User talk:Jeh/Archives/2016/02

Central Processing Unit
Hello, I'm Ttt74. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Central Processing Unit that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Central Processing Unit. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ttt74 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Noted." Jeh (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done

removing all my work
Hello, It seems that everything i have added has been removed. Can you explain why links from big sites like cnet, and other are always on wikipedia but links from smaller sites are removed? There is no doubt that all of them are promotional, especcially from bigger sites. But i understand, all editors need to make money — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renarsknauzers (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your links to hddmag.com in no way provided verification of the immediately preceding claims (which is what inline "references" are supposed to do) or even additional information directly relevant to the articles or the nearby text. The policies and guidelines concerning references and external links are completely explained in the WP pages linked from my edit notices to you; I provided specifics in each of my edits' summaries and in my edit notices. If you have further questions you should probably ask them at the talk pages for those pages, or ask at e.g. Teahouse/Questions. Jeh (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Done

System partition and boot partition
Hi.

I was wondering if you could put System partition and boot partition into your watchlist. Sometimes in November 2015, an editor has started editing this article, removed well-referenced contents and replaced them with original research. In process, he used very poor grammar (and insulted other editors for their poor grammar), violated MOS:CAPS, used weird pseudo-English language, added broken hatnotes and dead category links, and added a trivia section. Here is the result:. One funny note: According to this fangled version, a "boot partition" is not a "disk partition".

I am watchlisting it but I though maybe an extra set of eyes is better.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. :)

Done

Why you report me?
I found you report me, but why? Is there anything wrong to revert something on the talk page of PAE? Or something wrong with your health enables you go crazy all the time for ever? I suggest you to see a doctor, please stop doing that stupid and ridiculous thing, all right? OhNohej (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked editors are not entitled to edit talk:PAE or anywhere else on Wikipedia, except their own talk page to request unblocking.
 * Note that most recently, ClawOfSlime reverted your edit, not me: I'm not alone in my actions or my evaluation of you.
 * I might as well ask why you persist in trying to evade your block when it should be quite apparent by now that your edits will not be allowed to stand. (Recall someone's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.)
 * As for my actions, it is Wikipedia's policy that blocked editors not be allowed to evade their blocks and that evaders should be reported - why else would WP:SPI exist? Why you think you should be an exception, that you should be given special treatment and allowed to edit the encyclopedia even while blocked, is unfathomable to me. Indeed, edits such as these, which you made just days after you requested an unblock and claimed to be a "very innocent editor, and good person", only confirm that your indefinite block is very well deserved.
 * As was suggested to you at your talk page, if you want to be unblocked you're going to have to not edit under any IP or username for six months. Until you are unblocked I and others will continue to revert and report you. Your editing habits are well known and easily recognized, and every time you try evade your block you provide more information... so you are very unlikely to escape detection for long.
 * I strongly suspect that this missive will be ignored by you, as have my previous attempts, so I will not debate any of this with you. Take it or leave it but don't try to argue. Jeh (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * wow, wow, wow. What are you always pissing off? Not that I am an exception, but the ones I am dealing with are pieces of shits, understand? Dealingshits (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Done

Talk:Free_software
Wikipedia is not the right place to do discrimination against other ethnicity and cultures especially when someone considers that editors who does not claim native-level fluency in English are not qualified to contribute to Wikipedia: as what you claimed in your recent comment.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Ttt74 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the second time you've misused warning templates on my talk page. I let the first time go because you're so new. but this time, it is clear that a response is required.
 * Item: Nothing I said was a personal attack.
 * Item: Nothing I said meant or implied that I am not assuming good faith on your part. I assume that you are making a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Item: Nothing I said was in any way discriminatory. I made no reference at all to your ethnicity or culture, and I never said you were not qualified to contribute to Wikipedia at all. But on your user page you claim only an "intermediate" level of English. There is a Wikipedia concept called "competence is required"; see WP:CIR. Your suggested move is based on your judgment about how an English word is used, and furthermore how it is used in a specific context with which you profess unfamiliarity ("I have no personal interest in this subject"). To make such a judgment correctly does require competence in the language and in the subject area. Requiring the same competence from you that we require from all other editors is not "discriminatory". Indeed, it is treating you the same as we treat everyone else.
 * By the way, your text above, "editors who does not [sic] claim native-level fluency in English are not qualified to contribute to Wikipedia", is both grammatically incorrect and is phrased as if you agree with me! I know you don't agree with me - but that's how you wrote it. This rather establishes my point, don't you think? You can't even get your phraseology right in a discussion that's about your English usage.
 * Accordingly, I stand by my judgment: Based on your own claim on your user page of not being able to contribute to Wikipedia at a native-speaker level, and on your own claim that you're not personally interested in the subject, I don't think you're qualified to make any judgments about article titles in this field. Certainly not qualified enough to move existing articles without discussion.
 * You should probably re-read Codename Lisa's comments to you here. I can't say it better. Jeh (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think I was wrong at all, when I warned you about your behaviour; The first time you accused me falsely of not assuming good faith when I reverted your vandalism on CPU article, and this time you used your discriminatory phrase against me: That's simply a way of attacking against other people. Regarding the grammatical correctness: I don't see any mistake; your claim is simply untrue. As for the Codename's lisa comment(s) as what you pointed above, It simply has nothing to do with this case; But the way how you pointed to it, shows only your inability of well discussing with other people. Another thing, If you are tracking my contributions and want to revert some edits on articles you are unfamiliar with, like what you did for Subaru : It's better that you do it with more neutral and constructive manner. Ttt74 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You failed to AGF by saying, in your edit summary, that my edit to correct your mistakes was "vandalism". I admitted in *my* edit summary that I'd deleted too much, and apologized - nevertheless your change to "integrated circuit" was historically inaccurate, and your edit also added a couple of extra characters to a section head. I note that you haven't reverted there again.
 * It was vandalism; the massive content you deleted won't let you hide . Ttt74 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your failure to see and understand your phraseology error is, well, consistent.
 * If what you are saying is true: then prove it. Ttt74 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish you would adopt a less confrontational attitude toward your fellow editors. English language Wikipedia needs more editors with close knowledge of other cultures. But not if they're going to react with a flood of off-point warning templates to every revert. Jeh (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, if you behave more correctly, next time. Ttt74 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to take behavioral advice from new editors who initiate "discussion" with inappropriate warning templates - even after being advised not to do that. If you feel I behaved incorrectly, I invite you to take this to a dispute resolution forum. I'm done here. Jeh (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion. But the fact you are an old Wikipedian, won't deny other new editors, even if they are inexperienced, from warning you about your behavior. I think that I'm done here too. Ttt74 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Done