CheckersBoard

Welcome!

Hello, CheckersBoard! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

CheckersBoard, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CheckersBoard! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, CheckersBoard. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 07:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all the time you've spent improving the Ringette article. It's on my watchlist and I've seen you make several edits recently, so I wanted to thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I initially just went in to correct typos...and it some how became a summer project lol. Not as professional as it should be, but there was a lot of cleaning up to do. I appreciate it :) CheckersBoard (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Sam Jacks article

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Regarding the Sam Jacks article, I should still have that book. Will need to check through my library but I should be able to get the source. Appreciate you reaching out. Kind regards Mark Staffieri (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! No rush, just trying to hunt down sources. Turns out sourcing any related ringette topic is far more difficult than I thought it would be. Seems I can find news articles but actual books appear to be scarce. Thanks again :) CheckersBoard (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

September 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ringette. You are in violation of the edit restrictions imposed when you were unblocked. This was discussed by user:Deepfriedokra and user:Drmies on your talk page [1], and you explicitly agreed to these restrictions prior to your unblock [2]. You reverted the same edit twice in 12 hours [3] [4] which is a violation of your 1RR restriction and your commitment to use dispute resolution for content disputes. Removing the unblock discussion and restrictions from your talk page [5] does not change anything, and the fact that you did so immediately after making your second revert makes it difficult to assume good faith. Furthermore, the the fact that your reverts included removing a source for Ringette Canada's transgender inclusion policy is arguably a violation of your topic ban on human sexuality and your "Zero tolerance for anti-trans edits" restriction. Meters (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Welp, this is disappointing. My options now are include a vigorous reminder, a short block, or an indefinite block. Perhaps Drmies will have more to say. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra, I have always felt we were too lenient with this editor. Violation of 1R is immediately blockable, IMO--and do I read this correctly, Meters, that this person is fucking around making anti-trans edits? OK--I see it here. As DFO said, we do have options, but a warning comes like mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say, and a temporary block is inappropriate, IMO, since blocks should be preventative and the "temporary" part might be just another invitation for the user to just wait a while and do it again. CheckersBoard, you will have to do much better than you did last time, after your last indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Welp, it's been > 1 year. I would have expected backsliding or uncertainty or testing right after an unblock. I guess people just forget after a while. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this, but I have to say I am not surprised that this ended in a reblock. Meters (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

References

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CheckersBoard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did forget and no cleaning up my talk page was NOT a deliberate attempt to erase other warnings You can delete stuff from your talk page as I understand but the info is still accessible if it needs to be found. :I was looking for the talk page where an author left me a message, was looking for a missing source and they potentially had it. I was sick and tired of having to scroll through 50 or so outdated messages just to find the current ones. So I went on a declutter mission. :I forgot about reverts and gender stuff, I thought sex and gender were obvious. Also noticed at some point someone erased the fact that it was a non-contact sport, that's when I started trying to fix it again. Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll, but tried my best to make it more current. :I was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls which Meters had pointed out. I did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one. It's a very good one now that I have seen it, it means nothing has to be added to the article to explain it. Had I seen it to begin with I would have left it instead of wasting my time, especially since my attempt was just wordy and made the lead longer than was necssary, now it's short and sweet. And, if the edits are checked, did not say the sport was still exlusively female, I added women, boys and men. This can be checked in the edit history. I also added the majority of participants are still female, this is not made up. :The article is shorter now because a lot of content was moved to other pages or new articles which focussed on a related topic. I doubt it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary. :Anyways, can't do or say much more because I tend to write too much and more than is necessary and I don't have a lot of energy. Lately I'm actually focussed on looking for and filling missing info on other pages and translating articles. Plus I'm looking at possibly creating a stub because apparently there are two Red McCarthy's from Canada and they seem to have been mixed up. One played ice hockey but another was a pro ice skater, there's even footage on British Pathé, they are not the same man. :Yes, I can do better and now remember the gender and revert issue. I haven't had a problem for a long time, my record was good until this screw up. I keep getting confused over the gender issue, so sources work best for sure because I don't think I'm the only one. Thank-you for your time.CheckersBoard (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Closing this as the discussion below seems to have faltered and no one wants to actually accept the request. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• No objection to unblocking, though that's a terrible memory lapse. Counting on Drmies to disagree, but variety adds spice to life.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Deepfriedokra, maybe--but this is the last time. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

    Sometimes those with editing restrictions need a little reminder. I'm sure CheckersBoard won't forget again. (Cause coming back from a second indef is almost impossible.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

    Just to be clear, previous edit restrictions will remain in place. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't support an unblock. This looks more like article ownership, and these explanations do not ring true to me.
    1. Checkers "forgot about reverts and gender stuff", the editing restrictions that they explicitly agreed to as a condition of being unblocked. They were reminded about the restriction in December [6]
    2. Checkers "was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls " but did the exact opposite. The IP's summary: "Expanded scope of the sport - no longer exclusively played by women." was clear, as was mine: "restore the IP's changes. Not just a female sport now", but Checkers reverted both edits to restore the "girls" they had recently added to the first line of the article: "Ringette is a girls' non-contact winter team sport" and to remove the IP's sourced addition of "While sport was originally created exclusively for female competitors, it has expanded to now include participants of all gender identities."
    3. Checkers "did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one" More than a bit hard to believe given their edit summary: "Irrelrvant, article does not duspute this fact, this is the lead in the introductory patagraph and relevant due to its historical origin, it doesn't require historical revisionism". Why would this be an old source? This was a new addition by the IP. Removing mention of "all gender identities" and a source entitled "Trans-Inclusion Policy and Resources" is, as I wrote above, arguably a violation of their topic ban on human sexuality and anti-trans edits.
    4. Checkers "Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll," Checkers doubts "it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary." It's not Checker's article. Others are allowed to contribute to it, and yes, even IPs.
    5. As for cleaning their talk page, yes it's allowed, but it looks very suspicious for an editor to remove their unblock discussion and editing restrictions just minutes after having violated them. And it's not as if this was a one-edit cleaning. This was methodical, more than 90-edit, one thread at a time cleaning.
  • The Ringette article, and ringette in general, has been a particular problem for Checkers for a long time. There is a long history of warnings related to this (ownership, personal attacks, copyvio, unsourced content, edit warring, etc).and more than one block. If this editor is unblocked I think we need a topic ban. Meters (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'll abide by whatever decision the group wants, the edit history is available to observe. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

    If there are interested parties I found information from the previous block and put it up with the following title:

    "Previous content re: User block added" CheckersBoard (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

    Hello, I was wondering if I am supposed to make another unblock request because I haven't heard any news about my account's status and would like to begin editing again. Thank you for your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Do not open another unblock request. You have one request open, and it has been discussed. If no admin has seen fit to unblock you after almost 4 weeks, it is unlikely that it will happen. Meters (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

How can I find out what and when the decision has been made? It seems rather odd that there isn't a method to inform editors who have been involved for years to simply be left in the dark. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Am I required to make another unblock request or is the block still under discussion? And btw thsnks for the music :) CheckersBoard (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

    I was told not to make another unblock request but there hasn't been any administrators who have revied it. I've improved a lot since last year though I still make mistaked from time to time, redl8nks are a problem I need to fix.

    I put back the previous information from the previous block which I should have read. There have been accusations leveled that are not only wrong but unfair because they are unfalsifiable so I can't defend myself, including the accusation that I was too close to a source which is dead wrong, found here 1998 World Ringette Championships I'm not even involved which is why I have been careful to cite and hunt for sources. Another accusation is that I decluttered my talk page for a sinister reason, buy I took them out one by one because I didn't know jow else to do it. Since I'm not close to involved sources, it is also why I couldn't get the correct date for the upcoming world event, I kept finding different dates and changing it.

    Previously this was left on my page: ----

    "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked."

    ---

    I am considering making another unblock request since it has been over a month and an administrator hasn't shown up. By the way I tried using a plagiarism detector app for the first time and to my surprise found some content which I have entered here has wound up on other websites word for word. While entries are logged here, they aren't there, meaning I can't prove the fact that they copied me and not the other way around. I'm not sure what the solution is.

    Sorry to bother you again Drmies, thanks for your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have mentioned your request for a decision on your unblock at WP:AN. I suspect that this request has fallen through the cracks because your talk page is very difficult to make sense of. You add comments in the middle of previous threads, you delete stuff, you restore stuff but out of order, etc. Meters (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your AN thread was commented on by three admins, none of whom responded to your unblock request, and the thread has now been archived after four days of inactivity [7]. There's your answer. Don't create a new unblock request. Meters (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

They did respond to the unblock request, you were the only one out of four or five people who wanted the block. Then Drmies lost interest. It's not legitimate. CheckersBoard (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Previous content re: User block added

Deleted content was useful and needs to be put back. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

== June 2022 ==

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

So here is the thing: this edit summary, and specifically this "trans-jargon" nonsense, combines all too easily with the ridiculous accusations you directed at Fram on Talk:Ringette, that stuff about "transgender altar"--stuff that should probably be scrubbed from the talk page. "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite", but I expect that my fellow admins will not grant an unblock request unless it comes with a promise of some sort or another that you will a. act collegially; b. not make ridiculous accusations; and c. show some respect in your language and your edits for the transgender community, whom you seem to be needlessly insulting to make an obscure point. To be clear: this isn't really about your edits to one article: this isn't really about content at all. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CheckersBoard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Contributing editor, helped/helping fix several pages as well, focus is not exclusive to one article, current dispute is isolated. Block from editing article in dispute a better option CheckersBoard (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The article isn't the problem. Your repeated recourse to entirely unwarranted personal attacks when things don't go your way is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: If I am blocked from editing the ringette article, another editor will be needed to do article edits for: "Ringette by country": 1. Finland 2. Sweden 3. USA. These sections are too long but can be remedied by splitting them out. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Andy I was replying before your reply came in. I obviously won't be able to please anyone who has concerns over "transphobia" when I am aiming for accuracy, and no, it isn't trivial when put into context especially when it is sourced. However, I agree that my approach needs to change, editors have to avoid personal attacks. But to be fair, calling edits "transphobic" is exactly that as well when they aren't. Detente would be best, perhaps the sex/gender issue for this article needs further discussion somewhere, maybe not. It's a strange sport, most sports start off created for males, I've noticed this one bucks tradition so it's easy to see how some people might be thrown off and take offence, but its sourced so it shouldn't be the issue it has become, I certainly didn't expect it to. That being said, my main concern is trimming that article now and ensuring links are correct, not much else. Thank you for your consideration. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You changed "women" to "the female sex". That's not an improvement (it's verbose), and it has nothing to do with science. And "trans-jargon" and "transgender altar" are not "sourced". Also, you were not reverting "vandalism". And I didn't call your edit transphobic. Your comments to Fram, and your comment in the edit summary, that's transphobic. I still don't understand where you get off saying Fram has some kind of trans agenda. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Regarding things being sourced, this [8] bit of partisan editorialising about supposed 'social justice movements' I removed from the article some weeks ago certainly wasn't (or not to anything that in the slightest bit supported it, anyway). And unless I've misread the article history, you seem to have been responsible for it. If that is indeed the case, I'd have to suggest that your approach to article content needs to be 'considered' too. Complaining about other contributors having an 'agenda' after writing that would seem somewhat hypocritical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Btw I have to mention this because I just noticed it and find it interesting: I noticed Fram continues to insert the word "originally" when the lead paragraph mentions the sport's historical origin. Although Fram has called this "transphobic" in a couple of edit summaries, that one word, "originally" and where it has been placed leads me to suspect there's something else going on. It sounds as though the real issue may be that although the sentence about ringette's origin isn't wrong, the lead paragraph excludes the fact that the sport NOW includes male participation at the player level when this was not ORIGINALLY the case. If I'm right and that's the real issue behind Fram editing that one sentence, then it could probably easily be remedied. Only problem is if it requires a good source: most of what I can find online are social media anecdotes which obviously do not qualify as verifiable sources for wiki purposes so they can't be included. But I might be able to hunt a good verifiable source down with some luck. If it doesn't need a source it could still be included somehow anyways to make sure readers aren't left believing that only females play the sport today? I think this can be done. Btw the fact that boys and men now play seems legitimate, found a comment online about a guy in Canada who plays on an adult open/mixed ringette team and another group of men playing in Finland on a men's ringette team. However I think I've found better sources for boys participation. Food for thought, I think this might be a good approach that could help resolve this issue. I think it would be a good compromise and be better for wiki readers. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I should probably add, if there are concerns relating specifically to the issue of gender (sociology) that editors believe would add to the article and can provide some good sources for it as well, a separate section devoted to the topic can probably be created somewhere within the current article (though I think it could be tricky). I personally wouldn't create that section at this point but maybe someone else may find it valuable...but I'm probably the worst editor for even suggesting this since I have a habit of expanding this article to the point of bloat apocalypse. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CheckersBoard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand discussion with editors must take place, not attacks. Edit summaries and article talk pages are not the place for resolving issues. My current habits do not follow proper wiki procedure. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Article talk pages are for resolving article content issues. (edit summaries are not) It's good to see you recognize that your behavior has been problematic, but I don't see a sufficient explanation of what will change going forward here. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|1=Requesting an unblock: Although it may appear that as an editor I have an invested interest in the topic of transgenderism, the reality is I keep running into this subject on a variety of different pages which are not dedicated to the topic. Unfortunately it's easy to become lost in the details of the matter. For me, I see no reason to handle the topic at all in the future as an editor since it is not particularly significant except in the case of the article dealing with this subject specifically which can be dealt with by other editors. Because I edit using mobile I don't necessarily see other editors summaries etc. immediately. I seem to get a lag. I'm not sure why this happens. In the future I intend to give myself a cooling off period if I see an edit I disagree with before moving forward, it's too easy to jump the gun. Also, I am better aware of the 3 revert rule. I see no reason to engage on the topic of transgenderism since it's not even area of interest for me. I'd rather continue editing other articles and fixing typos. Thank you for your consideration. CheckersBoard (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CheckersBoard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting an unblock: Sorry, I messed up the original unblock request by forgetting to add the last bracket. Although it may appear that as an editor I have an invested interest in the topic of transgenderism, the reality is I keep running into this subject on a variety of different pages which are not dedicated to the topic. Unfortunately it's easy to become lost in the details of the matter. For me, I see no reason to handle the topic at all in the future as an editor since it is not particularly significant except in the case of the article dealing with this subject specifically which can be dealt with by other editors. Because I edit using mobile I don't necessarily see other editors summaries etc. immediately. I seem to get a lag. I'm not sure why this happens. In the future I intend to give myself a cooling off period if I see an edit I disagree with before moving forward, it's too easy to jump the gun. Also, I am better aware of the 3 revert rule. I see no reason to engage on the topic of transgenderism since it's not even area of interest for me. I'd rather continue editing other articles and fixing typos. I also need to find out how to delete some content others have found offensive on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. CheckersBoard (talk) 6:06 pm, 19 July 2022, Tuesday (13 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Per discussion with Drmies and with appellant, accepting with following conditions.

• WP:TBAN on human sexually. (regular admin action. not a GS or DS)
• Use of WP:Dispute resolution for content disputes.
• 1 revert restriction
• Zero tolerance for personal attacks.
• Zero tolerance for anti-trans edits Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

CheckersBoard (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

GOD I suck at old school coding. I screwed this up AGAIN. I only come here to edit.

Recent unblock request was a mess. I was accused of deleting information of a previous block on purpose so I out it back in but it kade a mess. This complaint was made by an unfair accusation leveled by the one editor who wanted me blocked, but they did not say permanently. Their accusations were unfounded, I didn't get an opportunity to defend myself and say why I should be unblocked in a manner which was clear. Other editors felt I should be given another chance. The only editor who wanted me blocked now said not to request another unblock simply because the discussion was ignored. Meanwhile over the year my habits have changed and improved plus I have contributed to several articles and have created some which have been reviewed and accepted. Can I make another unblock request? User:UtherSRG CheckersBoard (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)