User talk:Damiens.rf

This talk page is not a battle ground

Please, stay cool.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:CSEP

Redirects go to WP:RFD, not MFD. Also, there wasn't really a reason to nominate this for deletion anyway; since the target is also at MFD, the best solution is to hold out and wait for the discussion on the target to end first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You may not be aware

Hi, I'm sure you mean well however that anon has been baiting editors across multiple pages and talkpages and user talkpages for a while. Their "concerns" about content are masked personal attacks against many editors so we try not to encourage them. If they are unable to work collaboratively then likely this is not a great match for their interests. Their "content concern" were addressed already and seemed to be inflated in the first place. Labeling my edits as vandalism is rather insulting but I trust you meant well. If you look at the edits and the source you likely will see there is no plagarism or copyvio as claimed. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked 3 hours for this. That was highly inappropo, you opened the ifd yourself, rv'd the close, which was a clear keep, and made a personal attack in the edit summary. A calmly worded DRV would have been the proper course of action. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What were you trying to achieve by with this block? A punishment? --Damiens.rf 13:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Damiens, I'm disappointed. I'd left our previous conversation above hoping that you understood the importance of staying cool and avoiding personal attacks. I really encourage you to consider what's been said in this very thoughtful essay: [1] 68.32.94.161 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to second that ... that was uncalled for. Jeffrey summarized the discussion; rightly or wrongly, it was a consensus for keep. DRV is the appeal for that, if the closing admin called the consensus right and policy right, which he did.

Getting personal with the closing admin when they just followed the rules is just not ok. It corrodes the level of discussion and reduces everyone's interest in communicating and collaborating when you do things like that. Please don't do it again... You've been around for long enough to know what's ok and what's not ok, and what effects rude and abusive behavior have. Please keep those in mind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And it turns out you were putting this all over the place. I'll let other admins handle that part. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please do not accuse other editors of self-promotion without proof as you did at this redirect for discussion entry. This is especially true if you have not taken the time to verify your claim that "Six Sigma Pricing" is a non-notable term. Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia and it should be respected. Failure to do so is detrimental to the project and an extremely selfish way to act towards other editors. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding editor conduct before continuing to contribute further. Thank you. 141.214.37.134 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Rlevse. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

Re this, you are way out of line here. Knock it off. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm free to express my disappointment with that admin's competence. What am I'm being "warned" about? --Damiens.rf 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've replied your e-mail message from Sept 18, where you accused me of sock puppetry. Would you return the favor? Do you still have my message or you had it deleted? --Damiens.rf 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being warned for your repeated personal attacks. If you think an administrator is incompetent, bring it up in the relevant forum. I suspect your reasons for attacking people on their talk pages are two-fold. (1) You feel as if the user has somehow slighted you and want revenge to make yourself feel better. (2) You know that your claims have no merit and don't want the embarrassment of having a formal complaint shot down upon community review. 141.214.168.148 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What would be the "relevant forum" and why shouldn't I try to resolve the matter with the user in question before seeking third-part involvement? (And why do most of the people criticizing me are afraid of doing so while logged in?) --Damiens.rf 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good place to start. Clearly your efforts to resolve your disputes on user's talk pages haven't succeeded (probably because they usually devolve into name-calling and vague assertions of "incompetence" on your part). And nice red herring about logging in. The legitimacy of complaints about your conduct doesn't depend on whether your critic is logged in or even has an account. 141.214.168.148 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not a "good place to start". It's more like a last instance. And I would say that some of my efforts to resolve disputes on talk pages fail because some users like rsleve or KOH prefer to ignore my comments (and e-mail messages). I never questioned the legitimacy of your complaints. Please read my comment again. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't split hairs with me, you and I both know that you specifically brought up the question of logging in as a way to cast doubt on the legitimacy of my complaints. People ignore your comments because they are always accusatory and you have a history of hounding people who you think have slighted you. 141.214.168.148 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite true I'm swampped right now, but I really don't think you want this spilled all over your talk page. I do not have an email from you. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Same IP as above) Wait, Damiens hadn't actually e-mailed you folks despite implying above that he had? Come on Damiens, don't try to assassinate somebody's character with lies. Besides, I think KOH has definitely responded quite adequately to your messages on his talk page. If anything's lacking from his talk page, it's a rebuttal from you. 141.214.37.137 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)