Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:12, 10 April 2008

Cheeser1 is endlessly frustrated in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. If you are contributing to this frustration, this user may not respond at all.

Sockpuppet case

Thanks for the "heads up". — ] (] · ]) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If the situation were reversed, I would have expected a similar "heads up." (Although presumably it should come from the person making the accusation.) --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

The problem of notability of rivers has been discussed and a decision on the matter has been taken. I have difficulties understanding why you want to open the discussion again.Afil (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All I asked was that you not remove speedy deletion templates from articles that you personally have created. That is policy. I am not endorsing any deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CAD

My comments on the CAD talk page could not possibly be more on topic. Why do you have to delete them? Am I wrong in thinking that the talk page is a place to talk about the article? Should I go to the talk page's talk page next time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.86.232 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are slanderous, unfounded accusations against a living person, gross personal attacks against a Misplaced Pages user that reflect not an iota of assumed good-faith, and are not related to improving the article so much as ranting about a particular user. They are highly inappropriate, as was explained to you already. Please stop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So assumed good faith trumps article neutrality then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.86.232 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment reflects your misunderstanding of neutrality, not to mention your continued neglect of the policies that your ranting on the talkpage for CAD violates. Please let the issue drop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I don't give a shit. I just want my opinion to be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.86.232 (talk • contribs)

And this is why your contributions are not appropriate - Misplaced Pages is not the place for you to voice your opinion. Try a webforum or blog, you may find it less frustrating since those are places where you should be behaving in this fashion and will have the freedom to do so. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeserwhy do you want the CAD article to remain written as a fan site?130.101.164.220 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you beat your wife? Can't answer? Neither can I. Classic loaded question. Show some respect for personal attack policy and living persons policy, and then your comments on the talk page won't be removed - I have no interest in silencing you, but you can't break our policies. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i beat my wife because she talks back and doesnt do as shes told. now why do you allow a page you seem to care for remain a joke?130.101.164.220 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been thoroughly rebutted by Thrindel. Next time you want to come at people, I suggest you check your facts before getting uppity. That sort of attitude doesn't help, and makes it hard (but apparently not impossible) for us to explain to you the actual situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

• Thank you very much for your work on Myrzakulov equations. But I would like note that in Russian.Wiki where my same article with the same title was deleted I had some and same problems from two russian users. After deleting the russian version of my article they wrote to each other that their next step is to delete english version of Myrzakulov equations. And they did many nonsense comments in the first AfD discussion of my article (see please Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations. Now I see and think in the second AfD discussion these two russian partipicate with a new user names. And here I see their associates users. They used absolutely same arguments as in Russuain.Wiki case to delete my article. This is reason why some comments are same or almost same. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Joke account?

. Hmm... Biruitorul (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how you define "joke." --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for lightheartedness on Misplaced Pages, don't get me wrong. It's just that if he's joking, then he's starting to take it a little too far. If he's serious, which he seems to be, then I don't know what to think. I wonder why he doesn't start articles on himself, his kids, his pet goldfish -- two indef blocks already; a third can't be too far off. Just saying. Biruitorul (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant joke as in "what a joke." He spends far too much of his time mechanically voting "keep" on any AfD that involves a question of notability (that and voting "oppose" for every self-nom RfA). As time wears on and his attitude gets worse, I have a hard time imagining his contributions in those areas to be made in much good faith. I have considered (and wonder what you think of) a community ban of him in XfD and RfA discussions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this would seem to be a clear WP:POINT violation. I think at least a wikiquette alert may be in order - indeed one was recently made for AfD issues. Biruitorul (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Curt has been doing this for so long, and his tone has become increasingly condescending, I seriously doubt this could be handled by a non-administrative noticeboard - it's also not strictly an issue of etiquette - it's a more serious, systematic disruption. A/N might be better, but I feel like discussion should really move quickly towards a solution that keeps him from continuing to pepper every discussion with his procedural "self-noms are inherently bad-faith and I strongly oppose" or "keep, notability is irrelevant non-standard wiki-fascism" (paraphrased). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll put up a note on the ANI in the next day or two, unless you get there first. Biruitorul (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look into the issues surrounding those two indef blocks, you'll find that they were removed almost instantaneously because just about everyone agreed they were unbelievably unwarranted, because there was nothing wrong with the actions that led to the block, and that they were essentially came out of the same kind of mindset that you two appear to have. The fact that you two are the only ones who are really getting any significant ire up over this should tell you something about just how legitimate your concerns are.

Making comments everyone disagrees with is not disruptive in the least. It causes no actual problems that people have to go undo. You certainly are not obligated to throw a fit every time you see someone who holds different ideas from you. It is patently disingenuous to claim I am responsible for people overreacting to my perfectly legitimate actions. If there is any disruption involved in this, it is from people who go whining to AN every time they see someone just saying—not even doing, but just saying—something they don't like, and then the whole community comes on to tell those individuals essentially what I've just been telling you; and thus, the disruption comes from those individuals. Please, consider this before you go any further. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, everything on Misplaced Pages is "saying" something, except perhaps pagemoves, blocks, bans, and image uploads. Your actions are clearly and transparently intended to make a point - you don't like how notability works on Misplaced Pages, and you're going to make sure every single AfD you can find makes that clear. Your oppose votes on RfAs are even more inappropriate, going so far as to accuse bad-faith and impropriety, despite selfnoms being a widely-accepted and perfectly reasonable practice. You also take opportunities in AfDs to make inappropriate personal attacks and are extraordinarily condescending and inappropriate to others (ironic, when you are defending yourself with this "I'm entitled to my opinion" defense). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm trying to make a point--and as long as I'm not disrupting anything to do it (I'm not), there's nothing wrong with it. And your accusations of condescension and personal attacks are, quite simply, blatantly false. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have forgotten what you said at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jay Friedman. The protestations you are staging at every possible opportunity are disruptive, cause undue stress (the very definition of incivility), and incite you to rudeness and at times personal commentary about others that is quite inappropriate. I am surprised by the fact that you admit to voting in AfDs not to contribute to discussion or discuss articles' merits based on consensus-backed policy, but instead to protest and object to the existence of such policies. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: March 2008

What? when the hell did I personal attack anyone. --Flesh-n-Bone 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

When you are cautioned by an administrator about NFCC content violations, and you refuse to acknowledge NFCC policy, sometimes a third-party will step in and remind you that this is not the administrator's singular, unsubstantiated opinion. NFCC is policy, and not very flexible, and when I reminded you of this, you accused me of being his "dog" or something. That's not an appropriate way to contribute to any sort of discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an insult. C'mon dude, if that's insult then saying "your the best" is an insult as well. Plus refusing something is not attack. --Flesh-n-Bone 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of being the lackey or toadie of an administrator is highly inappropriate, and is both a personal attack and does not assume good faith. You seem to have little regard for this aspect of etiquette, going so far as to assert ownership of particular pages to reinsert personal attacks, but I hope you will reconsider. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For me when I say "their dog" I mean it's their brother/friend/whatever you close call.. At least it's how I see it when I say this. OMG, this place can get childish a lot, but never mind. You are my manager and if you say die I gotta die. :thumbsup: --Flesh-n-Bone 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use debate

Thanks for the note...no worries. Funny how things can be misinterpreted, innit? ;-) Eganio 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thrice

where could i go to ask about those thrice lyrics and find out what the song is? i already tried typing the words on google and nothing about them came up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrice34 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help you. Try forums, online bulletin boards, etc. You may be mistaken about the lyrics, or about the band. That's the best advice I can offer. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How...?

Original post from User talk:Gb#Your note at SSP:Netkinetic:
Thanks for asking us to keep away from each other. Any insight on how that's possible with him stalking me? --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Stay away from him. If he stalks you, without provocation, then it will be clear from his and your contributions, and I or any other admin will be happy to deal with it accordingly. Thanks. _GB 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence to follow shortly. I might email you instead of posting it here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free - the "Email this user" link works from my userpage. As I value my privacy I'll email you back through Misplaced Pages, rather than directly, but don't take offense at that. _GB 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it give away your email address when you send the email? I'm fairly sure it does, so if you're not sure, don't send me one, although I'd assure you nothing improper would come of it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you send an email through the "Email this user" link, the sender's email address is given away, but not the recipient's. Replying, however, would then reveal the recipient's. _GB 06:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but when I email you, you get my address. Even if you don't reply through email, you said "I'll email you back through Misplaced Pages," which means when you send me an email, you don't get my email address (although you'd already have it), but I get yours that time. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Binary (IEC) prefixes

In particular, Misplaced Pages:Mosnum#Binary_prefixes. Do you have any opinion on the matter under (lengthy) discussion on the talk page there? I have no idea what your opinions might be, I just know that I respect your opinions, as well as the impeccable logic you bring to disputes. Jeh (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD I7 tags

Invalid fair-use claim for images of living people as per Misplaced Pages:Fair_use#Images_2. That's why! --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. No need to duplicate responses here, please. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So instead of CSD I7 tags i should put CSD G12 tags, rigth? --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop duplicating/forking this small conversation. It makes no sense. Reply on your talk page with the original discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual discussion is repeated below. It is presented here because the user in question blanked the relevant section(s) of his talk page after it became all too apparent that he was way off the mark:

CSD I7

Can you explain why you've been tagging images with CSD I7 tags? I am not seeing what part of the fair use criteria they fail sufficiently to justify speedy deletion. The "unlikely to consent to free image" argument seems a plausible one on the face of it. I would think that IFD would be more appropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And stop re-adding speedies that are removed appropriately. It's not appropriate. You need to figure out CSD I7 a little better - NFCC1 does not apply to this CSD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Invalid fair-use claim for images of living people as per Misplaced Pages:Fair_use#Images_2. That's why! --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It also says: "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." I think this would apply here. If there is doubt, and here I think there is, CSD tags are not appropriate and IFD then becomes the right venue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, that is example number 12 which highlights criterion 1 which is not valid in CSD I7 like I said. Please read things before applying them, especially re-adding tags that you aren't supposed to re-add (especially when you're wrong). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So instead of CSD I7 tags i should put CSD G12 tags, rigth? --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NO. Please read carefully what I am saying. You are pointing to example 12 which is an example of CSD I1. It is not G12 - that's for "blatant copyright infringement" - anything with a good-faith fair-use rationale could not be G12'd. You are pointing to a numbered list but it is not a part of policy and does not list speedy deletion criteria. It is simply a list of examples that happen to have numbers. The item you cite is under the heading Guideline Examples - it is not a criterion of any sort. You are citing "free replacement" - that is your rationale. But it does not apply to this Criterion for Speedy Deletion - you are incorrect, and clearly unfamiliar with what you're talking about - why argue (and even re-add speedy tags, something that's really never allowed)? --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop your tagging spree. It's clear that you have issues with NFCC and the CSD - in particular, refer to the text of CSD I7, which states that NFCC 1 is not a part of that CSD:

7. Invalid fair-use claim. Non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criterion 1) may be deleted

That is the criterion "replaceable fair use" that you keep citing in some of these unsubstantiated speedy deletion request. Please stop the tagging spree until you've worked out your misunderstandings of these two pieces of fair-use policy. Please also refrain from continuing to re-add any speedy tags - it's not appropriate. Especially when even if you were right (although you're not), there is still a clause you're ignoring in this "example" you keep confusing for CSD G12. Here's the whole item 12 from the examples, in case you haven't read it in its entirety (emphasis added):

12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.

Please consider laying off, reading up, and trying to to go on sprees like this if you're stepping all over people's toes. And please don't ever mark deletion requests, prods, etc. as minor - that's just ridiculous. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)