User talk:ChrisCalif

Nomination of List of preprint repositories for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of preprint repositories is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of preprint repositories until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello, I'm Theroadislong. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. and you start again straight after the warning above Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * yes we have to try to stay calm, but what about such claims as "QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience" do you think such editors also need to calm down? when at best backed up by a blog and a journalist, this against lots of peer reviewed papers. In my view this "QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience" by Quondum is in my view possibly harassment. I link to the discussion here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantized_inertia

Thanks for the note we should all calm down! ChrisCalif (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience" is a comment on content which is perfectly acceptable, but harassing and attacking other users is not acceptable and will lead to you being blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please mention explicit what I should delete then? ChrisCalif (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually pseudoscience has been used as one of main arguments by Quondum to delete, but now he says if pseudoscience or not is irrelevant, so this perhaps mean my argument against the evidence for it being pseudoscience was valid. Please be specific on what I have done that is considered harassment and I will quickly consider deleting it. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I went through my writings there and delete half a sentence that could perhaps be interpreted as such, but I also have to remind of free speech. If more please be specific and mention to me here. I have not hanged out a single person by name. I have criticized editors for their arguments and how they argue. If you just block my account without notice of being specific I will consider that as part of the censoring. This case likely just started I personally think, and I must be allowed to think so. I see McCulloch now has contacted the press, we will see if they will write about the whole case. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly you "have criticized editors for their arguments and how they argue" I am not an admin so have no powers here whatsoever, just reminding you to please comment on content NOT users. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. As has been noted elsewhere, your behaviour is not constructive, and if you keep posting rants all over the place your block is likely to get an upgrade. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Quantized inertia
You added content at Quantized inertia  which makes no sense grammatically “Some popular science blogs and journalists has been called the theory pseudoscience,” it makes no sense as written did you mean  “Some popular science blogs and journalists have called the theory pseudoscience” ? Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I already improved that, and if you see a grammar spelling error feel free to edit. But yes i should check preview better first also. ChrisCalif (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that English is not your first language, your comments at the deletion review for Quantized inertia are becoming more incoherent and  incomprehensible, please calm down and take the time to think about what you are writing, I suspect that none of what you have said so far will convince any admin to keep the draft, only comments based on policy will do that for example WP:GNG, all good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * feel free to fix gramma mistakes. I am dyslectic, but think most of my points are quite clear. This is why I mostly only talk on talk pages and do only some editing, please forgive my disability!. I will continue arguing when I see arguments backed with close to nothing, but my arguments can off course be rejected due to a few spell errors, that the very busy editors (busy with coming up with any plausible deletion argument to this page) not have time to fix. ChrisCalif (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia
Be aware of WP:BOOMERANG you continue to snipe at other editors and now insinuate that they are being paid, you appear to be the only Single-purpose account there, I edit a vast range of articles have created more than on hundred and have certainly NOT been paid for any of it. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have just kindly asked if anyone are paid that they declare conflict of interest. I am shocked myself that linkedin pages advertise themself to be paid for wikipedia editing, this is indeed something for the wikipedia platform themself to investigate. For example I just searched linkedin myself and there are even firms offering paid wikipedia editing. Do you think this is perfectly okay? It could be okay, but I can also see how this can lead to conflict of interest. That interests with big money get their view out on wikipedia as they can afford full time paid editors to get in their biased view. This seems to be in conflict with how Wikipedia indicates they operate. As I am perhaps one of the first to look into this, then I will soon be blocked? I have not accused a single editor for this, I have asked the question that editors should consider declare interest of conflict if paid for editing? Again search linkedin yourself you will find many persons and even firms offer paid editing on wikipedia.ChrisCalif (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Paid editing is allowed on Wikipedia, but not encouraged and all paid editors MUST disclose on their talk page that they are being paid and who is paying them, such editors can only request changes to articles on the talk pages and cannot edit articles directly. Theroadislong (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If anonymous profiles how do one make sure they declare they are paid. Only based on trust? Don't you think many will be tempted to break the rules here? Has wikipedia done any attempt to find out of % of paid wikipedia editors actually have declared so. I can think of several possibly easy ways to study this from a statistical point of view, one can extract a lot of information from linkedin and wikipedia on this and combine etc., and will possibly do so if it not already has been done, will take some time. That would be an interesting study. If one has rules one must have a way to somehow monitor breaks on rules. I do not see how wikipedia do this, and if there is something we know from history, it is that there are many (even if most not) that are willing to break rules if money involved and chance for being taken for breaking rules are close to zero. ChrisCalif (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * " MUST disclose on their talk page that they are being paid and who is paying them, such editors can only request changes to articles on the talk pages and cannot edit articles directly." but they can clearly even create wikipedia pages, or at least that is what wikipedia editing firms taking paid advertise on linkedin. What is the difference between creating a new page and editing? or are they breaking the rules. It would be very very naive to think all these paid editors declare they are paid when they can be totally anonymous. May be this is a much bigger problem than one think, this should in my view really be investigated, should it not be in wikipedias future interest to know?  ChrisCalif (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can ask such questions at Teahouse. Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Reporting undisclosed paid editors
If you believe an editor is conducting undisclosed paid editing, please report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard (Incidents) or the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard if it does not involve revealing the private information of an editor. Otherwise, please email with why you believe an editor is engaged in paid editing and there is private information. You may also email a member of the CheckUser team directly. If you are unsure whether information is private, use one of the email contacts in the first instance. Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this is useful information! ChrisCalif (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and please STOP snidely inferring that there are undisclosed paid editors at Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia and Quantized inertia unless you have evidence, WP:AFD is NOT an appropriate venue for this. Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As I understood some there now indicated I was possibly paid, but I have already disclosed I am not paid. But I am finished with this point there, it was just a reminder that people indeed should declare if any was paid, but yes I will not keep repeating that point, thanks!. ChrisCalif (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Warning
I agree that you are attacking other editors at the AfD, but regardless, it is clear that your comments are not helping the AfD process. Your constant badgering of others is absolutely unacceptable. I have protected the article to prevent so many new users and IPs from weighing in because that is not helping the reviewing administrator at the end of the process, either, but you are autoconfirmed, so that protection will not technically prevent you from editing the AfD. Nonetheless, you must stop editing the AfD, or you risk being blocked for disruption, attacks, harassment, take your pick.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You violated my warning, so I have blocked you for 31h for disruption. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants with totally false claims to censor a critical voice
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants are now working hard to block me from comment critically at the delte discussion page about the quantized inertia page. Just look this at this very false claim by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23#requesting_an_admin_and_you_seem_to_be_active_at_the_moment And yes false claims to censor critical questions is serious! ChrisCalif (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the totally false claim by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants "and accusing others of paid editing for the past few hours" this is totally false claim, please read the page, where I simply and politely ask if anyone should be paid editors then it is a good time to disclose. I specifically mentioned "PS I am not accusing a single editor here for this, I am just kindly asking if any such conflict of interest. " Please read the whole discussion on the page in question (quantized inertia deletion page)! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants should stop his false claims to censor one of the voices here discussing the extreme weakness in the arguments for censoring the quantized inertia page. Why are no one reacting on his clearly false claims? ChrisCalif (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked after critics of arguments by editors wanting to delete the quantized inertia page
I was blocked for more than 30 hours because I was criticizing the editors arguments and their behavior that want delete the quantized inertia page. This I think is highly relevant for the deletion discussion.

This is close to full censorship, not only of an idea, but also of editors pointing out the weakness in the arguments (well inside wikipedia guidelines) given by these editors that work hard to censor quantized inertia. ChrisCalif (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop posting your rant all over
You are getting the attention you are asking for at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please stop posting it all over the place. It is more of the disruptive behavior that resulted in your previous block. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I mistakenly posted it a few places, and deleted it several places myself, it is now on the appropriate page, the discussion page. Please do not delete where it really belongs. ChrisCalif (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It certainly does not belong on the AfD page, that is for deletion discussion. It is not for discussion of your behavior or your block. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay delte all pages except on the discussion page of deletion of quantized inertia. Should I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCalif (talk • contribs) 10:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I already told you it is an inappropriate venue. Another admin has warned you to stay away from that discussion. You blame others for being blocked but this is exactly the type of behavior that will result in another block. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are you not actually reading all that was written on the discussion page for deleting quantized inertia. I am clearly the one getting bullied and harassed.ChrisCalif (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what they do best. Look how difficult it is to even get a reply accepted for posting (this is beyond ridiculous): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Quantized_inertia#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_10_June_2021 88.145.197.201 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no such thing on the AFD. I do see you repeatedly insinuating editors are UPE with basically zero evidence even after being told to stop, posting long off-topic rants about how you were blocked and told to stop posting long rants, etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please point out exactly what part of my comments are ranting!!! Do not just throw dirt because you want me deleted and blocked for pointing out critical behavior among several editors. ChrisCalif (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As with Ritchie333 and others, I have zero confidence this is going to help but here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantized_inertia&diff=prev&oldid=1028015165]. In the context of AFD no one should really give a fuck that you were blocked. It's irrelevant to the AFD. Contest the block at ANI or on your talk page or at the blocking admin's talk page. Likewise "My message was now deleted, so even arguments one not like are deleted" - complaints that your message was rightfully deleted because it contained basically no real argument supported by our policies and guidelines of why the article should be kept and instead was full of ranting about irrelevant stuff is also not something anyone cares about on an AFD.  If you want to participate in AFDs in the future, keep your comments on-topic i.e. why the article meets our notability requirements, supported by our policies and guidelines; rather than ranting about editor behaviour or how you were allegedly mistreated. If there are genuine problems with editor behaviour or how you've been treated, these should be dealt with somewhere appropriate like ANI, your talk page, or the talk page of the editor involved. They should not be dealt with on the AFD. Very rarely issues surrounding comment deletion (or collapsing) in the AFD can be dealt with on the talk page of the AFD, but not the AFD itself.  Definitely you should never make insinuations of UPE without any evidence or reason to suspect & it's especially silly in a case like this since if there were UPE, it's only likely to be in the other direction. Likewise while perhaps not technically off-topic, it's a bit silly to be going into such detail about the scientific peer-review process when plenty of the editors you're talking to have published papers in peer-reviewed journals and a number have likely been reviewers themselves.  Editors cannot be "deleted" on Wikipedia so no one can be hoping for that. At best, accounts can be renamed but this is only ever done when the user requests it or perhaps where the username itself is a major problem. And personally. I would much rather that you aren't blocked. However your behaviour will need to change a fair bit if you want to continue to edit. If you feel you cannot change it because of your strong feelings about the subject of the Quantitised Inertia article, then your best bet is to edit articles where you don't feel so strongly especially while still learning the ropes around here. Note I am not and am unlikely to be a participant in the AFD and I don't think I have ever edited the article or its talk page.  Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked you from editing the deletion discussion because you have made all of your points to keep the article, and now we need to hear the viewpoints of others in order for a consensus to be formed. Repeatedly stating your view, and dominating the discussion is disruptive. See WP:BLUDGEON. It has nothing to do with what points you are making. I don't have any opinion over whether or not the article should be deleted nor to the topic in question (which is what should happen - administrators take a "hands off" approach to content, see WP:INVOLVED). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You could then simply have written on my talk page "you are writing too many viewpoints and too long viewpoints and are too repetitive, please write less or come with totally new view points or something like that", if that is your point. But no, you just blocked me.ChrisCalif (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You have attacked everyone else giving you advice. Therefore I had no confidence that any advice I gave you would be listened to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Harassment is unacceptable
Edit warring with an editor to keep your harassment of them on their talk page is particularly lame. Stop it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors, as you did at User talk:XOR'easter. a blank post with harassment using an edit summary is not acceptable behaviour. Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is also not acceptable to block me from a discussion page where I have asked questions, pointed out flaws in argumentation etc. all well inside wikipedia guidelines. Pleas point to exact what I have done wrong there, too many words? Please be specific.
 * Ell oh ell. Please see WP:EW, WP:HARASS, WP:BLUDGEON, etc.  Or, read any of the multiple comments that have been left for you earlier, explaining clearly and specifically what you're doing wrong.  (P.S. You are pre-emptively not welcome to come to my talk-page to discuss this.) --JBL (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Star  Mississippi  17:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As I commented on the ANI, I was very close to an indef, but aligned it with the partial block's AfD timing. I don't have much faith that this editor understands what the issues are, and therefore that the conduct will improve, but was willing to give them a chance. Should an admin feel the duration needs adjusting, feel free. Star   Mississippi

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As you went immediately back to the discussion and taunted other editors, you are now blocked indefinitely. Multiple administrators have given you several chances. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * off course you know why I am blocked, it has nothing to do with disruptive editing Well it is clearly considered disruptive that I point out flaws in the weakness of several editors arguments in a constructive way. I will ask you to unblock me ASP! ChrisCalif (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"I suggest you take some time to consider your actions." How much time, I am blocked indefinite for pointing out weakness in the arguments of several editors on a discussion page. For example I pointed out why would a self proclaimed physicists XOR'easter put more weight on a blog in forbes claiming the quantized inertia theory was pseudoscience than 20 to 30 peer reviewed published papers, most of them in very well respected journals. The same was the case with some other editors. Why should I be blocked for this? ChrisCalif (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest you read Guide to appealing blocks carefully, continuing to attack other users will just result in you being unable to edit your own talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * *"I am blocked indefinite for pointing out weakness in the arguments of several editors on a discussion page" is not accurate, which is why it has been suggested you step back and review your talk page interactions to understand how your actions were disruptive and how they led to this block. Even in the above reply you continue to make snide comments about another editor. It has to stop or you risk losing access to this page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What is wrong about stating facts? ChrisCalif (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Star  Mississippi  20:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This conversation went on long enough. ChrisCalif, you're welcome to use UTRS to request unblock once you have had time to review the information above and understand why you were blocked. Hint WP:NOTTHEM.  Star   Mississippi  20:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)