User talk:RayvnEQ

That's an easy question. You appeared to be writing an article entitled "RayvnEQ", rather than a userpage for "User:RayvnEQ". As an article on a notable subject, the article made no sense at all - which is why I deleted it. Since it was a userpage, it should go at User:RayvnEQ, not RayvnEQ. I can move the deleted content to your userspace if you like, or provide a copy. No problem at all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. There might be some formatting issues you'll want to look at, but the entire contents have been posted to your userpage. Please let me know I can be of further assistance. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RayvnEQ, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Christian views on magic - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving me a message. Although I did not find a corresponding specific template for a tag used for that reason (the reason being, basically, that such a thing does not really belong in an encyclopedia), it was listed on a page about what is and is not okay to create pages about, as a thing that is not okay. Since the non-encyclopedic pages of Wikipedia are so hard to find and navigate, I cannot tell you what the exact page is called, but, at the time I read it, I do remember seeing such a thing, that any random topic one can think of should not be put on Wikipedia, as well as any random celebrity/movie/book/etc., even a popular one, should not be put on Wikipedia even if it was immensely popular. Of course the latter is pretty much done anyway because the readers expect to find articles on any popular movie, book, or celebrity (i.e. Twilight), but the former is not something anyone would expect to look for if it is not a one-word or one-phrase topic. I am not arguing your decision, if it seems that way, but, I am a bit confused; If a human is not supposed to create pages of a certain type, but pages so-created are not supposed to be deleted, then how does that work out?                     ~Rayvn 11:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you were having trouble adding references at Ozzy Osbourne. You might want to check out Wikipedia:RefToolbar. Follow the instructions on that page and you will have a "button" that will make adding references much easier. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing J04n(talk page) 21:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be all the way on the right with {{cite}} on three lines: '{{' on top, 'cite' in the middle and '}}' on the bottom. If you look at my user page, the last userbox in the left column has a picture of it. J04n(talk page) 11:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've just moved Lavey to Country of Lavey. Lavey's not a country, it's a parish. If you check Special:WhatLinksHere/Lavey, you'll see that there are a lot of articles linking to the parish of Lavey. The term doesn't need a disambiguation page, if there are only two uses to be disambiguated: see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Please get consensus on an article's talk page before making a big change like this. The correct way to disambiguate would be to instead post a hatnote at the top of Lavey (the article about the parish) directing readers to "see also LaVey". Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've found enough other articles that justify a disambiguation page, and I've moved the parish page to its correct name and updated the template from where most of the articles were transcluding, so no further work is needed on disambiguation. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since LaVey is a last name, and not uncommon, I knew there were plenty of other pages that users might be searching for with LaVey, but do not know any off the top of my head. I knew other users would add the extra links later. Thank you for searching for them (I do not know how to use some advanced features in Wikipedia, and mostly only do editing). For the page I redirected, I must have read the word "county" and thought it said "country,"; I am certian I saw the actual word "country" (Or county) on the page. If not I made a mistake. Thank you for finding some more links. If Lavey is a parish then Anton LaVey is likely the more common term being searched for by 'lavey'. I believe there should be an optional script or method, after changing a page name, for "change all current links to link to the new article title," for times like this when linking those old articles to a disambiguation page would not be the best way to do it.                     ~Rayvn  16:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Black people, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Personal blogs are not reliable sources NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete correct information, as you did at Black people, without citing adequate reasons why the article is too lengthy (which is the only valid reason to delete correct information that I can think of currently). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and take this oppurtunity to become aware of basic and obvious logic that you cannot usually prove (nor "cite") the fact that people do NOT do something, which does not change the fact that to incorrectly assert that they do is wrong. As the majority of Wikipedia editors live either in America or in Europe, and no such editor (nor any other human being or perhaps one exception, ever, which would become a viral news item if it were made known) has ever checked off the "Caucasian" item on a census while being black, unless it was before 1960 and done for the purpose of pretense/fraud/escaping mistreatment and known by the one doing it to be a lie.                     ~Rayvn  00:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") might cause problems for some readers. This is because it includes a link outside your user-space; or no link at all. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising signatures. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure your headline titles are within the guidelines of "basic human decency" rather then containing police-style, instigating, assaultive words such as "compliance".                     ~Rayvn  02:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please try to take a less combative approach to other editors, especially over something as simple as a signature Asking you to make your signature work properly so people can work with you is not an assault on basic human decency. How about just trying the default for a while?  Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, using the word "compliance" IS a lack of basic human decency, as mentioned in my comment, while the idea that "asking a user to put a link in their signature if Wikipedia expects it but also noting the problem with the programmer that caused this to happen when he removed the Wikipedia coding that linked the signatures as expected" is a lack of human decency was not mentioned. I am not "combative" but rather am defending from and for 1) the integrity of apparently two articles now and 2) when people are attacking and harassing me. The assaultive word "compliance" was in this user's section title until I fixed it as I will not tolerate such words being displayed on my page.                     ~Rayvn  03:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please correct your signature. To quote WP:SIGLINK, "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Further, per WP:SIGAPP, the text size is so large that it disrupts the flow of text, so please reduce it to something such as size="3". If you need help with this, feel free to ask. Thank you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note your inquiry at the help desk has been answered. Thank you and have a nice day. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 02:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notification, but actually it was not answered. Instead, it was closed with no one attempting to help or answer at all, with the only semi-relevant replies being to argue with me instead of answering, and with several of my posts removed before it was closed, as well as an entirely separate question of mine which was removed. It seems like the help desk needs some severe oversight.                     ~Rayvn  03:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. An edit that you recently made to Malus seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, please contact the help desk. Thanks! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 02:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice. Removing relevant sourced content from one article, [1] while simultaneously arguing that it is appropriate to add unsourced content to another despite objections from multiple contributors [2][3] really isn't doing yourself any favours. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to accept that you don't have the final say on content, and that when contributors with more experience than you give you advice, you should take heed of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have not given advice but instead simply reverted edits repeatedly without asking any Americans for the poll when it is necessary if they really wish to inappropriately insist that Americans don't know how people classify races in America, and then the other for the purpose of ensuring that an article is grammatically unreadable and really cannot even be deduced what the meaning is intended to be. As well as blatantly falsifying the reason for the non-clarification and inclusion of irrelevant sentences on this talk page. Whether one is "more experienced" is irrelevant when the person is purposely causing problems by stating that Americans don't know how someone determines their race in America etc. Also, as has been noted, I didn't remove any relevant sentences from this article. Finally, I also, as mentioned SEVERAL times, have not "added unsourced content" to any article which you are mentioning, although doing so is perfectly appropriate as long as the information is true - most articles seem actually to be created with no citations, so obviously.                     ~Rayvn  03:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases article content on published reliable sources. We do not conduct 'polls' to determine content. As for the material removed from the Malus article, it was clearly relevant - the previous sentence described its usage in alternative medicine, and it would be grossly improper not to inform readers that there was no credible scientific evidence for its efficacy. I see that the material regarding the use of Malus is such a context has now been removed entirely, which may be the most appropriate course of action. If you wish to discuss this issue further, I suggest that you do so on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" does not do anything. "We" do/does not do anything. Wikipedia is meant for input by EVERYONE, including those who actually you know have knowledge about the subject at hand. In fact Wikipedia DOES have polls, and it is true that polls are not actually needed since merely asking literally any American who lives in America and has commonly interacted with multiple races will get the answer of what is truthful. However, since a couple of people are incorrectly insisting on publishing the article using extremely incorrect information, one of the polls that Wikipedia does do would be a way to vitally inform those people that yes, in fact, living in America DOES tell you what people use words for in America! There was no "material" removed from any article since that would be physically impossible since this is both the Internet, which has no physical manifestation, as well as an article which is written using words, and therefore also has no physical items or textiles involved. In an article about a plant which has a section describing the plants usuage, it would of course be grossly improper to then instigate a debate about whether or not that usuage is scientific by writing a sentence which states whether or not such usuage is considered to "work" by one person or society or research paper or another. The appropriate and valid scope of such an article would be things regarding the plant, including how people may use the plant, which means that that scope would not include any research or debate on methods of alternative medicine and whether or not they work.                     ~Rayvn  04:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ebyabe could take offense at being called a woman, but chooses not to do so. Ebyabe is also curious as to what was being falsified? Thanks and have a pleasant evening. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 03:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that technically you could, but not legitimately, as no reasonable person (or human) would do this. Your false claim is that you "think my edit was a test". First of all, if someone is doing a test, and the test fails, then they would of course fix it or change it back or add a hidden comment for someone to fix it or something. But, secondly, this was the second time you have changed the clarification of the sentence back to be grammatically incorrect and extremely confusing, so you could not possibly "think it was a test", and what you wrote in the edits also says that you didn't think that.                     ~Rayvn  03:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for exhibiting a battleground attitude, making it difficult for other users to communicate with you; personal attacks e.g. [4], [5]; edit warring and refusal to abide by the site's guidelines, despite being repeatedly informed of WP:SIG in multiple venues. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Yunshui ^雲_水 14:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RayvnEQ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The user that reported me made several false claims, such as claims of "personal attacks" regardless of the fact that I have never made any, and "violating Wikipedia's policies" regardless that I have never done so. He himself has been reported several times for doing bad things like insulting people, and posted directly fraudulent information both to me and apparently to administrators. I was not given any possibility of replying to the block request discussion, because he also did not link this anywhere on my page and on his page I saw a template (posted to him by a user of a different time he has done this) stating that doing so is required. Basically, the user who reported me shows clearly in "bad faith". The fact that I am being forced to defend on myself on Wikipedia for 12+ hours is not a valid reason for a block. No "personal attacks" were made, no "refusal" to do anything was done as no "orders" were given that could be "refused" due to the fact the "orders" did not even happen, and being a victim of others who are repeatedly attacking me and even deleting my replies from discussion pages before archiving, and defending myself from these continuous attacks, is NOT a valid reason for a block. As for the articles which caused people to attack and harass me, nothing regarding these articles was ever properly done. No messages asking to discuss it, no polls done to find out which information is correct, no editing done after my edits for the purpose of further improving the article, nothing constructive or reasonable whatsoever, just reverting the entire edit without discussion or reasonableness, lying about the reason for reverting, harassment, and making fraudulent claims against me such as "adding information without sources", regardless of the fact that 1) I did not ADD any information to the article and 2) it is okay to add information that does not have a source, and most new articles consist mainly, and some entirely, of such information. Someone wrote something about "friendly advice," but not a SINGLE related comment was at all "friendly," and no advice was given whatsoever except for one which was both unhelpful and contained more untrue statements. Even this administrator is purposefully making blatantly fraudulent statements, claiming that I "ignored guidelines in regards to my signature", regardless of the fact that the one who changed Wikipedia's code to no longer link automatically is not me, nor did they notify me, nor could anyone think of a reasonable reason to do this, regardless of the fact that it has been less then 24 hours since anyone requested that I learn programming code and then re-code my signature to compensate for this flaw, that's right less then 24 hours let alone a reasonable time of 4 months or so (assuming the user has logged in for several hours every day during that time), and regardless of the fact that even in that minuscule amount of time my signature had already been re-coded before he ever did this block. This shows that the administrator himself is specifically in bad faith by citing an alleged "problem" that no longer even exists. There is also a log of the LITERAL AND DIRECT EXACT OPPOSITE of the claim of the person who reported me (again, WITHOUT NOTIFYING ME TO REPLY TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER), at the Help Desk page. I advise that people looking at this do not read that conversation as evidence of replies and such, because several of my replies were deleted before the conversation was archived and therefore it is an invalid archive, BUT it does show the exact opposite of this claim in that I specifically complained about someone for doing that very thing because the conversation between MYSELF AND HIM should be done at only ONE place, and should also be done at one of the appropriate pages, rather then being harassive by using different places as this Administrator is claiming I have done when there is direct evidence that I've done the opposite. So the main thing being that I am the victim of numerous people attacking me, they should not have attacked me but instead should have done any of the things I mentioned, or some other reasonable thing, rather then reverting edits and then attacking and harassing me. I did not deserve any such harassment and attacks and do have the right to defend such things. If I am treated fairly instead then there could be a discussion on the matter instead of repeated reverting without any discussion, then no such people would be "reporting", but, since I did not do the things in the report other then correcting articles, and since the decent reply to correcting articles which someone else thinks are incorrect is not to attack them as was done to me, the block is wrong because things should be differently and because the people who were "edit warring" on purpose were other people rather then myself. In fact, direct evidence of this is ALSO available, as you can see that I stopped attempting to edit the article Black people to contain correct information once it was made obvious that three other editors did not want correct information to be available and would continuous revert it instead of simply editing to make it even better. The ones who want to do "edit warring" would not stop trying to stop the assaultive from reverting it, but instead they would do something such as continuously revert edits from the one they disagree with. This was what the opposing party did, not what I did. And yet still no discussion.

Decline reason:

This long screed is emblematic of WP:BATTLEGROUND in itself, and modifying section headings as you've done here just digs your hole deeper. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RayvnEQ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Changing of the headlines was a requirement, as some people refused to write appropriate headlines even after my notice (although such a notice shouldn't of course be needed), instead writing "May 2015" on several comments on several different subjects/people. In fact, at one time there were even TWO headlines saying "May 2015" at the same time, with yet again no description for some reason. People could have then edited their own headline to make it correct but also something they approve of, but they did not. So these headline changes were 100% necessary. In addition, no one has ever requested not to edit headlines. The link you gave seems to state something about inciting arguments on purpose, "personally attacking" people, etc. However, as is mentioned in detail in the comment above along with reasons and full explanations, there were no "personal attacks" then were done by me, they were done TO me. In addition, I have done a lot of writing to correct some thing that people wrote which were wrong, but I have not done anything for the sole purpose of wanting to argue with people, as many or most of the users posting here have done. If I am reading this linked page correctly then everything I have posted is, in fact, NOT related to that webpage, which is about people who enjoy arguing and/or posting false attacks on people, etc. Not about the ones who are defending themselves from this victimization. If I am describing the writings at that link correctly then the last reply to me is invalid because it states things that are not true/which I have not done. If I describing the writings at that link incorrectly then please describe them better. This administrator, based on the response addressing absolutely none of the issues I bring up, also may not have read the paragraph and instead decided that it "must be an attack on somebody" merely because it is "long". If she has done that, then she should instead read the comment in order to notice the things like the fact that I have not made any attacks. There are even some places already linked by other people as examples of comments I have written, which do not contain any attacks. Or the fact that I was not even linked to the discussion regarding this block or report in order to discuss with it, making the original block invalid for ANY reason other blatant SPAMming/etc., because I was not even notified of the discussion to even write on it. Etc.

Decline reason:

You're still treating this as if your current behaviour is acceptable - your attitude to this whole situation is far to confrontational. Until you show that you can be calm and work with other people, you're not going to be unblocked. Regarding the section headers, there's no issue with changing the headers, but I believe the issue is what you changed the header to - it's clearly confrontational and could be taken as a veiled attack on the user who blocked you in the first place. [stwalkerster|talk] 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RayvnEQ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

THANK YOU for a reasonable fucking comment!!! The ONLY USER in ANY AREA who has actually made one!! (Ebyabe made comments which appear to be reasonable at first glance, but are actually unreasonable because one is fraudulent and the other was untrue regarding a place where she could see that it was untrue.) Well a sort-of reasonable comment anyway because he claims that I am being "confrontational" when it is clearly visible at my talk page that other users are attacking me and not the other way around. I have not caused any confrontation... I have replied to other users who are putting a confrontation to me. (I did ask how to report a user, but I did not actually report him because nobody answered regardless of several posts made, and the user himself did not comment there, so that was not a confrontation like it would have been if I'd been able to make the report.) I would like to leave a message at this user User:Stwalkerster's talk page but I cannot, because for some reason those are blocked to, so I have to do it this way instead. Hopefully he has the notifications turned on (tags of username). I can be calm and work with other people. This is noted in my first reply, where it gives several examples of how users should have had discussion instead of attacking and reverting me and arguing hostilely on my talk page. Users who wish to work with me should not make attacks, write words like "compliance", revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead (details of referred-to edits in a separate paragraph below, make false claims against me, or delete my replies on discussion pages (not talk pages) and then ARCHIVE it after removing them!! (Users should not do these kinds of things to anyone.) What this means is that if users act in a reasonable manner, then a normal discussion can ensue (including from myself). Merely because someone has used a template, written a shorter reply, or wrote their aggressive, confrontational remarks in a business-style manner, does not mean that they are "being reasonable" or "writing nicely". When someone makes a falsified report about you or writes a falsified comment, etc., it is not reasonable to expect the victim to reply without mentioning this, or to want to "be friends" with the attacker. If the other people are being reasonable then of COURSE I am going to reply to them in a different way. Editing an article by...(below) is not reasonable, nor is "ganging up" (the discussion page), nor is replying in several places at once, etc. How can replying to other users stating bad and/or false things about you be "confrontational"? I have mentioned several times about having an actual discussion but no one did this and instead just kept replying on my talk pages. The fact that I mentioned having a discussion indicates that I think reasonable discussion is the right or reasonable way to do it. Just no one wanted to do anything but attack me so I did not have another way. So as you can see my intents are to be reasonable and normal (with the 'possible' exception of this particular headline), and repeatedly asking other people to do this, but being annoyed by all their attacks and false remarks as well. Edits (in a separate paragraph so that reading it is optional): "Users working with me should not...revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead" - Instead of reverting multiple times, attacking, and then harassing, the user could have simply improved my previous edit if the felt it necessary. It actually was, in fact, necessary, because most of the paragraph was based on the incorrect idea that black people often check the "white" box on surveys because of... social characteristics, or something, and in order for it to both be accurate and make sense, additional things would have to have been removed. These are the things that I left in in order to avoid conflict, even though though it makes the article make much less sense in regards to flow when they are left in. I included in a comment several times that we should be fixing the problem with a reasonable discussion (poll) in order to get the correct version up, but this was ignored except for one derogatory remark that mentioning reasonable solutions should not be done. Editing an article by reverting back to the incomprehensible version is hardly "reasonable". Editing it again if the first person got it wrong - because they couldn't properly figure out what it was talking about - is the reasonable way.

Decline reason:

This in no way addresses your own behavior, and how your own behavior would be different if we were to lift your block early. Every statement you have made takes nothing into account of your own behavior, despite repeated requests to do so. It is clear from every comment you have made that you have no real interest in altering the way you interact with others. There is also considerable consensus developing at WP:ANI to extend this block indefinitely, because you see this as a battle you have to win, rather than an encyclopedia that needs your help to build. Given that, I'm declining this request and extending your block from 48 hours to indefinite. I have also revoked your talk page access. If you wish to appeal this block, you may do so by contacting the ARBCOM as described at WP:BASC. Vaya con dios. Jayron32 20:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is untrue. I have not been blocked for the reasons mentioned but rather for entirely different reasons, since the reasons mentioned are not actually true. It is impossible to "exhibit a battleground attitude" because of many reasons, including the fact that one cannot "exhibit" something unless one is a display engineer at a museum, and it would therefore be impossible to "exhibit" anything let alone a "battleground attitude," the fact that there is no such thing as a "battleground attitude," the fact that there is no such thing as an "attitude" in regards to how a human being acts, and the fact that the word "exhibit" is used in an incorrect manner here done solely for the purpose of antagonizing the user (antagonizing me). Usage of words like "exhibit" and "attitude", and refusing to follow the section title requirements on my page, show an obvious malfeasance intent by the above person, and therefore the block cannot be valid because within the first sentence he has already seriously demonstrated his lack of appropriate intent by specifically and purposefully being antagonizing.

The second claim is physically possible, but is blatantly false. I have specifically attempted to PREVENT other users from refusing to communicate in a appropriate manner, as he was repeatedly replying to the same conversation in several different locations, for which I reported him but yet the people at the ALLEGED "help desk" refused to tell me where to report him, and even deleted several of my replies and then archived it fraudulently. Having OTHER USERS delete my comments, participate in blatant fradulent..ism, post the same thing on multiple talk pages at once for the purpose of harassing me, etc., is hardly "myself making it difficult to communicate," when in fact as was just demonstrated I did the LITERAL EXACT OPPOSITE of this by LITERALLY ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT OTHER USERS FROM MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE. ((In addition, if I wish for other users to NOT communicate with me, I also have THAT right, it is in fact specifically written into law in every state in the country and will get you arrested if you fail to do so. Although I personally disagree with this law and it is an immoral law which deems to prevent for example ex-spouses from communicating with each other when necessary, the part of the law that refers to STRANGERS such as on Wikipedia or anywhere on the Internet, it is a PERSONAL CHOICE whether you wish other strangers on the site to communicate with you or not and/or post contact information etc. That is why every message board in existence has an option to "disable the private messaging system".))

There were no personal attacks done by me anywhere, so this part is a baseless and fraudulent claim.

"Refusal to abide by the site's guidelines" is impossible since 1) "guidelines" and "rules" are two different thing 2) Wikipedia does not have any rules and 3) All policies of any kind are subject to debate and protest at any time according to the numerous Wikipedia articles which specifically say this.

You have also demonstrated more incorrect intent by saying that something was "done in multiple venues," even though no venues of any kind exist because this is a website rather then a collection of several different building which show concerts or other entertainment events and/or conventions and/or etc. So that is also impossible.                     ~Rayvn  16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:RayvnEQ. Thank you. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. There is NO valid discussion at this location because, even though you have posted this, you have STILL NOT ALLOWED ME TO POST ANYTHING!!!!                     ~Rayvn  20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do you decide the rules around here? You're blocked and have lost your editing privilege on this website, which is a privilege, not a right that anyone is entitled to demand. The notice about the discussion at WP:ANI is a courtesy notice, to inform you that a discussion is taking place, not an invitation to you to join the discussion. Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]