Contents

User talk:Cessaune: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:45, 22 August 2023

не удаляйте это фото или я загружу его снова

You should know better than to make irrelevant personal remarks on an article talk page, and you should be mindful that your own credibility greatly suffers from such lapses. If you do not understand -- or do not wish to take the time to fully investigate -- the points being made, it is best to remain silent. Note that @Space4Time3Continuum2x:'s efforts can better be deployed on more essential matters than rebutting your empty disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I normally refrain from making those sort of remarks. It just pisses me off when people don't fully explain themselves. And, in fact, I did take the time to fully investigate the points being made. Or, at least I think I did.

As always, I am sorry if my comments delved into a more negative realm than I had thought. I never intend to do that. However, what I said still stands—screaming 'cherrypicked!' into the void with barely even a low-level explanation is time-wasting and counterproductive. I do agree that Space4Time3Continuum2x:'s efforts can better be deployed on more essential matters, but that is irrelevant. I'm going to say what I want to say regardless.

If there is one issue that seems to be a reoccuring point of annoyance, SPECIFICO, you make a claim and then don't back it up with any evidence. So when you talk about "credibility" and "empty disparagement" it just serves to piss me off. I don't just say things to say things, and I always try to include at least a little bit of evidence. You come to my talk page, you do not analyze any of the claims I made about your remarks, and then you make your own claims about my remarks, without any sort of analyzation whatsoever. You spit out your opinion and treat it like fact: irrelevant personal remarks, If you do not understand -- or do not wish to take the time to fully investigate -- the points being made, empty disparagement—and then when I call out such behavior present in other talk page claims, you basically accuse me of either being ignorant or being unwilling to fully investigate... what? You can say what you want, but, the fact of the matter is: I don't care, unless you are actually willing to take the time to prove your own statements. If you're not willing to do that, fine, but leave me alone in that case.

And, also, I don't care about "credibility". And, even if I did, any reasoned editor would realize that my remarks are, at the very least, thought-out, even if they disagree with them. I don't just say stuff to say stuff. I constantly strive to be fair in my assessments, though I am obviously, clearly and openly biased.

Please, please respond to this with a coherent argument that goes beyond the realm of simply making a claim. Please analyze my statements about your edits. Or don't respond at all. Cessaune [talk] 13:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response does not show much inclination to self-reflection regarding simple, documented criticism. Under the circumstances, I'm not going to devote further time to "analysis" of your behavior. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I'll try to understnad the criticism better from now on. Cessaune [talk] 01:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the close. I would've left it open for at least another few days, but I'm happy if everybody else is. I guess it had reached the point of diminishing returns, and the odds of it going a different way were slim.

You have probably noticed by now that I reverted you in the consensus list and added #61. This means your close statement is now incorrect, and it should be fixed before the discussion gets manually archived per #13, 24 hours after your close.

We never state the consensus item verbatim in the close statement. The close statement merely needs to accurately reflect the consensus. In this case, "Clear consensus for option 1. Applies only to good-faith complaints." would probably suffice, but you could say more in summary of the discussion if you were so inclined.

Your last sentence in the close statement is a misstatement of the consensus. The new procedure applies only to the good faith complaints; the bad faith complaints are shot on sight. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Costa Concordia disaster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Costa Concordia disaster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Costa Concordia disaster for comments about the article, and Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't posted anything since July 1 at Talk:Robert Todd Lincoln/GA2. If you don't want/don't have time to do the Review now - whatever the situation is, that's cool. I'll follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a and release the article back into the pool of articles waiting for a GA Review. Just let me know what you want to do. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shearonink, Sorry, I've been pretty busy. I'll complete it late today or tomorrow. Cessaune [talk] 14:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your quick response. Just checking in - Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,466 views (622.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Polyvagal theory on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]