Jump to content

User talk:Caden: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎A point: new section
Line 614: Line 614:
::Saying "you must be blind" or a "you're a heterophobe" is a personal attack that can be considered offensive, and is an incivil/impolite way of communicating (which is why the WQA is opened against you). If you continue commenting on contributors rather than strictly confining your comments to contributions, then it is likely an administrator will step in and block you. If you can agree not to engage in conduct like this again in the future, then the WQA may be closed and it ends there. Please have a think about it, and if possible, make your response there. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Saying "you must be blind" or a "you're a heterophobe" is a personal attack that can be considered offensive, and is an incivil/impolite way of communicating (which is why the WQA is opened against you). If you continue commenting on contributors rather than strictly confining your comments to contributions, then it is likely an administrator will step in and block you. If you can agree not to engage in conduct like this again in the future, then the WQA may be closed and it ends there. Please have a think about it, and if possible, make your response there. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand that we have policy on no personal attacks as well as civility. I also understand that editors are expected to comply with it. That's why I'm a little lost on that right now because I feel that I'm being personally attacked by an editor (Realist2), whom I've never spoken with. He is accusing me of plotting things that I am not doing. Why is he given a pass to personally attack me through wild false accusations? I feel I'm not being treated fairly. I know I'm not perfect and I've made some mistakes with a few comments, such as "you must be blind". That was impolite of me and I'm sorry for that. But why am I the only one being singled out here? I've read the negative comments/accusations by Realist2 about me on the WQA page. I'm just really shocked by it. I feel I'm being personally attacked. This is wrong, I'm sure you can see that. I would like this all to end as I find it rather draining. And like I said before, I'm not perfect and yes I've made some mistakes that I'm truly sorry for. Please at least give me a chance. [[User:CadenS|CadenS]] ([[User talk:CadenS#top|talk]]) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand that we have policy on no personal attacks as well as civility. I also understand that editors are expected to comply with it. That's why I'm a little lost on that right now because I feel that I'm being personally attacked by an editor (Realist2), whom I've never spoken with. He is accusing me of plotting things that I am not doing. Why is he given a pass to personally attack me through wild false accusations? I feel I'm not being treated fairly. I know I'm not perfect and I've made some mistakes with a few comments, such as "you must be blind". That was impolite of me and I'm sorry for that. But why am I the only one being singled out here? I've read the negative comments/accusations by Realist2 about me on the WQA page. I'm just really shocked by it. I feel I'm being personally attacked. This is wrong, I'm sure you can see that. I would like this all to end as I find it rather draining. And like I said before, I'm not perfect and yes I've made some mistakes that I'm truly sorry for. Please at least give me a chance. [[User:CadenS|CadenS]] ([[User talk:CadenS#top|talk]]) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

== A point ==

Caden, I want you to understand something very important.

"Non-Christian" is not the same thing as "anti-Christian".

Wikipedia is not Christian. Wikipedia does not support any particular religion. Wikipedia does not endorse your personal political beliefs.

"Equality for blacks" does not mean "anti-white", "equality for women" does not mean "anti-men", and "equality for gays" does not mean "heterophobic".

You have been taught wrongly, Caden. I hate to say it this bluntly, but ''you have been taught wrongly''.

Let's not even talk about the tragic mess in which one high school kid shot and killed another high school kid for reasons which are apparently linked to homosexuality. You weren't directly involved in that, were you? (''Were'' you?) Let's talk, instead, about your general ''attitude''.

Caden, you're being a jerk. You're being rude, you're being offensive to a great many people, and you're consistently arguing that you're being victimized. I'm willing to grant that you sincerely feel that way, but your feelings are misplaced.

Your religion is not the only religion in the world, and your religion is not "right". No one's religion is "right", because we're all humans and humans are flawed creatures. Stop trying to argue based on religion. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:28, 26 May 2008

Feel free to be real.

Welcome

Hello, CadenS, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Benjiboi 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused here. First you welcome me and then you threaten to have me blocked. CadenS (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above is a welcome template, it includes links and information that newer users willl likely find valuable. I've found that posting warning notes alone is pretty off-putting. We were all new once. Other editors simply delete vandalism or ignore conflict. Unfortunately those methods don't always stop some activities which are hurtful to the project. You seem interested in contributing so my suggestion is to simply focus on getting to know the encyclopedia (explore a bit) and contribute where you find the most interest. Benjiboi 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am interested in both contributing to Wikipedia as well as learning from it. The above links and information are very helpful. It will take me some time to fully understand how the encyclopedia works since I'm a newbie, but I look forward to it. CadenS (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A resource, in addition to the links above is Wikipedia Signpost which is the (usually) weekly newsletter that reports of various happenings and helps personalize the site a bit more. You can have in delivered to you each week if you want. Benjiboi 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, Benji. Do you mean I can have it delivered to my account?CadenS (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for instance, if you put {{Signpost-subscription}} on your talkpage the latest issue will be displayed. Benjiboi 03:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I knew that but I forgot to do so. It's called being human. Oh wait, you're an automated program so how could you know? Haha thanks for reminding me though.

March 2008

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Benjiboi 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please assume good faith before attacking me here on my talk page. I was not attacking anyone, I was pointing out what is obvious with the Jesse Dirkhising article. I made my point clear on the problematic content of that page. Threatening to block me is rather harsh when all I've done is to point out the truth concerning the content.

Welcome to wiki world. That's how it works. Everyone can edit lol, but if you do and it goes against our POV then we block you. But hey it isn't censorship, it just looks like it. Whose POV wins? The one who can block others. That's how they do it here.70.108.117.53 (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined and already I can't help but feel unwelcome around here. Receiving a warning for pointing out the truth over the questionable content of a certain page, makes no sense to me. It was my understanding that any POV was against policy. CadenS (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments you made including ...
Are considered personal attacks. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Benjiboi 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Benjiboi, please accept my apology. I never intentionally meant to offend you personally. I am truly sorry. CadenS (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. It's great to care about articles as building them takes energy and care. Even though we may not agree on all things we both can bring our knowledge and experiences to improve articles and Wikipedia's best work is accomplished by many people bringing their expertise and skills to the project. Benjiboi 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Personalize

How did other users get images and other stuff up on their Talk Pages? How did they change the look of their pages? I find it looks a lot more personalized to some degree. But I can't figure out how to go about that. CadenS (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have this page on my watchlist so I'm happy to offer suggestions and advice. First I would suggest taking it step by step as we use a html mark-up code to alter appearances. I would recommend looking at other folks' user pages and if you see something you like simply click the edit tab to see what code was used to create it and try it. If you make a mistake you can always go back to a previous version, just like we do on articles. Speaking from my own mistakes (there have been so so many), use the "show preview" button and if if the change is what you want maybe save each change as you go along. If you're looking for something in particular I'll do what I can to help. Benjiboi 23:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Benji, I sure could use a little help. I did take your recommendation and looked at several user pages but I haven't yet found what I'm looking for. I'd like a color and a style for the background that's particular so that it fits my personality. Something blue or brown that's masculine like but not too dark in appearance. I'd also like to maybe find a picture, or put a picture of me, or some type of something up on my user page to give it a bit of life. I noticed some folks have a poem or a favorite quote or even a national flag. It all just looks more personalized. I plan to continue to look at other user pages in the hope that I might come across what I'm looking for. I'm not sure if any of this helps you but any help from you would greatly be appreciated. CadenS (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would focus on style issues first and just keep looking at user pages, you can tweak the color once you have the style you want and user signatures often have colors as well so there are many to choose from.
For a temporary photo - until you find or upload something better, you might try WikiCommons which is a shared media resource for all the 250 or so related wiki projects. Benjiboi 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind Benji, but I've borrowed the style look from your User page. I liked it. I've played with the colors a bit but it's still not quite what I'm aiming for. How can I change the mustard color? I don't quite understand how the user signatures and colors work. Any suggestions? As for a temporary photo, is it possible for me to use a soccer photo from the soccer page? Or is that against Wikipedia policy? I would only borrow a picture until I decide on something better. Also, how did you change the colors for your user name? I'd like to change the color of my user name to blue. I apologize for asking so many questions. I know you have better things to do with your time. However, I do appreciate all of your help and I want to thank you for all of your suggestions and advice so far. CadenS (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing style

You can freely borrow pretty much any user style and mark-up, that's how I got all of mine! Benjiboi

Signature

On the left-hand side you can click on "My preferences" and it will take you to one of your user pages which includes a box for signature. If you look at other users' signatures compared to yours you can start to play around with style and color. Those same colors can be used for text and background. Benjiboi

Color

In the edit mode (where you can see the mark-up text) it currently has background-color:#f2c56d change the "#f2c56d" to some color like "hot pink" or any color other user's have programmed and preview to see if it's what you like. The only caution I would suggest is that some users are red/green blind so using two shades of either color might hide text or items from those users. Benjiboi

Soccer photo

For talk pages (not article pages) I suggest finding images at [[WikiCommons as they are freely licensed whereas many on wikipedia itself are licensed only for use on the articles they are at. The image page for each image provides more detail. I grabbed a photo which you can freely use from Commons to experiment with. If you search on "soccer" on Commons you'll find plenty more.

Hey, write a caption here if you wish or not.

Benjiboi 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Benji, I've got most of it done. I added the soccer picture onto my User page. Oddly enough, you must of been reading my mind because that's the exact soccer picture I wanted! I have added my own caption to it. I finally figured out the color-style-background thing with your help, so many thanks for directing me in a clear understanding manner. LOL I got a good laugh over the "hot pink' example though. But pink is far from being me lol. Now the only thing left that I can't seem to figure out is the signature and color part. Is there a way that you could change it to blue for me? By the way please feel free to let me know what you think of my new changes to my user page. And again, thank you for all your help. CadenS (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, try pasting the following into your signature, I think only you can edit it. [[User:CadenS|<u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: none;color:Blue">Caden</u>]][[User_talk:CadenS|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:none;color:dark blue">S</u>]]
This hopefully will make your "S" dark blue as well. Benjiboi 19:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read

My deepest appologies for any mis-communication. I asked User:LAX to keep an eye on you, as I see that you have the potential to become a good editor here. It was my mistake for not making that clear. I hope you will forgive me. iMatthew 2008 10:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. You're forgiven Matthew! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I really appreciate that. Happy St. Patrick's Day!CadenS (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St. Patrick's Day

User:IMatthew/StPatricksDay

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Brandon McInerney

1. This is not a forum. 2. Without a published source (news media or another Wikipedia:Reliable source) you cannot add content. Also as per Wikipedia:BLP you cannot post unsourced information about living people. I removed your talk page comments for BLP concerns. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. You must be BLIND to not see that this article is heterophobic and NOT NPOV. 2. There are countless of sources that reveal the truth on this story. 3. I DID NOT add content to the article so DO NOT accuse me of adding when I did no such thing! 4. You removed my comment NOT for BLP concerns but because you want to silence me. 5. Stay off my page!CadenS (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The response here is completely unacceptable. 1. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia:Personal attacks - also the above response presumes bad faith and therefore is unacceptable. Also Wikipedia:BLP applies to talk pages too. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship is completely unacceptable. You have presumed bad faith by deleting not only my comment but also by deleting another editor's comment on the same page. I suggest that you take a long look at and actually read the E.O. Green School shooting page, and you will see that it is not NPOV. Pay close attention to each quote used and you will see that all are biased and one sided to serve only the homosexual agenda. The content of this page is POV from beginning to end. That is not right and hardly fair to readers. More importantly, it is damaging to Brandon McInerney and his family. CadenS (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources that confirm what you say, could you please list them here, thanks. Nick (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed reliable sources but I don't have the time to track any of them down for you. I'm busy with final exams at the moment. If you have the time, perhaps you can do that. CadenS (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do well on your final exams; once you're done, you can track down the reliable sources for us. Until then, it stays out. DS (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Thanks. 2. Whisper would only remove it. 3. Understood.

Caden, our rules on biographies of living people are non-negotiable. BLP was adopted by the Wikipedia community for the sake of improving academic intregrity and all people (including you) are expected to follow it. If you repost this essay without any reliable sources on even talk pages, you will be blocked since the policy deals with highly sensitive matters. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper, I can respect the rules of BLP and have no issue with that. Please do not accuse me of having written an essay on Brandon McInerney. A single paragraph does not amount to an essay. Threatening me with a block is down right cruel since I have done no wrong. I feel you have been itching to have me blocked from the beginning. My issue with the E.O. Green School shooting article is that it is not NPOV. I have made it clear to you that the article is POV from beginning to end and yet you continue to ignore this. For the sake of improving academic integrity to that article, all editors must take a look at that article and have it re-written so that it appears neutral. As it stands now, it's biased, one sided and POV. CadenS (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TPG is a guideline. Policy (BLP) trumps guidelines. You can talk about the POV or lack of POV of the E.O. Green without violating BLP. All you have to do is say what you feel the quotes are that are one-sided, and that would be it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I even bother? You'll silence my comments like before. CadenS (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The below comments do not violate BLP. Therefore they are okay. The response below is fine for the talk page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which "below comments" are you referring to? CadenS (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an administrator, I'm interested in this issue, I'll see to it that things are done fairly. Okay? So... which part(s) do you feel is/are one-sided? DS (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Fairness is all I ask. The five quotes alone that are used in the article are excessive, biased and overkill. The article in general, from beginning to end, is POV. It does not read as neutral. It reads as propaganda to milk sympathy from the readers. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about that. The reader should be given an opportunity to decide things for themselves but that can only be done if the article were fairly balanced through neutrality. Both sides should be looked at in order to avoid POV. The current article does not do that. CadenS (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Post the above, as is, on the talk page of the E.O. Green shooting article. What is above is okay. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted it on the talk page but made a few minor changes to make better sense. CadenS (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's progress. I would caution you against using phrases like "homosexual agenda", which is itself very POV. (And I'm straight.) As before - good luck with your exams. DS (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use that phrase without caution because I have personally learned it to be true. Again, thanks for your well wishes. I appreciate that. CadenS (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like you have a certain point of view. We all are human and we have opinions. Just remember that Wikipedia:NPOV is non-negotiable. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said to you that Wikipedia:NPOV was negotiable for articles. Where you got that I have no clue. My personal point of view on that certain phrase is based on my own personal experience as a survivor. CadenS (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this: "Some witnessed confrontations between Larry and Brandon, with Larry teasing Brandon and saying he liked him." ? - If not, which text in the article are you referring to? (The comments section of that entry, below the article itself, is NOT reliable as the comments are not part of the article itself) - If you are referring to that phrase, "sexual harrassment" could be a technical term - it *may* be a bit strong to describe this. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to that. I'm also referring to: "In the days before the shooting, Brandon had been heard telling Larry to leave him alone, that he would hurt him. Something was building, friends said." It's more than clear to me that Brandon McInerney was being sexually harassed by that other kid. CadenS (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps under some law or code it *could* be construed as sexual harassment. However in terms of the Wikipedia article you should show the article on the talk page and see what the other editors think. It could help to compare this to the Hueneme School District's rules on sexual harassment; see if you can find the HSD's code of conduct. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear what it is. Now, in terms of the Wikipedia article I think it would be a waste of time to put up the link on the talk page. I think I have a good idea on how the majority of those editors think. I would rather not waste my time. The point is not to compare this to the Hueneme School District's rules on sexual harassment. The point is to show the other side of the story in order to help the article to be NPOV, which it currently is not. CadenS (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper, I did some thinking on what you suggested before and I think you may be right. I'm assuming good faith on this. I will put the link up on the talk page for open discussion. I still believe both sides of the story should be reflected within the article, instead of just one side which is POV. Speaking of that link, there's more text in the article that refers to Brandon McInerney being sexually harassed.

Such as this: "Eduardo Segure, an eighth-grader, said he saw Larry looking at Brandon the day before the shooting and saying he liked him. Brandon turned to Larry and told him to "F--- off" before walking away."

And then there's this: "At lunchtime that day, Hailey said, Larry went up to a table where Brandon was eating and asked to sit down. Brandon and his friends ran away, mocking Larry as they left."

Let me know what you think. CadenS (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The point is to show the other side of the story in order to help the article to be NPOV, which it currently is not." - Hmm - AFAIK NPOV is not so much about balancing the content as ensuring that the article itself doesn't take a stance. If there is a notable person who refers to what King was doing as "sexual harrassment" (in that sense), then you could do that. Unless the Hueneme School District code of conduct defines what King was doing as "sexual harassment," referring to King's actions as such could constitute Wikipedia:Original research WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you better take another look at it then because as it stands now the article does take a biased stance. Why is it that the homosexual POV is accepted as NPOV while everything else is not? By the way, thanks for nothing. CadenS (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, if you make the assertion that the article is POV, you have to explain why. You have to find text and quotes from it and explain. People will not appreciate it if you tell THEM to prove it. Also, it is not my job to explain why the article is POV. I have read the article and I do not believe it is POV (now that the quotes have been removed) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

← [[../Issue 014|Issue 014]] |
Issue 015
| [[../Issue 016|Issue 016]] →
Delivered: 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Professional Wrestling Article Stats

Since the last issue, the number of stub articles has decreased again. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.

Professional wrestling
articles
Importance
Top High Mid Low Total
Quality
FA 2 3 5
FL 1 5 15 21
GA 4 11 31 47
B 1 12 51 199 265
Start 2 51 220 2316 2593
Stub 1 23 609 629
Assessed 3 69 313 3175 3559
Total 3 69 312 3173 3559
Member News
Collaboration of the Week

The article collaboration for April 27 through May 11 is National Wrestling Alliance. The featured article collaboration is Amy Dumas. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, May 11.

Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved!
Editor of the Week
  • Welcome to the Editor of the Week!
  • Our first editor of the week is Nikki311, who won with 6 votes.
  • The runner-up, LAX came in second with 3 votes.
  • Nikki311's award page can be found here. Congratulations Nikki!
From the Editors

Contributors to this Issue:


DiscussionSuggestionsFeedback

Delivered: 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

NPOV

Apparently Wikipedia:NPOV policy does not apply to a "particular" article. Apparently the one-sided biased content of "this" page is acceptable. Strange? I think so. CadenS (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany

Yeah, I'm funny that way. Madcynic (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's funny how you think you own that page. CadenS (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I believe that the external links proves it's true. King iMatthew 2008 10:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

I'll see what I can do. DS (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CadenS (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your adoption request on DF67's page

Hi CadenS,

I'm not an editor, nor am I brown noseing to become one; however, I am happy to offer any help I can. I have been outspoken and intense on many wiki pages and have greatly enjoyed being mentored by others. I suggest that since you are well over the age needing to be adopted in society that you seek out mentors both on and off wikipedia. I'm just about to turn 40. When I was in my early 20's my first mentor told me something that I didn't believe then and don't believe now; however, if you repeat it to older people who talk down to you it can help you get away with more. The wisdom handed to me was this: "Nobody takes you seriously until you are 35." The problem is that when you turn 35 no one under the age of 30 takes you seriously... especially hot college coeds.

If your lack of PC ever gets you in hot water, let me know and I'll take up your cause.

--Petebertine (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Petebertine for the support. Any help that you can offer concerning Wikipedia is most appreciated. My adoption request was based on something I read on here concerning new Wikipedians needing guidance/mentoring from more experienced editors, in order to become better editors themselves. I do agree with you that mentors both on and off Wikipedia is a good thing. I have mentors in my personal life and I am very thankful for that. If my lack of PC should ever get me into hot water around here, I'll be sure to let you know. CadenS (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So, in other words, it's your biased POV that wins around here. Interesting. "

Do not focus on the editor. Focus on the content. Focusing on people is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Making presumptions about other people's points of view does not help. Also, by not milling through the content of the E.O. Green article you will be unable to prove that it is POV in any way. It is up to you to prove that it is POV, and you have to do the work. You explain why it is POV. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just go away. Please let me be. CadenS (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Professional Wrestling Article Stats

The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.

Professional wrestling
articles
Importance
Top High Mid Low Total
Quality
FA 2 3 5
FL 1 5 15 21
GA 4 12 34 50
B 1 13 55 203 272
Start 2 52 220 2328 2604
Stub 1 23 606 628
Assessed 3 71 317 3189 3580
Total 3 71 317 3189 3580
Member News
Collaboration of the Week

The article collaborations for May 11 through May 24 are Chris Benoit double murder and suicide and John Layfield. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, May 25.

Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved!
Editor of the Week
  • Our second editor of the week is GaryColemanFan, who won with 4 votes.
  • The runner-up, D.M.N., came in second with 3 votes.
  • GaryColemanFan's award page and interview can be found here. Congratulations!
  • The interview portion of the award page was just recently added. To see Nikki311's interview, go to her award page here
From the Editors

Contributors to this Issue:


DiscussionSuggestionsFeedback

Delivered: 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Age of Consent tag removal

Concerning your removal of the WP:LGBT tag on Age of Consent, I actually asked about this very same topic just a few days ago, here. Basically, everyone who responded feels that Age of Consent falls within the scope of WP:LGBT. This is just to let you know of the discussion there. -kotra (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look at the discussion. I don't believe that Age of Consent falls within that scope. CadenS (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per consensus I've reverted your edit. Age of consent correctly falls under the LGBT project as it sets a different standard between heterosexuality and homosexuality in various countries. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Age of consent does NOT fall under your project. It has NOTHING to do with it. Therefore, I have reverted your useless edit. CadenS (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Describing another Wikipedian's edit as 'useless' is incivil. Caps lock is equally unproductive. Given the recent complaints regarding your behavior, I urge you to word future comments more respectfully. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will do my best. CadenS (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA on you

This is to inform you that you are the subject of this WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for letting me know. However, I'm already aware of the "I HATE CADEN Fan Club/Campaign", formed by User:Realist2. This is yet another personal attack against me. As a survivor, I'm used to these hateful heterophobic attacks. CadenS (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but there is a problem with your conduct. Now don't get me wrong - you're entitled to your point of view, and you may be making positive contributions to Wikipedia, however, we have a no personal attacks and civility policy, and editors are expected to comply with it. Editors who fail to comply with policy are blocked from editing for periods of time.
Saying "you must be blind" or a "you're a heterophobe" is a personal attack that can be considered offensive, and is an incivil/impolite way of communicating (which is why the WQA is opened against you). If you continue commenting on contributors rather than strictly confining your comments to contributions, then it is likely an administrator will step in and block you. If you can agree not to engage in conduct like this again in the future, then the WQA may be closed and it ends there. Please have a think about it, and if possible, make your response there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand that we have policy on no personal attacks as well as civility. I also understand that editors are expected to comply with it. That's why I'm a little lost on that right now because I feel that I'm being personally attacked by an editor (Realist2), whom I've never spoken with. He is accusing me of plotting things that I am not doing. Why is he given a pass to personally attack me through wild false accusations? I feel I'm not being treated fairly. I know I'm not perfect and I've made some mistakes with a few comments, such as "you must be blind". That was impolite of me and I'm sorry for that. But why am I the only one being singled out here? I've read the negative comments/accusations by Realist2 about me on the WQA page. I'm just really shocked by it. I feel I'm being personally attacked. This is wrong, I'm sure you can see that. I would like this all to end as I find it rather draining. And like I said before, I'm not perfect and yes I've made some mistakes that I'm truly sorry for. Please at least give me a chance. CadenS (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A point

Caden, I want you to understand something very important.

"Non-Christian" is not the same thing as "anti-Christian".

Wikipedia is not Christian. Wikipedia does not support any particular religion. Wikipedia does not endorse your personal political beliefs.

"Equality for blacks" does not mean "anti-white", "equality for women" does not mean "anti-men", and "equality for gays" does not mean "heterophobic".

You have been taught wrongly, Caden. I hate to say it this bluntly, but you have been taught wrongly.

Let's not even talk about the tragic mess in which one high school kid shot and killed another high school kid for reasons which are apparently linked to homosexuality. You weren't directly involved in that, were you? (Were you?) Let's talk, instead, about your general attitude.

Caden, you're being a jerk. You're being rude, you're being offensive to a great many people, and you're consistently arguing that you're being victimized. I'm willing to grant that you sincerely feel that way, but your feelings are misplaced.

Your religion is not the only religion in the world, and your religion is not "right". No one's religion is "right", because we're all humans and humans are flawed creatures. Stop trying to argue based on religion. DS (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]