (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- > You're not doing anything productive here, but instead waste a lot of other people's time
- This is so painfully UNTRUE.
- I was thanked by User:Fmadd 1 for my well soured edit
- I expect public excuses from Ruud for what he said about me. Ushkin N (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- > Couple that with your blaming of everybody else for your own problems
- User:Boing! said Zebedee, Please pick your statements!
- Quite openly state "one person" and not "everyone".
- I can be as stupid as anyone else. Please don't claim that "I'm blaming "just everyone" because, I deeply thankful to other contributors for their edits, for example User:Fmadd or others
- I'm participating (or was) in Wikipedia not to discuss personalities or users, I'm here to improve WP:Verifable sources and statements.
- I never blamed User:Codename Lisa for undoing my actions. But it is true that talk page was avoided by User:Codename Lisa.
- Is this my problem to use talk pages and request for WP:Verifable sources? 1 23:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I missed some of the false statements.
- > Making tendentious edits based on some idiosyncratic beliefs what a particular term should mean.
- I stated a discussion at Category_talk:Computer_storage#Category:Computer_file_systems_and_subcategories_here
- But nobody seem to care to join it, even User:Ruud Koot. Does User:Ruud Koot aware that he should reach WP:CONS on this topic?
- 1 2 3 4 5 Ushkin N (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Not as disruptive as one user repeatedly poses it at my usertalk page
[edit]- I'm able to provide sources
- I do not neglect community feedback
- and so on...
- I'm open to discussion.
- "Making tendentious edits based on some idiosyncratic beliefs what a particular term should mean. This time resulting in a mass stub-unsorting" completely undiscussed: 1 2. This is not what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN or WP:Verifiability states.
About User:Boing! said Zebedee edits, statements and sources
[edit]User:Boing! said Zebedee, instead of instead of badmouthing my personality at talk pages 1 you could fillfull my merge request 31 July 1.
You could help us reach WP:CONSensus on a category merge.
I understand that my "keep" vote was alone, but can I have an opinion of why I did what I did?
Please tone down your statements about "mess" immediately.
I aslo quite openly state that some of my edits may be not understood by other editors without every reference: just my 2c 1.
I also tired to explain myself. But one person will claim it as inability to communicate.
Dear, User:Boing! said Zebedee, I understand such pleb like me cannot possible compete in editing Wikipedia.
But could you please provide sources for your edits?
Because I have WP:SOURCES for my edits (if not for every, but for most), you know and do you have sources for your edits? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
I it is clear to me that you ignored my well sourced merge request.
From same sourcewhen I was accused by Ruud : The 2016 SNIA Dictionary, 2016 (C) Storage Networking Industry Association:
- C-H-S addressing [Storage System] Synonym for Cylinder-Head-Sector addressing.
- Cylinder-Head-Sector (C-H-S) addressing [Storage System] A form of addressing data stored on a disk in which the cylinder, head/platter combination, and relative sector number on a track are specified. See block addressing.
User:Boing! said Zebedee, in my humble, non-competent opinion, Cylinder-head-sector qualifies as Category:Computer storage page or terminology. What is your opinion? Ushkin N (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Boing! said Zebedee, watch your statements in edit comments! revert undiscussed controversial recategorization First of all, page is not limited to "main memory" 1 and I very clearly stated it. WP:BEBOLD. Secondly, my edits are not so controversial if you only place it under parent category: 1 User:Boing! said Zebedee, do you seek a reason to fight users without admin flag while stating about "reverts" in page edit history or a reason to improve articles? Are you able to explain your reverts? What are you doing at Wikipedia? Ushkin N (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear User:Boing! said Zebedee, can you provide sources for your edit or explain your edit here?
Because data deduplication (and also compression) is often built-in in Cateogory:Storage Systems. For example, VMware heavily uses this: VMware Horizon View Administration > Managing Local Desktops > Configure Security and Optimization for Local Desktop Operations
Virtual SAN 6.2 from VMware uses duplication and compression: Virtual SAN 6.2 – Deduplication and Compression Deep Dive
I'm quoting VMware because it is one of the biggest players on the market, along with EMC and others.
Stating that there no (de)duplication in the Storage systems is like stating that Sun doesn't produce light.
I wish User:Boing! said Zebedee had a source for such statement.
Instead of pointless reverts, lead of the Data deduplication should be expanded with "in Computer storage (or storage systems) and Hardware virtualization used to reduce IO in the network and lower storage requirements at expense of the CPU usage". Ushkin N (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Ushkin N (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion with User:Boing! said Zebedee
[edit]- I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to try to unravel what you are demanding of me here. You were blocked in May for making disruptive large-scale structural changes to articles without prior discussion, not listening when people objected, and just carrying on regardless. And only a couple of months after that block expired, you resumed the same kind of activities again. I see you have posted a new unblock request, so leave that for another admin to review now - though I predict that a request again accusing people of lying is unlikely to be successful. But if it is successful and you are unblocked, you can then discuss specific article issues on the talk pages of the articles themselves, or wider category issues on a project page or somewhere similar. There's no point pinging me to discuss article content here while you are blocked, because I am not interested in partaking in that here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not. You disrespect my opinion quite clearly without any examples. And I asked you to calm down. WP:UNCIVIL.May it is not the right time for you discusses this issue.- > a request again accusing people of lying is unlikely to be successful
- I fully understand how this is not a popular move or statement. But can I have an option to call a person that nitpicking my 4% worst edits WP:WIKIHOUND as "what I actually do" as a liar? WP:CIVIL
- My recent structural change was approved by community. 1
- I do not ignore community feedback 2.
- So, your statement, are overstatements and also untrue. But we all can be stupid, you know (I'm NOT an exception, really). Please try to follow these 2 links, not everything above.
- I understand that you have no interest in my wall of text. If I wasn't banned and wasn't reverted by your without sources, then there wouldn't be any.
- You are not very civil here ignoring my verifiable sources, we don't need such "investigators". If WP:BURDEN is too hard for you, then that's not a reason to bite other edits who can follow WP:V.
I expect excuses from you for what you just said.Ushkin N (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)- All I reverted was your contested re-categorization of a number of articles as "...terminology", which is a legitimate part of the WP:BRD cycle (and there's a clear consensus building that agrees with the reversion). It's got nothing to do with verifiability or sources, it's purely about the structural organization of articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- So much better to communicate with you in this way!
- Thank you for reverting "...terminology" (because it was our last WP:Consensus), as were discussed (do you remember that I was the only one who voted "keep", but then asked for a merge request)?
- I honestly think that with my WP:SOURCES, some of the pages affected by your actions should be placed back in Category:Storage system as general terminology, not only in's subcategories.
- Please note that this wasn't objected by anyone, even you?.. Isn't? Ushkin N (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article should not be placed in both a subcategory and a parent category - if it is in a subcategory, then it is automatically in the parent category too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well I was never against Wikipedia categorization rules, agree (only sub category). I think we should follow what Category:Physics and/or Category:Mathematics did:
- Category:Mathematical terminology
- Category:Concepts in physics
- Do you think such category wouldn't helpfull in storage category (or similar big field with 30 or 50 terms)?
- Because I can provide a list of 30 pages that would would be WP:Verifiable down to the source and my source is very recent and curated.
- Then there won't be breakage of the rule "article should not be placed in both a subcategory and a parent category"
- If will be placed in every "sub category" but it will also placed in "special" "topics" category.
- What do you think? Do you have better suggestion how to curate common and verifiable terminology? Ushkin N (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not interested in discussing alternative suggestions for category organization, as my interest was solely in undoing what was contested in accordance with Wikipedia policy and consensus. Your discussion here should be about your block, the reasons for it, and what you will do differently if unblocked. If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page, where those with an interest in the subject can offer their opinions, and you should seek a consensus before you make any changes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for honestly, let me be clear:
- When is comes to category changes, I use talk pages.
- But as we all see here, it doesn't work with all users.
- For example, Category_talk:Computer_storage#Category:Computer_file_systems_and_subcategories_here was here, but wasn't discussed by people who context such change.
- I start a discussion 1 first
- Then I make WP:BOLD changes, until somebody will contest my change.
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- I expect a discussion WP:CONSENSUS after revert (WP:BOLD), not an immediate ban instead. Where is discussion by opponents? It was discussed without me?! UNDISCUSSED with me (WP:CONSENSUS).
- I'm not biting other users for undoing my edits; as I said, I would like to discuss change at respective talk pages.
- Same about pages.
- For example, I would not edit war merger: 1 2
- It happens that sometimes we have to tell more (more reverts): 1
- I use talk pages 2
- I do not ignore objections. I stopped edits quite clearly after 30 may discussion and relevant pages.
- Can I have my communication counter not equal zero?
- I do not accuse User:Codename Lisa in lying about me! I never talked to that person!
- But I would like to hear his/her opinion WP:Consensus about my humble nonsense.
- I do not ignore his/her statements about "definitely not notable to have own page", my issue is about something different
- What would you suggest to me? What I'm doing wrong here? I was thinking that staring a discussion first is a very polite move at Wikipedia, but it seems not?..
- I created a page 1
- explanation 2 split 3Ushkin N (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, you can see that my edit was well commented
and not contested by this user: 4 but without explanation "why it is limited to enterprise" Ushkin N (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not interested in discussing alternative suggestions for category organization, as my interest was solely in undoing what was contested in accordance with Wikipedia policy and consensus. Your discussion here should be about your block, the reasons for it, and what you will do differently if unblocked. If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page, where those with an interest in the subject can offer their opinions, and you should seek a consensus before you make any changes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article should not be placed in both a subcategory and a parent category - if it is in a subcategory, then it is automatically in the parent category too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- All I reverted was your contested re-categorization of a number of articles as "...terminology", which is a legitimate part of the WP:BRD cycle (and there's a clear consensus building that agrees with the reversion). It's got nothing to do with verifiability or sources, it's purely about the structural organization of articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Short-Stroking: 1
- I had WP:SOURCES that state simply "hdd", not "enterprise hdd", do you see this?
- How user is able to explain revert of the "enterprise"? (WP:BURDEN)
- I'm not fighting content if there no inaccuracies (WP:BEBOLD), but yes I can be as stupid as any other editor. Ushkin N (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, I'm not able edit article talk pages, category talk pages or user my own profile or pages at my profile.
- > If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page, where those with an interest in the subject can offer their opinions
- I can't. The only thing I can to is to ping people at this messy unreadable hatepage.
- Not very healthy page to discuss respective topics. Ushkin N (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- You appear not to have understood the first part of "If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page". You should not be discussing your desired changes here at all, you should only be working towards your unblock request. You need to be patient and wait for an admin to review it - it appears at WP:RFU, so someone will attend to it in due course. (But I would suggest rewriting it before it is reviewed - I think it is almost certain to be rejected in its current form). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Very insightful, thank you!
- Is there guide what exactly should I cover? I mean, other general statements here, should I cover something specific?
- I think I would hide it for now if it is so badly written. Ushkin N (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest what you need to do is look back on the reasons for your two blocks, consider whether there was anything in your approach that might have led to the disagreements that you have faced from a number of other editors and to the blocks - and if you can identify any problems in your own approach, then make some proposals about how you would change that approach if unblocked. Alternatively, if you honestly believe that your approach has been fine and everyone else is wrong, then make that case in a civil manner without calling anybody a liar. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTHEM 2 messages above I did not call anyone liar. Can you see it? It just resets our conversation in the wrong way.
- I suggest what you need to do is look back on the reasons for your two blocks, consider whether there was anything in your approach that might have led to the disagreements that you have faced from a number of other editors and to the blocks - and if you can identify any problems in your own approach, then make some proposals about how you would change that approach if unblocked. Alternatively, if you honestly believe that your approach has been fine and everyone else is wrong, then make that case in a civil manner without calling anybody a liar. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- You appear not to have understood the first part of "If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page". You should not be discussing your desired changes here at all, you should only be working towards your unblock request. You need to be patient and wait for an admin to review it - it appears at WP:RFU, so someone will attend to it in due course. (But I would suggest rewriting it before it is reviewed - I think it is almost certain to be rejected in its current form). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Look, what you need to do now is not carry on a wall-of-words discussion/argument with me, because it's not me who will be reviewing your next unblock request. What you need to do is post an actual unblock request, as you have done previously, using the {{unblock}} template, and include an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. My suggestions were only suggestions, and you are free to take whatever approach you think best yourself. But please, make that unblock request rather than carrying on like this - I've offered all the help I can and I'm done now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry. My last ping, thank you :) You're one of many editors who is able to communicate with without using "useless". Thank you for the insight and excuse me for you for your time. Ushkin N (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, good luck with the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry. My last ping, thank you :) You're one of many editors who is able to communicate with without using "useless". Thank you for the insight and excuse me for you for your time. Ushkin N (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Look, what you need to do now is not carry on a wall-of-words discussion/argument with me, because it's not me who will be reviewing your next unblock request. What you need to do is post an actual unblock request, as you have done previously, using the {{unblock}} template, and include an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. My suggestions were only suggestions, and you are free to take whatever approach you think best yourself. But please, make that unblock request rather than carrying on like this - I've offered all the help I can and I'm done now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Computer storage backup and archival has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Computer storage backup and archival, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @PanchoS:, see below
- They are slightly different, nuances here: Category_talk:Computer_backup. Ushkin N (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @PanchoS: regarding name for a "storage of computer images":
- Category:Computer images and archival. With articles like VMware Fusion, VMware Infrastructure, VMware Server and VMware vSphere. Other vendors have their solutions too.
- There clear distinction between storage-only and computing only solutions.
- There also third group where boundary is not drawn by vendors, they are just "computers" or "servers" or "nodes".
- It is not sufficient articles to have a separate Category:Archival of the computer images Ushkin N (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can see what you mean. However the mere feeling that we have to make a distinction is a non-starter without a reasonable approach at how to actually make it work. VMware Fusion etc. may provide backup functionality, but is it a defining feature of these software solutions? There's some connection between traditional backup solutions and virtual machines, though, in that they are based on images. I therefore just created Category:System image as a subcategory of Category:Computer backup (among others), holding both Category:Virtualization software and Category:Disk images. It's no perfect solution, but seems reasonably generic and achieves connecting the two topics. I'm on your side in that categorization schemes need quite some further improvement, but so do the articles. In the end, even well thought-out categories don't work without appropriate, sufficiently specific content. regards, PanchoS (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Computer storage cache has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Computer storage cache, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest to merge Category:Flash caching products and Category:Computer storage cache
- I suggest to use name "Computer storage cache", because caching is not limited to "flash"/"ssd" based drivers. It could be ram. It could be fast hdd. I could be HDD in front of off-line storage.
- My intent was to have Computer storage cache for the hardware ... and software "caches". Ushkin N (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- How would caching related to Flash, SSD or any (other) HDD drives differ from Category:Cache (computing)? Unfortunately neither the category explanation at Category:Computer storage cache nor the category title give any (understandable) advice regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria. --PanchoS (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Cache (computing) should contain: "theory (Cache algorithms) and Category:Computer storage cache"
- Category:Computer storage cache should contain only "hardware and software" Ushkin N (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- How would caching related to Flash, SSD or any (other) HDD drives differ from Category:Cache (computing)? Unfortunately neither the category explanation at Category:Computer storage cache nor the category title give any (understandable) advice regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria. --PanchoS (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Computer storage protocol has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Computer storage protocol, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Hierarchical storage management has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Hierarchical storage management, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well yes, I expected to find more protocols later on, but they are not covered at Wikipedia (yet).
- Was it covered in some guide too? Ushkin N (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Too bad, but for some good reason we're categorizing existing content, not content that has not yet been written. You don't have to know any of these policies and established conventions upfront, but your behaviour still suggests you're not (yet) ready to cope with disagreement, nor to learn more about our policies, nor to communicate with other participants in a civil, respectful way. Come back whenever you are. --PanchoS (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]Hello, Ushkin N. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Computer architecture statements
[edit]Thank you for creating Category:Computer architecture statements. As you're populating it, it seems clear what the intent is: it's maxims or laws or adages, whether serious or facetious, relevant to the computer industry.
There are a few problems. First of all, "computer architecture" means "hardware design". Most of the entries have nothing to do with hardware. "Statement" seems overly broad. After all, "transistors can be used to build logic gates" is a statement, but not an adage. We already have Category:Adages, although there are admittedly other related categories.
So I would suggest that you rename this category to Category:Computer industry adages or something. --Macrakis (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:171.79.69.21 has been adding Category:Computer architecture statements to many articles. I am guessing that this is you. Please be sure to log in before editing. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Category:Programming language documentation has been nominated for discussion
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Programming language documentation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)