User talk:Caden/Archive 3

E. O. Green School Shooting feedback

Sorry I haven't been able to get back to you until now, Caden. I've been sick for the past couple of days, so I don't think I have the energy or presence of mind to help (I just came on Wikipedia to leave this message). If the problem hasn't been resolved yet, maybe Booker can help (or you can get a third opinion or try the other dispute resolution options. -kotra (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, I understand. I do hope you feel better soon. Please don't worry about the feedback I requested. Just take care of yourself and your health. That's far more important. Caden S (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt threatened by my comment, the transgernderism aspect of this particular incident leaves me very unsettled on a personal level. I made a comment in the pov continued section kinda summerizing the entire article at this point. Again, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Just like you have your own personal experiences, this case kinda hits home for me. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please don't worry. Honestly, it's okay. I'm doing my best to understand how the transgernderism aspect of this particular incident may leave you feeling unsettled for personal reasons. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on your personal situation but since I've met you (on here), I have read a bit up on that. However, I did read your comment in the Pov continued section. It was good and well said. You have every right to express your thoughts and I applaud you for that. But please Booker, there's no need for you to feel bad over your previous comment about me the other day. Honestly, I've had worst said to me in real life. The worst thing I've been called (several times) in my life is a "breeder". As cruel as that may be, the funny part is, I have no children yet. It's true that the E. O. Green School case hits home for both you and I for personal reasons. You know my story and I'm not ashamed of that. A part of me died when I was 12 years of age. My innocence was robbed from me. For many years I had wished that I had died on that particular day. (That day continues to haunt me every single day of my life.) But at the same time, another part of me continues to live. That's the part that keeps me going and gives me the strength I need to succeed in my personal life. Plus, I have in my opinion, the best family and the greatest girlfriend on this planet. Sorry for getting off topic here. My point is, you and I are not that really different. People are not perfect. The human race is flawed. But together we can work to build a better encyclopedia. Caden S (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please go back to the article talk page and enumerate the alleged POV problems with this article. The article has been majorly edited, and you seem to be the only editor who still seems to think there are issues. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I am not the only editor who saw the POV issuses. Have you spoken with the others who expressed the same concerns as I did? Did you contact Smith Jones or Mrmcuker? Has Moni been contacted to express her opinions? We need consensus first, surely you respect that. Yes, the article has been majorly edited and I'm mostly happy with those edits, including the edits you made, despite the fact that you openly trashed my edits. I'm not happy with your removal of some of the original NPOV edits that were made by Moni, however, I'm mostly impressed by many others you provided that appear to me as NPOV. I salute you for that! Caden S (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I contacted you, and only you, because you are currently the only one who has said that POV problems remain, but you have not chosen to elaborate on the talk page. I am therefore inviting you to return to the article talk page and enumerate those concerns so that we can discuss them. Given that the article has changed substantially since you made your original post regarding POV issues, it is even more necessary to be specific about what particular things you see as problematic. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read my comment above? Where did I say POV problems remained? Please do not put words in my mouth. Furthermore, I see no responses on the talk page (not from Smith Jones or Mrmcuker, nor Moni etc) to justify your claim that some type of consensus has been reached. The others must speak for themselves and you can not speak on their behalf. At this point, I'm not willing to return to the talk page. I'm tired of being hung upside down by the balls by the majority of you. If some of you are only interested in another witch hunt, you can count me out. I'm tired of it. Caden S (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary for this edit, made at 23:37, September 6, 2008, reads "The POV issues are on going." If you have no further interest in the article at this time, that's certainly your prerogative. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, that edit was made because I was waiting for the editors I mentioned in my post above to reply on the talk page. But I see you went ahead and removed the template with no consensus whatsover. You have no right to speak for others and no right to remove the tag! Caden S (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My feedback, finally

Hi Caden, I'm back (more or less). Sorry about the wait, I've only been getting better since last night (I took today off from work). I've looked over the more recent comments on Talk:E.O. Green School shooting, and the current version of the article, and I honestly don't see much POV left. The only problem I see is the "most prominent gay-bias crime since the murder of Matthew Shepard" quote in the lead which presents the incident as unquestionably a "gay-bias crime". While this quote is verifiable (from the same Newsweek source that has done much to reduce the POV), taken out of context it may conflict with "the motive for the shooting remains unknown" which is stated later in the article. I'm not sure if this should be corrected, and how, so I'll bring it up on the article's talk page for input.

Other than that, the motivation is otherwise not discussed in the article (the other mentions of "hate crime" and "anti-gay violence" are only portrayed as legal charges and the reactions of organizations and celebrities, not as fact). Therefore, I don't think the "In contrast, some teachers at the school noted King's intense focus on McInerney...etc" paragraph is particularly needed, since there's nothing to contrast it against. Maybe I'm wrong about that, let me know if you disagree.

I don't get why the other editors are so keen on removing the POV tag so quickly, but I think they do have a point that the article has achieved about as much neutrality as it can with the few sources available at this time. That's probably isn't what you wanted to hear, but that's my opinion.

On a side-note, I see from your most recent comments that you're getting frustrated with the other editors. Please remember to keep a cool head, and assume good faith. Most editors are really just trying to make a better encyclopedia, and accusing them of putting their biases or personal feelings of you ahead of that is an easy way to get on their bad sides (even if, once in a while, it's true). It's definitely frustrating to find seemingly everyone disagreeing with you (I know how that is), but in the end I think these people are just disagreeing, they probably don't have any personal feelings about you.

The best way to get past other people's biases and personal feelings (real or not) is, really, just to ignore them. Show clearly how you're right: justify your position with specific points, and discuss it until either they agree with you. That way, their personal feelings of you don't matter, if you're obviously right. If that doesn't work, maybe you're wrong (I often find myself eventually agreeing with people I'm arguing with, and I'm not always happy about it). If neither of you will agree, then sometimes a compromise is the only way to actually do something and move on. You probably know all this though, so sorry if I'm getting preachy.

Anyway, you may want to strike or remove (with an explanation) your most recent comments, if you think you should. If it were me, I would, but it's entirely up to you. -kotra (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the response. I'm happy to see you're back and feeling better. Yes, the current version of the article is far better now, however, it still needs more work. That will come with time, I'm sure. I, too, honestly don't see much POV left except for a few minor things. The one problem you pointed out has since been fixed by you. Good job on your part. I do disagree with you on the, "In contrast, some teachers at the school noted King's intense focus on McInerney...etc" paragraph. In my opinion it's particularly needed because it's part of the story leading up to the shooting. It's been reported on and more on this will definetly come to light during the trial. But like you, I didn't get why the other editors were so keen on removing the POV tag so quickly. To me, this sent up red flags from all directions. Regardless of this I think the article has achieved about as much neutrality as it possibly can at this point. In response to your side not on my frustration with some of the other editors, yes, it's true. However, it's just as clear in most of their comments on the talk page that they were just as frustrated. I do understand your two main points of advice: to remember to keep a cool head and to assume good faith. Both are difficult to follow when faced with obvious POV pushers. There are too many of those, in my opinion, on that talk page. Nevertheless, I agree with you that most editors are really just trying to make a better encyclopedia. I prefer to focus on that. Also, your feedback and advice is always welcome. I value and trust your opinions. As always thanks for all your help, but more importantly, I'm glad to see you back! Caden S (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm lurking. I prefer the tag gone because it signifies that the article's quality is less than stellar, and I'm a perfectionistic freak. A POV tag is a huge zit on an article. There's no doubt the article is in better shape than it was, but waiting on a POV tag...I don't understand what for. Either there are portions of the article that are POV, and I hope there are examples that can be pointed out, or there are not. I think the discussion that ensued from your protest was good for the article (though a bit messy) and I hope the editors who are paying attention to it will continue to view the article as a report on two very troubled boys. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand Moni. I've asked EB to remove the tag. Please feel free to remove it yourself. I'm pretty much happy with the article at this point. Caden S (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you removed it yourself it would go a long way towards demonstrating your good faith to the other editors of the page. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that but I can't at the moment. I still have another 45 minutes left of class. Just please let me remove it after my class is done with. I'm up in about 10 minutes to present my project. Caden S (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Side note: The reason most of us were in a hurry to remove the POV tag (in my opinion) is because, as I stated myself on the talk page, it implies that there is a gross misrepresentation of the information present in the article. That, in itself, is a disservice to the reader who will be given a false impression of the article. We could just as easily place a POV tag on every article on wikipedia which is not a Featured Article (they could reasonably be assumed to have weight or pov issues), but that would - again - give a false impression to the general reader. POV tag is meant, generally to be a last resort for articles which have gone off the deep end. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point on the matter. However, the POV template was absolutely justified in terms of the horrible shape the article was once in. I think Moni said it best in her above post: "I think the discussion that ensued from your protest was good for the article (though a bit messy)...". So, regardless of what ensued, I'm happy that I was able to get the ball rolling and I managed to bring all editors together as a team to make the article NPOV. Caden S (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Caden: please make up your mind. Are you editing and discussing the E.O Green School shooting article or not? If you are, and you still feel that NPOV is a problem, then please go to the article talk page and explain what specific things in the article are non-neutral. Otherwise, please do not add the neutrality tag back to the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please just give me a couple of days until my adopter is able to return and weigh in on his opinion. He's been sick lately. I trust his opinion. Please just give me some time before we remove the template again. Caden S (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not personally going to remove it while we're in the midst of discussion, but I really would like you to explain why you feel the article isn't neutral (on the talk page, please). Please note that there are section tags that can be used if you feel a particular section is non-neutral as opposed to the entire article.

Nobody is trying to attack you, by the way. But it is frustrating to try to deal with neutrality issues when you don't know what's supposedly non-neutral. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to explain as best I could. There's the one issue I brought up to you on the talk page but now Benji is on there turning it into something else (hinting at a homosexual relationship between King and McInerney which violates WP:BLP and is not true). I am happy with most of the article. But please, give me some more time until my adopter returns. Caden S (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi's point was that it is impossible to say that McInerney and King didn't have a relationship; they may well have. In other words, all we have is one teacher's guess that King was "probably lying" when he told his friend that he and McInerney had dated. But Benjiboi isn't suggesting that we should claim in the article that they had a relationship (and if anyone did suggest such a thing it wouldn't get very far; there's no evidence for it). Exploding Boy (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you on Benji. We have two examples disputing Benji's fantasy. The teacher's confession that King was lying (remember King loved attention and was obsessed with the boy) and McInerney's lawyer's denial that such a thing ever occured. Naturally the lawyer spoke to his client. Case closed. Did it ever occur to you guys that it's more than possible that no such relationship ever took place? I hate to remind you, but we heterosexuals do exist. Furthermore, regarding the talk page, I do feel attacked by the majority of you in that discussion. Caden S (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all productive to refer to Benjiboi's comments as "fantasy," but in response, the teacher did not "confess" that King was lying. S/he was not under oath or under investigation, s/he was talking to a reporter. Also, s/he said "probably lying." McInerney's lawyer can deny anything he wants; it doesn't mean he's telling the truth, and it doesn't mean McInerney is either. Maybe they had a relationship; probably they didn't. We don't know. Anyway, I think you're missing the point, which is that nobody's trying to claim, in our article, that they had a relationship.

Again, I don't think anyone's trying to attack you on the article talk page. But once more, and without trying to harass you (since I know are waiting for your mentor to return) or to attack you, it would really help if you could explain, in simple, straightforward terms, what it is about the article that you find non-neutral. Some of your edits and statements suggest (to me at least) that you are biased in favour of McInerney, or if not in favour of McInerney specifically, then against homosexuality in general. The way I see the current state of the article, it doesn't favour either boy: both kids are described as troubled and as victims of bullying. We haven't given undue weight to comments by third parties about either boy, and we've included the most important criticisms. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. It's not productive and I apologize. Please forgive me. In regards to your request, could you EP just please let my adopter return so that he can give some feedback on this. I don't have any real problem with the article except for what I already mentioned to you on the talk page. And for the record, I am not against homosexuality. Caden S (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

{{helpme}}In the History Section of the Playmate of the Month article I found this and it has no citation:

"Eventually, after Playboy's rival magazine Penthouse had appeared (in 1965 in the UK), both magazines strove to show just a little bit more than the other, the so-called Pubic Wars."

I have a reliable source for it, New York Magazine. But I'm not sure how to do it. Every time I try to, it doesn't work. What am I doing wrong? I've been to the citation templates page already and I'm getting nowhere. Here's the link to my source: [1]

What are you trying to do? Insert the reference inline? If so, this should work: <ref>[http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/n_9815/index1.html Article Name]</ref> Exploding Boy (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks! I think it worked but it doesn't look right. Can you please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Caden S (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was fine. You just needed no space before the ref and 2 after it. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so do you mean no space before the reference and two spaces after it? Is it really that sensitive? I just want to make sure I completely understand you. Caden S (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well no, it just looks better.Article Name like this than like. Article Namethis. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the name per your request. Where I had written Article Name above you just needed to substitute the actual name of the article. I didn't really read that article, by the way, but it looks like it could use some more sources and citations: there are quotes that aren't cited. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dude! Yeah, I knew that but I forgot to put in the name of the actual article. Mental error on my part. Okay, let me look at those quotes later, and I'll see what I can do. Caden S (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning IP's

Hi Caden, when warning IP's it might be wise to use the template warnings. I can help you locate these if you like. It's best not to give personalized warnings to people. Stuff like bolden caps with exclamation marks only intensifies the IP's desire to annoy you. Also don't insult the IP, even if it seems like a harmless phrase such as "stop being a goff". Thirdly, try to remember that at wikipedia we don't WP:OWN articles. Calling an article "my page" really isn't wise and is looked down at (Lol, I used to consider pages mine but it's best to get out of that habit). Anyway just some advise. — Realist² 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, no I wasn't watching your contributions. I went to the Metro articles, apparently Michael Jackson own's the copy rights to their music? Anyway, when I was there I noticed a broken web link in the article. I can fix it if you like. — Realist² 12:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the good advice. Could you give me the best template warnings? I understand now how my warnings to IP users was not the best way to go. I was just incredibly annoyed and irritated with the recent increase in vandalism on that article. And yes, you are correct, I don't own that page. I never meant to intentionally imply that I was its owner. I was just frustrated, irritated and really fed up with the vandalism. I guess I wasn't thinking when I said it was "my page." In regards to the broken web link, please do fix it if you can. Caden S (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is the basic level 1 warning with your signature attached {{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}} ~~~~. You just copy that onto the editors talk page. You start at a level 1 warning then upgrade it every time after that by changing it to 2, 3 or 4. Obviously you replace "pagename" with the name of the article being vandalized. After you have given the editor a 4th warning you might as well ask for admin assistance over at WP:AIV. Remember, the template is only for vandalism as is the link to AIV. If you want templates for warning editors about other things let me know. Also, your edit summary should just say "Level 3 vandal warning", or whatever your doing.

I would keep that paragraph above safe on your user page somewhere. So it's easy to access the template and link to AIV. Many people leave useful things like this on there user page (myself included for a while). I'll fix the broken link over at Metro for you. — Realist² 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, some solid good advice. I do appreciate it. Caden S (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're curious, the full list of user warning templates (along with some guidelines on when and how to use them) can be found here. -kotra (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Archived

Hi Caden, I've archived your talk page as you asked. If you want to do it yourself in the future, this is how:

1. Add a link to a new archive subpage (like I did here, except instead of the formatting I did, you can just add * [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] for the next one)
2. Click on that new link to create the subpage. You can add the {{talkarchive}} template at the top and bottom of the page at this point (like I did) or whenever.
3. Cut (CTRL-X) all the stuff you want to archive from your talk page, and paste it (CTRL-V) in the archive page. Save both pages, and you're done. (cut, pasted)

I'm happy to do it for you, but if you want to do it on your own, that's how. Let me know if you have any questions. -kotra (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks great! I just had a look at your directions (which you explained well), and I think I might be able to do the next one. When you referred to the part: "add a link to a new archive subpage"...I'm not sure what you mean. Is the new archive page similar to my sandbox? In terms of it being yet another subpage? I had difficulty before setting up a sandbox and I believe it may have been you who created that for me. Caden S (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, your talk page archives are subpages of this page, User talk:CadenS, just like your sandbox is a subpage of User:CadenS. To make a link to a subpage, you can either write it out completely, like [[User talk:CadenS/Subpage]] (which shows as: User talk:CadenS/Subpage), or if you're already at the page the subpage is under, you can just put a / at the beginning of the link, like [[/Subpage]] (which shows as /Subpage). Both go to the same place. Hope that's not confusing. -kotra (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I got it now. Thanks Kotra. Caden S (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -kotra (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RIAA

The best source for RIAA certifications would be this search tool. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Caden S (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Brief check-in

Hi Caden. As your Adopter, I wanted to check in and see how you've been doing. Looking over your recent edits, I'm happy to see that your contributions have been well-reasoned, helpful, and thoughtful. For the most part, your discussions with other editors have been respectful and level-headed, even in disagreement, and you've shown the maturity to apologize to other editors when you think you may have offended them. As you know, there have been a few disputes where you've let your frustrations show, but all in all, you've been a great help lately. I'm proud of what you have achieved so far. Keep up the good work! -kotra (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so supportive, man. I appreciate it. You're the only editor who has ever complimented my contributions. It feels good to know that. I'll continue to try and keep a cool head in the future when dealing with difficult disputes. I think in the past, I made the mistake of responding to editors baiting me. Regardless of that, I've learned from it. I still have much more to learn and I'm looking forward to it. Your feedback, guidance, advice and support (concerning my edits or behavior on Wikipedia) is more than helpful. I really could not have found a better adopter, so once again, thanks! Caden S (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Shake It (song)

Yes! I am positive that "Shake It" has been certified Platinum. You can search for it at the RIAA database here. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. And just to let you know, I wasn't assuming bad faith on your part. Caden S (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I'd be glad to help with any concern you have. Oh, I never assumed it was bad faith. =] EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's good to know. There is something I think you could help me with. Do you know how to fix the music singles or album charts on band pages? Not the infobox but the music charts? Caden S (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Like center everything and RIAA, and all the jazz? If you'd like, you could tell me any band's that you think need a little help, and I'd be glad too. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. Could you fix the centering on the singles chart for Boys Like Girls? It doesn't appear right. Also Good Charlotte needs a little help too. Thanks. Caden S (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, scratch out the part on Boys Like Girls. Another editor fixed the problem. Caden S (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was me who fixed it! Haha..and I somewhat fixed Good Charlotte's, too. Anything else, just lemme know. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job Kyle! And thanks! Okay, I will be sure to let you know when I need some help with any others. Caden S (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Oh, and your welcome! =] EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Charts

Sure! I'd be glad to. I'll see what I can do! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Caden, but I can't find a single thing that says they have a charted album or single. When something that hasn't charted, it's very hard to find a reliable source. And right now, I can't find anything. I'm sorry! Maybe you could see if User:TenPoundHammer could help. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for trying Kyle. I had the same difficulty locating charted information for either of that band's CD's. At first, I thought I was just not searching properly. But now, I see it's obvious the group has yet to chart anywhere. I'm not sure if it's worth asking for Bobby's (TenPoundHammer) help since both you and I have been unable to find a single thing. Nevertheless, I appreciate all your help. Caden S (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess they haven't charted. Yeah, your right. It kinda be pointless to ask Bobby for help when neither of us can find anything. It was worth a shot... No problem! I'll always be here to help with anything you or anyone needs help with. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Metro Station

Ok, I looked through the history, and found a few things that needed to be reverted. I think their page needs to be protected, so that only established users can edit it. Like Miley Cyrus. Except I'm not an admin (but I wish I was), so I can't protect the page myself. Or can I? Oh, and one more thing, if you wouldn't mind, could you reply on my talk page please? Thank ya! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I had TenPoundHammer ask for semi-protect for the page. I'm getting tired of always reverting those stupid people's edits over and over and over again! Like I always say, I'm here to help! =] EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I saw that. I'm like you, I'm tired of reverting the vandalism on that article. But this last time was a complete mess. I'm happy to see that both you and Bobby were able to fix it. Once again, thanks for all your help Kyle. I appreciate that. Caden S (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very excited about that! I also listed Billy Ray Cyrus for protection. That would be my main concern right now, since he's about the most edited article because of Miley. Again, please, reply here, since I don't monitor your talk page, I don't know when you reply! Thanks! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandy Moore

Her article doesn't them. She has a discography. The main page doesn't have to them, when everything is on another page. reply here. Thanks! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know she has a discography. But don't you think it belongs on her main article? I think separate articles for artist discography makes no sense to me. Other encyclopedias have no such thing. Caden S (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, personally I don't think it does. Lots of other musical artists have their own discographies so the main page doesn't get to long and slow the hole process down. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kyle for your response. Yeah, I understand now why it's done this way on Wikipedia. Caden S (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does... not yet that is. To be protected, it should have like an entire days worth of IP Vandalism. If you think it does, go right ahead and request it for protection. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Discography pages

The reason we have discography pages is length. Most singers' pages would be far too long if the discography were part of the main page, especially for artists who have been recording for a long time like Kenny Rogers. It's a common practice on Wikipedia to split articles into sub-articles if need be. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for explaining this to me. It makes sense I suppose, but still, it sort of sucks. Caden S (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

David Beckham

You have not provided a reason for reverting the edits by myself and User:SpartanSWAT10. To assume that Beckham's inclusion in the squad for the Czech Republic match has any bearing on his future inclusion in the England squad is original research and crystal-balling, and therefore the inclusion of the statement is undesired. By the way, please try to keep a clear head when dealing with others on Wikipedia. You may be getting "pissed off", but do try to remain civil. – PeeJay 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud Peejay! I did provide you with a reason. I'm not assuming anything either. It is what it is and further more, his inclusion is obvious to what the future may bring. It's not original work and it's not POV either. And, yes, you are pissing me off. But I'm being civil no less. Caden S (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Beckham. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. – PeeJay 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who's involved in an edit war, not me. You keep reverting every single edit I make because you think I own the article. You claim I'm adding original work and you accuse me of crystal-balling. I'm doing no such things. It's you who acts like the David Beckham article is yours. Well guess what? It's not yours. And now you give me this bogus three-revert rule warning. You know what you can do with your warning? Use your imagination. Caden S (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it bogus? I count five. Beve (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's total bull and you know it too. I did two reverts at the most. Peejay did way more reverts. Caden S (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you unaware that there's a history page proving the opposite? Beve (talk)

Of course I'm aware of the history page. Alright, I made a total of five reverts. I miscounted because some of my edits were written as "reverts" while others were written as "undid". Still, what's your point to this? You can't block me for making an honest mistake. Caden S (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In these edit summaries I see some incivility. Please assume good faith, because these editors are only trying to improve the article. Also, Caden did revert five times, although I see that PeeJay has reverted three times as well, so technically you both violated the three-revert rule. But instead of dwelling on that, I suggest that both parties now calmly discuss the proposed text on the page's talk page. Continuously reverting each other will not help, only discussion can. -kotra (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that three times is not a technical breach of 3RR - "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" Beve (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're right Kotra. My edit summaries were incivil and I apologize for that but I was being irritated by Peejay's constant reverting. He gives me a three-revert rule warning when he's nearly broken the rule himself. Furthermore, he's accused me of having "some serious issues with ownership" of the article. I never said I owned it and I resent him saying that. But there's no need to dwell on the text now, since it's been removed from the main article. Caden S (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. But please do remain civil anyway. -kotra (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right Beve, my mistake. -kotra (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR breach

CadenS your breach of the 3RR rule on David Beckham afer being warned has been noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? I didn't breach the 3RR rule on the David Beckham page. I stopped reverting edits after I received a warning from User Peejay. Caden S (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did technically breach it, but you stopped after you were warned. Since you have stopped, you shouldn't be blocked (blocks are to prevent further harm, not punish). -kotra (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know I had breached the 3RR rule at the time. I didn't know about this 3RR rule until I got my warning. I wasn't counting my reverts because I didn't know about this rule. But now it looks like Stepshep wants me blocked. He's implied in his report that I was reverting after my warning and that's not true. I stopped right after my warning was given to me. It's like he wants me punished or something along those lines. His report makes no sense. Caden S (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, CadenS. I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. I noticed you said "Furthermore, Edit #1 is a completely different edit and has nothing to do with the others." This probably doesn't matter this time, since you've already stopped reverting, but to help you understand the 3RR rule for future situations, please understand that it doesn't matter if the edits are changing different material. If you revert four times on the same page in 24 hours, it violates 3RR, even if you're reverting four different things on the page. It's a good idea to spend some time reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that other rules don't take you by surprise; for example, some users are surprised about the canvassing guideline. All the best, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Copper for your response. I appreciate you explaining this to me because I didn't know about the rules of 3RR. I know better now. I will no longer be reverting more than three times on a single subject per day. I still need to catch up on all these Wikipedia guidelines. I'm mostly busy with school and try to squeeze whatever free time I can on here. Caden S (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Caden. You didn't know at the time, and you stopped after being warned. So I don't think there is any problem anymore. -kotra (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. No action will be taken. An admin recently closed it and referred to it as being "stale". Caden S (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Shanna Moakler

Hi CadenS. This is in response to your latest comment on Shanna Moakler's discussion page: Please be civil. Throwing insults to others is considered a violation of the TOS. Also, keep in mind that it is not your article. No matter how much work you put into an article, it belongs to Wikipedia and we can decide, just as much as you can, what to omit, revert and include. I know how irritating and annoying it can be.. I worked very hard on the Jack Nicholson article, for example, and had all of my changes (which took me over an hour to edit and cite) deleted in >5 minutes by a fanatical Wikipedean. Be grateful that we have users who bring editing up in discussion because those are the people who are genuinely interested in improving the article. As you know, if a user really wanted to they could change the article without conferring with others since Wikipedia is not a democracy and there does not have to be a voting process or majority rule in order for changes to be made to an article.

Please enjoy your week. Respectfully, Sweet Pinkette (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the response. Yes, I know that insults are not productive. I'm trying hard to keep a cool head. I'm working on that. And yeah, I also know that the Shanna Moakler article is not mine. I never said it was, but if I left you with that impression..I apologize. No matter how much work I put into that article, it will always belong to Wikipedia. I guess it's difficult for me, at times, when other editors make changes to it. But that's only because I've been a fan of Shanna's since I was 16 years old (alright, I admit I've had a big crush on her ever since then). I'm sorry to hear what happened to all your hard work on the Jack Nicholson article. I hope you were able to fix that. Caden S (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Apology

Thank you for the apology. You have my respect for even bothering to apologise, as it is something that I myself often have trouble doing. I hope we can go on from this incident and keep on making Wikipedia a better place. – PeeJay 12:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for accepting my apology. I appreciate that. Yeah, sure, we can move on from this and continue to make Wikipedia a great thing. Caden S (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Since you seem to be eliminating links for dates, I thought you might like to know about a script that helps with delinking dates (MOS:NUM) and common terms (WP:OVERLINK). See the message that was left at my talk page a few days ago. Dismas|^(talk) 08:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! This is exactly what I needed. Caden S (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also you may want want to put something like "per this archived discussion" when delinking dates as this is a fairly new policy that I'm sure some casual Wikipedians don't know about. Before August 24 full dates, by policy, had to be linked. If I wasn't aware of policy I would have reverted you because your edit summary didn't describe your actions and went against a now past policy. I hope this is helpful. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Okay, but how do I do that? Do I put this into my edit summary? Regarding my edit summaries, I always explain my actions. Caden S (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya right into the summary, per [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_D6#Again_calling_for_date_linking_to_be_deprecated|this archived discussion]] is the Wiki-markup. I was just looking at your edits for an example and found the edits to Mandy Moore between 08:08, September 22, 2008 and 08:14, September 22, 2008. If you wanted exactly what I meant here's a scenario User:X sees User:Y make 3 edits to his pet article that he just got to featured status. User:X who has been around since 2003, but isn't much into policy thinks all dates should be linked per the Mos, User:X promptly reverts User:Y and leaves a message on his page to "RTFM N00B". User:Y who knows the current policy reports User:X at WP:AN/I, where an admin explains to User:X that the policy recently changed and he needs to assume good faith escpecially to newcomers. User:X and User:Y get over the situation and move on. (That was complicated to write) Edit summaries to policies are less likely to be reverted IMHO. Adios. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Molesting doesn't need to be repeated

The article already states Dirkhising was being molested:

"The Arkansas State Police recorded in their affidavit a statement by Brown that he had been involved in molesting Dirkhising for at least two months prior to Dirkhising's death."

Homosexual is almost always pejorative on biographies, gay, lesbian, bisexual or a self-descriptor is best. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello? It's the correct english word to use. Oh, and on a side-note please try to keep your biased POV in check when working on the Jesse Dirkhising article. Try to remember we have a NPOV policy that must be followed and respected. Caden S (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Random observation: Benjiboi is right on terminology - there has been a historical bias in using the word "homosexual" with a negative connotation to describe people, with an underlining motive to de-humanize them. Encyclopedias will use the terms gay, lesbian or bisexual/Bi; "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are typically used to describe the subject (sexual orientation), not an individual. Its the same grey area as using "black" vs "nergo" vs "African-American" - all of which have been appropriate for people of African decent at one time or another. For Gay and Lesbian individuals, its best not to habitually use the word "homosexual" to describe them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CadenS that homosexual is a correct and unambiguous english adjective. The problems that some perceive about using it, such as it being perjorative or being (for some) unacceptable when used as a noun, are due to intolerance of the sexual activity described and not to any misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. The same comment applies to the word lesbian. The popular(?) substitute word gay is ambiguous and it is a recent construction intended as a euphemism and/or political rallying term. An encyclopedia should use homosexual except when correctly quoting a proper name that contains Gay. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cuddlyable for sharing your thoughts here. You explained them quite well. Regardless of what the editors above say, "homosexual" is indeed the correct english word (much like the word heterosexual) and it should be used as such. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia should use it, instead of using the more (political correct) common slang word. By the way, I think you should express your opinion on this issue over at the AN/I page. I'm no longer paying any attention to the thread, but a complaint was filed over this matter. Caden S (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if we're using print encyclopedias as a role model for wikipedia (such as the text books and encyclopedias used in universities and junior colleges to instruct students), that fact is they don't use "homosexual" to describe individuals. Homosexual is used to describe a form of sexual orientation, but if a text book or encyclopedia begin speaking on a specific individual, they will substitute the word gay or lesbian to describe them. For instance, my text book for my Human Sexuality class Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity states (bolding and italics are as seen in the book):

A homosexual orientation refers to an erotic attraction to, and interest in forming romantic relationships with, member's of one's own sex. The term homosexuality denotes sexual interest in members of one's own anatomic sex and applies to both men and women. Homosexual men are often referred to as gay males. Homosexual women are often called lesbians. Now that we have defined homosexuality, let us note that the term is somewhat controversial. Some gay poeple object to it because they feel that it draws attention to sexual behaviour. Moreover, the term bears a social stigma. It has also been historically associated with concepts of deviance and mental illness.

— page 287, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With The Bookkeper I think it reasonable to use print encyclopedias as a guide for Wikipedia. However I do not say "role model" since that would neglect Wikipedia's pioneering inovations such as it's free distribution, free input, timeliness and expanding scope.

The textbook cited by Bookeeper refers literally to Homosexual men, with an obvious implication that one can refer to A homosexual man. It mentions a minority's (Some gay poeple[sic]'s) preference to substitute "gay" for homosexual. It does NOT claim that "print encylopedias..don't use homosexual to describe individuals".

It is easy to show a counter example:

By early 1894 Queensberry concluded the Wilde was most likely a homosexual...after the trials homosexuals were seen more as a threat.

— http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/wildeaccount.html, The Trials of Oscar Wilde: An Account by Douglas O. Linder

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On the "adjective is acceptable, noun is pejorative" thing

Sorry to butt in, but I just want to offer my two cents on that one aspect of this. My father has cerebral palsy and has been confined to a wheelchair his entire life. I am certainly not one of those who prefer the term "differently-abled" (that's actually a bit insulting.. it's not like my father can walk differently than everyone else, haha), and I have no problem with saying "My dad is handicapped." However, I occasionally will hear a handicapped person referred to as just "a handicapped," i.e. the adjective has become the noun. It always makes me cringe when I hear that. I really, really, really don't care for it. By making the adjective the noun, you make it the central defining characteristic, taking precedence even over "person" or "man".

You are certainly not going to see me siding with the PC police in general, but on this one issue, I gotta agree. Using an adjective as a noun to describe a person is not preferred. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Caden, and to all users who have commented, I suggest cutting and pasting this entire discussion on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising where it would have a lot more use then simply remaining here; it seems wasteful to have this much commentary on a user talk page rather than the actual talk page of the subject matter. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Booker, I don't know if you're aware of this but Kotra started a topic concerning this issue called "Content changes" at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising. Feel free to give your input over there. Same applies to Jay and Cuddlyable. Thanks for all sharing your thoughts on this but I think it's better expressed at the talk page rather than here on my user talk page. Caden S (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, and that's why I suggested moving this section of your talk page there, since we'd essentially be repeating the exact same thing. I would have done it myself, but this is your talk page and I wanted to see if anyone else agreed to just cut-and-paste everyones point of view over there. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Caden S (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for other eyes on this situation

Hello, Caden. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problem with Ave Caesar & CadenS on Jesse_Dirkhising. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 14:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks, Caden! That means a lot for you to say that. I've tried to calm myself when stupid IPs attack everything, it gets on my nerves and I get pretty fired up. What did you do to get all those things against you? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome man. Do your best to not repeat the mistakes I've made. Remember to keep a cool head at all times and you should be okay. Basically, me being incivil and losing my temper is to blame for those things. Good luck Kyle! I know you can do better. Caden S (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on E.O. Green School shooting. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please consider a self revert, and justify your addition on the talk page. Verbal chat 15:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Caden. Maybe you forgot about the 3RR rule, but you can't revert more than three times on an article in 24 hours. I'm not sure why you did that, but as your adopter, I feel partially responsible whenever you break the rules. So please don't get in edit wars like that, for my sake if not for your own. Thanks. -kotra (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry Kotra. I forgot about my earlier revert today. I'm sorry about that. I won't get in any edit war. Caden S (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

You should not change the date format of an article without a good reason. Cristiano Ronaldo has nothing to do with North America, so why should his article use the American date format? – PeeJay 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the date format for better flow because the American date format looks better. Also, Cristiano Ronaldo is known in North America. Caden S (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course he's known in North America, but he's better associated with Europe and Britain, hence the use of the British date format. – PeeJay 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Him being better associated with Britain is your opinion. I disagree. Furthermore, the British date format looks odd. It shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Caden S (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Portugal and possibly Spain, I doubt there is any other country that Cristiano Ronaldo is better associated with than the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it is your opinion that the British date format looks odd and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia and I disagree. Therefore, we must consult WP:DATE, which states "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason. For example, with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject. Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Since you have no style-independent reason to change the date style, it should remain as-was. – PeeJay 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright dude, that's fine. Thanks for giving me this info on WP:DATE. I understand now. Caden S (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)