User talk:Djcheburashka

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am taking the liberty of correcting the way I formatted the post above. It appears that your confusion, as to where my post ended, was entirely my fault because I used the wrong html coding, which made it appear my post had ended (without my signing it), when in fact I was trying to keep my quotes of your previous comments seperate from my own comments. Instead of making it clear I was quoting you in the middle of my comments, I made it look like my comments had ended at that point.

Here is my edit of your page the first time, which shows my post was longer than what you interpreted it to be: [[1]]

I hope this correction makes it clear to subsequent readers, where my post actually ended. Again, entirely my fault and you have my apology for screwing it up like that. EditorASC (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Second this. Wise words. Alex Maione (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I think this is most germane to your work. Alex Maione (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

IFALPA

I'm just getting a 404 too... strange. Anyway, looking at the deleted text, it's so blatantly promotional that it would have qualified as a speedy as spam, so I'm leaving it dead. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it's been spam for several years now. Although the edit warring didn't help, I couldn't find a clean version to restore too. The text needs too much work to be tweaked into neutrality, so if someone really wants this article they would do better starting from scratch. I'm surprised it lasted so long before it was whacked to be nonest. thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely why I decided to begin eliminating overtly SPAM statements that were clearly POV and OR, and which had been that way for over 7 years (not one single, valid WP:RS cite to support any of it, even after a notice was posted at the beginning of the article, stating that challenged statements could be removed if not properly cited).

What surprised me is that any Wiki Administrator would not only revert my well-thought-out deletes, that were explained in detail both in my edit summaries and on the Talk Page, but without any valid justification for a mass revert.

Then, after I poured over Orange Mike | Talk User page, I was even more shocked to find that he was a militant anti-spammer Administrator (which is fine with me - I feel the same about ALL Spam articles which try to use Wikipedia as another propaganda forum, especially since Wiki editing rules clearly forbid such), yet he did a complete back flip on that article, APPARENTLY (my logical inference) because he was in favor of forced unionism.

SPAM propaganda articles, that are in clear violation of multiple wiki editing rules should be blocked and/or deleted -- according to Orange Mike | Talk User Page statements -- UNLESS (again, my logical inference) they supported a particular political view that was consistent with the political views of ADMINISTRATOR Orange Mike | Talk... I think there is a rather precise word for that kind of conduct, but I will avoid using it here lest I be accused of failing to assume "good faith" on the part of ADMINISTRATOR Orange Mike | Talk.

In my view, I should never have had to seek out and post the appropriate speedy delete template on that article. That should have been done by ADMINISTRATOR Orange Mike | Talk, after he was drawn back to that article a second time, by the deletes that I made, with proper explanation. But, instead he staked out a contrary position: That of DEFENDING and PROTECTING a blatant SPAM propaganda article, that had been defying Wiki editing rules for over 7 years.

Admins and Rollbackers can use the rollback button to quickly undo the last edit(s) by a single person on a single page. It is the equivalent of picking the last version by another editor from the history and restoring that, without leaving an edit summary. Non-admins have access to a javascript tool that has the same function.

The rollback tool is mainly intended to be used against vandalism, but can also be used to undo ones own mistakes. It should never be used in content disputes, edit wars or to revert another users' good faith edits. [[2]]

For the record, there wasn't any "edit warring" on my part. I simply followed Wiki rules by beginning to delete unsupported SPAM type POV OR statements, that had been there without any citations, for over 7 years. I did that with the full support of Wikipedia editing rules. Since I did not take the bait of an improper wholesale revert by an Administrator, by reverting Orange Mike | Talk back, any first step of an "edit war" began with his actions, not mine. EditorASC (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You will notice that I did not challenge the G12 deletion of the article. If the topic is genuinely notable, a new article should be built from scratch. Neither I (a proud union leader) nor EditorASC (an avowed union basher) should be involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • EditorASC Talk Guys - this is beyond ridiculous. The page was a poorly-done page about a notable subject, a union with 100,000 members. Either way, Jimfbleak now deleted the whole thing so you can start from scratch. Anyway, whatever --- I'm not an admin here, I'm just somebody who happened to be neutral and thought I could help you guys move from conflict to cooperation. In that, I failed miserably. EditorASC, the fact that you are continuing to post on my page about this, a week after the page was deleted, shows that you're letting your passions get the best of you. My talk page is not "the record." OrangeMike - what do you care what he writes on my talk page? You don't have to respond to everything that anyone says about you. So, guys, chill. This is wikipedia editing, it only changes the page, it doesn't alter reality. OrangeMike, perhaps you want to take a try at building an NPOV, properly sourced article, that EditorASC can then pick a fight with you over.

• • • In the meantime, I will continue to not give a shit about either aviation unions or the effect of aviation unions on aviation safety.

• • • If you guys would like to continue to argue about this on my talk page, feel free to do so forever, but please confine it to this section. The other sections are for other people to yell at me about different things. Thank you for your cooperation. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Verbosity

I haven't seen or read the ANI discussion: and deliberately I am not going to.

I agree with you, that writing out a structured argument saying if this therefore that, and so on, seems to be the exception nowadays, we have to write in twitterspeak. I'm sorry, but I don't. I write longhand – indeed I type longhand – I don't even use the visual editor. It gives me time to think what I am writing. Then, after I have slammed it all in (in a draft or my user space) I go through carefully and revise it, trying to make it shorter. Like Voltaire said, "I have only made this longer since I have not had time to make it shorter".

Try translating an article from another language's Wikipedia (if you are familiar with another language, I guess from your name that you are) and you will see how verbose they can be compared to the English. When I translate the hardest thing is to decide how to do the blue pencil (editing); the words are the easy bit but "how would I say this to a divere worldwide audience of English speakers"? And that is very hard because I translate it and however I do it I look at it two days later and think, oh, that is not exactly a machine translation but a word-for-word translation, and now I should put it into proper English.

So I do think that the ramble, discussion, at the start, following up leads and finding references, is an important part of the process. And if one just slammed in eg "Djcheburashka is a town in southern Poland, population 900, its chief manufacture is porn stars" or whatever that would get an instant comeback of where are your RS and so on. But when you take the time to do the RS it's called verbiage.

Well I dunno about the ANI but I think articles should be to the point, but discussions can ramble.

Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's "Humour", btw, as any fule kno. The lack of good humour on WP from hard working editors does frustrate me sometimes. We work our tits off to copy edit and make stuff acceptable, and I don't think a legalistic background does harm: I am a software engineer and in my trade we are called language lawyers, which was red the last time I looked, the people who will say this is in such and such a spec at para 14.5.2.7. We're kinda respected in the trade for that skill above any other, writing code is easy, saying this or that meets the spec or doesn't, is hard. It is a bit legalistic to do so when code monkeys bash out stuff without a thought. Take time and trouble. I owe you a blue pencil.

You might have some fun at The Internet Oracle; all contributions are anonymous. I tend to do mine in iambic pentameter or iambic tetrameter. Do you know A. P. Herbert's works? The Negotiable Cow must be a standard text by now. But Misleading Cases is redlink. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but re-reading your remarks at my talk page, I can only agree more. (I did notice you don't like conversations split across multiple pages, you hypocrite!) I tend to wade into very obscure articles – I think I even created a railway transport diagram for a the Casablanca tramway – and think well that's not too bad a job. Well, anything popular now is hardly worth doing because one instantly gets reverted, as you say, without discussion or without any assumption of good faith. If you stick in the backwaters I think you can improve the encyclopaedia, though. I take a lot out of it, so I think it is fair to try to put something back in. Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Jack Stock

Hi Djcheburashka, Jack Stock is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (sports) subsection regarding Australian Football League players. Cheers --Terlob (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok - I see what you mean. That's a pretty dang low standard. So every single player in the league gets a page? Djcheburashka (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Terlob Actually I take that back. The criteria on WP:Notability (Sports) - Australian Football are guidelines: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. It doesn't seem to me that every single player in the league is notable for that reason, and there isn't anything on the page to indicate why this player should be considered notable. Perhaps I should have marked it for deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion? Djcheburashka (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing!

	Two jars of big Aguas frescas for you!
	Thanks for reviewing the article! Here, two jars of big aguas frescas for you! :D ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 05:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

FSOC questions

This evening, curiosity and duty as an editor to get the article right motivated me to read Feminist school of criminology to see what all the fuss was about. Unfortunately, I was unable to get past the lead without it giving rise to a plethora of questions, starting with the physical location of the "school", its organizational structure, curriculum, the name of its founder, whether its governed by a Board of Regents, if it's state or privately funded, etc. It is a school, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article name appears to be more of a headline for an editorial piece than the name of an encyclopedic article about a person, place or thing. It doesn't even appear to be an ideology, so then I thought perhaps it was the title of a television miniseries. What is it, exactly, or do you know? There certainly appears to be a big fuss to keep the article as is, but how can editors engage in intelligent discussion to delete or keep it without knowing what it is? Atsme☯^Consult 09:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Atsme Hah! Yeah, that's about right. It appears to be a total of 5 or so obscure journal articles from the 1970s and 1980s. Except, its what evergreenfir's PhD thesis is about. It reads like a sophomore's history 201 essay. Are the warning tags still up that have been on there for six years? I did mess up the deletion request, but that page should go. Djcheburashka (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Unacceptable. We need more info. Atsme☯^Consult 18:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to wait for all of this to cool down, and perhaps for some resolution of the multiple ANI's, before touching this again. I don't want to complicate things or make another stupid mistake. Did you know there's another ANI going on regarding Roscelese by the way? Someone complained that she's been violated page protections on one of the abortion articles, and she responded by claiming that the complainer must be a sockpuppet. The whole thing is extraordinary -- this person has a multitude of past warnings, sanctions, blocks, and violations of blocks, all relating to edit warring womens' rights pages and abusing editors; but she has a real knack for distracting people from those allegations by making accusations against her accusers, and somehow she's managed to escape serious consequences. Trying to edit those pages is hard enough with all the "mens rights movement" nut-jobs around, having aggressive, abusive radicals on the other side of the political spectrum makes the whole project basically impossible. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Waiting is a good plan. FYI, I asked a few questions to an accomplished editor who also happens to be an admin regarding some of the things that troubled me about FSOC. Her response was enlightening. [3] Atsme☯^Consult 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Atsme Oh? Do tell. I'm less concerned about that one page (which could be edited down to be viable) than I am about the structural problem here. When you have impassioned radicals vying for control over the depiction of a subject, it can only end one of three ways: 1) The groups take control of different pages, so there's effectively sets "owned" by each, with a kind of "front line," and all the pages on the subject are POV; 2) They reach a "faux" consensus by wordsmithing each sentence until the whole piece is totally illegible; or 3) The behavior of both groups is modified. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position, and agree with you in many respects, but as an eternal optimist, I maintain faith in the system. I was in a similar position once, and imagine there are many other editors who experienced same at one time or another. Thankfully, we're not the only ones who acknowledge there's a problem, but keep in mind, the opposition sees it the same way from their own perspective. I learned early on that an editor can stand firm on policy easier than they can stand firm on principal, the latter of which is often misinterpreted as being combative. There is a high toll to pay for policy violations regardless of whether or not your goal was simply to get the article right. I've also learned from reading the debates and conclusions of various ANIs and BLPNs that the only truly acceptable bold edits are the ones that correct a BLP violation, and even then you may encounter editors who WP:DONTGETIT, or perhaps it's a perspective issue, or they may be socks, SPAs, or disruptive editors per WP:NPOV or WP:NOTADVOCATE or WP:NOTOPINION. In some instances, it may even be a situation where GF editors simply don't realize they are not following guidelines, or have violated policy. Many of the problems stem from varying interpretations of policy which lends itself to vibrant debates, some of which escalate to WP:CIVILITY violations, and that's sad. There are all kinds of behavioral issues as evidenced by the debates at ANI. My heart goes out to the admins because no matter what action they take, the losing editor is not going to like it. The latter may explain why it's easier for admins to simply block both editors, say for edit warring, and why it is most important for them to focus on policy violations and behavioral issues rather than content disputes. I consult you to edit one article at a time, and focus on a particular statement or paragraph in that article that you believe is problematic. Take it to the Talk page, and explain your reasons. I pointed out FSOC because even though the violations are blatant, and accomplished editors may agree, you still have to go through the steps. Atsme☯^Consult 16:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent AfD activity

Hi Djcheburashka,

You have recently nominated a few articles for deletion. Before nominating any more articles, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability and deletion policies. None of your nominations have been policy-based, which is the backbone for all deletion debates. You've referenced one or two policies but said they weren't enough to give notability; however, an article that meets at least one notability threshold is considered notable. So, when you said, for example: This fits a minimum guideline on WP:Notability-sports because he played in the Victorian Football League, that ends the discussion and the subject is considered notable. In addition, make sure you familiarize yourself with what to do before nominating an article for deletion. Let me know on my talk if you need any help! Deadbeef 09:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Deadbeef thank you for your comments. The requests you're referring to are founded on WP:N -- the articles in question have, generally, no content other than to name the subject and say that he played professional Australian football, all with a single cite to the Encyclopedia of Australian Football. Copying each entry over for a stub, which is what someone's done, does not seem to me a productive exercise, and it fails to meet the minimum standards for notability. Its true that there are people who share your view. Its seems that your view was the consensus some time ago. Today, while there's apparently been a debate for some time as to whether appearance in professional sporting event is sufficient to demonstrate notability, there is no such consensus. The notability guideline for sports says that these people, on the basis of having appeared in a league event, may be considered notable. But, however, that mere fact does not conclusively establish notability.

You are certainly entitled to your view on the subject, and to object on the deletion pages. The requests themselves were proper by WP:N, WP:ASC, and WP:DEL. (I believe these articles meet the criteria for speedy deletion, which allows deletion for biographies that have only a single source or where there's no indication of importance even if notable. I have only stopped using SC because I respect that some people object.)

Thank you. Djcheburashka (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Jordan Belfort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 Huh? I have one revert, Ravenfire has 3.

What do I do here? After Revenfire's first revert (which ignored the talk page) I opened discussion on the talk page and his own talk page in response to his deletion. First he said the point was not backed by the source, then I cut-and-pasted the quote. He expressed a different concern. I proposed modifications to the sentence at issue to reflect his concerns, pointing him to the relevant sections of the guidelines. He said they could not be resolved. I therefore wrote a new sentence which removed what he had said was his concern. He reverted, raising a new concern, this time arguing that an WP:RS establishing that SO joined the NASD in April, 1987, was insufficient to demonstrate that it was founded earlier than that date. I thought that was silly, but I modified the sentence again. Again he reverted - this time he felt identifying the date was redundant with saying that it was unclear who had founded the firm which, obviously, is not the case. At that point I made 1 revert.

In the BRD cycle, the B edit was Ravenfire's. I reverted and opened discussion. I've made numerous changes to try to reflect his concern -- at the start I think he had at least an argument (although I think he was wrong); at this part, I don't think he even has that.

Is this really how difficult it is to get even simple edits done around here? Djcheburashka (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You have two obvious reverts, one at 7:32 and the other at 9:00. However, even your edit of November 15 at 9:21 was a revert as it restored material that had been removed from the article. I warned the other editor as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 The second change (and only, in my view, revert) was at 19, not 9. The edits of November 15 and today at 7:32 both made changes to the content that were directly responsive to the issue identified by the other editor.

The question I asked was: What do I do here? I don't see any legitimate discussion taking place, although I've tried to commence it. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You're dead wrong about the reverts. However, as for your other question, you can never justify edit-warring based on a content dispute or even a failure to participate in a disussion about it. If you believe the other editor is not discussing the issue with you, you'll have to use a different dispute resolution instrument.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 In what respect am I wrong about the reverts? At this stage of things, whose version goes in while this goes some other form of dispute resolution? The pre-"war" version of the page was from the 15th; I assume Ravenfire prefers the last version he reverted. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Why don't you look at the definition of a revert at WP:3RR and explain to me why the two edits I said were reverts were not?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I started editing because, looking at pages on subjects about which I know a bit, I've noticed that the quality has been dropping pretty dramatically over the last few years. I'm starting to understand why. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And to answer your question: Every edit to a page necessarily changes something that another editor has done, but there's no "three edit" rule. If inserting different text into a section from which someone else has deleted text, where the text is about the same subject, counts as a "revert," then every edit to every page would be a revert. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, any change to an article constitutes a revert except the addition of wholly brand new material. However, some changes that are minor would probably not be counted if an administrator were considering whether someone is edit-warring. In your case, those three reverts clearly were edit-warring; it wasn't even close to being minor changes. Also, if editors are improving an article and making "reverts" while doing so, along with other editors, it's unlikely that anyone would complain. When it's back and forth, as it was between you and the other editor, that's hardly the same. Your ideas of what's right about content and quality are subjective and, of course, your own. You'd be surprised how many people thing they're "right" about the same issue. That's why we have policy against edit warring. This is my last comment. I'd forgotten how persistent you are in your arguments, and I frankly don't have anything much more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to your question re:email

Email is protected private correspondence. Please read Wikipedia:Email. The email feature is listed in the left hand margin on the user's page under Tools - Email this user. If you received abusive emails from someone pretending to be me, then you should know for certain that it didn't come from me. I would never send any user anything other than helpful information. If you believe someone other than me has contacted you via email pretending to be me, we need to discuss this privately. Go to my user page, and send me a private email explaining what happened. Atsme☯^Consult 15:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Pursuant to this discussion, I have indefinitely blocked you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

notification

I have requested review of the closure of the block/ban with the closing admin, see his talk page User_talk:Ricky81682#Closure_of_Siteban_of_Djcheburashka. You cannot edit there currently, but I wished to make you aware. --Obsidi (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi I appreciate that. Honestly, I'm sort-of bewildered by this whole thing. His big concern seems to have been the afd's where, and I explained this, I really just misinterpreted what I was seeing on the webpage. I thought she'd tried to revert the afd, the way she'd been reverting the POV tag on those pages, and where someone had just reverted my attempt to ask for an admin to intervene (ANI, right?). Anyway, I've been ignoring the ban request for I think a week, and I was surprised to see that it had been closed, reopened (I'm not sure why) and then issued. Meanwhile, the editor who started this whole thing has been through, I think 3 ANIs while my ban request was pending, and edit wars on at least 5 pages... Anyway, whether I'm banned or not, I'll live. If you or anyone else has questions about what took place or would like a response, let me know.

P.S.: I did see something suggesting I'd had a "career as an IP editor." In 2006, I proposed the deletion of three pages for a trio of DJs operating in Williamsburg Brooklyn on notability grounds, which pages were deleted. One of the IP talk-page comments on Dasha Zhukova is mine, and one reverted edit from months and months ago on Jordan Belfort. I made the account when I observed that, in effect, every edit to every page by an IP seemed to be almost instantaneously reverted. That is my whole "career" as an IP editor.

P.P.S.: I also see there's some stuff about Lisak and the FAOR pages. Those pages are deeply problematic in ways I don't think Ricky saw. I started a discussion about them on the POV-disputes page, and I did get some agreement, but the ban request terminated the discussion prematurely. Anyway, the problem isn't that Lisak is retired. Lisak isn't retired. He didn't get tenure. He was never in the professions described on the page, and much of the page is sourced to, if you click through, things like an advocacy piece in a prosecutors' newsletter, which is hardly WP:RS. I did not go and try to make all those changes on the Lisak or FAOR pages because once the edit war began, I tried to take the issue to POV disputes, and asked for an admin to protect the page so a discussion, instead of continuing to try to edit the page. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks that will help you in event that unblock request is not taken.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I also suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in general and WP:TPO in specific. There are only a very limited number of reasons why you should ever change someone else's comments including in an AFD. Also I would suggest re-reading Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You can try a {{unblock |1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}} request here (there is some question if it was just an indef block or a siteban, if it was a siteban we will forward it to the appropriate forum at your request). As it says on the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks: "Show that you understand the blocking administrator's concern and what he/she wants you to do better. Blocks happen because the community has to prevent certain behaviors, and we want you to understand some things matter to us. If you show willingness to appreciate our concerns, discuss the incident in good faith, genuinely learn from mistakes, and show you can keep to the spirit of community policies, often that is all that's needed." --Obsidi (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Clarification_.2FClosure_review_of_Siteban_of_Djcheburashka". Thank you. --Obsidi (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll provide a response to one point: in regards to David Lisak.[4] A POV tag implies that there is an active dispute about something. There is none. At Talk:David_Lisak, you made two points before: (a) whether he was retired and (b) the inclusion of criticism. Here you now say that the problem was "He didn't get tenure" and that" "He was never in the professions described on the page." If you can give me a diff where you mentioned that before on the talk page, that would be helpful. Now, you seemed to imply that the retirement dispute somehow justifies a POV tag. User:Serialjoepsycho points to his autobiography so unless you have a contrary reliable source, it's just a minor factual issue and it's frankly absurd to argue that it justifies a POV tag. As to tenure, it's never been brought up by you before so it's a new issue, which is fine. As to the criticism portion, there is none, that's fair. However there is nothing for anyone to say on the matter so for readers, there is nothing for them to do if they want to learn more about the POV dispute because there is no dispute going on. All you seem to be doing is keeping on the POV tag as a scarlet letter on the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682 1. The Lisak issues in the original edit are not about his retirement. The original issues are about a misrepresentation of his former and current occupations, and the organizations he's purportedly involved in. The "retirement" thing is a factual claim made in response to the issues I raised. My response to the response is he's not actually retired, that isn't the reason he changed professions. I cannot post diffs - too complex from an iPad at Starbucks. After discovering the original issues I found more, but I did not make edits or start new talk page discussions - the page was already under protection (my request) and POV discussion, and the other editors involved had made very clear that they would not tolerate any questioning or modification of the page. So additional edits would only have been hostile and unproductive--having gone through B and R, and having tried to initiate D, I did not press changes in the interim. I have not seen serialjoepsycho's comment, or don't recall it if I did. 2. I want the POV tag because the other editors refuse to discuss either page. I've found a slew of sourcing and other errors. Look at the timing of their responses on the FAOC talk page--they don't tolerate questioning their preferences (and they are publicly associated with pov's related to the pages. I don't think the changes required for either page are huge or should be so controversial (using Lisak's website to source his occupation is objectionable why, exactly? Putting the studies on FAOC in chronological order and clearly stating their conclusions is "vandalism" and "disruption" how? The overwhelming consensus in the field was established in a 3-page unreviewed article in an advocacy organization' trade journal, really? ), but there's been an abject refusal to even begin the conversation. I believe a POV Tag might get them to discuss and respond reasonably. (See my edit descriptions with the tag -I'm the one saying "let's follow the rules and discuss."). I had also, for the same purpose of trying to bring them to discussion, sought admin intervention. Shortly after I did so the block request was filed and the request for admin intervention was reverted. 3. Regarding the afds see my comment above. While I still believe those pages are seriously problematic, I acknowledge I handled it the wrong way and made some serious errors in the way I tried to start that discussion. 4. Regarding "behavior," and "newness," I was only made aware of BRD through this process (although I'd tried similar things) and frankly still don't understand how it's supposed to work. 5. Regarding whether there's an edit War behavior --- it takes two to tango! The "lead edit warrior" has a long record on similar pages and 2 of the others leading this charge cooperate with her closely In "locking" other pages against discussion.

I cannot believe I am still responding to this. I agree there's no urgency. Frappacino almost finished. Happy thanksgiving! Djcheburashka (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

oh - on Lisak look at the original edits and edit comments. There was also some talk page mention, but not a lot - it was happening at the same time as FAOC, the writing was on the wall, and I was already seeking intervention. So some of the comments are spread out among the various talk pages, POV disputes, etc. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

While Ricky81682 can decide to unblock you, my suggestion would be to file your appeal using the unblock template. To do that you just write on your talk page: {{unblock | reason=Put your reason here}}

Its rarely worth it to argue with the admin as to if you should have been blocked. You already had a variety of people look at this and say your behavior was inappropriate. I would focus on how your behavior will change so that you will follow WP policies in the future. --Obsidi (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I. don't. care. about. the. subject. matter. I care about your conduct. As I've stated before, the "my conduct is excusable because I'm here to Right the Great Wrongs" is part of the problem. People will argue, subject matter doesn't matter. I'm in the same profession as you I believe so I'm going to put it this way: stop treating each article as a motion you're drafting to advocate your position, but instead treat it as an opinion you have to draft in conjunction with the other judges to get a majority view. That means put all your cards on the table and stop coming up with a new argument in response to the last one: whether or not he's retired or tenured, does that matter? I mean does that really matter? Is this version such terrible language? He is still mentioned as as a clinic psychologist (which he is) and an associate professor (which he was) and you got where he is now. Is there some criticism about him getting tenure, did he retire under some odd circumstances? Otherwise, why in the world should a reader looking for basic biographical information on him care at all? Respect those you disagree with and stop being so argumentative. Some parts may be completely batshit out there but if it reflects what the source material says and you can't find something to contradict it, tough, no one cares. Now, what was there to "discuss"? "There's no criticism section." "Ok, you're right, now what?" There's no information on his undergraduate degree too, if I'm there to just start arguments. Now, you think it's a fringe theory, where's your evidence? A discussion occurs when you insert a reliable secondary source criticizing or challenging or whatever or change the language because it's a misrepresentation of a source or whatever and someone else following along and revising it and you disagree and then you discuss it. That is what the talk page is for, not drive-by sniping about things. And note that if you use the template the reviewing administrator will probably ask me anyways but however you want to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• This was mentioned elsewhere but not here so you may have missed it. WP:STANDARDOFFER This essay may help you. You should review the ANI and some of the things Ricky and others have mentioned here. You maybe able to accept a topic ban of Lisak and Zhukova, an interaction ban with Roscelese, and make it clear that you understand exactly why you were blocked and you will make every effort to correct your behavior. This is just something you could odder in exchange for an unblock. Also there are programs set up to help new users such as yourself. To name two: wp:TEAHOUSE and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. You will need to file an unblock request here on your talk page to get that process started. Aa pointed out above to do that you will need to post: {{unblock |1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I had not intended to log in here again, but did and saw this from your discussion: I saw no evidence that anyone even suggests that the editor was improving, merely that everyone else needs to understand that he's still learning. Bold editing is not slapping POV notices on pages and edit warring to keep them there without any serious interest in discussion.

In sequence: I saw no evidence that anyone even suggests that the editor was improving, merely that everyone else needs to understand that he's still learning. You got involved only after the thing had been closed and I'd stopped checking. I'd offered to answer any questions, but no-one asked. (I actually think many of the responses on the ban discussion were to the effect that my actions were not violative, but I digress.) Here are some examples of my typical editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Milken&diff=prev&oldid=633921576 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Isla_Vista_killings&diff=prev&oldid=633900678 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charcot%E2%80%93Marie%E2%80%93Tooth_disease&diff=prev&oldid=633352817 And, take a look at Frederick Carrick and his talk page.

The diffs you had been provided were selected out of their context (i.e., what was happening simultaneously with the same people on other pages), and a bunch of them involved anonymous ip users who were not me. Someone spent a good deal of time trying to dig-up that junk. They are not representative of my involvement with the wiki, or even the editing disputes to which they pertained.

Then: Bold editing is not slapping POV notices on pages and edit warring to keep them there without any serious interest in discussion. If you look at the talk page histories on those two pages, and the POV noticeboard, I think its pretty plain that I was seriously interested in discussion. I was trying to commence that discussion when the ban/block/whatever request was made. In my view that froze the discussion until it was resolved. When the request was closed, I viewed that as time to restart the discussion. In particular, to pick up where we had left off, which was with a POV discussion on the noticeboard and a debate about whether those pages need a POV template while we discussed changing them. During the block/ban discussion I also learned about the "BRD" process. I thought putting the POV tag up would restart the discussion. The "D" that followed that, instead of discussing the issue with the page, was to revive the block/ban request, which at that point had been closed.

All of this conflict has been about trying to correct the descriptions of the results of a series of statistical studies in the social sciences, and to conform (to his own self-description) the page for the author of one of those studies. And putting, on a fraudster's page, the sequence of certain events in the correct order. Pushing through this kind of nonsense for such simple things is not worth the effort. I'm not sure who has time to spend 3 hours digging through past edits to try to find diffs that suggest impropriety; and if that's what's required to edit around here, I'm not interested. If the ban or whatever is lifted, I'll consider whether to edit again. Djcheburashka (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at David_Lisak:

1. your comment again, on November 7th, was about retirement and a single statement that "The page also doesn't have any mention of criticism of Lisak's work, which is quite widespread." For some reason you also decide to take it to NPOV when there isn't a single response to you.
2. At the board, you don't provide a single reliable source to justify your claims beyond your righting great wrongs routine.
3. You add that he's been an expert witness which has zero to do with your alleged NPOV concern. Only the expert witness remark is removed (rightly) as per WP:UNDUE, nobody even touches your actual change to the test.
4. The NPOV case is clearly against you, just you repeating the bizarre claim that ignores the difference between probable cause and reasonable doubt to support your clear ideological point. Again, do you actually have a reliable source other than your personal beliefs that every time there isn't a conviction the victims must have lied?
5. Warring again to slap the tag on there.

Again, there is no dispute there, just you stating that there allegedly exists widespread criticism of Lisak's work and rather than you actually providing it and including it, just a POV tag. Was there some argument about adding it? Are there people disputing you adding it? No. Saying "hey we could add more of something" doesn't mean there's some dispute about POV, it just means it's not complete. Are you saying that the article itself is biased in that particular *sources* are being downplayed? No, you just want your soapbox and no one else cares. You're saying some details are missing but provide zero proof that these those sources exist. And this is one article. When you are willing to take responsible for your situation, then feel free to make a request. I didn't realize I forgot the instructions, that's entirely my fault. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also as to the not learning remark, the fact that not one person at WP:ANI, even your supporters, would even argue that you could be getting better was my point. I don't even see you arguing that you in any way want to improve and act appropriate here, just that if you had more time people would someone accept your conduct. They don't and even weeks later, your refusal to have even an ounce of contrition is telling. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682 Let me go through this... Before you said you didn't want to talk about substance, so I hadn't...

Its apparent from some of what you wrote that you think I'm a lunatic with a grudge against rape-accusers. So let me start with those one:

1. Saying "hey we could add more of something" doesn't mean there's some dispute about POV, it just means it's not complete. Are you saying that the article itself is biased in that particular *sources* are being downplayed? No,

Yes! That's exactly what I was saying! Well, misrepresented as well as "downplayed." The sources do not say what the page says they say.

1. The NPOV case is clearly against you, just you repeating the bizarre claim that ignores the difference between probable cause and reasonable doubt to support your clear ideological point. Again, do you actually have a reliable source other than your personal beliefs that every time there isn't a conviction the victims must have lied?

I've never said anything like that at all. Not remotely. Between "proven to be malicious," and "proven guilty," there's a broad space of "we don't know for sure," "maybe the accuser told the truth but was mistaken," and "the accuser told the truth but the conduct described does not constitute a crime." "False" is not the same as "intentional and malicious lie," or "proven to be an intentional and malicious lie."

The bulk of the literature makes those distinctions. A very, very small number of articles do not. The FAOR page takes the position that the first perspective so marginal that its intellectually equivalent to holocaust denial. I just want to spell-out, for each source cited in the piece, the definition used by that source and its actual conclusion.

In addition, the sources the article promotes as supposedly the mainstream view (Lisak, Kanin, the FBI study, the Australia study) all used different definitions of "false" and different methodologies that are incompatible with each other. Those differences should be explained, not misrepresented as though there was a meta-study consensus.

1. You add that he's been an expert witness which has zero to do with your alleged NPOV concern. Only the expert witness remark is removed (rightly) as per WP:UNDUE, nobody even touches your actual change to the test.

The diff you have there is me making a change to my own prior version. The change after is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lisak&diff=632958441&oldid=632932851

As for the expert witness part -- that trial was itself notable, and Lisak's testimony was the subject of news coverage at the time. See http://newstalkkgvo.com/expert-witness-in-psychology-explains-victim-behaivor-though-has-no-knowledge-of-jordan-johnson-case/ This is also the *only* trial where *any* source I could locate said Lisak had actually testified.

As a lawyer, you surely understand why I said "hold up... there's something wrong here" when I saw the claim that someone regularly testifies for prosecutors as an expert witness on "victim behavior." Instead of taking it out (it had no support), I looked to see if there was any support for it. I found only one example, which was that trial.

I don't think there are any others, because they should have come up in an expert-witness search and be on his CV. (You know why.) I think what's happening is that when Lisak is said to have been an "expert" in many cases, what's actually referred to are sexual assault awareness sessions, which are his principal business, and his contributions to a prosecutors' newsletter, but not to actual Daubert-sufficient expert testimony in actual cases. I can't prove this with RS, so I didn't try to make that change. I just added a secondary source in preference to tertiary or further.

1. At the board, you don't provide a single reliable source to justify your claims beyond your righting great wrongs routine.

Look again at the diff. The focus is on whether the existing citations on the pages are accurately reflected in the page text, or the page text misrepresents what is said in the cited works. E.g., the work says "40%," and the article says that that work said "3%." The sources are the cited works themselves.

1. your comment again, on November 7th, was about retirement and a single statement that "The page also doesn't have any mention of criticism of Lisak's work, which is quite widespread." For some reason you also decide to take it to NPOV when there isn't a single response to you.

Look at the timing of those edits, R's reverts, and what was happening on FAOR. I took it to NPOV because it was clear the same thing would happen on FAOR, and that it was really all part of a single POV dispute over whether any view other than Lisak's should be marginalized.

1. Also as to the not learning remark, the fact that not one person at WP:ANI, even your supporters, would even argue that you could be getting better was my point. I don't even see you arguing that you in any way want to improve and act appropriate here, just that if you had more time people would someone accept your conduct.

Not true! Look again. There were diffs offered as examples of quality edits. Several people said there was nothing wrong with what I'd done. Others said if any of it was wrong, they were minor and couldn't justify the action requested under any circumstance, but especially with a new editor. So, other editors already do accept my "conduct."

As for whether I've "learned" - to the extent the criticisms are accurate, they seem to be completely procedural. I should have engaged in more discussion on the Lisak talk page before adding it to the POV dispute over FAOR. Ok, sure. Fine. I should have used BRD instead of DBR. Ok, sure. Fine.

1. just you stating that there allegedly exists widespread criticism of Lisak's work and rather than you actually providing it and including it, just a POV tag. Was there some argument about adding it?

That's not what was being debated - I never sought to add criticism of Lisak's work. What I wanted to do was to take each cited source, and make clear what each of them actually said. So instead of "Bob said 2% are false," say "Bob defined 'false' as... and reported 80% are false, but Kanin believes that if 'false' is defined as... the result would have been 2%." *That* is the reverted edit that led to everything else. And I wanted to tone-back the paragraphs of criticism of others' work. Obviously, if there are two views, and every example of one view is followed by a discussion of criticism from the other view, but not vice-versa, that's POV.

When those changes were reverted, the explanation given was that any view other than Lisak's was "discredited" and therefore did not belong on the page at all, and no further discussion would take place. Basically, "anything other than Lisak is discredited junk and we won't talk about it." *That* is the POV dispute. Hence the discussion of Lisak's credentials and whether his view is generally accepted, and in that process, whether his page is accurate.

One last time: I want the page to say what each cited source actually says, and note the differences and major criticisms. The other view, is that each source should be described only as having found what a critic of that source says would have been the findings if the study had been conducted differently; and that no view other than that one should be mentioned on the page except to say that it has been "discredited."

As for Lisak criticism, two things: First, its important to keep in mind that Lisak's work was not part of the academic discussion. It seems the article at issue was actually published not in an academic journal, but in a xeroxed newsletter distributed by a DAs' association. Second, is Lisak generally criticized? Yes! See http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

In an earlier comment, you criticized me for saying that Lisak is fringe. To be clear, I don't believe his view on FAOR is fringe; its one of two viewpoints. His views on related subjects, such as that 10% of men in college are serial child rapists, those are fringe. Lisak's study methodology probably also qualifies as fringe, but that's secondary. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, it took you five weeks to actually provide a reliable source about your views. The entire NPOV post consists of you arguing about "the literature" without actually providing anyone the literature. It doesn't work with you making statements about how wrong it all is and everyone supposed to trust you. I don't criticize you for saying Lisak is a fringe viewpoint. I criticize you for acting as those his theories are fringe theories without providing any justification other than your personal belief that "the literature" supports that. Again, I don't care about the actual articles or whatever your issue is. More people were concerned about how you responded, namely harassing and stalking the people who disagree with you. The point is your conduct is not in line with the purposes here and no one here should have to put up with your bad-faith retaliation, disruption, harassment, general time wastage. I'm already tired of dealing with you. If you would like to have the opinion of another administrator, use the {{ and unblock wording above but you're just wasting your time since you absolutely don't want to admit you've done anything wrong. You seem utterly incapable of avoiding grudges and actually collaborating which is required here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't provide sources before because no-one asked -- the discussion about substance was terminated, within hours of when it began, by the ban request. Sorry, but I can think of about a million better things to do than waste time trying to improve this thing. Like driving nails through my skull. Have fun! Djcheburashka (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)