TrueCRaysball

WP:ANI

Notifying you of my starting a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your conduct. Normandy 11:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your question here, yes I was retired. But I came back after several users encouraged me to offwiki in private and a couple said what I did was an off wiki issue and thus cannot be banned for it on wiki. So I am back, I'm not hiding any longer. I'd like to add when I told a couple users I had returned I was met with "yays". I've already apologized and meant it, it was a dumb mistake. We all make them. Any further action I feel is wasting the community's time. Good day. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You are in violation of WP:NPA. You can be blocked for PAs on or off wiki. Normandy 11:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that that was a personal attack. It was a joke, it was not an attack of any kind. And if the community agrees that it was, which I doubt, it is still the first personal attack and thus not bannable yet, it is temporarily blockable though. Again though, this is moot as I have already apologized to the user. If he chooses not to accept that apology, that's his choice, but the fact remains I admitted my error and am ready to move on. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the community agreement that it was a joke? The discussion I saw was the community very much upset by it. I know I thought it was a very big personal attack. I would have blocked you for it immediately to be frank had I seen it before you had already announced retirement. I expected you to be mature enough to stay away when you said you would so I didn't block. If you are back I will likely block you since part of your unblock last time was that you would be reblocked if there was even one issue. And clearly this is an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear CRRaysHead90, thank you for your critique on the use of my vote and the efficiency levels of voicing of my opinion on WP:ANI. I have taken your opinion into consideration and I have issued a further comment on this issue and trust that it will be of satisfaction. Kindest regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 08:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've not been active recently, so take this as you will, however I find that sarcastic comment seriously mean spirited. You don't respond to a good faith comment with this crap.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good faith? Talking of good faith... Kennedy ^(talk) 14:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You only assume good faith until given a reason not to. A nasty sarcastic comment that you know will only inflame the situation is not a comment posted in good faith. Sorry, but I have no patience for this. If you disagree with CRRaysHead asking for an explained answer, tell him that. That is good faith. Posting stuff like this is not, and I certainly don't appreciate it.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

RfD alert

Hey there. Some templates you created have been nominated for deletion here. Osiris (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, however since I wasn't active at the time I never got to participate. Which sucks because I would have opposed. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 07:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you could list it at deletion review. Why would you have opposed? Osiris (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow I can't believe I missed that one too...would have kept atleast one of them as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your warning to IP user 180.95.20.254

You gave this user a final warning even though there weren't any previous warnings. Did you have a reason for doing that? Normally, we start with level one warnings, and increase the level with each new warning until we get to level 4, the final warning. A lot of thought was put into that process, and we should follow it unless there is a very good reason, such as one-strike situations. Was there anything like that in this case? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not in line with WP:ONESTRIKE, however the user made a sexually explicit vandalism only page. With my judgement, I issued a 4im. I feel it was justified. I know about the levels of warnings, however, 4im did and still seems appropriate as the user acted in bad faith. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 03:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Even with profanity, we give people the benefit of the doubt: we don't assume that they know the rules here. For cases like this, I would sometimes start with level 2, but no more than that. If they continue vandalizing, they'll get to the final warning soon enough. If they don't continue, then the lower-level warning has done its job. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree then. I do, however, see your point and will be more careful with my issuings of 4ims in the future. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 03:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Just be aware that you might be writing a check that the admins won't cash. We've had quite a few instances where final warnings were issued, then the offender was reported, and the admin (not just me, but others as well) declined to block because the offender hadn't been properly warned. You hurt our credibility by not following procedure.--Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Notability

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Notability, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Template:Notability and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. -- Kunjarpunch / [ t ] 16:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Template:!wrap

The page you wrote, Template:!wrap, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)