User talk:Caden

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

Okay.

Jimbo declared the Carrie Prejean article an "awful" "coatrack". -- Rico 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:UNCIVIL

WP:CITE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you actually getting blocked here? What is going on? Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man I was blocked but it's expired now. Caden ^cool 02:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, actually, I'm still blocked for some odd reason? Caden ^cool 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved Caden/my shit-list to User:Caden/my shit-list, since that seemed to have been where you intended it to go. Best, MuffledThud (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude! That's exactly what I was trying to do. Caden ^cool 14:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Attack_coatrack_we_discussed. -- Rico 19:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Thanks for letting me know but I see no point. That hateful mob owns and controls that attack page. Personally, I feel the article should be deleted. Caden ^cool 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now. I made some real improvements on the article today. Calling editors a "hateful mob" isn't helpful at all. AniMate 06:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I have not looked at her attack page in weeks. If you did improvements on it, then that's great. But I was not refering to you as part of the mob. Despite what you may think, I have always thought you were a good editor. Caden ^cool 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't looked at the page in months, but caught Rico's messages (to a very selective group of editors). I took a weed whacker to it, and it resembles a pretty neutral biography now. AniMate 06:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it soon enough. As for Rico's message, it's pretty obvious that he wants and has always wanted a neutral article. That's what matters most. Can't argue with that. Caden ^cool 06:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to disagree with each other about Rico, but my cold medicine is kicking in and it's bed time. Hopefully I'll feel better tomorrow and won't be around to edit. AniMate 06:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we'll agree to disagree. Hope you feel better soon. Take care. Caden ^cool 06:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of things you disagree with, another post of yours makes me wonder what you think about this one. -- Rico 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted.[2] -- Rico 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has spilled over onto the BLP talk page, here.

Jimbo is now editing the article. -- Rico 20:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales has posted on the Carrie Prejean talk page -- and wrote on his talk page, I'm "absolutely right on the content issue." And "Why Miss Prejean's entry should be a coatrack for that is the core question which has not been answered."

This has prompted editing on the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack.[3] -- Rico 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InaMaka did. I began a discussion at the attack coatrack of a living person talk page that you may find interesting, since you have expressed interest in the subject before. -- Rico 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure. I'll get to it sometime today, hopefully. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you have to look in the RIAA database, silly goose. And you're right, it was certified Gold, which you can see here. I'll add it in to the discography. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Glad to help. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it in, and I don't see why it shouldn't be reliable. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user clearly has behavioral issues, considering that he has repeatedly reverted pages against consensus and sources, refuses to behave in a civil manner with other users, and does not want to listen to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. For you to take his side and claim that I made some kind of personal attacks I never made is, quite frankly, an insult to my intelligence and the intellect of anyone who would read these pages and look at my edits, where I have never done anything wrong, and RG's edits, where he has never done anything right. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

All done. I've added in a new section, "Digital singles". The song charted on the Hot Digital Songs chart, which is a component chart. But since it was the only chart it charted on the time of the digital release, it's acceptable. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for saying that. That means a lot to me. If you ever need anything, drop me a line and I'd be more than happy to help! :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, mister! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted it whenever I added the Irish peak to the table. It's not showing up on your screen? It is on mine. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Caden! :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was very nice of you to say, mister. I also appreciate the fact that I know someone that appreciates what I do, and sees what I do. Thank you again, Caden. Your a pretty cool dude. Lol. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that means a lot. And I do really mean that. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Australian Recording Industry Association certified awards to the singles table. However, I also do not know where to get the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand certifications, either. The only place I know to get them, only has them from 2007 to now. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry dude. I just don't where know where to achieve this information for you. And no, I have no idea about anything about Ireland, lol. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Oh, and I also removed the component chart's from a few of Vitamin C's song articles. Hot 100 Singles Sales is only to be used if the song failed to enter the Billboard Hot 100. Just thought I'd let you know for future references. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your question on another editor's talk page. Any reliable certification archive I've been able to locate (including a partial one for Ireland) is listed at WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that but it only starts at 2005 and I needed info from the years 2000 to 2002. Caden ^cool 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll start when I have some extra time. Probably tomorrow or so. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the patience :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I've done something really horrible to you. I have no idea what it is, but apparently it's "one of the worst, deliberate exhibitions of bad faith (Rico has) ever seen on Wikipedia." I've no clue what he's talking about, as you and I get on rather well these days despite our ideological differences. Little help? AniMate 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Joking." "Joking" left out. Caden reacts. -- Rico 23:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You really took a fine tooth comb through all of my edits. That was a year ago when Caden and I were in a heated disagreement, but please keep bringing relevant things to the table like this. AniMate 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I believe Rico is talking about this [4]

incident from May 19, 2009, where you took my words out of context and turned my joke into a threat. In this diff [5] you will see that I had stated I was only joking when I mentioned I'd kick Keltie's ass. For some reason, you chose to not reveal this and decided to make me look bad. Here's what you chose to say on ANI: "As usual, Caden complains about a user being a bully, and he goes on to threaten to kick Keltie's ass". You then went on to say, :"Frankly, I don't think Caden is an asset to the project at all." Not only where you assuming bad faith, but you were deliberately being dishonest on ANI. I took offense to your posts back then, and felt attacked by you. At that specific period I was accused of edit warring with Keltiemartinfan and was blocked at the time of your comments to ANI, and therefore was unable to defend myself. It's all in the past now but I believe this is what Rico was referring to. Hope this clears it up for you. Caden ^cool 23:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, and is, AniMate, that you complained that I didn't reply to your request to mediate. Then you complained that you felt that people weren't replying to you because it was you that was proposing it. I felt a little bad, but my inner thought was that you didn't exactly inspire trust.

I think the incident above was really blatant. Sometimes people on the Internet accuse people of taking things out of context -- and usually it's not even true -- but in this case, it was very much true.

At the time, however, I was thinking of something else that you had been doing.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. -- Rico 23:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt my feelings? No, but you've annoyed the living shit out of me by continuing to simply complain about everything and the kitchen sink yet refuse to engage in any attempts at dispute resolution or article improvement. You're continued assumption of bad faith is duly noted. As for the ass kicking comment, I linked to it and left the word joking out. I would point out that the unanimous decision at AN/I was that Caden was harassing another user, and the comment I linked to was just one of many Caden had sent that user. It strikes me that this is pretty much all you do here, Rico. You dig up old edits, you insert comments into old discussions, you obsessively fix your date/time stamp, you bitch, you moan, you complain... but you don't do. You've stated several times that you aren't being paid to edit here, which sounds pretty close to "I'm only willing to do the easy stuff." It seems pointless to argue with someone who is only willing to complain, so I am going to disengage. I'm sure all of Wikipedia looks forward to your next rant that offers no meaningful suggestions. AniMate 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true AniMate! I did NOT harass Keltie. Furthermore, I did NOT send Keltie "many" messages. Please do not say untrue things about me. Thanks. Caden ^cool 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caden, the consensus on the board says differently and I honestly haven't really looked to deeply into what happened last year. I will say that as an editor you've improved tenfold, and your willingness to now work with others who don't share your views is really impressive. AniMate 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AniMate for the compliment. That means a lot to me dude. In regards to the consensus you mentioned from last year, they were mostly enemies of mine who wanted revenge. I was contacted off wiki about that. You'd be surprised what goes on off wiki in order to influence what goes on wiki. I know I was. Caden ^cool 04:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Talk:Saw_VII#Dean_Armstrong

Thank you for your input.

I would be grateful if you could kindly clarify where I have failed to remain calm, civil, or exhibited any negative behavior, if indeed this is your assertion.

Also, could you please reconsider your statement, Chzz, posting a block threat on Jordan's talk page when you very well know he's done nothing wrong, is not acceptable behavior.

I posted the warning for uncivil behaviour in accordance to WP:NPA, having checked my logic with several other very experienced editors in good standing. It clearly stated in the warning that the concern was over their comments on the talk page; specifically it was concerning the statement "You are just a troll".

I believe this is in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and if you do reconsider, I would be grateful if you would strike your comments on my alleged behaviour.

Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have forgotten to give a warning to Mike Allen? If you had taken the time to notice (or did you just miss it?), anyway Mike Allen called Jordan a "troll" first, and Jordan clearly was offended by such an attack and therefore he called Mike a troll. He only did that because Mike was taunting him on his talk page. You were quick to give a block warning (threat?) to Jordan. Yet, you turned a blind eye to Mike. Makes no sense to me why you would do that unless Mike is a friend? Caden ^cool 06:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw okay I see now. You chat with Mike on IRC. Case closed. Caden ^cool 07:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user visited the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel using this link, and asked for help.

I reviewed the background, and I didn't spot anything too bad from MikeAllen (talk · contribs). I thought that the NPA warning was appropriate.

Looking into the background, Power Slave (talk · contribs) was suggesting that we should try to reference this junk.

At this stage, however, I will drop the stick; it's not worth wasting time on this, when we could be doing something more productive. Best,  Chzz  ►  06:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick heads-up that I just dealt with a {{helpme}} shout from blocked user Codedon (talk · contribs) - the similarity in names, I thought it worth mentioning to you.  Chzz  ►  06:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi iam unblocked now. I guess your words had a significant impact. So i wanted to thank u. Cheers Blablaaa (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats's awesome man! And you're so totally welcome! Caden ^cool 08:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They will have an eye on me, but i think i will give no reason for any further block or something else. Blablaaa (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay if they want to keep a close eye on you. Many around here keep a close eye on me too. Hey, have you ever thought of getting a mentor or maybe getting signed up for adoption? I think one or the other could be good for you. That way an experienced editor in good standing could help you. Maybe Chzz could be your mentor? Just a thought. Caden ^cool 09:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe. At least i will sometimes need some grammar check. Blablaaa (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that edit-warring on behalf of your friend EnDaLeCoMpLeX does not make it a consensus, and if you persist in doing this I will report you both for sock/meatpuppetry (you have chatted on each other's talk pages and have intersecting edits on almost 30 pages so it will not be hard to prove a connection between you both). Furthermore, not only does the version of the intro that you keep reverting to merely duplicate information that is already in the discography tables below it (which is pointless), it is also wrong and has many inaccuracies. It was seemingly written from an American standpoint whereas TFF are a British band and the band's history begins there and should be maintained from that viewpoint. Now please leave it alone. 80.47.10.75 (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I'm not edit-warring on behalf of nobody. Do not accuse me of such nonsense. You are a sock. You jump from one account to another. You have been reverted by 4 editors in total yet you continue to edit war. You have been edit-warring and pushing your POV since December 2009. Report me all you want because consensus is clear on the article. The intro is the correct format for all discographies. I do not know what your issue is concerning Americans. But let me say this to you, God bless America :) Caden ^cool 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you're an idiot so I'm not going to waste much more of my time trying to reason with you. And since you obviously haven't been paying attention, the current intro that I support has only been reverting by one user: you. EnDaLeComplex reverted a different version of it completely and after the current version was added, s/he left it well enough alone. However, if you continue edit-warring on this article and keep reverting it to a factually incorrect version, you will be reported and blocked - again. Now I suggest you go and play somewhere else. 80.47.8.98 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be blond and good looking but I'm no idiot. Look man, I have no time for your personal attacks, no time for your threats and I have zero interest in speaking any further with a sock. You're a sock who jumps from one account to another. If you want to report me, go ahead. I doubt you'll get far. After all you're a sock. Caden ^cool 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no time for people who try to vandalise accurate articles. My warning still stands. 80.47.8.98 (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page. I'm done with you attacking me. Caden ^cool 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please discuss this (civilly) on the article talk page and seek opinions from other editors at WT:DISCOG and WT:WPMUSIC. –xeno^talk 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno I tried. It's pointless. Caden ^cool 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I see no discussion on the talk page. –xeno^talk 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i added 2 diffs, when u look them u will see it so undisputable.... . but please dont raise the issue, i only wanted to show u because u are interessted Blablaaa (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a look at both diffs and it's exactly what I thought. I can't press the issue now because it happened two months ago. I'm not surprised he got away with those horrible biased edits. Looks like he's been getting away for a very long time. That's just wrong. Anyways, if he does it again I'm doing something about it. Caden ^cool 12:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was, that i presented this facts to admin nick. I should have choosen somebody else, more neutral. But again: dont raise this issue please without new "problems". I will edit Battle of Kursk and if dapi returns i will edit with him. And then everything is fine i guess. Blablaaa (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay dude sounds cool with me. It's better for both of you to work together. It's healthy that way. Caden ^cool 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me idiot put the wrong edit in. The second edit was wrong. I corrected the mistake now. This edits now show II SS tank corps loss issue. Blablaaa (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Eric444 (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It should be fixed. Eric444 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wiki guidelines say that a reliable historian ( he is one) needs no back up. So he has to be included. If u or i dont like it, doesnt madder :-D . We have to accept, cheers Blablaaa (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know that. Let me clarify, what I meant was that I personally could care less on whether or not he is viewed as reliable. I have no issues whith Glantz being used for wiki. Caden ^cool 12:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for battle of orsa C/E, i nearly forgot this article. I have to expand it soon. Blablaaa (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Expand it more when you can okay? It needs refs too. Caden ^cool 12:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, and for helping with the issues.  Chzz  ►  15:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

responded Blablaaa (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I replied on your talk page. Caden ^cool 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were supporting my case on the WA 2000 page, and as a more experienced user than I, I have a question for you.

I have a question for you. If pop culture information is unimportant, as is argued by the editor on the WA 2000 page, then why is this up on The Model 1887 page. "The Model 1887 was famously featured in Terminator 2: Judgment Day when it was carried by Arnold Schwarzenegger as the T-800. In the film, the T-800 is seen spin-cocking a version of the shotgun with an enlarged lever loop. It has also made an appearance in the widely popular first-person shooter game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." Seems like almost the exact same thing I was brow beaten for in the WA 2000 article. Does the user who did this have some sort of problem with people editing his page? I also noticed that he reported you for edit warring to the same Admin he reported me to. Nick-D LIGHT DINAMITE 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs)

Although I agree with you that the James Bond reference should be included, apparently it's against some bullshit wiki rule that discourages any pop culture type of info from being added. As for The Model 1887 edit you mention, it won't be long before it's removed for the reason I just stated. In regards to User:ROG5728 having reported me...I was not aware of that. I also did not edit war. However I'm not concerned. Admin Nick-D is known for giving bad blocks to innocent editors whom he disagrees with and he was recently reported on AN for his bad behavior. ROG obviously is Nick's buddy but that has zero to do with who can edit the WA 2000 article. I made it clear on the talk page to ROG that none of us own that article, yet he seems to act like it's his. He can run to Nick all he wants but it still won't change a thing. Nobody owns the articles and furthermore admins can't block others on behalf of their friends. Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. Caden ^cool 00:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caden.

I've just offered replies to some 'help' requests from a relatively new editor Cimicifugia (talk · contribs), who is having a few difficulties. Given the general subject area, I remembered that you had kindly assisted Blablaa previously, and wondered if you might be able to help this one, too.

If this is not appropriate, or not your thing at all, then apologies - it was a passing thought, that a more experienced user with some topic knowledge might be able to help them understand the way Wikipedia works, in addition to the advice I have already provided.

Like many new users, they are struggling to understand how BRD, consensus, etc. works.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I noticed the new user is now unblocked and I saw the good advice you gave him/her. I can understand how the new user is a bit confused over how wiki works. It takes time to figure these things out. However, after looking through their history, I noticed a bigger issue that's causing even more difficulties. Have a look at this [6], that was NOT vandalism! What PhGustaf said in his summary was not only a LIE but what he ended up doing was true VANDALISM to a mainspace article! Several other editors (such as Bali ultimate & PhGustaf) are also removing the sources made by Cimicifugia for no good reason at all. To me it's clear that these editors do not want any sources used that give the New York Times a negative look in regards to the Holocaust. In fact PhGustaf even went as far to try and have The New York Times and the Holocaust article nominated for deletion! Why? Is it because Cimicifugia created an article that both PhGustaf and Bali ultimate don't like and want deleted? I think so. Something fishy is going on here. Have a look at the article's edit history and have a look at its talk page. Caden ^cool 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the article, and some of the editors. To the credit of PhGustaf, he/she did apologize for the edit summery accusing Cimicifugia of vandalism. On the other hand Bali ultimate never apologizes for anything, and certainly deserves the votes he got here [7]. It is possible that you are right that he has a conflict of interest, and the same thought occurred to me. But it is also possible that he is a genuine mental case, taking out his real life problems on users here. But I do not think he could get away with that behavior for as long as he has without one or more administrators protecting him. ScienceApologist, for example, was a good editor who was irascible but always willing to apologize, rolled up so many blocks that they hardly fit on one page. But Bali ultimate's genuinely WP:DICK behavior has not gotten him a single block. Too bad that Cimicifugia seems to have given up on WP.....or maybe not so bad. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you here [8].Bali ultimate (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And ... hi, Caden. I think you know I'm an admin that has given you a lot of chances in the past; I'd just ask you to dial back the rhetoric a bit on this issue - I don't want to see you blocked again and whilst I understand it may be an emotive issue, just try to be a bit "professional" over it. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 02:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay dude no problem since I know you're always fair and honest with me. Thanks. Caden ^cool 05:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution of sources on the Eve's Plum page, I've been working on it for years. LoveLaced (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page FIFA World Cup, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Nasnema  Chat  22:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll get to it probably sometime tomorrow because right now I'm not feeling too great. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done mister! :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well with the singles section. Did you want me to fix the albums as well? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Qwertyus has a valid point, and he's not censoring you he's moving the discussion to what he considers a more appropriate forum, ie: Blablaaa's talk page [9]. I suggest you take the issue up with Marcus Qwertyus directly rather than edit warring. MILHIST is for discussing articles, if you are going to discuss editors it probably belongs somewhere else, such as WP:RFC/U or if it's directly actionable by an admin WP:ANI. Nev1 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that u got involved in this "problem" ( dont know if it is a real problem :-) ). Blablaaa (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay dude no worries. I'm not worried. Caden ^cool 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

somebody bring stuff to an article and has no reliable sources for it and u want us to let it stay until we proved that his stuff is not ok ?Blablaaa (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul mentioned a book or something and a page number, I forget which but he mentioned it on the talk page and it supports Igor's edit. Caden ^cool 16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

igors sources are not good enough for wiki, what is so hard to understand? please tell me what u not understood. click the links of igor and show why they are reliable! they are not, conclusion: they dont come to the articles.Blablaaa (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i reverted . Please understand, this both sources are not reliable, this are www pages without any names of hisntorian or something else. They are not good. please understand wp:citing sources. Until igor has shown who wrote this textes and why this man should be reliebla the stuff comes not to the article. thats called wp:burden Blablaaa (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself now. I know that iam correct, the sources dont belong to the article, they will not stay after other editors checked this issue. But i revert myself now to show my good faith, i dont want an edit war. We wait for others to decide. With regards Blablaaa (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting your edit. It shows good faith. Blablaaa, I mentioned on the Battle of Kursk talk page, Wikipedia is not about what is true or what is not. Wiki don't care about the truth. It's reliable sources that matters and published books are reliable sources. Bellamy's "Absolute War" is a published book. I know you don't like it because of the Soviet documentation and I'm sorry, but it's within wiki policy. It's not about the truth. Let's just let others weigh in, I think it's a good idea. Thanks. Caden ^cool 17:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi caden i appreciate your support but i guess u bring yourself problems. The normandy "lobby" is very strong and active. If u start "moaning" ( like i do ) about status quo there u will be attacked at one time or another. Your link to me is perfect base for enigmas ad hominem style. So spare yourself of stress. But thanks for the support Blablaaa (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome dude. I only spoke the truth. I have no fear of the "lobby". What matters to me is being honest. If they retaliate I'll deal with it. But thanks. Caden ^cool 07:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caden, remarks like these: 1, 2, and 3 are totally unacceptable. If I see you make another one, I'll add to your already lengthy block log. Consider this your only warning. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You assumining bad faith on my part was unwarranted, it makes it hard for me to assume good faith with you but I'm trying. Using my past (yes I'm no choir boy but no need for you to rub it in) against me is unacceptable. Threatening to block me for my past and for my honesty is totally wrong. As an admin you should know better, I'm sorry but I feel you're treating me unfairly by using my past blocks against me. Let me clear things up for you and explain. I was not incivil. I was being honest. Yes perhaps too blunt but nevertheless I was simply speaking the truth. Have you looked into the behavioral patterns of Enigma? Have you seen his lack of AGF in regards to Blablaaa? Did you read the link I posted on MILHIST? Have you seen his unacceptable posts that are WP:CIVILITY violations? Why is it okay for him to violate WP:NPA and WP:CIV? Please be neutral here and be fair. What other word in the English dictionary can you say best describes him in regards to the talk pages I've mentioned? AGF is not possible once you do the homework like I did. As for Hohum, once again I was being honest, perhaps too honest but most certainly not incivility. How is me telling him that not a single person is forcing him to be a part of the discussion on Kursk considered incivil? I can't see how him complaining is helping matters? Have you seen the several edits he made where he called another editor (Igor) a vandal in his edit summaries? Check the history for the Battle of Kursk article. He's treated Igor very poorly on the Kursk talk page as well. I also don't understand how me being honest is such an issue for you? I'm sorry but your message on my talk page was vague, biased, offensive and not helpful. I'm sorry dude but I just don't understand you. Caden ^cool 21:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're from, but telling people you're "not interested in their bitching" (especially when the user in question is raising valid points about the reliability of the sources being presented) is generally not considered civil in most cultures. The diff I just linked is particularly contemptuous; you're lucky I didn't block you for that as it is. As for how Hohum is treating Igor, this is about your behavior, not anyone else's.

While we're on the subject of Kursk, Hohum has been attempting to enforce WP:V and WP:RS, two core Wikipedia policies, in case you're not familiar with them. They are non-negotiable. If you have a problem with this, you need to find another website to frequent. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know how wiki works. I know about WP:RS and WP:V. Since we're on the subject of Kursk I already mentioned before on the Battle of Kursk talk page that Wikipedia is not about what is true or what is not. Wiki does not care about the truth. It's reliable sources that matters and published books are reliable sources. Bellamy's "Absolute War" is a published book that supports some of Igor's edits that Hohum is fighting to remove. As Paul mentioned a page number from Bellamy shows that some edits are backed up as reliable. Books are reliable sources, it says so under the sources policy on verifiablity. Wiki is not about truth, it's about reliable sources. Books are just that. Bellamy's "Absolute War" is therefore a reliable source since it's a published book Hohum can't deny it. It's policy. Furthermore, you didnt give me any answers in regards to why you're using my past blocks against me as a threat. I still don't think that's fair at all dude. I don't think you like me much. Caden ^cool 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to jump in here and point out that while researching Blablaaa I came across this user and I find it interesting to note that he is defending their collective use of "reliable sources". In the article I came across Blablaaa he was fabricating information from a source and citing a page number, despite another user further down the page, clearly being the first to introduce the source and cite different figures. I think this is important to note and that perhaps someone should, if they find the time, make a trip down to the library to check each of the figures these editors are using in articles, page number by page number. I might do it if I get the chance.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You came to the article, you change figures because YOU think they are to low and than you give me a warning lol ?`because you think they are to low, because you get angry when you see numbers which you dont like because you cant believe want happend? You give me a warning? Blablaaa (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the conversation we're having about your comments, I could care less about what Enigma or Blablaa or Hohum or anyone else has done or said. Like I said above, this is about you, not them. You don't get a free pass because "they started it." Parsecboy (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's obvious you're being biased and not neutral towards me in regards to everything I've said in good faith. I see no further need in me even attempting to try. You've judged me already. I need a unbiased, neutral, uninvolved admin to take a look at everything and to check out what I've tried explaining to you in good faith. By the way I didn't ask for a free pass because "they started it." As I told you before I was just being honest. Maybe too honest. Whatever. Caden ^cool 22:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, continue to blame your unacceptable behavior on other editors; it won't prevent you from being blocked for it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First problem: you are not being civil. Second problem: you are arguing, both here and on the Kursk talk page, with ad hominem attacks. If I see posts that fall into either category from you again, I will block you immediately. You are lashing out at those who are trying to rein you in before you are blocked, and you are taking Wikipedia personally, treating it like a battleground. Step away from the computer for a day; go out and cool down a bit. Thanks, —Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll get to it eventually. I've just been so busy lately that I've only been doing between one and five edits a day for about the past week or so. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol no problem. I did it first thing yesterday morning. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He says beevor said it is partial but this was the objectives. But then we look the objectives ( which are also written by him ) we see that he simply lies. IT so emberrasing , cant deal with this anylonger i hope and admi will see it finally. He contradicts himself so heavy every third sentence. But if you show this he immediatly leaves this topic and raises another unimportant point to distract. Is there a board for such things? Blablaaa (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is Enigma is not being honest and like I mentioned he misinterpts his sources and misleads readers. Hopefully others will catch on to his games and check all his sources in each article he has edited. I agree, he distracts other editors when confronted and he contradicts himself in the process. Your best bet is to just leave this mess its not worth it. He's too much trouble and it won't be long before he's complaining to his friend Nick. Caden ^cool 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At friday i get 2 books which are used by him. I want to read this books anyways but i pretty sure that he used this books in a strange way. MAybe if some more fact at the same time are presented people will look into thisBlablaaa (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which 2 books? Yes read them and for now just take a small break from the Enigma business. Don't worry, more editors will soon be paying attention to what his sources actually say and his edits, to see if they all match up. Caden ^cool 00:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books of reynolds. There are multiple issues regarding this books he used them if they support his POV but they are seldom used while they have good reputation and cover cean. Iam pretty sure to find many different opinions regarding the outcome of some operations and so on. Blablaaa (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the discussion at th neutrality board is dead so maybe i close this discussion. The amount of text already hinders simple descissions of admins. General its so simple, can we says beevor says "tactical victory" when he actually said it was a partial sucess and ultimatly failed to.... . An admin would come look at this and say: NO its not ok if he doenst say this. But insteat of letting somebody decide nonsense information are thrown into the discussion... Its so annoyingBlablaaa (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't close it, leave it open until something is resolved. One thing though, we can't say Beevor called it a tactical victory, because we know that's not true. Yes I understand it's annoying that nonsense gets thrown in by Enigma. But please, dude, just walk away. It's not worth it. Let others deal with it for now. Go drink a beer or do something fun. Anyways I got to go. My girlfriend wants me to log off. Peace. Caden ^cool 01:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong with what I have added, especially as it is an 'Outsider's View' and not in the primary section of the RfC. You are free to rebutt the accusations made in that section by all means, but I will not strike them as I do not see them as personal attacks, but merely as my view of the situation from the outside. I'm sure the Arbitrators will be able to consider any bias present in my statement and evaluate it accordingly. Skinny87 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I see that Parsecboy has removed your link to where this was discussed. I haven't participated in an RfC before, and also failed to read the instructions. I'm unsure where you can make it clear this was discussed - perhaps in your own section of the RfC above the 'Outsider's View' section? Skinny87 (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize Skinny. You're only human we make mistakes so it's okay dude, but thanks for letting me know my post was removed. Caden ^cool 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this RfC is resolving the dispute Blablaaa has with several editors, primarily EnigmaMcmxc, not about Caden. Caden, you are certainly free to make a statement if you wish, but please do not hijack the discussion before it even starts. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the RFC is only about Blablaa then please explain to me why you removed my post but kept Skinny's when he clearly discusses me? Furthermore, I take great offense to you saying "but please do not hijack the discussion before it even starts." My post was one sentence long thank you. And why should I make statements when you only remove them? Caden ^cool 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm there is no need to contact all people who participate in this because it will become more ^^. I will try that they wait a bit with this or that at least i get not blocked. At friday i will start to study the books by reynolds. I also will order hastings. ( by the way iam no psychopath who orders books to refute a online guy i planed to read them anyway :D) I cant know what enigma does exactly until i read same books like him. Studying his general editing behaviour iam 80% sure that he edits heavly selective and will avoid to use pro german statements/numbers by reynolds. If this true and i present a comprehensive overview the situation will immediatly look different and all people who applaud the subtle biaseditor will also look different. Until this i see no value in engaging in quibble. The situation is easy, what would you do if you are member of milhist? the people spend some time in www they will no risk their "friendships" with other editors. I guess the discussion about the infoboxes is proof of this. the method is simply bias towards allies, i can proove it easly with primary data, but no one of milhist had balls to admit this. Until nobody is able to speak his opinion against "friends" the whole system is seriously damaged. When enigmas selective editing is proofed then the rest of the system which so heavly supports him, falls also. Iam not sure but there is a diff out there where he claims the british army performed well and was one of the best armies. No serious historian will claim this, i guess thats a good introduction ^^. Its a matter of time .... . Blablaaa (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After having looked at the RFC draft, I'm losing faith in it rapidly. I had hoped or thought it be a good idea but having looked at it, I'm not so sure anymore. I could be wrong though. But sure, read the books by Reynolds. I'm most positive you are correct about Enigma. From what I've seen he's extremely biased. He sure loves his British POV but it affects his editing. However, I don't think enough care that he misleads readers and misinterpets his sources. He's in the club. How else can you explain the odd behavior from the MILHIST members? Something's not quite right. But if you find he's misquoted Reynolds that could be helpful since there was 2 neutral editors who did support you earlier, so that's good. But dude I'm taking a break from the whole bloody mess. They can discuss me all they want on the RFC but I'm not replying. I have better things to do. Caden ^cool 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i guess they are damaging themself. Look the reply of sweeny he gaves diffs of me which are totally correct ^^ . Igor put a statement in the stalingrad box which gave casualties until april. The battle ended in january and we have figures for them. Totally logic that this figures dont belong there especially when no figures for the red army until april are established. Jims post is generic for the entire issue, people who participate at milhist intervent in things without looking details. Or they are not willing to look details they immedialty start supporting their "friends". His post is simply bad and a proof for my general concerns. If some more do the same this becomes obvious for everybody. Funny is that the whole thing is based of my alleged POV, but iam pretty sure they will find no diffs where i misinterpreted are source or something like this to support my "german POV", i did simply not do this ^^ . So now they all search but then they dont find anything. Even the commander tomstart81 claimed this, but now he doesnt find anything. How does this look like for neutral people?Blablaaa (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But analysing the issue its most amusing to see how adults behave in a "social network" :-). You are in the club or not, and everybody wants to be in the club ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, want no part of that club. :) Caden ^cool 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iam sure they wouldnt accept you ^^Blablaaa (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

caden can you do me favor? Blablaaa (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What favor? Caden ^cool 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not involving editors which helped me lifting my block. I think it was very kindly of them. If now this turns against me, which is possible, then they automaticly look bad. So they would have helped me and then finally got "punsihed" for this. I think its better to involve not more than neccassary. You know what i mean ? Blablaaa (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand bro. No problem. Caden ^cool 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, and i think eyeseren invested some of his time, their is still no diff which shows my my "tendency minimise German losses or excuse German defeats". Blablaaa (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to involve less editors? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, i want to involve as many neutral editors as possible. but i dont want to involve people which helped to lift my block. Because they finally would look bad if this turns against me. I think i made my point very clear. Even with my bad english. But if you try to misinterpret me then iam sure you will able toBlablaaa (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he caden did you notice that enigma does not work at articles which were lost by british army?Blablaaa (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that. Caden ^cool 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pretty confident at the moment. Best regardsBlablaaa (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I feel good about things. Caden ^cool 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at the jutland talk page.Blablaaa (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been rereading the comment you may concerning my quote and it finally dawned on me why you would bring that up: I regret to inform that I left out a very important word here; it currently reads "..the last time an indefinite block was imposed it was lifted three days later due to complaints that ran contrary to consensus," but it should read "..the last time an indefinite block was imposed it was lifted three days later due to complaints that it [the block] ran contrary to consensus." I was not criticizing the block, I was actually commenting that the block was lifted on grounds that editors had determined it to be wrongly applied and this was in turn the opinion which resulted in the block being lifted in accordance with consensus. I offer no excuse for this oversight, and will continue to endeavor to improve my spelling and grammar to help avoid instances like this in the future. Respectfully, TomStar81 (Talk) 10:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i thought you will not involve editors which helped me in april. If this turns out bad they will look like they were wrong eventually. Blablaaa (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blablaaa I'm not involving editors who helped? I asked if one neutral admin was interested in sharing their thoughts. Caden ^cool 21:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but i guess was involved there?!? nevermind its done already. :-) Blablaaa (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no, regardless of how this turns out, all of the neutral editors who helped you back in April will not look like they were wrong. Every single one of them were right and everybody knows that. It worries me a great deal that you want no outside views from those who once gave good feedback. But I must respect your wishes. Caden ^cool 22:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you should be carefull there is kinda rage developing against you. at the moment iam the problematic editor, but if you go on, you maybe get your own RFC. You know?Blablaaa (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude for the warning. Yeah, I'm aware of Ed's rage, I saw his posts where he's venting his anger which is not good for an admin. He needs to chill and have a beer. Plus he's only hurting himself which is a shame. Caden ^cool 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah also wondering that people get rage, iam personnely pretty fast in rage, but there are many people indirectly calling me a liar and idiot but still i think iam more calm than ed ^^. Its worth noting that he finally decided to stop talking with me after i posted a link to enigmas talk :-) . Maybe hes also a bit pissed because jutland , he explained me that jutland is the example that iam wrong sometimes, then 90 sources followed. this was his example to show me that iam wrong sometimes. Didnt went good for him this example. He also explained that he is kinda "expert" for jutland... Its generic Blablaaa (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very annoying that so many are calling you a liar and a bunch of other nonsense. It's all personal attacks. But they get away with it. I wonder why? I'm so fucking pissed that SenorFreebie called you a Nazi!!! And look at that, he gets away with it! Why?? As for Ed, him reverting your posts on his talk page, only makes him look really bad. That's a real shame because I do not think he's a bad guy. But as for him being an expert on Jutland? I do not know but I doubt it. Anyway, dudde, I'm logging off because I don't edit very well when I'm angry. Right now I'm angrier then hell with SenorFreebie's unjustified attacks. Caden ^cool 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes i saw his "nazi" but nevermind Blablaaa (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, you shouldn't have to worry about this "turning bad" and you shouldn't worry that such a result would make it seem like the people who therefore supported your unblock were dumb and didn't recognize what a troublemaker you are. Some people might call WP:CANVASSING, but Wikipedia is not quite the political hellhole that you describe where people will run back into an old unblock and smear people who might not have seen some complex bias. Besides, from what I've seen your editing is fine and there's no chance of it going bad. Basically, chill and work on making sure any accusations you make are supported by diffs and a clear explanation. II | (t - c) 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes its possible true but lets take a look. The guys invested time to help me and finally when i get some kind of ban/block again they will look like idiots because they helped in the first instance, they will look like i fooled them. Even there is only a little chance that this happens , iam not willing to risk. Its only wiki :-) Blablaaa (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, in case you are unaware, "~" means "approximately" (as in maybe more, maybe less). Reynolds is on the "maybe more" side of that but other sources differ (such as Ellis who says "about 80 tanks"). You've reverted to the highest figure supported by the sources. I have no intention of edit warring but I'm sure it's not your intention to mislead our readers, so it would be much appreciated if you could return the infobox to a state where it properly reflects the range of sourced opinion. Thanks and best regards, EyeSerene^talk 07:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see another "disruptive" editor turned up, familiar, the accusations "single distruptive editor" against "dozen experienced reditors in good standing", "seemingly valuable edits" and so on, also familiar, should I say, stereotypics phrases and arguements, the names, Eyeserene, Enigma, Dapi, Minor, well they also seem to appear in concerto all the time do they not? :D

Appears you recognized as well its another of Eyeserene's witch-hunts, with the rather transperent intent of blocking the opposing POV and providing editing monopoly to his pro-Allied buddies like Enigma to these articles. Its not the first time Eyeserene employs these underhand tactics and canvassing, with his buddies mutually supporting each other's 'neutral' overview at RfCs and talk pages, coordinating on each others talk pages about how to harass editors, firm in the knowledge they have been granted a free ride by an abusive admin and provoking the other good faith editor on talk pages then running to report him for being 'distruptive'.

We have seen this kind of administrational abuse earlier too, but it it did there is nothing new with this, there has been a similar case with a Eastern European admin and his circle of similarly minded followers ignoring the rules (see Eastern European Mailing list arbitration case), but that one ended up rather bad both for the admin, who was stripped of his admin rights, and the rest of the tag team. Looking at that case the parallel and the precedence is strong, and it seems timely that the Arbitration Committee should deal with the possible case of yet another wiki lawyering admin turning wiki concepts and goals upside down and trying to drive away genuinely productive and good faith editors from certain MILHIST articles, until there's only his preferred editors remain and single, seldom neutral POV is ensured. Of course I cannot claim myself neutral either, having been repeatedly and then indef blocked by Eyeserene for a single revert under curious circumstances (the [details you can find here] and perhaps, enlightening), though the arguments were exactly the same and just as vague as the ones he now employs attempting to silence editor Blabaaaaa. Cheers, Kurfürst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.216.230 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I have no doubt in my mind that you were a victim of dirty wiki politics. And German too? Now why am I not surprised? Seems there's a pattern here? Hmm interesting! Caden ^cool 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I had my own share of my troubles when I first started to edit Germany related military articles of Wikipedia (aviation, ships, battles, that sort of stuff), largely due to my inexperience with the rules and unfortunate willingness to respond in kind to fanatic editors who's names are all too familiar to us at this point; I don't want to blame those sins of mine on others. But first and foremost I have come here to improve and create neutral articles, represent the German sources in those articles too - as they almost all cases too (and not only!) to these articles. This understandingly irritated some of the editors and admins with strong pro-British bias - thats how fanatics work - yet at the same time it has to be stated firmly that they are the exception. And there are many other editors genuinely interested in providing a better wiki articles, which draws and represents all and even conflicting views; with them, despite our natural biases, honest communication is possible and a good compromise is possible, if the proper supporting sources are presented, even if its sometimes a long and tedious, nevertheless rewarding process.

Its the former group, in my experience that is characterized by rude communication, dishonest handling of sources and the use of underhand tactics to get other POVs blocked and this is the one that caught your attention too. I've been monitoring Eyeserene for some time now, he regularly threatens German editors and tries to drive them away from military articles with threats of blocking on their talk pages, accusing them of being disruptive or some other vague excuse, or filing false and deeply distortive reports on them on ANI. He gives a carte blanche to his preferred pro-British editors to do and behave as they see it fit (see the Battle of Britain article and esp. the discussion page as a stellar example of this, in particular Enigma's unrestricted personal attacks provoking Blablaaa), rules be damned, they do not apply to all.. I have learned from it though, only to learn again how wiki actually works, ie. what you call dirty wiki politics.

It is clear by now, both to you and me what kind of underhand tactics and block-to-win strategy is employed by a group of identifiable pro-British editors and admins. I've also seen that you are being targeted now at ANI by Eyeserene's nodding buddy, another block-to-win I guess, and there's no doubt that a myriad of very familiar names will turn up at ANI very soon to support the idea that you are the only rotten apple in their basket, pouring such amount of vague accusation at you that it will be impossible to defend against. You should be aware that all that Eyeserene is looking now is an excuse to get you blocked, as he is already making barely hidden threats at the ANI - I guess he is getting nervous. Don't give him that excuse.

The only way of fighting this sort of dishonest mocking of all that are Wiki's principles is getting it some publicity, bring the case as soon as possible to the German military articles task force, so that other German editors become aware of the possible issue, rather than being persecuted one by one while doing honest and useful work, which I am convinced Blaablaaa is doing (and frankly I envy his patience and restraint while dealing with this problem!).

Its also important to get it to higher forum where it is inspected in detail. It must be done ASAP, as you have been already targeted at ANI with a mockery accusation. As typically nobody at ANI will look at the matter in detail, the decisions are summary, nobody will look into diffs (which are not presented anyway), or wheter its just buddy editors auto-supporting the accusations of their POV buddies, or look into the service history of this admin, which leaved a clear pattern behind him. The only proper forum for this is the Arbitration Committee, which is sufficiently above the - few, in my opinion - possibly influenced members of the Milhist who will suppress any serious investigation with noise, as if would be some virtual Animal Farm. Luckily the evidence is very strong, as innumerable diffs can be presented from these admins past for preferential treatment, and even open admittance of such treatment. And the ArbCom is certainly not hesitant to employ summary measures against such rotten apples which were hiding in the basket for too long, doing damage to Wiki - see the Eastern European Mailing list case, where another (Polish, I think) admin was unblocking his buddies and tried to get German/Russian editors blocked, although the methods were cruder. All of them got very long terms blocks, and none of them are admins. There's certainly a pattern, and I think it has run long enough. Cheers, Kurfürst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.190.79 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kurfürst, first i make myself vulnerable when i answer, but who cares?^^ at the moment iam searching consensus with tomstar but iam collecting diffs besides, to be prepared for the last option. Iam pretty confident. If neutral people look this they will start acting i guess this will become unpleasent for more than one. I looked a bit around and found other german editors who seem to have problems. The only similarity with me is they edit very controversial topics. But i dont want to contact them. I thought about looking for some other nationalities. There were other wars then the ones against germany. Do you have some email? maybe you make one for this occasion we can speak deutsch. Do you have some diffs which make my work shorter? I guess eyeserens replies at talkpages and particular his last posts at my ani where nicks block was overruled are very much for illustrating the agenda. Admin nick is the admin with the most clear edits i guess. Iam not sure but i guess eyeseren and nick reached a point of no return. They are so overconfident because they support each other but eventually who cares when people start investigating if MILHIST is working properly. No endorse of others lies will help then. Nevertheless i will try to find consensus first with tomstar. Again consider giving email iam not sure if you have enough ips for that ^^ , and if not dont forget to give some diffs. mit freundlichen grüßen Blablaaa (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked on your last block and my neutral ( an iam able to give neutral opinions ) opinion is that he is not justified but i dont know what your edits were. Maybe you are annoying like me maybe more maybe less i dont know. But i see most of your problem were with dapi. I guess if you consider an unblockrequest you have good chance. Blablaaa (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he tries to tell me what the book says which he never saw and i have in front of me. Dont know what to say this... Blablaaa (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its your word against another editor and its also your word and another editor that the book is the superior source ... while the majority of editors believe Glantz is a superior source. Furthermore you are taking full ownership of the article and relying on coordinated personal attacks by yourself and Caden to get your way. If all of the above were not the case on all the articles you edit you wouldn't have the problem you're currently in.

All I did was revert an obviously false statistic, accidentally, to another false statistic. And instead of discussing it with me and other editors you engaged in behaviour that caused some to simply stop editing the articles and others to seek arbitration.

What you need to take from this is to be civil, accept that your sources are not generally the most widely accepted OR factual and to discuss long before making any unilateral edits.

As for Caden, since I'm on his page, not yours, I recommend you give up on your ideas of conspiracy, your personal attacks and threats and in fact cease editing milhist discussions altogether as you're clearly incapable of remaining rational or calm. I don't know why but I have my suspicions and it troubles me. But I don't appreciate threats, insults and accusations for making a single edit of a single statistic that a buddy of yours disagreed with and didn't discuss.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he caden thanks for your help, finally i guess i will leave, i totally get rage if this continues. I will go to a committe soon with some diffs and so one to achieve a change. But iam not able to discuss every edit away from allied bias. Especially when the people here not even try to be neutral. They lie to avoid admiting there failures, its disgusting. Chaosdruid for example, getting mad with this guy. But thanks for your help anyways. Eventually the amount of english contributors will always push the foreigners. A neutral admin is needed. But iam interessted to see what happens after committe. Blablaaa (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But I do not think you should leave. I can understand your frustration with the "allied bias". And yes, I agree that people there appear to not even try to be neutral. Why they avoid admiting they're wrong is puzzling. But you've made your case. Don't worry about defending yourself against Chaosdruid or the others. To be honest I think you need to ignore him and the rest. Don't reply to any further accusations from this group. Your diffs speak for themselves. You've explained yourself well. Don't give them the fight they appear to be looking for. They are not worth the energy or time. I know it's hard to ignore such wild accusations and attacks from these people but I think it's best to just ignore them and their disruption. Take a break from the RFC. Serious conversation is not possible because too many of them are acting out of anger towards you for past issues. I'm afraid to say the RFC is beginning to look like an attack page on you from what I can see. That alone is reason for you to ignore it at this point until the direction changes. It's a shame that no German editors or German admins are participating. Neutral German participation could help balance things out, I would think. Anyways, like I said, take a break. Caden ^cool 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see your comments Caden. Blaa indeed does not need to defend against me as I am not attacking him/her. When the Charnwood chat on the Milhist page started I was on his/her side and helped get the lead sentence changed in Charnwood. It is a shame that you have led him/her up the garden path with comments like "ignore us" - that is what started the problem when blaaa ignored the sources I was providing and ignored the other editors who were trying to point out that consensus was not in his favour.

Serious conversation would not have you on a transparent second mission of getting back at admins. YOu are now saying that blaaa is being wildly attacked and accused and to "ignore them and their disruption" yet there is no truth in this. I do not understand why you are still pushing this when in fact blaaa is the on who accuses neutral editors of mirepresentation and OR.

It is indeed a shame that blaaa choses not to continue. If it was not for the constant accusations from blaaa of "OR" I would still be on his/her side. The fact is that neutrality and balance of sources is the way Wikipedia articles are made. As I said to blaaa on their personal talk page it is not always the best way. Unfortunately that is gone now but if you look here you can see what I said.[10]

I am asking you to stop saying that I, for one, have any intention other than neutrality. I am also asking you to stop saying that I am refusing to admit I am wrong.

This is the only time I will be posting here as more wikidrama is something we can all do without.Chaosdruid (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Blablaaa and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have noted your interest in WW2 and also freedom of expression. So, here's an invitation to participate in open discussion after taking a look at the current dispute discussion at World War II discussion page. Concerns my ongoing hassles with the user HoHum and some others. With regards. Communicat (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image thing happened again. Look at my talk page. One of the images was even one that was already here I just cropped it. I think that even though they were all properly licensed for use here I don't think I did it right here. Probably why they were deleted. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I get the chance I will. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry I guess I forgot about working on that. I'll tackle that tomorrow :) Oh, also, on a side note, whenever you add references, it'd be much appreciated if you could add them using the {{cite web}} template. :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caden, your edit today was unfortunate. For starters, you restored a comment that had zero to do with improving the article; my removal of it was fully in compliance with talk page guidelines. For another thing, I removed it seven months ago, and it was not your comment. If the editor who made it wanted to restore it, they had seven months to do so, but they did not. You cannot know whether it even reflects the current views of that editor, and it is unfair to reinsert a comment like that without the express permission of the other editor. And you didn't even use an edit summary.

Except to defend you on a minor point during a talk page discussion long ago, I have had no interactions with you, so I hope you'll take it in the constructive spirit it's intended when I remind you that your history at Talk:E.O. Green School shooting was marked by contention and drama. I thought (and hoped) all that was in the past. In any event, I am reverting your revert one time but will not engage in an edit war. If you believe I am wrong, I am willing to discuss it. Thanks for understanding. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The old posting contained unsourced speculations and opinion about the subject of the article. What is the reason for resurrecting it? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi River. Thank you for the feedback. I have no issue with you reverting. It's fine by me. It was my understanding that the editor was looking for feedback in regards to the ADHD factor. Both boys were said to have been diagnosed as such. Furthermore, she/he (the editor) mentioned other points as well, such as the bad childhoods of both Brandon McInerney and Larry King and the King probation for theft and vandalism. I thought the editor wanted these points in the article to be looked at. Perhaps I read her post incorrectly? I haven't read the E.O. Green School article in ages, not since I fought hard for a NPOV, which I was successful in finally achieving after facing a difficult battle with some of the most aggressive POV pushers I've ever met on wiki. On a side-note, I believe you should have informed the editor explaining why you had removed her post. I saw no such explaination from you on her talk page. Thank you. Caden ^cool 23:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your reply before. Sorry. You're right that I might have informed the editor. Although that's not required (or even mentioned in the talk page guidelines), it probably would have been the better approach. Fwiw, that user had previously received a warning for doing the exact same thing, so my informing them probably would have taken the form of either a template or a custom-worded equivalent of the same. In any case, the editor appeared to be soliciting opinions that had no direct bearing on the article. That's never a good thing, and on articles like that one, it can quickly lead to major disruption on the talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! Lionel (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Hi.I was adding many sources to the Jill Gibson article but I don't know what went wrong? I can't see the many different pages on the 5 books that I used for references. I also added sources from old print magazines. I'm not sure why the page numbers are not displaying? Caden ^cool 02:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: I see a page number for every reference in the "References" section (except #21 which says "cover"). What is one reference where you do not a page number? —teb728 t c 04:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm explaining it correctly. If you look at the article at the 5 books you will see that it shows the same one page as a reference, when infact I used multiples pages from all 5 books. Maybe I did the book templates wrong? I don't know? Caden ^cool 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made 25 edits to the article today. Could you point to ONE of them that isn't working like you expect so that I don't have to dig through all of them? —teb728 t c 04:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry but I don't think I'm explaining what I mean. Okay here's one of the refs I used: Phillips, Michelle (1986). California Dreamin': The True Story of the Mamas and the Papas The Music, the Madness, the Magic that was (1 ed.). Warner Books. pp. 86. ISBN 0-446-51308-3. I copied and pasted this particular ref off the article as an example here. Okay, now look at that ref. It says I only used one page from that book when infact I used more than just one page as a ref. For some reason I must of did the ref thingy wrong. i dont know how to explain it any better. If you look at the article in the editing mode you will see that I used multiple pages from each book and yet when you look at the article it shows each book as referncing one page only from each book. Caden ^cool 05:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you wanted? —teb728 t c 05:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes and no. It still doesnt fix all the other page numbers that I used from all the other books. I used many pages from each book but I think I did the book template thingy wrong. I'm too frustrated to even try to fix it and to make matters worse I dont know how to fix it. I give up. I tried. Please feel free to delete all my edits. Thank you for trying but I just cant seem to explain what I'm trying to explain. The refs on the article is a mess. I dont know where I went wrong. Sorry. Just delete it all. Caden ^cool 05:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Excuse me for butting in—your page popped up on my watchlist. Sorry for not noticing your reply in the previous thread; I'll respond in a minute.) I'm not sure, but I think the issue may be that you used the same name (e.g., <refname=michelle> for the different citations. Although you specified different page numbers, because the refname was the same it overrode that. You might try using different refnames when you're citing different pages (e.g., <refname=michelle86> for page 86, <refname=michelle96> for page 96, etc). Actually, I see that TEB728 is doing exactly that now. Anyway, don't sweat it; WP citations are a nightmare. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks River. I'm glad TEB728 is fixing my mess up. I feel bad for screwing up on the same ref name for differnt citations. I hope next time I can get it right because it can be frustrating as hell. By the way, you are always welcome on my talk page. Never feel like you're butting in. Caden ^cool 06:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got it all now, right? The deal is this: You don’t need to do named references; they are a convenience so that you can, for example combine all the Greenwald references for p. 286. On the first you write <ref name=Greenwald286>{{cite book|…|page=286|…}}</ref>. For all the others you write just <ref name=Greenwald286 />, notice the slash. (Another small change I made was to change “pages”->“page” This makes it say p. 286 instead of pp. 286.) —teb728 t c 07:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you got it all. Thank you so much for doing that. And thank you for explaining where I went wrong. Now I understand and I will make sure I don't repeat this error next time. Once again thank you! Caden ^cool 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad: Like River said, citations are a nightmare. —teb728 t c 07:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there buddy! Long time no talk! How's things going? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear things are good. I've been pretty good, too. Starting college here in 2 weeks, so that's pretty exciting for me. I'm a bit nervous, though lol. Alright, when I get a chance I'll check things out. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you majoring in? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh neat! I'm majoring in criminal justice and forensic science. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, I appreciate it! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

On the log in page I get "Log me in globally". What does this mean? Caden ^cool 22:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The global login function is so that you will also be automatically logged into all of the Wikimedia Foundation's other wikis rather than having to log in to each individually. This includes the other language Wikipedias, metawiki, commonswiki, etc. Good luck, and feel free to ask me any more questions on my talk page! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks! Caden ^cool 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the message. At the moment I'm just adding bits here and there (especially where articles are sparse on references /full of uncited stuff). I've been unpacking boxes and wallowing in books and music papers after a move. Can only find one ref to S.F. in Roxxon - for 'Johnny Loves Me' as 11th best Cashbox single of '62. I'll add it this weekend. As for Fever Tree - I bought the first album when it came out all those centuries ago! Still got it! Brieflysentient (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the message. And thank you for helping out on the article for Fever Tree. I hope your move went well. Btw how old are those music papers you mentioned? As for your original Fever Tree album, it must be worth money. I wonder how much that would sell for? Caden ^cool 15:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy ole pal! :) Life's descent, just rather busy with school and such. Hope things are good your way, as well. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)