User talk:Ushkin N

Community requests are not optional
Unforchantly, group of people would expect my corrections (, and others) and I underestimated that they should be immediate and not on lower priority in my list. Where I will review pages and I will fix them in second pass when I will fix many things at once. I was focusing not on improvements and guides but on poorly asking questions if there new rules that I broke. I should stop and go back in my edit log (roughly just about 1400 edits now), with the pointers given by Ruud.

It was my mistake to focus on discussions, not on implementing improvements to main/category namespace.

It was a mistake to state they are "minor" at my talk page (even they are or not; and so on), I would never advice anyone doing so at his talk page. I should just fix them so that other editors would have no questions about me or my "competence" or my other (oblivious) flaws.

I should really listen advice about "escalating bans" and put corrections on the first priority in what I'm doing at Wikipedia.

My edit log was corrected and reviewed by group of people and I appreciate this. I should really state it earlier.

I should really use "Thank you" function to notify that "I got my mistake here". But now I can only say it post-factum. Ushkin N (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of programming languages
Hi,

I see you're splitting of the sections describing the concrete syntax of various programming languages from the concepts themselves. While I agree that the currently form in which they are presented in most articles is problematic (a subsection per language), I don't think the approach you're taking is proper way to resolve it:


 * By splitting of that content, you're only moving the real problem, not solving it. In the past I've solved this by creating a single section "Programming languages" or "Language support" in the article on the concept and put all the information in a more compact table. One row per language instead of one per subsection. See e.g. Function type.
 * Those article titles you are using are going to raise some eyebrows. "Comparison of programming languages" sounds a bit non-encyclopedic. These titles have been used in the past for articles that compared two different programming languages with each other, but many of those were deleted. A lists of disambiguation tags (like "types, dependent types") are also never used on Wikipedia.

I've already undone you split of Dependent type, where the information was already in a compact table.

—Ruud 10:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What is "problem"? To transclude moved page or link when necessary? Yes, if you split pages you make them easier to maintain
 * Second point is untrue, just 3 links:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_programming_languages_%28object-oriented_programming%29&action=history
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_programming_languages_%28array%29&action=history
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_programming_languages_%28list_comprehension%29&action=history
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_programming_languages_%28basic_instructions%29&action=history
 * None of them were removed for years or removed after my request.
 * Also the article Comparison of programming languages (control flow, boundaries) look somewhat confused to me. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an article on this topic, but 1) it should be more clearly written, 2) have a better title, and 3) probably shouldn't have been created by cutting and pasting content from other articles together. —Ruud 10:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There no name for "symbols" of "blocks". It was explained in "terminology" sections at this page.
 * It wasn't simply copy&pasted, I spend some time to correct duplication during moves and merges.
 * If you want spend your time on formatting, feel free to join with edits, I want to make Comparison of programming languages first. Ushkin N (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, splitting pages makes them much harder to maintain. Mainly because changes will no longer show up on the History tab and on people's watchlists. Splitting articles is something that should only be done if the parent article truly becomes too large, and the content that was split-off can stand on its own as a separate article.

It's also better to discuss such massive changes, as you seem to be planning to undertake, beforehand. E.g. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Especially if you are a fairly new contributor. Otherwise we might have to spend a lot more effort afterwards correcting any mistakes. —Ruud 11:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * > changes will no longer show up on the History tab and on people's watchlists. Subscribers will be notified about page split and subscribe to newer page.
 * Yes we can use very this argument for every page split. I haven't seen single Wikipedia rule from you that I actually broken during split.
 * You seem to ignore 4 pages that are 6+ years old.
 * I don't have to discuss changes that were implemented at Comparison of programming languages, if this page was wrong for years, my splits have little to do with this.
 * Thank you for your contributions, but I don't think I'm "new" just because I created new account, you could easily avoid this argument next time. Ushkin N (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not the only one who thinks that duplication is unnecessary at main pages: . Ushkin N (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to be polite with you here, but if that's not appreciated I'll stop. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so you will always have to discuss your changes. You can't just do anything because "it doesn't break the rules". I don't see a good reason to split those pages, nor have you given any good reason to do so (other than "it's not expressly forbidden anywhere"). —Ruud 11:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will try to explain one more time:
 * Comparison of programming languages (object-oriented programming)
 * Comparison of programming languages (syntax)
 * Comparison of programming languages (basic instructions)
 * Exception handling syntax
 * Comparison of programming languages (array)
 * Comparison of programming languages (mapping)
 * There good reason for follow what was done before. For consistency. I'm doing what editors of these pages were doing for years: a separate page per language features or feature group.
 * It is unclear what exactly you propose other than "don't do that" "I'm trying to be polite".
 * Neither you suggest what should be done or provide any alternative to your plan. Ushkin N (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this explains anything at all. The only real new reason you offer is "for consistency". But the pre-existing articles and the new ones you created cannot really be compared that easily ("A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"). I see for example absolutely no benefit (and a lot of harm) in removing a helpful table from Dependent type, and putting it in a separate article somewhere. You have to give me a real reason why you think this is helpful for the reader. You can't just say that "it has been done in a few (not really) similar situations before". —Ruud 12:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of repeating yourself for 3rd time, try to explain why Comparison of programming languages and Template:Programming language comparisons should
 * refer to the Dependent_type
 * and not page from the Category:Programming languages by language concept?
 * If this table should be worked, then I haven't seen any proposal from you how to perform it. Ushkin N (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already explained that to you. That table should remain in the article Dependent type, as removing it there would be inconvenient for the reader: the table is not large enough to warrant moving it out of the article, placing it behind a link. If you want to link to the table from a navigation box, just link to the subsection. —Ruud 12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what was wrong with transclusion of the (now removed) page at Dependent type?
 * That's all? I don't think this talk was worth all the hassle.
 * You can transclude at any point, you can use sections link at any point.
 * To me, it is irrelevant what to pick. Ushkin N (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But then why would you want to split-off that table into another article? There's no point in creating an article that contains just that table as it's content. Or do you want to include a similar table in another article? I think it's highly unlikely that you want to use the exact same table in another article. —Ruud 12:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's highly unlikely that you want to use the exact same table in another article
 * You would never know if you suppress any re-use of the content (separate pages, separate temapltes, separate tables).
 * At least 2 pages should link to this table: old Dependent type and Comparison of programming languages or it's (automatic/transcluded) alternative.
 * Exactly two pages. Ushkin N (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's completely unclear to me what you're planning to do with the article Comparison of programming languages, but it certainly shouldn't be a concatenation of every table on Wikipedia somehow comparing programming languages. (Or if you plan on creating such a pointless article, then please don't destroy more useful articles in the process...) —Ruud 13:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If every of these pages/tables compares languages per feature/feature group, then it may be included in page "Comparison of programming languages" [sic].
 * You're the only one who removes original content without discussion.
 * Calling page splits as "duplication" and "destroy more useful articles" is unbelievably rude and unproductive.
 * I heard no excuses from you after removal of Comparison of programming languages (control flow, boundaries) Ushkin N (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I second 's comments, especially those concerning the inappropriate article titles that you are creating. Ruud is a very experienced editor who is trying to be helpful here. In addition to his comments, please make sure that when you split an article that proper attribution is given to previous editors (see comment on my talk page in repsonse to here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I will be okay with any consistent names that include Category:Programming language concepts (they are mentioned as "tags"), but this is not an argument to merge/delete pages.
 * We can decide on page names at any second, I don't think this is an issue.
 * I'm shocked that moves are restricted at English section of Wikipedia.
 * I'm stating "from ... page" every time. If I omitted this once, this is due mistake. I think Sadmins can fix edit comment to include correct attribution. Ushkin N (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I second 's comments as well. I now see article content being destroyed and/or put in danger. I have reviewed some of the new pages and put tags in that are not being addressed. The calls for deletion and un-reviewing has already started and there is no way to save these articles on AfD in the state they are in now. I would recommend to undo the whole operation before we get there. Any splits should be discussed on the articles Talk page, with consensus achieved, and then properly prepared so as to create articles that will survive their creation. DeVerm (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "article content being destroyed" - example please?
 * "and/or put in danger" by whom? Example?
 * Ruud Koot stated many things, some of his claim are overstatements - do you support them too? What is your point exactly? Ushkin N (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles you "created" are already being nominated for deletion . This is because:
 * You failed to give these article a proper, understandable name that clearly relates the material to the parent article where content was split from.
 * You failed to write a proper introduction making clear this is article contains content that properly belongs to a parent article.
 * An experienced editor, like you claim to be, should have known better. The end result is that we will at best be wasting time correcting these mistakes, and at worst that formerly useful content will end up being deleted.
 * —Ruud 16:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletion banners are gone already Ushkin N (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not able to move a page. But you can repeat it.
 * No, I think readers can click that one link in the header of the each page if they don't know "fold" function or "map"/"reduce"
 * Can you please add minimal introduction at the top of the page you think would be sufficient to understand a table?
 * I still find Category:Programming languages by language concept easier to navigate than pages filled with "theory".
 * You don't have to re-explain terminology at every page what uses this terminology. That's insane. Ushkin N (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What? No! I think splitting these pages was a terrible idea to begin with. If you want to split them, then you should make the effort to come up with a decent title and introductory paragraph. I think http://rosettacode.org/ may be a more suitable place for you to contribute this kind of ("theory-free") content. —Ruud 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will include introductory paragraphs where necessary. Is there anything else?
 * Requirement of introduction makes no sense to me.
 * It seems like readers can read contents of the page regardless of what said 1 2
 * Also I don't think this information can found anywhere on the Internet 1 so your suggestion to write them at Rosetta code is weird at very least and off-topic. Rosetta code have nothing to do with what should be written at Wikipedia. Ushkin N (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I was busy with my job, I had no time to read all rules yet (even basic merge/split procedure requests).

I understood that I'm doing it wrong. There was 3 people suggesting me how to do it, but I was simply unable to grasp their absolutely legitimate suggestions. For some reason, I will pick Ruud as a person, who is not able to suggest anything constructive. I don't have excuses to this, I will "prove" myself that "he is not good at sources", while I'm not able to fully understand his edit history or all discussions he had.

I don't know why it was so. He made 4-10 suggestions from the almost directly from the rules, but I'm still able to perceive them Maybe this is relevant how lengthy our conversation was with him.

27 May 2016 undiscussed and useless merge suggestion I overreacted to this edit A LOT. Intentionally or not, but I will have a real war later on.

May 2016
Your recent editing history at Programming idiom 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 are 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Ruud 14:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was first to start a discussion.
 * WP:V wasn't addressed by edits 1 2 3
 * So I just WP:BEBOLD notice about unsourced statements back.
 * and I stated exactly this in my edit and started a discussion shortly after
 * But reverts continued 1 before any discussion
 * Sorry to see you prioritize reverts over discussions. Ushkin N (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Disuptive editting includes tag bombing articles, including placing multiple inline maintaines templates in a single sentence, like you have done at e.g. Graceful exit and Programming idiom. —Ruud 14:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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, and seek consensus with them. 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.
 * Yes, you were efficiently suppressing my absolutely harmless WP:V requests 1. Yes, I placed twice, but you could act WP:CIVIL and fix this small mistake instead of what you did.
 * You have to prove your reverts WP:PROVEIT.
 * You weren't able to prove them in 27.05.2016
 * You aren't able to prove them today (28.05.2016). But instead you escalate this conflict to even more articles and content, while claiming that it is "me" who doesn't respond to other editors.
 * Unbelievably uncivil.
 * At the same time, WP:V doesn't seem to be grounded in your revert edits, Talk:Programming idiom, User_talk:Ruud_Koot.
 * That's why I asked for independent investigation afterwards. Ushkin N (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I should place single link at Graceful_exit or use "clarify" label instead.
 * But since you noticed this mistake at almost orphan page Special:WhatLinksHere/Graceful_exit, you could simply correct it.
 * Thank you for friendly reminder. Ushkin N (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Last warning
You claim to be an experienced editor, so start acting like one quickly. Take these edits to Temporary variable. The article already had a huge tag on it, mentioning the text is insufficiently referenced. There is no need, then, to place multiple(!) inline clarify and citation needed tags in the lead sentence. It is disruptive. Stop it. Next time I see something silly like that from you again it is going to result in a block. —Ruud 16:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:V is a Wikipedia guideline, WP:COMPETENCE is not. I would wonder why one would write such insulting page or refer to it at talk pages.
 * If you stop claiming false statements about me that are easily deniable, that should be nice.
 * "An experienced editor, like you claim to be"
 * "You claim to be an experienced editor"
 * Problem I have with you (repeatedly) is that I never claimed myself an "experienced editor".
 * All I see from you:
 * Unexplained and uncommented reverts and edits
 * Ignore of WP:V
 * Repeated insults at my talk page WP:IUC: (d) lying (a) taunting
 * If you have never seen WP:CIVILITY, then it is never late. Ushkin N (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Ushkin there are three editors telling you that what you are doing is wrong and disruptive. You are the only one arguing against that; this should tell you that maybe you are wrong and disruptive instead of arguing against it more. About your claims on being experienced, you wrote this: "Thank you for your contributions, but I don't think I'm "new" just because I created new account, you could easily avoid this argument next time. Ushkin N (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)" so Ruud's statements are not false at all... it seems you can't keep track of which statements you made only 5 days before. I urge you to help fix this, not make it worse. DeVerm (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally you were asked to provide examples of my "disruptive edits". But you ignore my question, so uncivil WP:CIVILITY.
 * I can see how 3 users try to assault me and (seems to) ignore my concerns about edits WP:CIVILITY.
 * This one is especially painful to read. Ushkin N (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was SO confused and exhausted by previous talks. I lost my mind in WARs.


 * WALLS of discussions that doesn't help me, as they should. I should simply read guide on this topic. Not to ask questions, not to defend myself.
 * My own WALLS of diffs and self-explanation are so exhausting. Ushkin N (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * EDITED : it was wrong to say this, it is easy to make mistakes in such statements. Ushkin N (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While it is true that 2 citation requests are worse than 1 (according to WP:V) doesn't mean I should be reminded every time I oversight something.
 * I don't have go too far in edit history to show how offensive User:Ruud Koot is: "revert more WP:TAGBOMBing and strange, unexplained merge suggestions by"
 * Statements about "weird" edits doesn't help anyone in the project. Ushkin N (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In case of "Temporary variable" User:Ruud Koot claims are just groundless defamation. I tried to explain move request 1, but User:Ruud Koot continue his false statements ("unexplained merge") and public defamation of me WP:IUC instead of civil discussion and suggestions Ushkin N (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He will continue assaults in the next day (28.05.2016) without any direct links with my "wrong" edits (according to him).
 * Yes, I did some mistakes, I never denied this.
 * Ruud repeating this for 6 days already and it is exhausting for me to reply to this, especially when he claims such statements without direct links. Ushkin N (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * when User_talk:Ruud_Koot fails to prove WP:V I just want to call User:Jimbo Wales why I accused of using 2 V requests instead of 1? It could be fixed in 10 seconds. I'm not doing that many mistakes as very few users repeatedly accuse me.


 * User:Ruud Koot known to cite of minority guidelines. I have no idea why he does this. Maybe to provoke, maybe because he doesn't know real Wikipedia guidelines.
 * WP:V is a clear example of guideline he doesn't know how to follow.
 * I made over 500 edits already and don't have such problems with other contributors.
 * It only shows that it may be not problem with me.
 * If you start lengthy discussion at user page instead of cooperating with edits at main space or at page talk pages it only shows that you are begging for conflict.


 * No, using offensive and taunting language would make it more civil. Ushkin N (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not have to answer your questions because when I got to this page, Ruud had already perfectly answered them. You also seemed to have missed that I was initially trying to protect and help you because I assumed good faith. It now seems I may have made a mistake because you have not hesitated to accuse me and others of assaulting you. Do you seriously not see that we care about these computer/programming related articles and are not interested in doing anything with you?! Last but not least, it seems you do not understand the concept of a last warning. DeVerm (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just stated that you ignored my question. Okay, let's stop this nonsense. But it doesn't help if you state "you doing it wrong" without link/examples.
 * Please don't do this, as it confuses editors.
 * Ruud addressed too many minor things that were fixed by me or by other editors. There no point in repeating or discussing what was fixed.
 * Do you have any concerns right now? What was/is wrong and where? Ushkin N (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Link with mistake from Ruud, not from DeVerm. I do not neglect that DeVerm supported Ruud, even back in May 27. We cannot have a talk when we are in WAR, this is "last warning thread".

Stop
These page moves are inappropriate. You have been told previously that your requested moves and choice of article titles  were not appropriate either. As some many of your actions have been problematic, I'm at this point I'm not ever sure any more if you simply have some competence issues or are being deliberately disruptive. Several experienced editors have tried to make this clear to you already, but instead of taking their advice, you dismiss them. I've revoked your editing permissions for the rest of the weekend. If genuinely care about improving Wikipedia use that time to familiarize yourself with its culture and to imagine a way how you can contribute without exceeding your abilities. —Ruud 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! I notified about your yesterday actions and edits (Programming idiom) at Dispute resolution board.
 * Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
 * User:Ruud Koot can you please join discussion on this topic? Ushkin N (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Block by User:Ruud Koot suppresses discussion, I'm not able to use talk pages or explain my actions or ask questions how could I improve my actions
. As it was recommended to me.

User:Ruud_Koot wasn't participating in discussion on the yesterday dispute.

Blocking me at talk pages was absolutely unnecessary and User:Ruud_Koot should know this better than me. Ushkin N (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Ushkin, I am not sure but I think you are acting in good faith but just don't know how to help make these articles better. At the same time you are dismissing our remarks which really are attempts to show you the right way. Even now, right above this comment, you are still pointing fingers at others instead of thinking it over. It seems you are out of control and all of us see that and support the block. Do not forget the pointers you got with that block, they are meant to help you: read up on how things go here, check out contributions from others, read the manuals etc. Before doing big edits, study how others did those and check their results, i.e. if they succeeded or not etc. I still follow that procedure myself when I need to do something that I didn't do before or when it was a long time ago that I did that. And I make mistakes as well, we all do, but then I am okay with it when other editors come in and point out my mistakes and I don't ignore their pointers nor accuse them etc. While blocked, you can still edit this talk page and ping Ruud if you want. DeVerm (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for some explanation!
 * "make these articles better" - which articles? Examples please?
 * Unfortunately, conflict between me and Ruud is quite clear. So I don't think that counts as pointing fingers. Just because he has admin flag right now, doesn't make him right in every action or I cannot discuss his actions while he discuses mine.
 * I ask him "why?" quite often I get silence as response.
 * Thing that I do not "ignore" or (completely ignore) them as some readers may think after reading this page when it's filled with ban requests from one person.
 * For example if (other editor, anyone) stated that multiple WP:V requests are wrong in single sentence — then I wouldn't do this again.
 * If you correct my mistake in main namespaces I will notice it.
 * It also takes less time to perform (in polite manner) vs requesting person in person
 * WP:BEBOLD states that commented reverts are okay. But if one person makes no comments during reverts... Then what? Person who was reverted is guilty or wrong?
 * In some cases, even with published academic paper behind your edits(reverts), you can be wrong
 * To me, WP:V is not a minor guideline any person with admin flag should ever ignore
 * If you post all mistakes I ever made at my user page, it would be insulting and some readers may think that I'm doing it on purpose.
 * Quoting not widely approved esse (WP:TAGBOMB) doesn't help (me) to think this is indeed a right or this esse (not a guideline) should be ever listened to.
 * I used Citation needed to request more sources about questionable matters because WP:TRUTHMATTERS. I don't think that removing WP:POV statements you advance Wikipedia.
 * But this page says nothing about (oh god) how many requests you can make per sentence.
 * If I use it with 2 unsourced terms in one sense then what? It I means that I destructive if I request both of them?
 * There many esses on Wikipedia and not all of them make sense, especially after you read core policies Core content policies and Policies and guidelines
 * Yes, I WP:BEBOLD my changes, but also (may not seen this) I start discussion before any of the edits: 1
 * I also respond to feedback after my changes. But not to the insults and defamation.
 * I did it since first edit, for example 26 05 2016 1, 2.
 * Yes, @User:Ruud_Koot could act more responsible and stop defamation or Cherrypicking of my worst edits as some absolute evil me as editor. Because, there still many of my edits not contested by other editors.
 * Maybe not all of the things I did are actually are wrong?
 * Maybe he can finally say sorry for content I spend 0.5 hour formatting and merging as "duplication"? 1
 * Mannerism at my user page doesn't give trust that such indeed a person that should be trusted.
 * Not that I want waste everyone time here, but listening all of these shady claims is insulting.
 * The best way for everyone is not to state them. For example, at my Userpage.
 * I dedicated my time too! Thank you for your time by the way! :-) Ushkin N (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"You need to convince us that the block is not legitimate, or that your disruptive editing has stopped."

 * 21.05.2016 1 First off all, this was a question. No moves were performed to this page
 * 25.05.2016 I have seen comments about "Comparison of programming languages" 1 2 3.
 * This is just repetition of what was said in 21.05.2016 by @Andy Dingley. Stating that I haven't seen them is a lie. Especially if my talk page filled with discussion about very same matter.
 * I stopped naming page using Comparison of programming languages (...) (Comparison of programming languages (array)) after 21.05.2016 and several other talks
 * because it was suggested that (...) is not good way to name articles 22.05.2016 by A lists of disambiguation tags (like "types, dependent types") are also never used on Wikipedia.
 * He will lie that I didn't seen this or that I ignored it in my changes 28.05.2016
 * but User:Ruud Koot keeps forcing it 28.05.2016 this as argument to my ban. This is untrue. He should watch changes in edit history next time. Every move should be discussed case by case, not all together.
 * he used move where single letter was changed as argument to my ban 28.05.2016
 * This page was defined as "In computer programming ..." before any of my changes
 * He reverted change about "swap" as "Parallel assignment", but he have to WP:PROVEIT and I don't see how he is able to prove anything
 * Talk page was completely ignored by him
 * unlike other editors, for example (User:Maurice Carbonaro my request to him), User:Ruud Koot performs reverts and changes without any explanation or activity at talk pages.
 * I don't know why, but @Maurice Carbonaro didn't move page (immediately) after he seen my change and my concerns about this term ("swap")
 * "several experienced editors have tried to make this clear to you already, but instead of taking their advice, you dismiss them." - that's a lie.
 * I communicate with User:DeVerm at my user page
 * I seen his proposals at main space. 22.05.2016 1
 * Splits were accepted by other members (@Callyalater1989) 1
 * I added lead section 1
 * I moved page with VERY descriptive comment 1
 * I added context 1
 * He said stop at my user page and issued 2 day ban
 * After this, @Ruud Koot made only minor changes and adjusted two last words in page title ("and type checking")
 * Only then he created a talk page but without any explanation of reverts and moves
 * I commented my changes 1 2, according BOLD. But instead of discussion, changes reverted without explanation 1 2 3 or discussion at talk pages. Or simply by communicating with me.
 * These changes/moves are different from using "... (array)" titles in pages. But User:Ruud Koot omited it during ban statement/claim.
 * Not a surprise with @Ruud Koot as he is known to avoid (and sometimes ignore) talk pages User_talk:Ushkin_N 27.05.2016
 * I'm also prevented from BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because I was banned by him shortly after
 * After he reverted changes without explanation, he didn't seek for consensus (WP:BEBOLD), but instead suppressed my account without any discussion at talk pages. 1 2. This is not what WP:BEBOLD and BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says.
 * I did all of above while listening groundless and WP:UNCIVIL insults at my user talk page.

With best regards. Ushkin N (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Rhetorical question
Did it occur to you that before pestering other people, you could answer that question yourself by typing 'RAII idiom' or 'Schwartzian tranform idiom' into Google Books? Doing so would make you look like an overall more competent and likeable person. —Ruud 21:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ruud, you misquote me. 1 and 2 are unformatted messages.
 * More lie and broken half-truth from User:Ruud Koot.
 * 3 and 4 are legitimate questions at talk page of the respective pages.
 * But your UNCIVILITY is just out of bounds.
 * You were bombarding me with questions about wiki-formatting and other minor nonsense for 8 consequent days, while your are unable to provide WP:V sources for your own reverts and edits.
 * Yes I did research. 1 2 3 4
 * Yes I did 5 6
 * None of your "sources" give a single definition: User_talk:Ruud_Koot
 * You seem to lie more and more every single day.
 * What are you doing at Wikipedia? Ushkin N (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

31 May 2016
I have closed the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread for multiple reasons. See my comments there. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) is not a forum for discussing the actions of administrators. If you have an issue with the actions of any administrator, first read the boomerang essay and then go to WP:AN. You are very strongly advised to listen to the advice of other editors. The alternative will be a series of escalating blocks. No one wants that. You were already blocked once. That should have gotten your attention to change your editing behavior, since no other editor agrees with you and some have advised you to be less confrontational. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see it's closed.
 * Because or any users (all sources were found by Tea2min) is not able to provide WP:V sources at Talk:Programming idiom, but contest my multiple changes at multiple pages at Wikipedia.
 * provided sources for all 2 changes, while still unable to do so for his own edits, for about a week now. Sorry to see that disputing and blaming me in "inexperience" for him is more important than finding WP:V sources. Ushkin N (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reference for Schwartzian transform did in fact come from . I am just the one who added it to the article. – Tea2min (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It really wasn't about administrative actions, but about 7 related pages. Ushkin N (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you accuse User:Ruud Koot of incivility, but your repeated statements that they are lying are uncivil and a severe personal attack. Consider this a Level 3 warning about personal attacks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I can have my opinion as well
 * Not just statements "he is a liar" but examples how frequently User:Ruud Koot uses false statements about my actions at my talk page.
 * But more importantly, how he is not able to prove his own changes
 * Other users don't have such problem. They comment their edits, they use talk pages. But does this only at his will.
 * Yet, he is the one to "teach me" Wikipedia is collaborative project 22.05.2016.
 * I have contacted 8 or more editors and none of them as aggressive and impolite as.
 * If he did it not on purpose, then I would consider to accept excuses from him. Ushkin N (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In meantime, page Schwartzian transform was improved with refs (not by me) removal of "Category:Programming idioms" is after Talk:Programming idiom discussion.

Category:Computer architecture folklore has been nominated for discussion
Category:Computer architecture folklore, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. L9G45AT0 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Replied. Ushkin N (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Memory characteristics
Hello Ushkin N,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Memory characteristics for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.If you wish to start an article, please refer to AFC

Meiloorun talk 🍁 21:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! That was quicker than I could physically edit/paste text from my editor.
 * I requested a page split 6 minutes before my "empty page": Talk:Computer_data_storage.
 * Then I decided to WP:BEBOLD and split this page. But it would require multiple actions during split. It could be removed as empty or as duplication (if I copied text of the other article first); there a Wikipedia policy against every move :) Ushkin N (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Computer hardware degradation
Template:Computer hardware degradation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Ruud 11:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Computer storage terminology has been nominated for discussion
Category:Computer storage terminology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Ruud 11:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We're done
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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. You returned after a break of a few months and immediately the exact same problems as those that led to your previous block start again. You're not doing anything productive here, but instead waste a lot of other people's time that have to clean up after you. As several editors told you during your previous block, you should be able to explain what you are going to do to prevent such disruptive behavior in the future. Instead you blamed your problems on others and had to wait out your block. That's not going to work a second time. How are you going to address your behavior in order to become a useful asset to the project? —Ruud 11:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Performing poorly thought-out and undiscussed splits of articles.
 * Performing poorly thought-out mass recategorizations . Even continuing to move articles into a category that has already attracted several delete votes.
 * Making tendentious edits based on some idiosyncratic beliefs what a particular term should mean. This time resulting in a mass stub-unsorting.
 * Being unable to communicate properly with other editors due to poor English-language skills and an attitude problem.
 * Possible copyright violations.

Ruud lies and doesn't deserves admin flag. He lied about my actions before, he continues to do so, without contacting or discussing with me. None of my edits were undiscussed in edit comments or talk pages or bad-faith intended. I performed moves to temporary maintain category. Regarding new category I even requested move everything back. Is category split and merge back is permabannable offense? I never seen a warning or a single polite request from a user "stop category splits". Instead, Ruud issued bermaban without any warning or WP:CIVIL discussion. Ushkin N (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed edit by User:Ruud Koot just everywhere:

Merge back requests is not the same 1 as User:Ruud Koot claims. I talk about Category:Computer storage merge, not about simple Category:Computer storage terminology removal. It quite clear that it should be discussed separately: 1 But now, it is UNWP:DISCUSSED with Ruud.


 * I'm sorry for readers of my user page, I never badfathly intended offend anyone. I'm not a proficient English speaker, not really understand how this is a reason to my permaban. Some of my statements are sharp because I have full time job and other activities other than editing Wikipedia in my very limited spare time. It's personal from Ruud, he lies and being unbelievably WP:UNCIVIL against me for 2 months in a row.


 * > Performing poorly thought-out and undiscussed splits of articles
 * BEFORE splitting page 1
 * I explained myself why this section should be merged first Talk:Computer_data_storage
 * I was contacted by other user during split and I do not ignore his message about "empty page".
 * I would like to hear from User:Meiloorun if my merge was badly thought, because he objected empty page, not split.
 * Talk page was ignored: Talk:Memory characteristics by Ruud as always.
 * My constructive edits to Memory characteristics are lost without any discussion at talk page or at my page.


 * Regarding 1
 * I'm not a lawyer, but I quoted SNIA directly with attribution in edit comment. Non-free content criteria. I did not copy just everything (their materials are huge), but only 10-20 missing definitions. I re-expressed some of them using my words, but Ruud will pose it as poorly thought content changes.
 * At other pages I made this quotation is even more explicit 1.
 * If SNIA members (not even lawyers) would ever request Wikipedia or me to stop quoting them with attribution, I will comply.
 * I was never contacted by Ruud to stop quoting absolutely WP:Verifable statements.
 * Honestly, quoting public copyrighted educational materials makes no sense to me, because there Fair use.
 * I haven't seen than SNIA strictly prohibits properly quote their educational materials and dictionaries.
 * So, I was perma banned for "possible copyright violations"? According to Ruud?


 * > Being unable to communicate properly with other editors due to poor English-language skills and an attitude problem
 * I'm using talk pages.
 * I never hided that I'm not native English speaker, because of this I'm not making huge textual changes (other than page splits and minor improvements to factual accuracy).
 * I don't have attitude problem as Ruud repeatedly lies about me
 * For example:
 * I deeply respect clarification from Tony Pearson, but nowadays this term (Nearline storage) is used less by major companies - 31 July 2016 about Nearline storage (Identifying_reliable_sources, WP:IGNOREALLRULES)
 * And thank you for the quote
 * Plesae open
 * Thank you - 30 July 2016
 * Hello! - 30 May 2016
 * Hello! Sorry that remind of this - 28 May 2016
 * In fact, I never heard a single "hello" from Ruud but his requests at my user page like a never ending water-wall of misunderstanding and sometimes lie.


 * I honestly would like to improve Wikipedia navigation and texts, not to fight over endless self-contradictory policies (sometimes openly hated everywhere outside Wikipedia).
 * I'm not able to write huge well-written and fluent English articles, but I have time to correct factual mistakes and unsourced statements], that cannot be found elsewhere.
 * To me, the only problem that reoccurs with "me" is a single admin who lies in the ban statemets and requests User_talk:Ushkin_N User_talk:Ushkin_N.
 * Now he lies about my "randomly selected articles" 1 2 (in fact, selected according SNIA dictionary) "undiscussed edits" (when I used talk page of the article) has something to hide in his edit history and his talk page.


 * For example, my fresh page merged back 1 2
 * I commented that this page could be possible extended to other mediums, but my note was not commented by User:Codename Lisa or discussed at respective talk page.


 * I think User:Jimbo Wales should raise a question to refine ban procedure, because how easily is to abuse it.
 * Publicly discussing what is perma bannable offense.
 * To me, language barrier or simple opposite position in the views at talk pages 123(not at Main: space pages) shouldn't be ever considered by a person with admin flag.
 * If my opponents not able to provide WP:Verifable statements, while I have sources behind my actions. That's not a reason to a ban or claim "that I'm not able communicate or contribute to Wikipedia" (ironically, not everyone thinks that "all of my edits are useless" (except for Ruud).


 * Again, I'm sorry if anyone was offended because of my poor language skills.
 * If there recommendations what should I follow, I would like to know.
 * Ushkin N (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

-


 * > You're not doing anything productive here, but instead waste a lot of other people's time
 * This is so painfully UNTRUE.
 * I was thanked by User:Fmadd 1 for my well soured edit
 * I expect public excuses from Ruud for what he said about me. Ushkin N (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

-


 * > Couple that with your blaming of everybody else for your own problems
 * User:Boing! said Zebedee, Please pick your statements!
 * Quite openly state "one person" and not "everyone".
 * I can be as stupid as anyone else. Please don't claim that "I'm blaming "just everyone" because, I deeply thankful to other contributors for their edits, for example User:Fmadd or others
 * I'm participating (or was) in Wikipedia not to discuss personalities or users, I'm here to improve WP:Verifable sources and statements.
 * I never blamed User:Codename Lisa for undoing my actions. But it is true that talk page was avoided by User:Codename Lisa.
 * Is this my problem to use talk pages and request for WP:Verifable sources? 1 23:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

-
 * I'm sorry, but I missed some of the false statements.
 * > Making tendentious edits based on some idiosyncratic beliefs what a particular term should mean.
 * I stated a discussion at Category_talk:Computer_storage
 * But nobody seem to care to join it, even User:Ruud Koot. Does User:Ruud Koot aware that he should reach WP:CONS on this topic?
 * 1 2 3 4 5 Ushkin N (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Not as disruptive as one user repeatedly poses it at my usertalk page

 * I'm able to provide sources
 * I do not neglect community feedback
 * and so on...
 * I'm open to discussion.


 * "Making tendentious edits based on some idiosyncratic beliefs what a particular term should mean. This time resulting in a mass stub-unsorting" completely undiscussed: 1 2. This is not what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN or WP:Verifiability states.

About User:Boing! said Zebedee edits, statements and sources
User:Boing! said Zebedee, instead of instead of badmouthing my personality at talk pages 1 you could fillfull my merge request 31 July 1.

You could help us reach WP:CONSensus on a category merge.

I understand that my "keep" vote was alone, but can I have an opinion of why I did what I did?

Please tone down your statements about "mess" immediately.

I aslo quite openly state that some of my edits may be not understood by other editors without every reference: just my 2c 1.

I also tired to explain myself. But one person will claim it as inability to communicate.

-

Dear, User:Boing! said Zebedee, I understand such pleb like me cannot possible compete in editing Wikipedia.

But could you please provide sources for your edits?

Because I have WP:SOURCES for my edits (if not for every, but for most), you know and do you have sources for your edits? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

I it is clear to me that you ignored my well sourced merge request.

From same sourcewhen I was accused by Ruud : The 2016 SNIA Dictionary, 2016 (C) Storage Networking Industry Association:
 * C-H-S addressing [Storage System] Synonym for Cylinder-Head-Sector addressing.
 * Cylinder-Head-Sector (C-H-S) addressing [Storage System] A form of addressing data stored on a disk in which the cylinder, head/platter combination, and relative sector number on a track are specified. See block addressing.

User:Boing! said Zebedee, in my humble, non-competent opinion, Cylinder-head-sector qualifies as Category:Computer storage page or terminology. What is your opinion? Ushkin N (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

-

User:Boing! said Zebedee, watch your statements in edit comments! revert undiscussed controversial recategorization First of all, page is not limited to "main memory" 1 and I very clearly stated it. WP:BEBOLD. Secondly, my edits are not so controversial if you only place it under parent category: 1 User:Boing! said Zebedee, do you seek a reason to fight users without admin flag while stating about "reverts" in page edit history or a reason to improve articles? Are you able to explain your reverts? What are you doing at Wikipedia? Ushkin N (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

-

Dear User:Boing! said Zebedee, can you provide sources for your edit or explain your edit here?

Because data deduplication (and also compression) is often built-in in Cateogory:Storage Systems. For example, VMware heavily uses this: VMware Horizon View Administration > Managing Local Desktops > Configure Security and Optimization for Local Desktop Operations

Virtual SAN 6.2 from VMware uses duplication and compression: Virtual SAN 6.2 – Deduplication and Compression Deep Dive

I'm quoting VMware because it is one of the biggest players on the market, along with EMC and others.

Stating that there no (de)duplication in the Storage systems is like stating that Sun doesn't produce light.

I wish User:Boing! said Zebedee had a source for such statement.

Instead of pointless reverts, lead of the Data deduplication should be expanded with "in Computer storage (or storage systems) and Hardware virtualization used to reduce IO in the network and lower storage requirements at expense of the CPU usage". Ushkin N (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ushkin N (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Boing! said Zebedee

 * I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to try to unravel what you are demanding of me here. You were blocked in May for making disruptive large-scale structural changes to articles without prior discussion, not listening when people objected, and just carrying on regardless. And only a couple of months after that block expired, you resumed the same kind of activities again. I see you have posted a new unblock request, so leave that for another admin to review now - though I predict that a request again accusing people of lying is unlikely to be successful. But if it is successful and you are unblocked, you can then discuss specific article issues on the talk pages of the articles themselves, or wider category issues on a project page or somewhere similar. There's no point pinging me to discuss article content here while you are blocked, because I am not interested in partaking in that here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not. You disrespect my opinion quite clearly without any examples. And I asked you to calm down. WP:UNCIVIL.
 * May it is not the right time for you discusses this issue.
 * > a request again accusing people of lying is unlikely to be successful
 * I fully understand how this is not a popular move or statement. But can I have an option to call a person that nitpicking my 4% worst edits WP:WIKIHOUND as "what I actually do" as a liar? WP:CIVIL
 * My recent structural change was approved by community. 1
 * I do not ignore community feedback 2.
 * So, your statement, are overstatements and also untrue. But we all can be stupid, you know (I'm NOT an exception, really). Please try to follow these 2 links, not everything above.
 * I understand that you have no interest in my wall of text. If I wasn't banned and wasn't reverted by your without sources, then there wouldn't be any.
 * You are not very civil here ignoring my verifiable sources, we don't need such "investigators". If WP:BURDEN is too hard for you, then that's not a reason to bite other edits who can follow WP:V.
 * I expect excuses from you for what you just said. Ushkin N (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All I reverted was your contested re-categorization of a number of articles as "...terminology", which is a legitimate part of the WP:BRD cycle (and there's a clear consensus building that agrees with the reversion). It's got nothing to do with verifiability or sources, it's purely about the structural organization of articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So much better to communicate with you in this way!
 * Thank you for reverting "...terminology" (because it was our last WP:Consensus), as were discussed (do you remember that I was the only one who voted "keep", but then asked for a merge request)?
 * I honestly think that with my WP:SOURCES, some of the pages affected by your actions should be placed back in Category:Storage system as general terminology, not only in's subcategories.
 * Please note that this wasn't objected by anyone, even you?.. Isn't? Ushkin N (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article should not be placed in both a subcategory and a parent category - if it is in a subcategory, then it is automatically in the parent category too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I was never against Wikipedia categorization rules, agree (only sub category). I think we should follow what Category:Physics and/or Category:Mathematics did:
 * Category:Mathematical terminology
 * Category:Concepts in physics
 * Do you think such category wouldn't helpfull in storage category (or similar big field with 30 or 50 terms)?
 * Because I can provide a list of 30 pages that would would be WP:Verifiable down to the source and my source is very recent and curated.
 * Then there won't be breakage of the rule "article should not be placed in both a subcategory and a parent category"
 * If will be placed in every "sub category" but it will also placed in "special" "topics" category.
 * What do you think? Do you have better suggestion how to curate common and verifiable terminology? Ushkin N (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in discussing alternative suggestions for category organization, as my interest was solely in undoing what was contested in accordance with Wikipedia policy and consensus. Your discussion here should be about your block, the reasons for it, and what you will do differently if unblocked. If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page, where those with an interest in the subject can offer their opinions, and you should seek a consensus before you make any changes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for honestly, let me be clear:
 * When is comes to category changes, I use talk pages.
 * But as we all see here, it doesn't work with all users.
 * For example, Category_talk:Computer_storage was here, but wasn't discussed by people who context such change.
 * I start a discussion 1 first
 * Then I make WP:BOLD changes, until somebody will contest my change.
 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 * I expect a discussion WP:CONSENSUS after revert (WP:BOLD), not an immediate ban instead. Where is discussion by opponents? It was discussed without me?! UNDISCUSSED with me (WP:CONSENSUS).
 * I'm not biting other users for undoing my edits; as I said, I would like to discuss change at respective talk pages.
 * Same about pages.
 * For example, I would not edit war merger: 1 2
 * It happens that sometimes we have to tell more (more reverts): 1
 * I use talk pages 2
 * I do not ignore objections. I stopped edits quite clearly after 30 may discussion and relevant pages.
 * Can I have my communication counter not equal zero?
 * I do not accuse User:Codename Lisa in lying about me! I never talked to that person!
 * But I would like to hear his/her opinion WP:Consensus about my humble nonsense.
 * I do not ignore his/her statements about "definitely not notable to have own page", my issue is about something different
 * What would you suggest to me? What I'm doing wrong here? I was thinking that staring a discussion first is a very polite move at Wikipedia, but it seems not?..
 * I created a page 1
 * explanation 2 split 3Ushkin N (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you can see that my edit was well commented and not contested by this user : 4 but without explanation "why it is limited to enterprise" Ushkin N (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Short-Stroking: 1
 * I had WP:SOURCES that state simply "hdd", not "enterprise hdd", do you see this?
 * How user is able to explain revert of the "enterprise"? (WP:BURDEN)
 * I'm not fighting content if there no inaccuracies (WP:BEBOLD), but yes I can be as stupid as any other editor. Ushkin N (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee, I'm not able edit article talk pages, category talk pages or user my own profile or pages at my profile.
 * > If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page, where those with an interest in the subject can offer their opinions
 * I can't. The only thing I can to is to ping people at this messy unreadable hatepage.
 * Not very healthy page to discuss respective topics. Ushkin N (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear not to have understood the first part of "If you can get yourself unblocked, you can then start a discussion at an appropriate page". You should not be discussing your desired changes here at all, you should only be working towards your unblock request. You need to be patient and wait for an admin to review it - it appears at WP:RFU, so someone will attend to it in due course. (But I would suggest rewriting it before it is reviewed - I think it is almost certain to be rejected in its current form). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Very insightful, thank you!
 * Is there guide what exactly should I cover? I mean, other general statements here, should I cover something specific?
 * I think I would hide it for now if it is so badly written. Ushkin N (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest what you need to do is look back on the reasons for your two blocks, consider whether there was anything in your approach that might have led to the disagreements that you have faced from a number of other editors and to the blocks - and if you can identify any problems in your own approach, then make some proposals about how you would change that approach if unblocked. Alternatively, if you honestly believe that your approach has been fine and everyone else is wrong, then make that case in a civil manner without calling anybody a liar. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHEM 2 messages above I did not call anyone liar. Can you see it? It just resets our conversation in the wrong way.


 * Look, what you need to do now is not carry on a wall-of-words discussion/argument with me, because it's not me who will be reviewing your next unblock request. What you need to do is post an actual unblock request, as you have done previously, using the unblock template, and include an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. My suggestions were only suggestions, and you are free to take whatever approach you think best yourself. But please, make that unblock request rather than carrying on like this - I've offered all the help I can and I'm done now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. My last ping, thank you :) You're one of many editors who is able to communicate with without using "useless". Thank you for the insight and excuse me for you for your time. Ushkin N (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, good luck with the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Computer storage backup and archival has been nominated for discussion
Category:Computer storage backup and archival, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , see below
 * They are slightly different, nuances here: Category_talk:Computer_backup. Ushkin N (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * regarding name for a "storage of computer images":
 * Category:Computer images and archival. With articles like VMware Fusion, VMware Infrastructure, VMware Server and VMware vSphere. Other vendors have their solutions too.


 * There clear distinction between storage-only and computing only solutions.
 * There also third group where boundary is not drawn by vendors, they are just "computers" or "servers" or "nodes".


 * It is not sufficient articles to have a separate Category:Archival of the computer images Ushkin N (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean. However the mere feeling that we have to make a distinction is a non-starter without a reasonable approach at how to actually make it work. VMware Fusion etc. may provide backup functionality, but is it a defining feature of these software solutions? There's some connection between traditional backup solutions and virtual machines, though, in that they are based on images. I therefore just created as a subcategory of  (among others), holding both  and . It's no perfect solution, but seems reasonably generic and achieves connecting the two topics. I'm on your side in that categorization schemes need quite some further improvement, but so do the articles. In the end, even well thought-out categories don't work without appropriate, sufficiently specific content. regards, PanchoS (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Computer storage cache has been nominated for discussion
Category:Computer storage cache, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest to merge Category:Flash caching products and Category:Computer storage cache
 * I suggest to use name "Computer storage cache", because caching is not limited to "flash"/"ssd" based drivers. It could be ram. It could be fast hdd. I could be HDD in front of off-line storage.
 * My intent was to have Computer storage cache for the hardware ... and software "caches". Ushkin N (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How would caching related to Flash, SSD or any (other) HDD drives differ from ? Unfortunately neither the category explanation at nor the category title give any (understandable) advice regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria. --PanchoS (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * should contain: "theory (Cache algorithms) and "
 * should contain only "hardware and software" Ushkin N (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Computer storage protocol has been nominated for discussion
Category:Computer storage protocol, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hierarchical storage management has been nominated for discussion
Category:Hierarchical storage management, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well yes, I expected to find more protocols later on, but they are not covered at Wikipedia (yet).
 * Was it covered in some guide too? Ushkin N (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Too bad, but for some good reason we're categorizing existing content, not content that has not yet been written. You don't have to know any of these policies and established conventions upfront, but your behaviour still suggests you're not (yet) ready to cope with disagreement, nor to learn more about our policies, nor to communicate with other participants in a civil, respectful way. Come back whenever you are. --PanchoS (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Computer architecture statements
Thank you for creating Category:Computer architecture statements. As you're populating it, it seems clear what the intent is: it's maxims or laws or adages, whether serious or facetious, relevant to the computer industry.

There are a few problems. First of all, "computer architecture" means "hardware design". Most of the entries have nothing to do with hardware. "Statement" seems overly broad. After all, "transistors can be used to build logic gates" is a statement, but not an adage. We already have Category:Adages, although there are admittedly other related categories.

So I would suggest that you rename this category to Category:Computer industry adages or something. --Macrakis (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:171.79.69.21 has been adding Category:Computer architecture statements to many articles. I am guessing that this is you. Please be sure to log in before editing. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Programming language documentation has been nominated for discussion
Category:Programming language documentation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)