User talk:Caden

Carrie Prejean

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Carrie Prejean. Thank you. Rico 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Okay.

AfD nomination of Traditional marriage movement

An article that you have been involved in editing, Traditional marriage movement , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Schrandit (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Signature

First off, I'm not picking on you, but Exploding boy was right. A recent request for comment on an unrelated user showed consensus that a signature must link back to either your user page, your talk page, or your user contributions. I know things have been rough for you around here, so please understand that this is only me attempting to explain what the community has decided our norms should be. AniMate^draw 02:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dude, but WP:SIG is not policy. From my understanding it's a basic guideline. Correct me if I'm wrong but until there is consensus to make it policy, I see no issue here. On a side-note could you please give EB a warning to stop wiki stalking me? He's been harassing me for over a year. He stalks my edits as you very well know. He's followed me from E.O. Green School shooting to Jesse Dirkhising to Carrie Prejean to the Traditional marriage movement. He even stalks my talk page and leaves unwanted posts when he knows he's not welcome here. Digging through his history shows that I'm not the only editor he stalks, bullies and attempts to drive away. When he's faced with editors who don't approve of his POV pushing, he deliberately attempts to drive them off the project. He has bullied/harassed/stalked users like User:Rico and User:InaMaka to no end and is in my opinion a disruptive goof. As an admin you should be focusing on that jerk and not me. Ned ^ac 13:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature use that is intentionally and persistently disruptive may lead to blocking under the disruptive editing policy. –xeno^talk 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my signature man. Ned ^ac 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your sig looks fine but I think HersfoldAniMate was talking about somewhere where you just signed as "NED" (no links or timestamp). Honest mistake? Then forgive the intrusion. –xeno^talk 13:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry dude but I can't seem to find where Hersfold said that. Could you give me the link please? Ned ^ac 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

oops, got confused there. Anyhow this is the example and I'm not sure what this was about either. Anyhow. Your sig as you are signing is nice. –xeno^talk 13:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that man. I was fooling around with my signature and meant no harm. Glad you like my sig though. Ned ^ac 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick followup, but your current signature is great. Thanks for changing it. AniMate^draw 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I've wasted my time assuming good faith with you AniMate. I was foolish enough to believe that you came here in goodwill. I was wrong. I asked you for help and you kick me in the face by ignoring my post. Is this what all admins do or is it just you? Thanks a lot man, you're obviously a buddy of EB's. Case closed. Ned ^ac 10:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Caden, you might want to take a step back here, you're falling into old patterns :( → ROUX ₪ 10:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm asking a question. I deserve an honest reply and that is not to much to ask for. Ned ^ac 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right Caden, it's not too much to ask. And welcome back from summer recess. But remember the old saying that applies to all of us: "It's not so much what you say, but how you say it." — Becksguy (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Becks. I was away in Connecticut. Yeah dude, I know that's some good advice you give but I'm not so good at expressing myself in words. I try my best but I guess it doesn't come out right. Caden ^cool 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also remember to assume good faith. I had a lot going on yesterday, and it slipped my mind. I've left Exploding Boy a note asking him to come to me with any problems he might have with you and to keep his comments focused on articles. AniMate^draw 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the same applies to you. Don't make any comments about him and try to keep focused on articles instead. If either of you has a problem with the other, you can take it to an administrator's board. AniMate^draw 21:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading your complaint above, you definitely need to refactor it. You've called EB a "disruptive goof" and a "jerk". That's not okay. No more personal attacks. AniMate^draw 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks man and I apologize for this miscommunication. I didn't know it slipped your mind. Advice is taken but I ask that EB make no further comments about me as well. I disagree that I've made personal attacks but I will not argue with you since you're entitled to your own opinion. Could you refactor it for me? Caden ^cool 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Caden, to say you react poorly to editors who have different opinions than you is an understatement. You needed to stop the drama five minutes ago. I've tried to treat you sympathetically, but there is only so much hand holding that can be done. Nothing written by Exploding Boy comes close to what you wrote here. You. Must. Chill. Focus on articles and stop focusing on these petty conflicts. Now. AniMate^draw 07:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude please listen. I stopped ages ago. You don't understand man how upset I am at this moment. Keltie's causing serious damage to my good name on ANI. He's misleading editors by alleging that I'm associated with the KKK. It's not true. This is the second time I'm attacked with this KKK crap on ANI. Dude I'm at a loss here for words and I don't know what to do or think. I'm pissed off beyond words but I'm trying to remain cool even though it's getting worse as I see he's now canvassed 3 separate admins (including you) personally on their talk pages in order to sway a block. I'm going to be banned over his KKK allegations on ANI and I'm telling you it's not fair because I'm not a racist. I don't hate. It's not me. I have black buddies. Sure I have a temper but it's in no way as bad as some think. But dude the KKK? Hell no! None of what he's doing makes sense. I'm trying to take your advice to "chill" but how can I under these circumstances? Being accused of something I'm not is hard to take. I'm a big boy and I can take a lot of punches man, but what that dude is doing is just too much. Just please understand how this all makes me feel. I know you and I have had our differences but that doesn't mean a thing on Wikipedia. I still respect you and I have always appreciated your feedback. I don't know what else to say. I'm too upset. Keltie's going to end up getting me blocked or banned over this whole racist lie garbage. It's just not fair. So fucking unfair. Caden ^cool 10:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

{{adminhelp}} Could an admin warn User:KeltieMartinFan to stop making personal attacks? Please check his talk page and edit summary. I'm not asking that he be blocked. A warning should do. Also, I've noticed he edits any article to do with NBC which leaves me feeling there could be a COI here? Is it possible he's employed by NBC? Just for the record, I've had problems with Keltie in the past. Again, I'm not asking for a block. Please just read what I've said and look into it. Thanks. Ned ^ac 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of there edit summaries were inappropriate, so I have placed a warning notice on their talk page. For future reference, you could do the same yourself, it does not require an administrator - see WP:WARN.

I cannot really speculate about possible conflict of interest - if this is a concern, I suggest that, in the first place, you (politely) ask them about it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I did try to contact Keltie with a warning to cease with his personal attacks but he reverted me. That's why I used the template here. I'm very concerned that Keltie may be employed by NBC which is a COI if he's employed there. However, I can't do anything because he will revert me if I ask. Ned ^ac 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:KeltieMartinFan, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call

Good call on turning the computer off and going for a run rather than speaking from anger. I take that back: excellent call. I'm actually going to do the same pretty soon, though I'm going for a ride on bike (the weather here is amazing today). When you get back to editing, try not to come from the prospective of "Caden vs. the gays" or "Caden vs. the liberals." It's not productive and can and will lead to more conflict. Instead, if you feel your voice isn't being heard try asking for a neutral opinion. WP:3O is a great place to start. If you're not satisfied, try going to the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. If you're still not satisfied, you can always file an article WP:RfC. These are all great alternatives to airing past grievances you've had with editors in the past and are more productive than simply saying a conservative or heterosexual has no voice at Wikipedia. Finally, if none of that works, you can always take your complaints to the admin noticeboards. I would link to them, but I'm fairly certain you know where they are. ;) AniMate^draw 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man, I'm glad you agreed. I take it you jog too? Good to hear you bike, I do a lot of that and love it. In regards to your advice dude, I appreciate it. But isn't WP:3O for situations where there's a dispute between two editors? For some strange reason the link you gave isn't working for me. All the other suggestions are good except for the admin noticeboard :) Caden ^cool 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

{{adminhelp}}Can an admin please delete my sandbox for me? Thanks. Caden ^cool 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin help isn't needed, Caden. Just use {{db-u1}} on the page. → ROUX ₪ 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you meant User:Caden/sandbox,  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah dude that's what I meant. Thanks. Caden ^cool 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Hey dude. (BTW, do you prefer Ned or Caden?)

To continue our discussion on BLP. Check out the arguments I used in Talk:E.O. Green School shooting about the article having been moved to "Murder of Lawrence King". Essentially I was saying that we can't use "murder" in the title since that implies an intent to kill by McInerney that's speculation, and therefore is a BLP violation. If and when McInerney is found guilty of murder, then it can be discussed. The article was moved back to the E.O. Green title. Anyway, let me know what you think. — Becks ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Becks. I prefer to be called Caden (I did mess around before with my name which spells out as Nedac backwards =]). In regards to your E.O. arguments, man I completely agree with you. "Murder" in that case would be a BLP violation. You were wise to have picked up on that. It's up to the courts to decide based on the evidence from both sides if or not there was intent. Until then man, the E.O. title is best. I must say you're one of the best editors I have ever seen. Dude I wish I was as good as you. I sometimes have difficulty with certain articles that hit a little too close to home. Anyway, sorry I haven't been on much lately but school, soccer and a few other things left me with little time. BTW my classic Mustang is now a awesome shade of blue. Man it took me weeks to find the right color but it's been worth it. Before I forget, checkout the link on my user page if you want a good laugh. It's no secret that I can't dance but I have a feeling the folks in the video are worse at it than me. Caden ^cool 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a 71 Chevy Malibu 350 in a kinda metallic Green with a black fabric roof, and a Turbo 350 tranny, bucket seats, and console shift bar rather than a stick. Loved that car. Unfortunately never took pictures that I can remember. Why don't you post your car pictures somewhere, like FLickr. I'm not saying if I can dance better or worse that those in the video, but it was laugh. And thanks for those kind words about my writing. Becks ^{Talk to me} 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The End of War

Hello Caden. I hope I haven't given you wrong information on the source of the quotation, but after reading this [1] I am less sure that Plato said it. Cheers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was debate over the quote, but thanks for giving me the link. Caden ^cool 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course

And I will take your advice. Seriously. Respectfully -- what would you do if someone posted a pack of noxious lies about you on a public noticeboard? I'm sorry I lost my cool, but I'm only human. Sometimes you need to stand up and say "bullshit." Anyway, thanks, I'm going to chill out now, and I'm quite serious. All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude I understand why you lost your cool and I respect you for having the balls to call it "bullshit" because that's exactly what it was. No need to apologize man. I just thought you could've handled it better. Basically when I told you to "chill", I was just trying to say to be careful when dealing with a difficult editor like him. You're a good admin and that is rare to see. Don't let him spoil that. Caden ^cool 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyson Ritter

Please use reliable sources. That article is already littered with enough unsourced trivia. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think a official band site is official and reliable. Perhaps you should read it? It's made quite clear that Ritter has an injury. What part of this is too complicated for you to grasp? Caden ^cool 06:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL

WP:CITE

Learn to use references properly before you put on your macho suit. You made speculative claims with original research in there, not for Wikipedia - create yourself a blog. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I made no such claims. I told you the official band site for the All-American Rejects specifically states that Ritter is injured. Caden ^cool 08:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets assume good faith here, please. Not every single fact or sentence in an article needs reliable sources. From WP:VERIFY "...material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That Ritter was injured does not seem highly likely to be challenged, at least to me, and it isn't controversial. However, once challenged, RS are required. The references there now seem sufficient to establish an injury by Ritter, so I assume this issue can be put to bed. However, it would have been better to work this out on the talk page collaboratively. — Becksguy (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you claim that someone may have had a tumor in their knee, I would like to see a source. Simple as that. Ended up he had just copy and pasted it from Contactmusic anyway. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope I didn't claim, write, copy or paste anything. User:tyb222 might have done that edit but not me. What I told you was that Ritter was injured and that the official site verifies this fact. Anyway, Becks is right in that we should of discussed this on the talk page together. Regardless it's over dude. Caden ^cool 13:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Smile

Hey thanks Caden. Nice to hear off you. I've kind of retired actually, haven't edited properly in a while. Kind of lost my fire with the passing of Michael Jackson. Hope everything is going well though. Kind regards. — Please comment R² 11:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sad to see you've retired. And I'm very sorry you lost your idol too. I know how much you admired him. I hope you can return soon man. The good article work you've done on Michael Jackson (and all the other music related articles you built) is too good to see you leave. Just take a break and then when you feel ready just jump back in. Good luck Realist :) Caden ^cool 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SheffieldSteel/Admin

User:SheffieldSteel/Admin, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SheffieldSteel/Admin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SheffieldSteel/Admin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Undid

Hi!

Do you care to motivate these two [2] [3] edits? Gabbe (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Grrr...

Caden, don't ever agree with me. Aren't things much easier when we're at each others throats? </sarcasm> Seriously, thanks for the back up. And for the record, does this look anywhere in the neighborhood of 30? I'm kind of stunned that anyone would do this and think it was okay. AniMate 09:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL I love you too man! But seriously that dude is so way out of line it's sad. And you're correct in that it's at least over 50 automated messages he left for Daniel. Caden ^cool 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I knew I was smarter than you. Look closer. It's over 100. AniMate 10:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. It's over 100 which only proves my point that it did borderline harassment. I've never seen anything like this before from an admin. I'm surprised he wasn't reported to ANI. Caden ^cool 10:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't doing three other very necessary things right now offline, I probably would have filed it myself. If a report was made, I would throw my support behind it, but I'm in the middle of several things and really tired. Even though it will be stale, I'll likely bring it up tomorrow. I'm honestly just kind of stunned and irritated. Were I more focused online I would have stepped in well before this, but now I just don't have the wherewithal to make a good report. Granted many, many of Daniel's images should be deleted. Yet he seems like a good enough kid, and some reasonable non-automated explanation should have been given to him. That said, I don't agree with all of the nominations and will hopefully have some time to do something tomorrow. This is why I hate automated edits and why it irritates me that some admins feel they're above actually dealing with "problematic" users on a personal level. AniMate 10:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If a report was made I know I would support that. I don't think it's stale though as I've just seen that Xeno and other editors have noticed the situation and made comments on it. Many of Daniel's images are very good and worth keeping. He's a good editor. The majority of the nominations (by User talk:Fastily) were clearly made by a poisonous admin out for blood, and therefore most of his nominations are shit for the birds. It's a real shame that Fastily is allowed to get away with this type of behavior. As both I and Xeno mentioned on his talk page, it's time for the dude to step down as admin. Caden ^cool 23:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man

Thanks! I really was about to quit until I saw everyone coming in on my side all of a sudden. Maybe you're not in on that yet and you don't know what I'm talking about. But thanks! Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome dude and hey welcome back! I'm glad you decided to stay. Your image contributions are good and very much appreciated here on wikipedia. But yeah I'm too aware of what happened to you. It's totally uncool the way Fastily harassed you to no end. But it looks like things will be okay now. If you ever have problems again with that guy just let me know.

Caden ^cool 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would probably find this discussion fascinating if I were actually watching Caden'S page. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha you're NOT funny:) Caden ^cool 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh, I get that from the wife, too: "You think you're funny, but you're not!" Whatevuh. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over images by Daniel Christensen

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Look here goof, YOU are the one edit warring over every single image of Daniel's without a valid reason. Take your warning and shove it! Caden ^cool 11:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked: Disruptive editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing: large-scale reversions and a failure to communicate or discuss your actions. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Could an admin please put a stop to the this baiting of User:Baseball Bugs and User:Dave1185? This behavior [4], [5], [6] is just not cool and is harassment. I'm currently blocked and can't do anything about it. I have no clue why Dave went and left a warning 5 hours after I'm blocked on my talk page either. He told Bugs "I sense another block for him at the end of the current block, if my guesstimation is correct...)" on Bugs' talk page so it's possible both are trying to get me re-blocked after this block by trying to piss me off. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Caden ^cool 03:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Because Peter Symonds is just as big an idiot as Bugs and Dave. Unblock me now or I will go to Arbcom and have your Adminship removed. Caden ^cool 03:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Because Peter Symonds is just as big an idiot as Bugs and Dave. Unblock me now or I will go to Arbcom and have your Adminship removed. [[User:Caden|<b><font color="black">'''Caden'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:Caden|<font color="red"><sup><small>'''cool'''</small></sup></font>]] 03:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Because Peter Symonds is just as big an idiot as Bugs and Dave. Unblock me now or I will go to Arbcom and have your Adminship removed. [[User:Caden|<b><font color="black">'''Caden'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:Caden|<font color="red"><sup><small>'''cool'''</small></sup></font>]] 03:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Because Peter Symonds is just as big an idiot as Bugs and Dave. Unblock me now or I will go to Arbcom and have your Adminship removed. [[User:Caden|<b><font color="black">'''Caden'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:Caden|<font color="red"><sup><small>'''cool'''</small></sup></font>]] 03:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm not asking to be unblocked even though I disagree with 31 hours. I'm asking if you could please warn or talk to Bugs and Dave to cut it out. I'm blocked so why are they both allowed to harass me? Caden ^cool 03:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to get you blocked. I can't speak for Dave. But I think he's suggesting that if you don't straighten up and fly right, you risk getting indef'd again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't indef'd for edit warring before so what are you talking about? And if you're not so intent on causing trouble for me then explain to me why you're trashing me on your talk page and posting trash about me on the noticeboard? Yeah sure you're not trying to get me re-blocked! Caden ^cool 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall what you were indef'd for specifically. And I'm really not that interested in your blocked-or-unblocked status. That situation is entirely within your control. One thing: If you keep posting frivolous unblock requests, you're liable to fulfill Dave's prediction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your latest unblock request might as well just say "please extend my block". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• And if you must know, you've grossly insulted User:Binksternet and the proof is in your edit summary, knock it off! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)