Jump to content

User talk:Cassianto: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Eric Corbett (talk | contribs)
Line 43: Line 43:
:They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor. What would you call them, misunderstood? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<font face="Papyrus">Cassianto</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<font face="Papyrus">Talk</font>]]</sup></span>''' 18:46, 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? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<font face="Papyrus">Cassianto</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<font face="Papyrus">Talk</font>]]</sup></span>''' 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 18:50, 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:*:Seconded, it is indeed "filth". [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:*:Seconded, indeed "filth". [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}}I would call them wrong, and have asked them to back it up or redact it. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}}I would call them wrong, and have asked them to back it up or redact it. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:55, 27 January 2015

A cup of coffee for you!

Have a cup of coffee until then. Wikiproject Editor retention say hello. Hafspajen (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have some cookies too. Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feelings

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)[reply]

Agree, with music of passion, - thanks for the review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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, Roseanne Roseannadanna 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]