User talk:Canadaman1960

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Canadaman1960) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on my talk page, I consider sockpuppetry to forcibly insert, again and again, edits that violate WP policy to be vandalistic, but will bow out of attempting to deal with this particular user since you are handling the case more gently. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November-Decemeber 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kevin Trudeau, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Kevin Trudeau. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.. Changing your IP from 122.18.227.99 to 121.116.40.235 and making the same edits isn't going to fool anyone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kevin Trudeau, you will be blocked from editing. Changing your login ID from 121.116.40.23 to Canadaman1960 but making the same vandalistic personal attack edits won't fool anyone either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to call these edits vandalism. They were made improperly and edit warring isn't the way to do it. This editor is obviously a newbie and needs to be dealt with in a different manner. If necessary, a short block for 3RR might be necessary, but vandalism is the wrong word since the additions are basically truthful and backed up by the content and sources in the article. This user is just going about this in the wrong manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Canadaman1960, can you please read my explanations below and kindly unblock me

Even the truth must be handled more carefully here[edit]

While your additions of most of the See also links is justified according to the sourced content in the article, you must be more careful. Discuss them on the talk page first. I think you might get a better reception if you discuss whether they are appropriate and added in the proper manner. If you persist, even if you're right, you will likely get blocked. If you have trouble, leave a note on my talk page. Now that you have created an account, make sure to only use this one and never edit while not logged in. That would be considered sock puppetry and you could get blocked for that. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "See also" links have been moved and you need to discuss them[edit]

Please discuss the future of your edits here. Do not attempt to restore them or your IPs will be blocked and your username banned. There is a reasonable chance that the material can be included, but it must be done properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kevin Trudeau. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Multiple editors have reverted you at this point. You need to discuss the issue on the article talk page or you are almost certainly heading for a block that will prevent you from being able to edit. Your proposed changes do not have consensus and as such discussion, rather than edit warring, is what's needed right now. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This single-purpose account reverted again after this warning, and so has been reported to the admin noticeboard for blocking. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy on biographies of living persons. The sourcing requirements for these articles are especially stringent, and repeatedly failing to adhere to them will lead to your account being blocked. Please seek consensus for your edits at Talk:Kevin Trudeau. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Kevin Trudeau. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make it indef Secret ^account 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) {{unblock|Hello,[reply]

I must confesss full guilt to most of the charges levelled against me. But please let me explain. 1) yes I am a newbie -- there are many functions I do not know... I got on and gave it a whirl on the Kevin Trudeau page because he appears to be particularly under-represented in terms of his pathological lying... but that is a point for future discussion and empirical validity, which I would like to legitimately persue. First let me explain what happenned. Being a newbie I was not aware of a lot of the features associated with Wiki, such as the discussion board, talk page etc where I would have been able to legitimately resolve my dispute and understand the motivation of others. 2) I was edit warring for one reason alone. I thought that Kevin Trudeau robots were editing out anything critical written by others. Once I saw something was gone I slapped another edit in assuming I was denying this guy some money and saving some people money). So I was determined to go one better than the person who was re-editing the text after me. 3) Because of "1" above, I did not know that Mr. McCandlish was editing my text... if I saw the discussion and the talk page -- or even took the time to do, I would have realised that he was an legitimate editor and not a KT Robot. But I did not. 4) I used both my computer at home, one at work, and I also found a "meatpuppet" friend in Taiwan who promised me he would watch the post and slap in my edits if he saw another presumed "Trudeau-phile" take out our edits. So there was no presumed, premeditated used of "Meatpuppets" or "multiple sockets" in the accepted premeditated sense, in this enterprise -- that was not the motivation.

5) I have never vandalised any page. 6) Some of the accusations of "wild claims" and vandalism are not true. I think that at worst they may be controversial. So far as the conspiratorial claims from KT's multilevel marketing scheme you may actually listen to KT himself promoting them. But again, I have learned that this needs to be communicated and buttressed with actual empirical data conscentually agreed upon.

As they say in crime, motivation is 9/10ths of the crime. And because of lack of user knowledge I engaged in edit warring with someone whose warnings and posts I did not know about... Since being blocked however I realise that I was legitimately blocked, and realise and agree with the reason ( I also communicated the reason to the Taiwanese friend so that he will stop accessing the KT site). It is a learning process. I just want someone to realise that the motivation is sometimes very different from that presumed. So I am requesting, duly chastised, an unblock and acceptance into allowing me to make a better contribution and role.

Unless I'm smokin' crack, your block has already expired. Accepting your explanations at face value, henceforth please pay attention to the edit summaries (and use them yourself when editing) that appear in the article history ("history" tab, page-top) and in your own watchlist if you are watching the article. These are the #1 way that editors communicate with each other about why edits are being made and unmade. Everyone and their dog was leaving you very clear messages in edit summaries about why your edits were inappropriate and you simply ignored them and re-made the bad edits.

The edits were bad because a) they were misusing "See also" sections and other features against wikipedia guidlelines; b) they were adding your personal opinion (some of it factually incorrect - not all pyramid schemes are Ponzi schemes in particular), not material reliably sourced in independent publications; and c) the hostile nature of it was a direct violation of WP:BLP, one of our most solid and serious policies.

Trust me, everyone gets the picture that you think Trudeau is a dirtbag. So do most of the editors working on that article. But this is not your (or our) personal blog where we get to bash people. This is a neutral encyclopedia, where everyone notable enough for an article gets reliably sourced information presented about them, both pro and con, and the reader is left to make their own decisions and judgements.

Pay close attention to your own talk page. If serious issues arise, you'll get notes there probably. You should have a very clear notice at top of every WP page if you have new messages. Kind of hard to miss. Lastly, if something of yours is reverted, it was probably done by a real person for a real reason. Try to find out. That reason may not be good enough, but you should at least try to have a discussion about it first. Hope this helps.

PS: You may want to stay away from the Trudeau article, if you are heavily invested in issues surrounding him, and are thus unlikely to be able to be a neutral and balanced editor on the topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{ Apparently I am still blocked and the block is indefinite... if you look at the end there is a small post by "Secret" that makes it indefinite. I must confess that I just did not see any of the posts... I can agree with you on most of what is on there... but I'm not making this stuff up about Kevin Trudeau now running an offshore pyramid scheme. I can document it, and I can set up links to have them reviewed by you. I am not invested in him...I just think that this salient empirical point should be posted on the site, but I am fine with discussing it... I was warring because I did not know how to use these pages to discuss stuff..... and I thought that Trudeau clones were knocking down my posts... I get a bigger picture now and realise that there is more to Wiki than I thought... I know that sounds naive as hell... but that is the truth... and as they say, the school of hard knocks is the best place to learn... so being bollocked by you guys was good for me and I thank you all for it. But I have still not been unblocked}}

I suggest this editor be unblocked. I think he has learned his lesson. He made a number of newbie mistakes and will be more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned my lesson and I want to be clear... when I say "I did not see the warnings etc on my page" I mean that I did not know about the functions and pages.... I did not even know there was a talk page... therefore I just started editing under the assumption that I was warring with some Kevin Trudeau guy paid peanuts to knock down stuff on the web critical to Kevin..." I know that sounds naive... and to you who know all about this... I did not... I have learned A LOT" so please unblock me and I can make a contribution.

I also should say I did not vandalise the pages... I would refute that charge. Anyway I stand here repentant and a changed man... what more can I say.... ?

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per agreement below by user to adhere to policy and guidelines, particularly to seek consensus. If they fail to do so, then at least we can say we gave them a final chance. Happy editing. NJA (t/c) 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: NJA (t/c) 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I added the {{unblock}} template based on the above discussion. This flags your talkpage for attention from an uninvolved administrator (I am involved at that article). Please be especially mindful of the policy on Biographies of living persons, make sure that your sources are impeccable in the sense of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and post them at the same time as you make edits supported by them. Help on formatting can be found at WP:CITE, though your fellow editors are generally pretty nice about fixing up the formatting as long as you cite your sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will make sure that I adere to the policy guidelines and also, most importantly, obtain conscensus on the post before it goes up Canadaman1960