This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cassianto (talk | contribs) at 15:20, 5 December 2014 (→A favour from any TPS: fuck em!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:20, 5 December 2014 by Cassianto (talk | contribs) (→A favour from any TPS: fuck em!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Dear TRM. GOTCHA! They sank your battleship |
Blocked
Sorry, TRM, but I've blocked you for 48 hours for violations of your IBANs with Medeis and Baseball Bugs. Getting involved in the 2014 Grozny clashes article was a really bad idea, and undoing Medeis' edits is a clear violation. Likewise, this edit, which clearly refers to BB, is a clear violation. I was dealing with this nearly a year ago, you've been given plenty of warnings and advice, and I frankly can't believe you're still trying to get digs in and get involved with these people. Please find something else to do. --Laser brain (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine, but assume the other party will be blocked for reverting my edits too. Or does it not work that way? Oh, and the ref desk note just applied to any of the idiots who just issue pointless jokes, no one specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should probably have left the article alone in the first place, since Medeis had clearly been editing it first. In some cases, just editing an article that an editor has been putting some work and a fairly substantial number of edits has been cause for an IBAN-violation block. Also agree that Medeis should be blocked for violating the IBAN, since they very clearly reverted TRM's edits, and I don't agree that the reference desk comment clearly refers to BB. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Luke, but it's becoming clear to me that this isn't how things work any longer. A mutual violation of the ban results in just one party being blocked? A "HE STARTED IT" argument? I very clearly improved the Grozny article, so much so it is on the main page. A maintenance tag was required which I added, it was removed by the another editor in the interaction ban. How is that not a violation? Still, from Laser brain's keenness to see me off the project, I can tell this is futile. At least I got 50% of the way through what I was hoping to complete. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hang in there, TRM. A few people (inc me) have noted at the ANI thread that there is a a degree of unfair treatment here, so some good may yet come of this. Bencherlite 11:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hang in supported. Please don't cause me extra work, adding you to our sad list, - You heard it before: every good one gone (scuttled, sunk, banned, tired ...) makes it harder for us who decided to stay, independent of what people do to us. - Quoting you: "Play nicely and be creative." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone who wants to copy or reference my comments on the situation at ANI should feel free to do so (indeed, I encourage it). I have little intention of posting in that hellhole, bar when I have to. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Tense?
If I were you, I'd seriously unlisted all the drama boards and just avoid it all. Focus on the content and simply forget other people exist for awhile. Plenty of articles to work on in the meantime. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers Chris. But this is a culmination of a tag team witch hunt. I think my time here is now done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
what happened. John?
John - what went wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.221.251 (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mate, I'm not John. I don't know who you think I am, but it ain't anyone called John. And I believe you're banned from the project, so toodle pip. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And I'm Spartacus Mr Leach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.221.251 (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm Spartacus! I'll let you into a tiny secret. My name does begin with a J, but it isn't John! Wow, go figure. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jesus? Lugnuts 14:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Judy? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC) ... or maybe Bloody Jeff? .... "Hey Joe, where you going with that mop in your hand?"
A favour from any TPS
Hello, could you please withdraw my currently open FAC (The Boat Race 2003) and the 12 Boat Race articles awaiting Good Article review (should just need to delete the GA notice on the talk page, the GAN page will automatically update). Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why not see how you feel on Monday? I know you're annoyed - I would be too - but don't let this incident distract you from your stellar (though unfashionably Light Blue) efforts to improve the actual encyclopedia? After all, that's why we're here, apparently... Bencherlite 13:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't think so. We reward those who add nothing to the encyclopedic content of Misplaced Pages, overlook multiple attempts to sanction content editors at ANI, eventually it gets too much. And we high-five admins who block admins. All a little cringeworthy and certainly something I'm not interested in I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I've left a suitable ambiguous note at the FAC; someone else may want to do the GANs but I suspect most if not all of them (based on your track record) will be capable of passing without amendment, or with the sorts of minor tweaks that TPSs can manage. Bencherlite 13:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would keep the FAC going and all subsequent articles going TRM and instead, hand in your admin badge. That will show em! This place is full of fuckwits, but we strive to continue for the sake of ourselves and our enjoyment of creating quality content. Bench, Bish, John and a few others are the only ones on here I would only truly trust in terms of admins; I have said it for years. You're a skilled wordsmith and to lose you would be a great shame. Cassianto 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I've left a suitable ambiguous note at the FAC; someone else may want to do the GANs but I suspect most if not all of them (based on your track record) will be capable of passing without amendment, or with the sorts of minor tweaks that TPSs can manage. Bencherlite 13:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't think so. We reward those who add nothing to the encyclopedic content of Misplaced Pages, overlook multiple attempts to sanction content editors at ANI, eventually it gets too much. And we high-five admins who block admins. All a little cringeworthy and certainly something I'm not interested in I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)