User talk:Caden/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

  • I'm confused here. First you welcome me and then you threaten to have me blocked. CadenS (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
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)
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)
Yes, for instance, if you put {{Signpost-subscription}} on your talkpage the latest issue will be displayed. Benjiboi 03:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)

  • 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

Please Read

My deepest apologies 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)

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)

Happy St. Patrick's Day


iMatthew


Wishes You A



HAPPY


ST. PATRICK'S


DAY

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
Why should I even bother? You'll silence my comments like before. CadenS (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Which "below comments" are you referring to? CadenS (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

"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)

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)
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)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

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

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

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)

East Germany

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

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

Re:

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

Adoption

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

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

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)

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)

"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)

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

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you. I will do my best. CadenS (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WQA on you

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

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)
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)
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)
You have your chance (and keep your editing privilleges), as long as you don't make those sort of comments that can be viewed as incivil/impolite again. You're singled out because a WQA was singly made against you, with evidence of incivil/impolite communications. If you have concerns about another editor's incivil/impolite communications, you may open a WQA on them, but again, you'd need to provide recent evidence of them doing so a few times. And remember, what may be incivil/impolite to one person, may not be the same for another person. I picked up on this particularly because as a third party, I'm certain that a lot of people would consider it incivil/impolite. I don't know about Realist's history to comment at this stage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am not perfect. I am human. I have made some mistakes which I regret and am truly sorry for. My concerns about another editor's incivil/impolite communications or comments towards me seems to have been accepted by several editors as "appropriate" behavior, which makes no sense to me. This has been draining and stressful for me. It now appears pointless for me to even try to explain how I feel or what this has done to me based on that fact. CadenS (talk) 13:37, 27 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. DS (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue what you are saying here. Honestly, I'm lost. I never mentioned a single thing about my religion or anything about religion for that matter. Infact, I never once mentioned even if I had a religion. Where are you getting this from? It was not from me. I've said no such things. I hate to say it this bluntly, but "you are out of line" here. Calling me a "jerk" is offensive. Saying that I "have been taught wrongly" is offensive. Calling me "rude" is offensive. My feelings are not being misplaced. I am being victimized. I'm being wiki-stalked from one page to another by Realist2. Check it out and you will see. CadenS (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Caden, if you were remotely civil this wouldnt have had to happen. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What you have been doing to me is far from being civil. CadenS (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you give this matter serious contemplation. Once again, feel free to delete my comments. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. However, I honestly have no idea where this religion thing is coming from. I never mentioned a single thing about my religion or anything about religion. Infact, I have never mentioned even if I had a religion. CadenS (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in your defense, I have not seen you mention religion in you edit summaries. I merely brought it up as most people (in general) are unaware of religious support for LGBT people. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. CadenS (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your religion is plastered on your user page for a start. I would like to move on from this though, hopefully we can make peace. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. I have not mentioned any religion on my user page. All I said was that "I believe in God". CadenS (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive and forget? :D. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

CadenS does your statement of belief refer to God the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity? Please explain why this is not a religious statement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I do not see the need to justify this. I don't see the point. I'm truly starting to feel like I'm on some kind of trial here. CadenS (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This is irrelevant. Besides, Cuddlyable3, you answered your own question with "...and other belief systems that worship one deity". Belief in God need not come from any particular religion. -kotra (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My question sought to clarify what CadenS means by his statement "I believe in God". That is relevant to the confusion between DS, Realist2 and Cadens about whether any religion was implied. "Please explain.." is in no way an accusation and I apologise for giving CadenS an impression that accusation or trial is my point. It is not. To Kotra, the definition of God that I quoted is simply lifted from Wikipedia's lead sentence at God. I have not "answered my own question" as you infer, I have merely offered a definition that CadenS is free to agree with, disagree with or remain non-commital about. The fact is that organised monotheistic religions have many adherents, but thank you for pointing out that a belief in God might "come" to a person in some other way. That may or may not be the case with CadenS to whom my question is addressed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I do accept your apology. However, I believe this religion bit is irrelevant. Once again, I do not see the need to justify this. CadenS (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, what does it matter if religion was implied? That is what I meant by "this is irrelevant". I wasn't just directing my comment to you, but to the one who originally brought up the subject. I can understand CadenS's feeling of being interrogated and lectured here. His religion (or lack thereof) is not relevant to his contributions on Wikipedia, and so it surprises me that so many people seem to be curious about it. It's not productive.
As for the definition of God you gave, I realize it was taken from the article. What I was trying to convey (in my own admittedly snarky way, sorry) is that the definition you gave explicitly says that belief in God doesn't have to come from any religion. You seem to agree with that idea, so, there we go. -kotra (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kotra, I want to thank you for being fair, for being honest, for being civil and for understanding how I feel. It means a lot to me so thank you. CadenS (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Back to work for me. -kotra (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Kotra, in Wikipedia we care very much about sources of information and monotheists care above all about their God as prime source. I don't think you need be surprised that after CadenS inserted his declaration "I believe in God" several people became curious about CadenS' motive for doing this, CadenS' affiliation to a particular belief system if any and how this might influence his cooperation with us. For example, are there subjects we should avoid discussing with CadenS ? Kotra, your comment was directed to me by name (and it follows those by myself and CadenS by your use of indent). The idea on which you seem agreeable is of belief in God arising, but not from a religion. I wonder what that leaves as possibilities: a personal epiphany ? a logical deduction such as the teleological one ? It is of course nice that CadenS feels that you understand how he feels. What I feel is a need for verifiable sources, but I acknowledge that this is CadenS home page and I don't want to press this point uncomfortably. I do think there is a subtext to CadenS' declaration that one could be more open about. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me how CadenS's religion (or yours, or mine) has any relevance to Wikipedia. To answer your question, of course there aren't subjects we should avoid discussing with CadenS, no matter what religion he is. Well, that's not entirely true: we should probably avoid discussing subjects that aren't related to improving Wikipedia.
To clarify, the first part of my comment was directed to both you and the original poster. The second part, where I referred to you by name, was directed to you. I suppose that was not clear, so I apologize.
I don't think this is the proper place to debate theology and spirituality, so I won't give more examples than the two valid ones you gave. I still fail to see why CadenS's religion is crucial information, and whether a hidden meaning behind CadenS's "I believe in God" was real or imagined. Just as my Agnosticism has no practical relevance to my edits on Wikipedia, so too does CadenS's religion. Besides, it's often considered slightly impolite to ask someone's religion, particularly if it's the first thing you say to them. Imagine if the very first thing I said to you was, "What's your sexual orientation?" If it were me, I would probably feel confused, if not annoyed by the questioner's rudeness.
I apologize to CadenS for cluttering up his talk page. This discussion seems unproductive to me, but if it must continue, I recommend switching venues to my talk page, since this is basically between us. -kotra (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Clutter indeed. I apologise (again) to CadenS for this exchange because I would expect anyone to feel uncomfortable with strangers discussing an essential (to me) belief. Kotra thank you for clarifying your comment. Also thank you for the example you gave of an enquiry that you imagine would be rude. Understanding CadenS' viewpoint better, which is what I seek, is crucial to knowing what subjects CadenS finds rude or unproductive. I see no good reason to provoke CadenS in that way, especialy given the events that led to the WQA and CadenS' reticence about explaining further the standing declaration here "I believe in God". Thank you kotra for inviting me to discuss your agnosticism but no thanks. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please dont leave and please dont take the "I believe in God" sign off your user page, you have every right to believe in God. I dont know how strong your religious views are and honestly thats none of my business. All I ask is that you dont use terminology like "Homosexual Agenda" or "Heterophobic" which is wording used by the conservative, religious far-right. You might have not even known thats what it ment, in hindsight. Unfortunuately i come across a lot of real bigots who us that wording often, maybe I just assumed you were another one of them. I saw the terminology, the god sign and might have put "2 and 2" together incorrectly. Ive offered to make peace once already and I hope you will take that offer up at some point. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Kotra I apologise for not fulfilling earlier your request to tell how CadenS's religion has any relevance to Wikipedia. I simply don't know. Yours is a leading question because, as Bookkeeperoftheoccult has already noted, CadenS has not mentioned religion. Realist2 was incorrect in saying CadenS's "religion is plastered on [his] user page".
Realist2, CadenS has chosen to withdraw his "I believe in God" sign from his user page while retaining various expressions of pride in his heterosexuality and what he calls being a victim of PC. It is of course the right of CadenS to present whatever he feels is relevant for Wikipedians to be told. We don't know whether CadenS's retraction represents a loss of faith, a change in POV or is just an act of convenience and CadenS may choose to let these questions remain unanswered. However your request to CadenS to avoid particular terminology may be seen by him to be an urge for PC about which he has expressed misgivings. At present there is consensus that Homosexual Agenda is notable by Wikipedia standards. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, my "God" retraction has nothing to do with loss of faith nor is it a change in my POV. It's not an act of convenience either. I could care less what others think. As for that offensive request made by that one editor asking me to avoid "particular" terminolgy...that was nothing more than another attempt to silence me through political correctness. It's the left wing liberal mentality. It's nothing more than bigotry. Believe me I'm quite familiar with this. When I said that I'm a "victim of PC" and that I'm a "survivor", I truly mean that in more ways then one. CadenS (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

CadenS, disparagement of another editor's motive and mentality is against Wikipedia WP:AGF policy. Since a WPA was raised about your behaviour a number of editors have made sincere efforts to get you to cease such incivility. It is regrettable that in the above post you continue your attacks, in this case against Realist, using inflammatory phrases such as "another attempt to silence me", "left wing liberal mentality" and "nothing more than bigotry". I am not an administrator. I will not support your kind of intemperate discussion. I now recommend that administrators take action such as blocking your account. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend that admins block you. You've been on my case for a month now just itching to have me blocked. I'm fed up with you and your never ending nonsense. I would appreciate it if you would get off my back and leave me alone. CadenS (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey, hey, I thought the point of this Wikibreak was to let sleeping dogs lie? I really wish Cuddlyable had not responded to Realist2's and and Kotra's questions from a month ago, as that seems to have aggravated Caden. And Caden, please try not to adopt an "us vs. them" mentality here. Is it just possible that people might disagree very strongly with your opinions without having to be part of some left wing conspiracy?
I know you got called a "bigot" first, but let's stop using that word right away now, shall we? As I mentioned to you the last time we corresponded, an opinion that is perfectly valid in one culture (even a subculture within the same nation or geographical region) might be terribly offensive in another subculture or time. We all have to try to be a little more tolerant here, I think. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Look Jay, I am doing my best to remain calm but several editors on here continue to piss me off by not leaving me alone. Instead of them focusing on building a better encyclopedia, they appear to be far more interested in attacking me. Why do they get a pass for that? When I try to defend myself I get singled out as the bad guy. Seems hardly fair to me. I'm sorry but this is how I feel. CadenS (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. I would like to see this old dispute be put behind us so we can get back to building an encyclopedia. Also, feel free to remove any and all discussion you want from your talk page, Caden. It might be a good idea, so people won't dredge this up again. -kotra (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Kotra, I agree with both you and Jay. I'd like nothing more for this never ending dispute to just disappear. I also appreciated your suggestion to remove any or all discussion from my talk page in order to prevent others from getting on my case again. Could you please archive my talk page for me? I'm not sure how to do that. I'd appreciate any help from you. Thanks. CadenS (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. How much do you want archived? The entire page? -kotra (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi there. Thanks for keeping things civil in asking your questions, I really do appreciate it.

There was a period between the rm and the FWIW in my edit summary, but it's hard to see so I can see why it would be confusing. The first part of my edit summary was "message received, so rm" (as in, rm = remove = "I removed it"). As per WP:DRC, users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page if they wish, as it is considered an indication that they have received and read the message. I did get your message, and okay, I'll allow that what I said on Realist2's talk page was probably pushing the borderlines of what is appropriate.

The "FWIW" is just internet-speak for "For what it's worth". And yeah... While what I said was probably borderline inappropriate, for what it's worth all I really did was point out two things that you display prominently on your User page: That you are into pro wrestling, and that you have strong feelings regarding sexual preference. But you're right, in context it still wasn't a completely appropriate comment and I apologize if it upset you.

To help you understand why Realist2 is so up in arms.. well, even though opinions are just opinions, depending on when and where you are in the world, some opinions can be considered highly offensive. For instance, in 1850s America, it would be a perfectly acceptable opinion to say, "Well, there are some ethical problems with keeping black slaves, but the South's economy would collapse if we stopped so it's a necessary evil." Nowadays, though, that's a pretty offensive opinion.

Where I come from, and where Realist2 comes from, some of your opinions would fall into a similar category. It is hard sometimes to remember that people from Wikipedia come from all over the world and from all different social backgrounds, and that what might seem terribly offensive to one of us might be a perfectly legitimate belief to another. I am sure you would feel the same way about some of my opinions!! ;D ha ha ha...

I apologize for the little dig towards you I posted on Realist2's talk page, but I would also like to point out that to a limited extent I also defended you. I reminded Realist2 that, while he and I find some of your opinions to be quite shocking, they are still your opinions and as long as you interact with other editors in a civil manner and do are not disruptive to the project, we need to try and be respectful of your beliefs.

At the same time, I would also caution you to be mindful of when your opinions might take a form such that they inherently invalidate other people's opinions. Your frequent references to "the homosexual agenda" are problematic because they de-legitimize the opinions of other editors, i.e. you are suggesting that their comments are driven by a desire to promote a certain pov rather than a genuine desire to improve the article. You are entitled to your opinions about the existence or non-existence of a "homosexual agenda," but accusing other editors of operating under this hypothetical agenda is a failure to assume good faith.

That said, I think there is a recognition that you have mostly behaved in a civil manner, and that's why no action was taken based on the Wikiquette alert other than to caution you to be careful. Hopefully we can all work out our differences and work together to build a great free encyclopedia! Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Jay. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. I found it helpful. Your apology is accepted and also appreciated. I agree with you that opinions are just opinions. But I think that's what helps make us all so unique. This would be a pretty boring world if we all were clones of one another. The freedom to agree or disagree is a good thing. The freedom of speech is also another good thing. I want to thank you for reminding Realist2 that my opinions/beliefs, whether shocking or not, are still my opinions/beliefs and should be respected as long as I continue to interact with fellow editors in a civil manner and am not disruptive to the project. We all need to at least try and be respectful of each other's beliefs and opinions. Some of the points you brought up got me to do some thinking. I can now see and understand how my past references to "the homosexual agenda" were problematic and was lacking WP:AGF. Thanks for pointing this out to me and for the clear explanation concerning this. I plan to be more careful. Even though I found the WQA on me to be stressful and personally offensive, I'm glad it's over with. And like you said, hopefully we can all work out our differences and work together to build a great free encyclopedia. Your help was most appreciated. I thank you for that. CadenS (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I'm glad to see that progress is being made. I apologize for the harshness of my earlier comments. DS (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for consulting me

You are looking at the battle and not the war. Find another page. Each page is a battle to win a war that you have not considered: Truth. The truth. The war is about truth. Contribute your knowledge and promote truth. This process will change you and you will become better at understanding truth and yourself. In the process you will begin to understand the people who oppose you. And as always: Never be boring.

Pete

--Petebertine (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

War does not determine who is right — only who is left.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 20:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caden/Archive_1&oldid=1045573508"