You have been blocked for your personal attacks for me in the past, and you have been warned to stay away from me. Your recent posts on the Led Zeppelin article talk page (the primary place we've had interaction in the past) both mean you're not staying away and that you are continuing your personal attacks (as here [1]). Please try and be civil.LedRush (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LedRush, don't be unreasonable. I did NOT attack you. The Led Zeppelin article is NOT your jurisdiction. Do NOT keep bringing up a dead issue. Do NOT react like this (unreasonably and unfairly) at my slightest post. And, for the last time - keep the fuck away from my talk page. Revan (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated in the past, I will only post on your talk page to warn you about personal attacks or harassment, or to respond to a statement made about me on your talk page which I believe is untrue. The easiest way to ensure that I don't post here is not to write about me, and not to break Wikipedia rules.LedRush (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You harassed me just as much. You're harassing me now. And if I break wikipedia rules, it's not your duty to write on my talk page. From what we see, it's you who's not staying away from me, and I doubt you feel a mentor-like need to help me. And what did I say about you that is untrue? PS. Now that you're so "helpful", please point me towards the direction where one reports other users. Revan (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never harassed you and I'm sorry that you think I have. I only write on your talk page when you break Wikipedia's rules and I notice it: because you've broken it by personally attacking me, it kind of is my duty to warn you here. If there was ever an incident report filed, I would need to show that you were aware of the rules and were breaking them anyway. Giving warnings on a talk page is one way to ensure that people know the rules.

If you would like to report me, your best bet is to go here [2]. Make sure to read the guidelines first, and warn me on my talk page if you do open an incident report on me.

I have a link above to where you personally attacked me (in addition to deleting my talk page contributions without explanation), and your statements above about me being unreasonable I found untrue. Because you made those accusations, I came back to defend myself. This time, I came back again to defend myself against your accusations, and to answer your questions. If you do not make any other such accusations, and don't ask for my response, I promise, I will not post here again unless I notice you breaking another wikipedia rule.LedRush (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't for the fact that you sided with a primate like Judaispriest before, "lolling" at me when I defended myself against your insults of me being "extremely unintelligent" and having a "horrendous logic", and considering that all of this came without you addressing my suggestions, I would reconsider because this last post is actually very reasonable, but not along with how you were before - it merely creates a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde effect that isn't exactly charming. I'll present what I find unfair, take my chances, and see how it goes. Revan (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would only add that you have attacked me personally on several occassions (you can see the edit list of this talk page), that I don't believe I have ever attacked you personally (but apologize if I did or if my attacks of your arguments were too personal), and I only "lolled" at you when your arguments skewed wildly off topic. Oh, and I conceded the possibility of a range of sales number on the Zeppelin article on Feb 18, but you continued to attack me. Having said that, your talk page should be LedRush-free.LedRush (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which arguments you're referring to, skewing wildly off topic - they can't have been about Led Zeppelin. But you lolled at me when I said that I am a member of Mensa and write A papers as a concrete defense against your insults and attacks on my intelligence and writing skills, hence not wildly off topic, or, reversely, that you also were wildly off topic - you also said how sad it is that I don't see the irony in something, didn't really get you there. You show a lot of reason now, LedRush; maybe you've undergone a major transformation since february, but you keep illustrating yourself as faultless, and I don't "concede" that. Revan (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did offer a conditional apology above, so I don't think that I am presenting myself as faultless. However, I do believe a review of the Led Zeppelin talk page archives, and the edit list on this page, will demonstrate that you attacked first, hardest, and longest (meaning, after my criticisms of your arguments eneded). However, you, too, seem much more reasonable than you were before, so it's probably better to just let this die.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see how a third party sees on this. After that, no matter the result, I want to bury the hatchet. Revan (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I don't have the energy for this. Revan (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I, being a relatively undedicated wikipedia user, browsed through my history for the first time today and came across a post I made in a discussion entitled "Progressive Metal?" on the System of a Down talk page in July 2007. I was extremely disrespectful and insulting when I responded to one of your posts and I wish to apologize. It was completely undeserving and unprovoked from your part and I acted as a frustrated teenager, which I was. So, once again, sorry. Revan (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!
Not a problem, I'm pretty sure everyone got carried away at some point or another during those debates. :) I remember raging myself during a lot of discussions, and I now chuckle at those genre battles I used to take so seriously. As I don't recall every chronological detail of those heated talks, I wish to apologize myself if I've caused offense in any way. I'm hardly active on Wikipedia anymore, but I'm still an avid reader, and finding this message made my day. I hope your wiki experience was pleasurable since 2007, and I hope there's more to come! Enjoy. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you here.[3]LedRush (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you utterly failed. Revan (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know you're frustrated, but this is exactly what I was talking about. There's simply no need to do this. It's over; the charges against you were found wanting. It would be hard not for the average Wikipedian to see this as either gloating or instigating. You need to cool your tone down. Again, not trying to preach at you, I'm just trying to give a friendly heads-up.Ultimahero (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revan is correct. I have failed. I hoped that reporting Revan would allow him to contribute constructively on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, after every editor agreed that his use of the f-bomb was inappropriate and all but one editor agreed that his personal attacks were uncivil, he has decided to interpret the WQA report as a vindication of his uncivil tone and language and has reengaged with uncivil edits as he has here[4], here[5] and here[6]. Of course, I, as always, will be happy not to post on his talk page assuming that Revan does not make arguments about me and does not otherwise engage in behavior which requires warning.LedRush (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't mean any offense but one can hardly notice even a single constructive edit while going through his contributions ... Mostly trolling and general disruption. Scieberking (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right. I'm an abomination high on crazy pills. Revan (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That site is just very slow or unresponsive sometimes, I pulled up the page here: [7]. Piriczki (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revan, your recent edits are completely uncalled for. You have made a number of edits in the last 48 hours that cannot be defined in any other way than personal attack or instigating. First, you edited MY talk page and it seems pretty obvious that the whole point was to attack LedRush and Mmyers1976. The way you phrased the header "I owe you a thanks" seems to be an obvious reference to the section Mmyers1976 made on LedRush's talk page "I owe you an apology." In this supposed "thank you", you repeatedly went beyond responding to the edits and discussed the editors themselves. You say they were "consoling each other", and "grooming" (both aimed at their motivations). There can be little doubt that this entire section was intended to express how you felt about them in response to the latest section on LedRush's talk page. No doubt you were frustrated that you were being discussed on his page. I was frustrated as well because I had also been the subject of discussion. The difference, however, is in our responses. You sought to attack, I went to them and asked them directly to stop. I believe I was polite and respectful in my request. Whether they actually do stop is not the point; what matters is that another persons actions do not give you the right to act in any fashion that you wish. You response simply makes things worse. Your closing remark, "I'll take your advise on the angry tone in consideration when I write in the future" seems contradictory, if not flat-out dishonest, in light of all that you wrote preceding it.

Secondly, as I pointed out above, changing LedRush's header from "Uncivil Behavior" to "Farfetched Report", as well as responding that LedRush had "failed", are simply petty. They accomplish nothing positive and only instigate. The issue was already dead and yet you continue to prod. Why? What good can possibly come of it? And your sarcastic statement, "I'm an abomination high on crazy pills" doesn't help. It just makes it seem as if you are unwilling or unable to take things seriously.

Finally, for you to ask Scieberking why he hadn't been blocked is nothing but inflammatory. Absolutely no good can come from that type of insult masquerading as a question. And to reinstate it after it was deleted further compounds the problems with your behavior.

Revan, I hope that this comes as a wake-up call for you. I was your biggest supporter on WQA, and yet even I am growing tired of your actions. While I didn't find those original claims on WQA to be convincing, your current edits speak far louder than anything else has. You must stop this type of editing. It's not constructive in any way. There is little doubt that if you continue you will face further charges and risk being blocked for a much longer period of time. If that happens, you will have turned your biggest supporter into your most vocal critic. Please reconsider before it comes to that. Regardless of what others do you are still responsible for your own actions.Ultimahero (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~ From a reader of your discussion posts.

Already do. ...sign your post. Revan (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]