User talk:Cassianto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


RETIRED
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Have a cup of coffee until then. Wikiproject Editor retention say hello. Hafspajen (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Have some cookies too. Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • …and seconded. That was a mind-boggling misinterpretation of what you wrote. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Feelings[edit]

I understand completely why you would feel so aggrieved, the comparison in question was beyond reproach yet the lordly admins involved completely overlooked it. Another editor or two I've encountered lately seem happy to use such analogies, regardless of how despicable they are. Don't be a stranger. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, with music of passion, - thanks for the review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, take a few weeks and come back when you feel Ghandi-like. WP can be bruising, but often things work themselves out over time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Only three letters: FFS. Have some time to relax, then come back and teach me about an English actress from like the early 20th century. Have you seen Ellen Terry's article? Just a bit of a push between you and Silvers, and then... No, she's not comedy, but still... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We haven't met that I know of. I just wanted to say that it is ironic that a quality editor like yourself would retire over the happenings at Editor Retention. I would feel terrible. I hope you reconsider after a short break. I have cut my involvement down to a bare minimum, too, out of respect for Eric. Banning him was a horrendous terrible decision, but the game goes on. But if I leave then the editor at the heart of all this wins even more. Best, Buster Seven Talk 07:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Buster Seven. I haven't quit as a result of ER, but because I don't like being compared to a person who goes around wishing rape on a female editor. That comment disgusted me and me only it appears; no one else, other than my friends above have battered an eyelid over this. What I find even more disturbing is having the likes of Sandstein wishing that I had been banned for calling the offending user "a piece of filth", whilst completely ignoring the more serious comment which triggered this "incivility" on my part in the first place. I don't know, perhaps they see rape as an ok thing to do and that its nothing to get too worked up about, who knows?
  • I also feel that Involved admins have failed in their duty to revdel the comment and to block or warn OrangerRyellow and have chosen instead to ignore it. I can put up with the moronic comments calling me a sycophant and the idiots who grave dance, but I draw the line at having my words twisted into a desire to see someone raped. At the moment, this project is a depressing place to be and I'm better off out of it. CassiantoTalk 08:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You seemed to lose your heart in the project though when you were blocked that one time before Christmas. I've noticed that you haven't been the same since. I think the rape comment more likely made your mind up once and for all that you've had enough rather than being the sole reason, correct me if I'm wrong. It's not as if you've been brimming with editing joy and happiness of late... I had a difficult patch in November on here when I felt like quitting. it can be an utterly miserable place to be at times. Even now I often feel like I'm taken for granted on here and despair at the pointless bollocks which goes on, but I try to retain some sense of focus on what is important. I really think you need some time completely away from the project and to come back with a different mindset and try to regain what attracted you to it in the first place. Tim did a similar thing and I believe it worked wonders for him. I want the old Cassianto back, the one who left fantastic reviews for people and always had an old stage actor or comedian at FAC!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, a pretty depressing series of events. Subtle (or not so subtle) insinuations of character totally suck - also there are a shitload of subsequent edits which make revdeleting extremely difficult. sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a very sad situation, but once one has been declared "bad" by the more drama-seeking and civility obsessed Admins, there is little one can do to change that, and victimization and unjust treatment will follow, just as Winter follows Autumn. Certain Admins appear to have an autistic-like obsession with certain subjects and people, while that is deplored by many here, the more vocal majority seem to display the same symptoms, and the trouble is encouraged from the very top - as we saw on Jimbo's page just the other day. However, the solution is to keep battling on because in my long experience here, sooner or later true trouble makers eventually are always seen for exactly what they are, and the writing editors just continue writing. Giano (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Doc9871, There's been enough bad faith and bile floating round without the need to add to it here. If you've got a beef with Giano, take it elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Cassianto, I'd written a lengthy paragraph to post here but deleted it before saving so instead I'll simply say how appalled, horrified, [insert loads of other adjectives here] I am at the the insinuation that was made and the way some chose to ignore it. I truly hope you can come back - remember, we have a theatre date ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't retire, ever. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cass, There are always people who are here to either make or try to prove a point, and there are others who are here to improve the place with quality articles. You're part of the latter bunch, so we can't afford to lose you. At least after her mistaken impassioned speeches, Emily Litella had the grace to say "Never mind". And before this becomes an issue for ANI, I'll remind everyone that Floyd R. Turbo did not.;) Take a break and take a turn back in this direction! We hope (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not you choose to retire is, of course, up to you. I've thought this place depressing for a good six to seven years now; I'm grateful so many editors continue to build the encyclopedia despite that. With something truly depressing like 2.5K ANI edits I've found unsupported accusations usually make the accuser look far worse than the target, and really good response is simply: please provide a diff of ... Tends to shut folks up pretty quickly when they can't deliver. (Also, please don't call others filth no matter how aggravated you are.) NE Ent 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor. What would you call them, misunderstood? CassiantoTalk 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Cass on that. It's worse then trying to play the race card with no basis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Seconded, they are indeed "filth". Eric Corbett 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thirded. It's hard to imagine a filthier lie. Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I would call them wrong, and have asked them to back it up or redact it. NE Ent 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Calling them "wrong". Well that'll serve them right! How are they going to "back it up"? What evidence is there that I wished rape on a female user? CassiantoTalk 19:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, you seem preoccupied with the user getting blocked, but that would be punitive at this point, not preventative. Why not just accept that they misinterpreted your comments and consequently misrepresented you (I'm not saying they did that, but it appears to be your perception, which is valid.) If you are going to be a proud incivility warrior then you need to learn to take a few jabs yourself, glasshouses and all that. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Because I don't buy it. Their motives were a lot darker than that and if your too stupid to see that then that's your problem. CassiantoTalk 19:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And there's a difference between calling someone an asshole and saying someone wished rape on another person. If you can't see that there's a difference there, there's something wrong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, so Cassianto has implied that I am stupid, and you've implied that there is "something wrong" with me because I see a different angle than you do. That's decidedly uncivil, but your position appears to be that this is fine when you do it, but inappropriate when others do it, which is hypocritical. Do you realize that your entire argument breaks down if you AGF for a second, and believe that the other editor truly thinks that Cassianto meant to imply what they say he implied? Only if the other editor is being intentionally manipulative does your argument hold any water. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've recently seen other users talk of "rape" and using it as a comparison with editing behaviour. In every case it's flagrantly disgusting: this is Wikipedia, not a crime scene where editors' behaviour should be compared to sexual assault, regardless of any "misunderstanding". There is ZERO excuse to allow this kind of comparison to persist, even if it's a "misreading" or a "misunderstanding". If you can't see that, then the implication you allude to seems all too real. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Where's the diff that shows the other user being so uncivil that they should be blocked immediately? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Quite right: typing words into a keyboard to appear on a website is a long, long way away from a violet sexual attack. I struggle to see what sort of person considers them analogous. – SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's provided further up the page, and on the ANI thread, if you wish to see it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • How embarrassing! This is like a really bad satire of Wikipedians. You are apparently saying that this diff is so far beyond the pale that the editor should be immediately blocked for incivility, while continuing to insult anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. Indeed, I've been called stupid, incompetent, and Criso1492 implied there was something wrong with me for not agreeing. Well guess what, lots of people disagree with you. Are they all stupid and/or incompetent? That diff shows a possibly gross misunderstanding of what Cassianto actually meant, if we assume good-faith on his part, and nothing more. Did you really think that Carol accused people of being gang-rapists? Because I didn't see any of you come to her defense when that comment was grossly misinterpreted. Maybe it's time to drop the stick and recover from your indignation. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Utter arse gravy. It's a gross PA and deserves to be treated as such. Only one vociverous little troll has been going disagreeing, and now I see you are also a chum of hers too, trying to defend the indefensible. Good work. - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Carol quite explicitly called every editor from Manchester a gangbanger, repeatedly, and she was quite explicit in what she meant by that on the GGTF email list. Perhaps you think that's acceptable, but I don't. Eric Corbett 21:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the cap fits.... And maybe it's time to redact the erroneous comment relating the behaviour of a Wikipedian to a rapist? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • EC, in the USA, where 320,000,000 live, all gangbanger means is that a person is a member of a gang; it does not imply that they have raped someone. So context is important, but admittedly I did not see the email you referred to above. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I suggest that you read Carol's explanation of what she meant, which is nothing to do with American gangs. But facts are sometimes inconvenient, I know. Eric Corbett 21:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not intentionally dodging any facts, but I saw part of her explanation, and I thought she explicitly denied accusing anyone of committing rape. If I am wrong about that I would like to see where she admitted to making the accusation. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    But you're dodging them nevertheless. Have you read Carol's explanation on the mailing list? Eric Corbett 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    EC, why don't you just link me to what you want me to read? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Because I really can't be bothered to provide you with links that you'll simply ignore or twist. Go find them yourself. Eric Corbett 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Really irrelevant non sequitur. The comparison should be deleted, there should be an apology, and then we can possibly think about moving on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rape is rape in any language. If the gangbanger comment was aimed at a race who recognise that word to mean something else, then that is incivility. CassiantoTalk 21:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So the targets of language decide the meaning of the words used, but ORY must accept that you didn't mean what they think you meant? Don't you see a contradiction in that logic? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rationalobserver I cannot believe that anyone would have taking Cassianto's use of the word "fucking" literally as evidenced by the reply here. I just don't buy it. At all. Which then begs the question why the comment was made. The slur on someone's character then is much more potent than just being called an expletive. And it lingers. The kerfuffle goes on and many bystanders can't be bothered or unable to find the original comment, so the bad smell just hangs around. It's that simple. Someone once "good naturedly" and "civilly" made a slur on my honesty but it was buried in a long long exchange which then went on as we argued about it, and all other folks could see was two egos bashing heads together. It got me more annoyed than any other exchange I've had here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You make a good point, really, but what good would come from giving a stale block now? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So, RO, by saying I "implied something is wrong with you", you're saying that you don't see a difference between calling someone an asshole and saying someone wished rape on another person? Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All I meant was that both are uncivil, not that they were equivalent. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently, calling someone thick is uncivil. Are you saying that that is equal to likening someone to a person who wishes rape on someone? CassiantoTalk 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All I meant was that both are uncivil, not that they were equivalent. It's a strawman argument to suggest that I was asserting an equivalence, because I wasn't. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some would think that calling someone thick would be "uncivil". Likening someone to a person who wishes rape on another is twisted, filthy and sick. Being twisted, filthy and sick is worse than being uncivil. Do you now think the two are on an equal footing? CassiantoTalk 22:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I never said they were equal, that's your strawman. I said that someone who regularly defends incivility looks hypocritical when asking that the civility guideline be strictly enforced when someone makes an offensive insinuation about them. It's basic glasshouses stuff, this isn't as complicated as you are trying to make it. My point is that you are cherry-picking the civility expectation, which, when it comes to you and others, is entirely optional. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI Rationalobserver has filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett_2. NE Ent 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm tired of your bullshit Rationalobserver, goway. CassiantoTalk 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto. If you want me to withdraw my comment, just reword your "fucking victim" comment in a non double-meaning way and withdraw all your subsequent PAs against me. If you did not mean it that way, you have no imperative reason to insist that you will not reword your "fucking victim" comment. If you insist that you will not reword your comment, I am also going to insist on not withdrawing mine.OrangesRyellow (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will do no such thing and I shall ask you to keep off my talk page. You sicken me. CassiantoTalk 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The above comment, and this tell me all I need to know about the type of editor we're dealing with here. - SchroCat (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I just want to ask, where the ..... are the admin? It feels like nothing is being done about anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The truth is that all of these people know very well that "fucking victim" does not mean "victim of fucking", and even if it did, that would not equate to rape victim - because fucking and raping are two entirely different activities. If anyone needs me to explain the difference I am happy to do so. A 'victim of fucking' (not that anyone would ever use the expression) could just as easily be some poor sod who had had a heart attack whilst climaxing. There is no noun that becomes sexual-intercouse definitive when the F adjective is placed before it. A 'fucking house' is not a brothel and a 'fucking idiot' is not a fool engaging in sex - not even here on Wikipedia where we seem to have so many. So can we now have an end to this stupidity? Giano (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy[edit]

Antikes Sofa Diwan 1880 furniert.jpg

Sit down. Breathe. Don't react. Freud (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Take it easy[edit]

At this point I don't think it will make a difference I have read what has gone on in the last few hours and just wow on both sides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you ever actually do any article work kid?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I have been trying to improve Chi (Chobits), and have been recently updating Obama's approval ratings as well as anime/manga related articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm very glad to see it! Certain others here you'd be lucky to get an constructive article edit out of them once in a blue moon!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I am not all about this kind of drama, after the recent thing with Eric it made me do some thinking that maybe it would be better to be more neutral on things and try to defuse situations. I think that a-lot of editors here have the same mentality, if you see an editor being ganged up on you rush to their rescue to defend them, but when you do that you sometimes only see one side to the issue involved. Don't mind me just some running thoughts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately whenever I see your name it's related to Eric or some wikidrama/incivility, so you can kind of see why I might have thought that. There are a number of editors who don't seem to treat wikipedia as an encyclopedia and seem to enjoy stirring things and playing policemen. That you're at least making an effort to improve an article is something, I wish some of the others would do the same. "maybe it would be better to be more neutral on things and try to defuse situations" sounds like some very good self advice BTW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)