User talk:Cheeser1

You better be drinking the good stuff, not beer piss. -The preceding unsigned beer was left by User:Seicer-

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.

READ BEFORE YOU POST: If I posted to your talk page, reply there. If you're posting about a particular article, post there. I watch talk pages I post to (until a discussion ends), and it makes way more sense to keep a discussion together than to post back and forth. Please post questions/comments/whatever under the appropriate heading or under a new heading. Thanks! Archived content can be found here. Please note that I am a bit of a neat freak, at least in some ways. I constantly archive content almost immediately after an issue is settled. I leave things here as long as I think someone might reasonably respond or want to read it, but often no longer than that.

Sockpuppet case

Thanks for the "heads up". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 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 Wikipedia 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きゃど

My comments on the CADきゃど 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 Wikipedia 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きゃど 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 - Wikipedia 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きゃど 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 Wikipedia: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?

[1]. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

Reversion of 3RR warning

You reverted a 3RR warning that I posted at another user's talk page yesterday. Interfering with this formal warning seems quite disruptive so if you do something like this again I'll be asking that you be blocked so that the usual 3RR process is not impeded. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You gave a 3RR warning because a new user is TRYING TO POST ON YOUR TALK PAGE and you are refusing to answer (and blanking) - something I AKSED YOU TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT. You are WAY over WP:BITE and getting mad at me because I'm trying to keep the biting to a minimum is not going to help you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A last word from R_Physicist (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

March 30, 2008

• I have no interest in "defending" myself against false accusations, made with no other intent than harassment. I have a real world identity, and have had more than enough of the absurdities of this fictional pseudo-environment, in which people play out their aggressions as though they were knocking down "enemies" in a video game. I have the impression that many of those for whom this is a permanent romping ground are simply maladjusted individuals in their real lives who have a compulsive need to act out aggressions in this fantasy world as a rather pitiful form of self-affirmation.

I neither have the time nor the interest to be fighting out absurd battles against individuals like User: Cheeser1 who, while remaining themselves well hidden behind their anonymity, are enabled in their aggressions by the passive encouragement of administrators who refuse to put a halt to it, and do not hesitate to launch such attacks even against eminent members of the scientific community, whose integrity no-one in real life would presume to impugn. It seems that, within this fictional, tribal environment, it is part of the "group ethic" to enable such campaigns of harassment and intimidation by the refusal of administrators to apply their "powers" to curtail what is obvious, blatant abuse and harassment.

There is no basis to user User: Cheeser1's accusations. They are precisely, in the ordinary sense of the English language (as opposed to "Wikipedese" ), what is meant by the term "bad faith". The most generous interpretation of such persistent reaffirmation of false accusations is the sad possibility that the accuser even lacks the elementary intelligence needed to verify that they are without any basis. Anyone knowing the least bit about computers could do so in a matter of minutes via internet IP number identification services, if they genuinely believed there to be any substance to them, just as I was able to identify the dozens of anonymous "contributions" by the author of the Myrzakulov equations article which is now firmly entrenched in the annals of Wikipedia's version of science. This same anonymous user, whom I had taken great trouble to treat with restraint and courtesy in our individual exchamges, now returns to the scene under the new pseudo-identity User: Barstaw and seems to want to help reinforce these attacks:

• Sorry but please stop your polemical and personal attacks. (Ngn) Barstaw (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But individuals who try to launch, within science, campaigns of self-promotion through such absurd vehicles as Wikipedia clearly have no interest in the truth, and are only too happy to support the bullying, intimidation and denunciations of self-appointed enforcers such as User: Cheeser1. Given the opportunity, they would doubtless wish to do the same in real life. But as User:Barstaw must surely know, no such opportunity is available within the scientific community, where one is expected to maintain much higher standards of integrity, and false claims soon become apparent, and are treated with the contempt that they deserve.

My only remaining intention, within this lamentable setting, is to close down all vestiges of such contemptible farce, which is a parody of the well known practices used in police states, where denunciation is sufficient to imply guilt, and intimidation is a stock in trade to contain potential "enemies of the state".

The only satisfaction that I have is to be able recall that I anticipated such an onslaught, and said so on record, although I failed to anticipate the scope of its absurdity. No-one with any intelligence or self-respect who becomes aware of the prevalence and apparently, encouragement, of such machinations would agree to participate further in such things.R_Physicist (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)