User talk:Cacadores

Welcome
Hello, Cacadores, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

vandalism
Please read wp:vandalism and civility (noting the sentence on good faith editing and vandalism). If after this warning I find you accusing any other editor of vandalism when they have made a good faith edit, I will block you account for a limited period. -- PBS (talk)

Please read: Actually there is no warning here, no reference sustaining repeated ad-hoc removals, no proof an edit was made in 'good faith'; no nothing. You have also mis-read the Wiki references, which do not support erroneous ad-hoc removals, no matter how much 'in good faith' a vandaliser might claim them to be. So this non-warning will be treated in the form it was delivered. I will remind you, that the unreasoned removal of pertinant referenced information which meets wikipedia's standards of reference, is, in fact, 'vandalism' and thus your response: highly ideosyncratic. I made no personal accusation so your 'warning' is wholly without merit. If you choose to take on the role of the defendant, then you may defend your actions or not and the editing community can judge for themselves. Meanwhile, if you support the vandalising of contributions, please expect to be notified.

I would remind you of your obligation to remain impartial and unbiased, both in your edits and in your dealings with facts. Your disappointing choice, to personalise this issue, has been noted. Cacadores (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This warning was placed on your page over a year ago and it refers to edits to the Battle of Waterloo and comments on the talk page of the article now archives under Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 10. Not the comments towards the end of the section by two other established editors. The very title of the section and accusations contain within are personal attacks. The specific warning stands. I find you accusing any other editor of vandalism when they have made a good faith edit, I will block you account for a limited period. -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know who's right & who's wrong here. What concerns me is that it takes just one person (PBS in this case) to block a user's account for an unspecified period. One person acts as witness, prosecuting counsel, jury, judge and jailer all at once. Is there no inner-Wiki democracy? Dendropithecus (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It hasn't gone unnoticed that not only has PBS failed to show I made a personal comment about him or an editor or to explain why the vandalism happened but has, for some reason chosen to threaten me for pointing out that vandalism occured in the first place. Yet as conscientious contributors, one would think that we might be thanked for pointing out when vandalism occurs. As such I stand somewhat agast at the affrontary in threatening a contributor for pointing out vandalism which is obvious from the posting record and one can only say that the identity of that vandal becomes more obvious with every threat. This behaviour and treatment of knowledge is simply way out of line. The perpetrator should be absolutely ashamed of himself. Cacadores (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was undone a while ago.
You added some good points on LGBT parenting which would balance the article a lot more. I don't know if you knew they were undone, but if you find some reliable sources that adress the points you added but also link it with LGBT parenting then it would balance the article a lot more. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC) // Thank you. I will have a look. Cacadores(talk) 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Can you tell me how I find my removed version? Cacadores (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)