User talk:Caden/Archive 4

Edit summary

Hi Caden. Edit summaries like this do not assume good faith. Assuming good faith is important. I see you and Benji are still disputing the term "homosexual" among other things. It's perfectly fine to disagree with him. However, it is not ok to accuse him of pushing his own POV unless there is strong evidence. In this case, his view is supported by the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(identity)#Sex_and_sexual_identities. Accusing other editors of pushing POV like this (without proof) does not help. It only breaks down the discussion and gets people angry at each other... which obviously does not help the project. If you disagree with someone, you must explain your view reasonably, patiently, and most of all, respectfully, if you hope to convince them and get anything done. That's really the only way it works on Wikipedia. So please heed my advice this time: assume good faith. -kotra (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Kotra please let's be fair here. I understand assuming good faith is important. But it's difficult when Benji's edit summary lacked good faith and was a personal attack. He said: "rv, please stop; homosexual is pejoratively used here, this has been explained; also we can't alter what sources state". The word "homosexual" was not being used pejoratively by me in the Jesse Dirkhising article, so there was no need for Benji to accuse me of this nor was there any reason for him to personally attack me. Furthermore, he has misrepresented some of the sources used in the article by altering the sources to fit his POV. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm being incivil, because I'm not. I'm being honest and I'm trying to help by doing what's best for the project. I'm trying very hard to assume good faith with Benji. But when he leaves such heterophobic comments like this one: "We'll see if the edit warring stops, I rather tire of - what I see as - homophobia in all its wondrous forms" (which he posted on his talk page on October 10 in reply to Moni), it becomes quite difficult to assume good faith with an editor who I feel is a heterophobe. Caden S (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points. Benji should not be assuming you are using "homosexual" pejoratively. That is not assuming good faith (though technically, it's not really a personal attack). However, that doesn't give you the right to not assume good faith either. I know you feel that that you are just calling it as it is, and you're only trying to help the project. But "calling them out" is not always helpful. For one thing, you could be wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and it's hard to gauge others' intentions. This applies to Benji as well as you. You both need to stop accusing each other of pushing POVs, and start discussing changes rationally and civilly. I've started a topic on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising where you both can weigh in. Feel free to explain why you prefer "homosexual", and the other content changes. Listen to why others prefer "gay", and prefer the original wording. Try to find third-party sources that support your view, but also be open to those that don't. Finally, if you can't come to an agreement by being patient and civil, you can get a third opinion, someone who is not biased. This is how disputes should be resolved, not by trading accusations about each other in edit summaries or on unrelated talk pages. Sure, it's easier to accuse each other. But it leads nowhere except more accusations and personal attacks, and eventually someone (or both) gets blocked.

You can disagree with everything I've just said. But keep in mind, that given your history, you're probably just one bad mistake away from getting blocked. Adopter or not, I can't stop the community from making that decision. So I'd advise you to be extra careful in your interactions with other editors. Even those you may not like. -kotra (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Benji should not be assuming nor accusing me of using "homosexual" pejoratively. He has not assumed good faith at all yet he clearly gets away with this and I feel that's wrong. Although you disagree that this is a personal attack, I feel it is. He has made this same type of summary four separate times. I feel they are personal attacks aimed directly at me. I hope I'm wrong. Furthermore, why is Benji given a pass to post heterophobic replies about me to an admin on his talk page? Please explain this to me because I just don't understand what I see as blatant heterophobia on his part and why it's allowed or even tolerated on Wikipedia. Yes, I agree with you that it's time for both Benji and I to start discussing changes rationally and civilly. I'm willing to do this. I want to make this work and I sincerely want Benji and I to be able to work together and not against one another. I will check the new topic you started at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising and I will weigh in my thoughts. I'm also prepared to listen to others whether or not they agree or disagree with me. Thanks Kotra for all your help. I appreciate it. Caden S (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Caden, sorry about the slow response. To answer your question, Benji is not given a pass to post heterophobic comments. However, strictly speaking, he wasn't actually being heterophobic on his talk page. His comment about being tired of "what I see as homophobia in all its wondrous forms" probably was accusing either you or Ave Caesar of making edits that looked to him like homophobia, and that may even border on a personal attack (a mild one). But technically it's probably not heterophobic because he didn't imply that straight people were bad in any way. But I'm sort of being nitpicky with words here. That comment of Benji's was a bit inconsiderate, and if it actually bothers you, I suppose you could legitimately bring it up with him. But unless you feel like you really need to, I don't think it's worth it.

Anyway, thanks for your polite response on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising, I'm sure others will weigh in eventually. It looks like Benji has taken a break from Wikipedia for now. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and make the content changes that you didn't say you had a problem with, but I'll leave the homosexual/gay thing alone until there's more input from others. -kotra (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize Kotra. Okay, let's agree to disagree over whether or not Benji was being a heterophobe. I feel his edit summaries (on the Jesse Dirkhising article) and his post (on his talk page) are heterophobic. It makes no difference who he was referring to. The message is still the same. It's unacceptable behavior from an editor in my opinion. Although you may believe his comment was a bit inconsiderate, I feel his comment was extremely inconsiderate. Regardless of all this, at this point I don't think it's worth it to bring it up with him. As for the content changes you made to the Dirkhising article, I completely agree with those changes. Thanks for doing that. Hopefully other editors will soon share their input on the talk page concerning the homosexual/gay word dispute. Caden S (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. -kotra (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Trip

Hi Caden, just letting you know I'll be without internet for a couple weeks (going on a backpacking trip to this place, returning on Nov. 7). See you around! -kotra (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Have a safe and fun trip. Caden S (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Caden, I'm back now. How have things been going? Need any help editing, have any questions I can answer? -kotra (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Kotra. How was your trip? In regards to needing some help with editing, I could use a little help. I'm thinking of starting a page on a list of Pets of the Year. I plan to follow the same look or style as the Playmates of the Year page. Caden S (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My trip was good, thanks. I'd be glad to help. Though I think a page might already exist for what you have in mind: List of Penthouse Pets. -kotra (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great to hear you had a good trip. About that page, it's not quite what I have in mind. I want to create a list much like the one that exists for the list of Playboy Playmates of the Year. How do I start a new page? I want to call it "List of Pets of the Year". Caden S (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was just thinking that List of Penthouse Pets already lists the Pets of the Year, so some editors might not think a list of the Pets of the Year would be useful. I see no reason not to have both, though.

To create a page, just type in the title you want in the search box and it will take you to a Search Results page. On that page there should be a red "Create the page" link. Or you can just click this link: List of Penthouse Pets of the Year (I think just "List of Pets of the Year") might get confused with the other kind of "pets": dogs, cats, etc; but it's up to you). Or you might want to work on the article in your userspace first, since articles-in-progress have a tendency to get deleted before you have a chance to build them up. So you could build it at User:CadenS/List of Penthouse Pets of the Year and when you've got it to a good level, you can move it to List of Penthouse Pets of the Year using the "move" tab at the top. This is what I did for a band article I recently created: I created it in User:Kotra/Vargo (band) and when it was ready, I moved it to Vargo (band).

I've never made a list before, so you may want to check out the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria for some ideas. But I think basically all you need to worry about is having a lead section and some citations for the list. If you have those, it should stay, I think. Good luck! -kotra (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the help. I've started the page. By the way you did a good job with your band article. Caden S (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. If you have any references you may want to add them sometime. I've made a couple little tweaks, but it's mostly good already. And thanks about Vargo (band)! It's just a little stub, but hopefully it will have more information eventually. -kotra (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kotra. There's a bit more to do and any help from you is always appreciated. Could you help me with finding references? And yes your band article may be a stub for now but honestly it looks good. The image you added has really made a difference too. Caden S (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked and it really is hard finding references for Pets of the Year. But here's one I found in the references for Penthouse, it mentions most of the Pets of the Year, especially the more recent ones. I also found a template listing them all. The template can't be used as a reference of course, but the guy who made it might know of some resource (you could ask him where he got his info). There's also this video maybe you could use as a reference, but it only goes up to 1994. Anyway, hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That first reference is pretty darn good. Could you please add it? I don't think we need the video one, I already added another reference the other day so I think two will do fine. By the way that template by User:ONEder Boy is well put together. I didn't know we had that template. I'm not sure if it's necessary at this point for me to contact him for more sources though. Anyway, thanks so much for all your help. I appreciate it. Thanks Kotra! Caden S (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

Per this edit please see our policies on external links to see why "Christians and Solo Sex: Stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:1" would be in violation on Playboy the American men's magazine. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the WP:EL info you gave me. However, I'm not sure what you mean by this biblical quote being in violation of the guideline. Furthermore, how exactly does the website fail our policy? Have you read the "Hugh Hefner and Playboy" section on the website? I do not see a problem with that sections content and I don't see any issues with it. Could you please be more specific? On a side-note, I'm puzzled as to why you are suddenly editing heterosexual related articles (articles that I work on) that you've never worked on before. Caden S (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think these might be the relevent sections...and if I were Benjiboi I might take issue with your questioning what articles he/she edits, especially by sexual orientation.

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). . . . 13.Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked

Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The sections you provided above have been helpful to me. In regards to questioning Benji's sudden appearance on the Playboy article, it was in no means meant to be offensive. I'm just puzzled because I have been wiki-stalked before by another editor and I wasn't positive if this was happening again. I'm just being careful. I apologize if you took offense to my post. Caden S (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was actually removing that same link on several articles, I have no desire to stalk you or anyone else. I've made the same sudden appearance on over 3000 articles including ones covering every imaginable aspect of sexuality and I don't expect that to change. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Shanna Moakler

I have no problem with giving you more time. Check with me in a week and let me know your situation. Nikki311 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Nikki. Alright I will be sure to check in with you. Caden S (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

reversion

Your welcome. Dlohcierekim 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

Okay, I'll get to them. I'm kind of feeling out of it right now, but I'll try to get to them today. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it. Caden S (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The refs look formatted. As for the pictures, basically you need to add text to the image that explains why it should be on the encyclopedia. See WP:FUR for more information on fair use rationales. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the fair use rationales guideline before I contacted you and didn't understand it then. I still don't understand it now. It might as well be written in Chinese because I don't get it. Caden S (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Butting in here because I have a bit of experience with images. These are FA standards for images, which should be good enough for any problem (except perhaps a Featured Image nomination).

All images should have a summary template like this:

File information

Description	A thorough description of what the image illustrates.
Source	Where did you download this image from? If you created it in a computer program, did you use a guide or reference a book? State that here.
Date	When was the image created?
Author	Who was the photographer or who created the image?
Permission (Reusing this file)	What kind of permission do you have to upload this?

You're using screenshots, which are considered non-free meaning they're copyrighted. You need to be very clear about why the image is absolutely necessary to the article. An example of such justifications would be the screenshot images in Bart Simpson, or Mulholland Drive (film). Because images are non-free, it means the images are there because the reader's understanding of the material would not be as good (nearly impossible) if the images were removed. So you need to explain explicitly that Image:Screenshot of Shanna Moakler on Pacific Blue.jpg helps the reader to understand what about Moakler? (That she's hot isn't a good enough reason). Was it indicative of a character she played that changed her career? Was it a role she was awarded for (why did she get awarded for it?)? It's very possible that you may have to remove these images and look for new ones. Moakler's publicity company may have images available for press (including Wikipedia). You should contact them to ask. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it all. I really appreciate it and I understand now. It no longer matters to me. I made a mistake by nominating the article for a GA in the first place. Caden S (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Peace!

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I'm sure you want to forget about this little incident as much as I do :-). I should hever have used the word "silly", I'm sorry :-) Serviam (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted dude. Please forgive me for assuming bad faith and for being a jerk. I'm really sorry for that. But wow! This is a kick ass barnstar for peace. I love it! Caden S (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Caden, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

Hey Caden, I see you haven't been around for almost a month, and you didn't mention a wikibreak. Is everything ok? No worries if you're just not interested in Wikipedia anymore, I just want to be sure you aren't lying in a ditch somewhere. -kotra (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Eric Wone

Please look at Robert Eric Wone and see what you think Bachcell (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had a look at the article on the murder of Robert Eric Wone. The article is well written, well researched and sourced. It should stay. It does not surprise me to see that it's up for deletion though. No doubt the political correct police of Wikipedia are behind this nomination for deletion. The truth is, the homosexual community does not want such an article available to the readers because it involves three homosexual suspects who were involved in the violent, brutal rape, and murder of an innocent heterosexual man. This type of censorship happens frequently, not just on Wikipedia but also in the liberal mainstream media. It's censorship and should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I believe Wone's murder is a hate crime committed by the three homosexual suspects. Let the truth be known. The facts speak for themselves and sources will back that up. The article must and should remain. The crime is notable enough for the article to be included on Wikipedia. Caden S (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that article clearly meets Wikipedia's standards, and the delete nomination is sort of silly in my opinion. But let's assume good faith and not accuse the nominator of censorship. It could be that they just misunderstand Wikipedia policy, like a lot of people who nominate stuff for deletion. In any case, I think this article will be kept, at least judging by the current consensus. -kotra (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kotra, but I call it like it is. I will not back down from biased editors who use one policy after another to mask their true motives. Assuming good faith can only go so far until you have to face up to the truth. Caden S (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it matters, I do not think you are mistaken in your summary of the case, but it is unfortunate that those who choose to make such statements with less than perfect ettiquette can so quickly be banned or topic banned. Bachcell (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Caden. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

This comment [1] is extremely uncivil. Please comment on edits, not editors. Dayewalker (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

Just so you'll know, you are now at the three revert limit on Robert Eric Wone. There is a discussion on the talk page about the lead, please seek consensus there before edit warring. No one is denying the suspects are homosexual, but you've been reverted because it may not belong in the lede. Again, please discuss this on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

It is clear that you are generally a good editor and Wikipedia would not want to lose those good edits. However, you are in danger of spoiling your good work when you let your point of view on LGBT issues affect your editing.

• this isn't acceptable, regardless of how much the article should be kept.
• Nor is edit-warring on the article itself.
• this is telling.

I'd seriously suggest that if you can't contain yourself from such potentially offensive edits on LGBT articles, that you keep away from such areas in future; if editing such as the above continues, the inevitable consequence is going to be a compulsory topic ban at the least. Please keep your editing skills where they are doing good rather than harm. Thanks, Black Kite 12:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage Movement

Hi Caden, if you're up to it (I don't blame you if you aren't right now), would you give your opinion here? I've proposed an alternative image that I think we can all agree on, but I'd like your opinion. -kotra (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. Caden S (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you've been editing that article; as per the topic ban you may want to avoid editing the article Traditional marriage movement for now (commenting on the talk page is fine). It's not directly related to LGBT subjects, but it is certainly indirectly related to it (it's in opposition to gay marriage, among other things). It's a sort of gray area that you may want to avoid. I recommend you just comment on the talk page; if you want me to edit it for you I can do that (as long as the edit reflects consensus). Sorry to get on your case about this. -kotra (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I quit. Caden S (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually checked your contribs tonight and blocked you as soon as I saw you'd been editing this article. Having come here and seen this conversation, I've unblocked, but seriously - don't do that again please. Black Kite 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a chance to explain. I didn't know traditional marriage or it's movement was part of my topic ban. I'm sorry but it makes no sense. Traditional marriage or its movement is not about homosexuals. It's the opposite. FWIW I agreed with my adopter to quit editing this article. I must confess, I don't completely understand my ban. I know nothing about homosexual issues or causes. I'm not sure if my topic ban covers music, movie, books, public figures, heterosexuality in general, women, sex, religion, television etc. type articles. I don't know what I can or can not edit. What I do know is this...you've (along with practically every other editor) made me feel most unwelcome. I'm sorry if this offends you as that is not my intention. But honestly, how am I supposed to feel? After reading your post (which you may have assumed bad faith on my part)? I've had just about enough with the personal attacks on ANI, the harsh topic ban, and the personal attacks made by Cuddlyables3 (which clearly the community approves of) on the Adoption talk page. I could've of dealt with the topic ban but the community approved personal attacks by User:Cuddlyables3 is the straw that's broken the camel's back. I cannot and will not accept that. I'm frustrated, I'm pissed off and I'm at the end of my rope. I'm at the point where I just don't care anymore. Block me as you see fit. Topic ban me some more. I give up. If you believe I'm being incvil, which I'm not, then by all means do as you wish. If my honesty, frustration and alienation (I feel alienated) are grounds for a block or further bans, then please do what you must because I give up. I just don't care anymore. Caden S (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly Traditional marriage movement is related to LGBT issues - just read the first sentence "The traditional marriage movement is a political movement whose participants believe that only unions between one man and one woman should be legally defined as marriages" - in other words, it's a political movement opposed to same-sex marriages. Whilst I can understand some articles being "on the borderline" of your topic-ban, this one clearly isn't. Incidentally, I don't see you being incivil, and I don't want to block you - just stay away from such articles and stick to doing some of the good work you were doing on other subjects. OK? Black Kite 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have failed to address my concerns above. I told you I don't understand my topic ban. I asked you other questions as well that you have ignored. Why can't you clarify things? I'm feeling more discouraged now with Wikipedia than I was before. Caden S (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. The topic ban is related to LGBT issues. In other words, there are 3 things that you shouldn't be doing. They are -
  • editing any article that is about an LGBT subject. So, for example, a biography about a gay person, or an article about an LGBT organisation (for example Stonewall).
  • editing any article that has direct links to an LGBT subject. So, for example, Traditional marriage movement, because it's a political movement that exists to oppose same-sex marriages.
  • making any edits about LGBT and/or people's sexuality in any article (a good example of this would be the edits you made to Murder of Robert Eric Wone about the sexuality of the people accused, and this applies whether they're true or not).
  • The above rules also apply to projectspace pages (they're the ones which start with "Wikipedia" or "WP:" - so don't comment on a deletion request of an LGBT article, for example).
  • If in doubt, ask User:kotra, or me, or any other administrator.
• Everything else - that's every other article of the 2,600,000 other articles in Wikipedia - should be fine for you to edit as long as you stick to these rules. We seriously don't want to make you feel unwelcome, and at the risk of sounding like a teacher talking to a naughty student (it's not meant to sound like that, believe me) the topic-ban is really for your own good, because these were the types of articles that you got into arguments with people over, and this happened a number of times. Eventually the community decided it'd be better for you to keep away from these articles so that you wouldn't end up blocked yourself. As I say, if you're still unsure, keep asking questions - it's not a problem! Black Kite 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You answered the topic ban part only. Once again you have failed to answer my other question. Clearly I'm getting nowhere here with you. I no longer see the point in asking you questions, or Kotra or anyone else for that matter. None of you seem to get it. I've wasted my time and energy for nothing. Caden S (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, get that you're feeling under attack. I know it seems to you like everyone is attacking you, even me. I get that when everyone seems to not like what you're doing, it's hard to feel welcome or want to help out. I understand that and I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way.

But that's not what we're trying to do. We're just trying to prevent any future hostility between our editors so that this project, which is built on peaceful collaboration, can work. Despite what this whole affair has probably sounded like, it really doesn't have much to do with you personally: it's about Wikipedia as a whole. Most of us really don't want to attack you or push you away from Wikipedia. All we really want is for you to bring your concerns to other editors respectfully, even if they're wrong. Failing that, we just want you focus on the areas you do best at. I hope that you can appreciate this. And I'm sorry if you can't, and still feel discouraged. -kotra (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's okay Kotra. I appreciate your reply. Caden S (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If we offend, it is with our good will. That you should think, we come not to offend, But with good will. To show our simple skill, That is the true beginning of our end. .... If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd here While these visions did appear. And this weak and idle theme, No more yielding but a dream,.. - A Midsummer Night's Dream Act v. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I like this. Caden S (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cuddlyable3

Hi there, I'd agree that the user's remarks, whilst I wouldn't exactly call them offensive, certainly could be regarded as very patronising. Having said that, I don't think he/she is actually attacking you, but trying to use you as an example of when adoption of a user may or may not be suitable. He/she certainly could've phrased certain parts of it better, but I wouldn't take it as a personal attack. If you like, I could draw his/her attention to this conversation, because I'm sure it wasn't his/her intention to be unpleasant. Black Kite 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS, I agree with Black Kite. Be aware that my original post at Talk:Adopt_a_User named neither you nor your adopter Kotra. Kotra chose to step forward and I am glad that we two had a useful exchange where you may see that I did consider that you would read what we said. I apologise if you feel offended after this explanation, but recent events where you were involved had to be aired, both for possible changes to the Adopt-a-User project and in deliberating the community's topic ban that you know about. I don't want our exchanges to gravitate towards incivility, particularly when I find some (!) of your views coincide with mine, but we have covered your options if you feel I have been seriously out of line. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban on MfD

You are violating your topic ban on this page. I have struck your comments. This isn't optional, and you should really be blocked - however I think one chance is fair. However, any further issues like that will be met with an immediate block. Black Kite 11:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You've censored me? That's completely uncalled for. I'm sorry but I feel you are wrong here. This is a double standard we have here. You have no right to silence me. Block me as you see fit. Caden S (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not "censored" you. To make it clear - you are not allowed to edit articles or projectspace pages that deal with LGBT issues. Surely this isn't too hard to understand? Black Kite 13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have "censored" me. Let me make this perfectly clear to you - you have no right to gag me based on the fact that I do not share your liberal political views. I am free to disagree with you and I am free to exercise my right to freedom of speech and thought. I have the right to be proud of my heterosexuality and the right to believe in traditional marriage, just like you have the right to be proud of being what you may be and believe in. As I said before, block me as you see fit. For the record, the userbox debate is an attack on heterosexuality, surely this isn't too difficult for you to see? Caden S (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You absolutely have the right to disagree with me; you absolutely have the right to believe what you want; you absolutely have the right to free speech. Except that you don't have it here. You don't have the right to comment on LGBT related articles on Wikipedia, because the community determined that you forfeited that right. Whether you consider that "gagging" or not is irrelevant. Please concentrate on editing articles that don't violate your topic-ban. Black Kite 14:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Through your own actions you have been exposed. Please do not contact me again. Caden S (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of policy is that it's commonly accepted practice to revert the contributions of banned editors, particularly if contentious. Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. If reverting doesn't work the next step in enforcing the ban is to block the editor in question. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban works in much a similar way. If a user violates a topic ban, then those edits can be reverted or stricken because they are prima facie unwanted on the topic that user has been banned from. But it's true, there are no inherent rights on Wikipedia. Every user, even anons, earn the privilege to edit Wikipedia, and this privilege can be removed from anyone that abuses it or simply does not use it in good faith. Wikipedia is not a democracy after all... --.:Alex:. 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all very disappointing to me. I'd like to mention that Black Kite and Roux are being lenient here by not performing a block. Caden, I implore you to just follow the topic ban for three months and stick with the areas of Wikipedia you're best at. -kotra (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the thread at the administrators' noticeboard, the community has endorsed the following restriction.

• 1. You are topic-banned for an initial period of 3 months from editing articles and projectspace pages relating to LGBT sexuality issues. This includes but is not limited to:

• 1a. Any and all articles related to LGBT people and issues;
• 1b. Edits to articles when related to the sexuality of criminals, and alleged criminals;
• 1c. Edits to articles related to the sexuality of victims of crime.

• 2. You may use the article talk pages of pages from which you are restricted only to propose new edits to pages, and subject to the condition that you are to comment solely on content, and not on contributors.
• 3. You are reminded to remain civil at all times in your dealings with other editors, and are warned that edits which violate WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA may lead to escalating blocks by any administrator.
• 4. If you are unsure that any edit that you may make may contravene the above remedy, you are asked to first check the edit with your adopter User:kotra or any administrator (I am regularly available, though I am in the UK so there may be time zone issues).
• 5. After the 3 months topic-ban has expired, a further review by the community will take place to decide whether this restriction should be lifted or extended.

• The restriction will expire at 00:00 UTC, 6 April 2009.
• If you are unsure about any part of this restriction, please contact me.
• In the event that this talkpage is archived, a copy of this restriction has been copied to User:CadenS/topicban for easy access for you and other editors.

Black Kite 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban reset

(cross-posted from User:CadenS/topicban)

Please see Wikipedia:BAN#Restart_and_extension_of_ban_duration_when_evasion_is_attempted.

Following your evasion of this ban here and here, this ban will expire three months from the latter edit, i.e. at 11:11 UTC, 21 April 2009. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

[2] I have struck your comments and reported you to ANI. — Jake Wartenberg 23:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for a 2nd violation of your topic ban with this edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 00:06, 25 January 2009 (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:

Done — MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 25 January 2009 (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.

I'm not asking to be unblocked. I would first like to say that I'm sorry for fucking up again. It won't happen again. Secondly, I would like to ask if you could notify my adopter that I have been blocked. Thanks. Caden S (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've notified him. Seriously - please don't do it again Caden, I don't like blocking people when they've obviously got something to offer the encyclopedia. Stick to the other articles and there won't be a problem. Thanks, Black Kite 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and it's not going to happen again. I'm very sorry. Caden S (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I remember you apologizing like this at least twice before. Each time, you were good for a few weeks or so, but then went back to the same behavior. Really, we've given you it seems like dozens of "second chances" over the months. So, right now, I have very little trust that it won't happen again. But if you really are sorry and want to regain my trust and the trust of the community, just stop "fucking up", as you put it, when this block is over. I really hope this "second chance" is the last I will have to see. -kotra (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am really sorry okay. Look man, I can understand you have little trust but trust goes both ways here. If you can't trust me enough when I'm telling you I'm sorry and that I'm not going to fuck up again on my topic-ban, then what's the point of this adoption? Go ahead and drop me as your adoptee if that's what you feel you should do. But I'm telling you, I've learned my lesson by being blocked. Even Black Kite is giving me the benefit of the doubt. Don't you think I feel bad about messing up? Caden S (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you've learned your lesson, and you see your topic ban to the end without incident, I'll trust you. At this moment in time I don't trust you that much, but that can change. -kotra (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright you've made your point. To be honest, I don't trust you that much either but this can change too. Anyways, it's your call. Caden S (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds RfA

According to RfA policy, opposes may be ignored if you do not provide a supporting reason. This may cause your oppose to be striked out. Please provide a reason why or it's not necessary. Thanks, LucerneWorker^{user • talk • contribs} 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Delinking

Hey Caden, it's nice to see you editing again. I have a question: why do you remove wikilinks like here or here? It's not a big deal, but usually wikilinks are good because they make it easy for readers to find more information about stuff they don't know much about. You probably have a reason for it though, so I'm just curious. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

When you oppose at RfA...

please give a valid reason. Any oppose with no reasoning is usually always disregarded by the closing crat. You've made a few of these, if you want it to count, add a bit more detail. Remember, RfA isn't a vote...at least that's what they try to make us believe. Best. — Realist² 07:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I see no point. Caden S (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Username

{{helpme}} How do I go about changing my username?

WP:CHU should be your first port of call. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the bureaucrat who declined this change for clarification. -kotra (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Caden S (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I don't understand it. A bunch of you are watching my every move on here and not a single one of you can give me the courtesy of a simple reply to the comment I left at WP:CHU? Caden S (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been asked to clarify. You might want to ask Kotra where the bureaucrat responded at. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He responded at WP:CHU. Caden, can I suggest that when you're unblocked, you drop a note onto the talkpage of the bureaucrat who turned down your name change - User_talk:Kingturtle - and ask him the question directly? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with merely dropping the "S". Black Kite 17:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you and I will do that. I'm blocked for 48 hours so I can't ask him until tomorrow. Anyways am I also blocked from my user page and subpages too? Caden S (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You're only blocked for 24 hours, you'll be unblocked at 23:59 UTC today. Yes - you can only edit your usertalk page. If you want me to make any urgent changes to anything else, reply here. Black Kite 17:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry I must of read the block log wrong. Yes, could you please change my name on my user page back to Caden? Thanks. Caden S (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not keeping you up-to-date. I asked the first crat, bibliomaniac, and they responded on my talk page (and made a note on WP:CHU). I didn't ask the second crat, Kingturtle, because it seemed like you'd accepted the decision by then. Hope this clears it up. -kotra (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

I've fixed your archives, per your request, if you don't like it feel free to revert. Best. — Realist² 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Caden, I noticed you removed the adoption userbox from your user page. Does this mean you want to end the adoption? If so, just let me know and I'll remove it from my user page too. -kotra (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)