RaseaC

This is an abuse of rollback. Rollback is absolutely not to be used to gain an advantage in an edit war. As such, I've revoked your access to it. Please use the talk page to work your dispute out instead of reverting. Also, even when using the undo feature, please don't revert without an edit summary. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd maintain it was only a personal attack, the user I 'edit warred' with is clearly not going to last another hour given the amount of editors on his case now. I'm sorry - for you. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

And that's well and good ... but calling another editor a "cunt"? I'm surprised this is only 24hrs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

  This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:HJ Mitchell, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What's the point in templating me? Seriously? I've read every single one hundreds of times before. And surely there's a more suitable template given that I'm already blocked? Cunt is, at the end of the day, a word. People who are offended by it choose to be. And, to be fair, he was a cunt. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I always thought that revoking talk page meant the user couldn't comment on their talk page? I'm only trying to be semi-awkward here, I am actually intrigued as to whether or not I should be able to type here or if it's just a mistake. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, he didn't actually revoke talk page access. —Soap— 22:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

An oversight, but correcting it now would be petty. Don't think that excuses continuing to make personal attacks while you're blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can see why he's upset, it appears the user he was 'edit warring' with is a sock NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That justifies the reverting, but not calling me a cunt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is/was a fantastic resource that is now experiencing an exodus of wonderful contributors for a plethora of reasons and is having it's content distributed across the web for profit due to ridiculous policies. What made this project great was people challenging the norm and saying 'hey, this is how things are done, but lets try it this way...'. What's killing this project is good-meaning yet damaging editors following the rules and saying 'hey, this is how things are done'. I'm not a great editor, not even a very good one, I sort of stumbled my way through WP leaving a trail of destruction and fuck-ups as I went, but I always generally meant well and being reprimanded for reverting an obvious vandal epitomises what is wrong with WP now. I used to edit pretty heavily, especially vandal-fighting, but for the past six months or so haven't seen the point because, although the vandals are damaging, the policies and regular editors are down-right lethal. HJ Mitchel made, in my honest opinion, a poor decision to do what he did (people can make up their own mind exactly what that was), I'm not saying he is a poor decision maker of a person but as a WP editor/contributor/admin, possibly through no fault of his own but by the fault of the rules, policies and guidelines that he follows. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your most recent violation of WP:NPA, extended your block for 2 weeks because you clearly don't get what WP:CIVIL is, and I have revoked your talkpage access. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Herostratus has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

This talk page looked like it could use a kitten. How are you doing, is everything going OK? Herostratus (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's looking a little empty because I'm only making the occasional, random edit these days; not enough to get into discussions! Best, raseaC^{talk to me} 21:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC).Reply

OK. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

i was discussing this with a colleague of mine earlier this week, because he saw the zuckerberg movie. i told him that i can remember signing up for an account using my grad school .edu address somewhere between 1998-2002; because i received my graduate degree in CS jan 2003 (and i know it was sometime before then). I can remember the format wasn't anything special it was more like a page of preferences to match you with potential hookups. it had sexual preference stuff, activities, class stuff, major, etc... and it would match you pretty much only with people at your school. in the beginning it was limited to college students only... not every school was represented in their list... i was hoping way more people would be interested in researching this.. i am a software engineer and don't have much of an interest in facebook and social networking. it does present an interesting issue concerning zuckerberg and his ethics if i am correct. are you interested in this finding out this sort of thing or do you work for zuckerberg and are trying to protect his image and facebook? kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.167.254.100 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am Zuckerberg and am trying to protect my image on Facebook. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is tragic that you have neglected words for rash deeds. I feel as though we have no recourse left. I have attempted to reason with you, to engage you in intelligent discourse, but you have responded curtly with no thought to your words or deeds. You have continued to lay down your mandate, that this fact is trivial because you deem it trivial, with no attempt to define triviality or to argue for why this fact fits that definition. You have failed to answer my questions as to how two facts that seem equally trivial are not both considered trivial. And you generally failed to consider the views and opinions of others. I, on the other hand, attempted to engage you and come to a definition. But now, I must lay down my mandate, that this fact is not trivial because I deem it not to be trivial. I will use your logic in determining my actions, and we will see how this all unfolds. It is not too late, however, to attempt to reason - frankly I do ont believe it is ever too late to engage in friendly discourse. But I weep, for I doubt that you will bow to a master such as reason. Congratulations, you have brought me down to your level - Rule 14 is truly correct, I have allowed you to win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.155.182 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I had a quick glance over your message and think you're complaining about recent reverts on Uday Hussein. I've not been editing all week and think you meant to direct this comment to one of the other editors involved. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - quite understandable given the above and other trouble. NebY (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I undid your mass deletion with the comment that this is best discussed first on the talk page given it's magnitude. I don't have an opinion on this. I also posted a note on the airline project talk page to see if there is an interest there. Lists are valid, but it is reasonable to question if a list is appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply