User talk:Caden/Archive 2

Options
Retrieved from yesterday's archive:

CadenS, disparagement of another editor's motive and mentality is against Wikipedia WP:AGF policy. Since a WPA was raised about your behaviour a number of editors have made sincere efforts to get you to cease such incivility. It is regrettable that in the above post [archived] you continue your attacks, in this case against Realist, using inflammatory phrases such as "another attempt to silence me", "left wing liberal mentality" and "nothing more than bigotry". I am not an administrator. I will not support your kind of intemperate discussion. I now recommend that administrators take action such as blocking your account. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend that admins block you. You've been on my case for a month now just itching to have me blocked. I'm fed up with you and your never ending nonsense. I would appreciate it if you would get off my back and leave me alone. CadenS (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CadenS please read WP:BLOCK so you understand what you recommend. I respectfully suggest that you consider first your options WP:WPA or WP:RfC if you believe my discussion has been inappropriate. WP:RfA is your option to submit a dispute to the mediation committee. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No thank you. I'm done. CadenS (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Free photograph
I'm not sure how to go about finding a band picture that isn't copyrighted. I'm trying to locate a photograph of the Metro Station (band), so that it can be applied to that group's page. Can anybody help me with this? Caden S ( talk ) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Free Image Search Tool is a good place to start. Also, try placing reqphoto on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do that. Thanks for your help. Caden S  ( talk ) 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things...
Firstly, categories should be as specific as possible, "pop groups" is clearly not as specific as "pop punk" and "alternative rock", which may I remind you are genres listed in the infobbox. Pop is not. Secondly, your edit summary requires a little more civility, "Your really starting to piss me off", is not appropriate behaviour, please read WP:NPA. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I know what genres are and I know what's in the infobox. Pop belongs in there too. Pop is as specific as it can be. I apologize for my edit summary. I was a bit annoyed with your edits. Caden S  ( talk ) 13:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. If you can find sources (that comply with WP:RS) for the genres then by all means add pop to the infobox add the category also, but having one thing in the infobox and another thing for categories is just confusing! Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point on how it can become confusing. Let me look in to some reliable sources for the pop addition before I mess with the infobox.  Caden S  ( talk ) 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Sorry, I should have explained my reverts more thoroughly in the edit summary. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude no need to apologize. It's alright. Caden S  ( talk ) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I should warn you that many editors, especially those involved in the FOB article are very precious when it comes to genres, so I'd make sure that you have decent sources, and possibly bring it up on the talk page first. Just so long as you have good, reliable sources though, no one should be able to complain to any addition. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Okay just give me some time to look in to it all. Caden S  ( talk ) 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 can't stop wiki-stalking me
I'm finished with you and your childish games. Go stalk somebody else. I'm fed up with your unnatural obsession for me. Feel free to stir up all the wikidrama you seem to enjoy on Wikipedia. I won't be a part of it. Caden S ( talk ) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Heterosexuality has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Genre
Let's give the others some time to weigh in. It's a holiday in the United States so they may not comment for a day or so. There's no rush. There's a lot of other work needing to be done on the article, such as the Musical style section being expanded, and the newer additions to the article being copy-edited for prose, etc. LaraLove|  Talk  17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds fair to me. Are you working on the Musical style section? Caden S  ( talk ) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the picture, de gustibus. But - to be fair - the tagged text needs to be sourced before being restored
Do you think it makes sense to keep the sentence that "heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation"? To me it smacks of unexamined common sense. Sounds good until you pick it apart a bit. Are we talking about the present or the past? Are we talking about exclusive heterosexuality, in which the practitioner claims to have no other attraction, or inclusive heterosexuality, which can include other attractions to some degree or other? It is not a cut-and-dry thing, in my opinion, and we should not make sweeping generalizations which we can not properly defend, certainly not in the intro. Haiduc (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it makes sense! It's common knowledge that "heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation", whether you like it or not. That sentence is talking about heterosexuality and not what you're trying to imply. You're entitled to your opinion but my opinion is that its pretty cut-and-dry to me. Anyways, by the looks of your page you've made yourself more than clear concerning your agenda on Wikipedia. Caden S  ( talk ) 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not have to agree. But you do have to source the statement, you cannot just stick in anything you please because it sounds good. Haiduc (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, say what? I did not "stick" that sentence in the article. It was already there. If you had looked at the edit history on that page you would of known that. Look, I'd appreciate it that you not accuse me of something I didn't do. It's rude. Caden S  ( talk ) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
FYI, you are being discussed at WP:AN/I. Avruch 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just replied there. Caden S  ( talk ) 17:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your case at AN/I. With regards to your personal story, I have to say I am deeply sorry that happened to you. I assumed something like that had happened to you given your bias against gay people, and I'm truly terrified to see I was correct. There is no excuse in the world for what happened to you- NONE. Though I cannot assume to understand the mental and physical pain that experience caused you, I sincerely hope that your mind and heart will heal one day. I'll be the first to admit, there are some fucked-up evil gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the world - as with all human beings, that is to be expected - but I hasten to remind you that we are not all like those men who so cruelly assaulted you. I repeat, there is absolutely no justification for the pain they inflicted upon you and I hope you can accept that I sincerely empathize with you as far as I can understand your situation. Best Wishes.  The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bookkeeper! Your message means a lot to me and is greatly appreciated! Caden S  ( talk ) 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kotra/Jay/Idea
Kotra I do thank you for your support. Honestly, it gives me hope to see that there are some civil editors such as yourself as well as Jay on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are others out there. I want to say how very disappointed I am that Realist2's overaggressive behavior appears to be completely acceptable behavior by many editors on Wikipedia. Notice how he continues to personally attack me, continues to lie about me by putting words in my mouth, continues to accuse me of things I am not doing, and continues to twist my past edits in order to get others to turn against me by making my past edits sound as if they were current. All this because of his hatred for me and because of his anti-conservative biases, which I should note are very disturbing to begin with. We all have biases but he's allowed to do whatever he pleases on here. At least to me it appears that way. Thank you Kotra for encouraging me to stay and help out as much as I want. I believe I will now remain. I enjoy editing and I enjoy Wikipedia. I will keep in mind to assume good faith as you suggested. But as you know, it has been difficult to do that with Realist constantly harassing me. Chances are, he will probably continue to follow me wherever I may go. It's just so frustrating for me. I wish he could just stop it. Only other editors can stop him. It's beyond my control. Your idea to start fresh with a new username is not something I want to do. My true name is Caden and I prefer to keep it as my username. I also would like to thank Jay for being fair, honest and civil towards me. If Jay were to become an admin in the near future I would sure as hell support him. (I needed to say these things because I didn't want to leave Jay out and besides it's the truth.) Anyways, I have an idea that I think may work if others are okay with my idea. Would you Kotra be interested in adopting me as a user if that would make others more happy? Would this be okay with Jay? I'm willing to do what I can to resolve this bloody mess that won't seem to go away. If this means mentoring or what not so that others feel better, well, then I'm willing to make a go of it. I'm willing to stay away from pages on sexuality if that's what others want. I would like to be allowed to edit on the male rape research page though. My edits reflect that I have been neutral and have done a good job. I believe I am a good editor and all my recent edits on many pages show that. It bothers me that instead of my good edits being focused on, things are being focused instead on my past edits (by some editors) and that makes no sense to me. I feel I am being punished and I'm sorry but this is how I personally feel. I would ask that I be left alone by Realist. I've taken far too much nonsense from him. Like I mentioned above, I'm open to being adopted and I'm open to a peaceful resolution. Please let me know what you think. This includes you too Jay. Thanks. Caden S ( talk ) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to hear you'll be giving Wikipedia another shot, and that you enjoy editing on the whole. I certainly enjoy editing, myself, when I'm not being reverted anyway. As for your adoption idea, it's interesting, and could help. I haven't ever adopted a user before, and I'm not able to commit a lot of time to mentoring, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. I'll add the necessary templates if you accept. -kotra (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please add the necessary templates, I would appreciate it if you could adopt me. Thanks. Caden S  ( talk ) 00:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adoption set. As your mentor/adopter, feel free to come to me anytime you have questions about Wikipedia, a dispute with another user that could use mediation, or for advice in general. I'm fairly experienced around these here parts, and I'll be glad to lend my thoughts on anything Wikipedia-related. Since I know Wikipedia policies and guidelines pretty well, I can also be an advocate for you if you're being unfairly accused or harassed, but don't assume I'll always be an ally: if you do something wrong I'll let you know. But I don't anticipate that happening as long as you assume good faith (I don't mean with Realist2, but with other users in general) and avoid making anything that could be remotely seen as a personal attack (Wikipedia editors often are very touchy). I have much faith in your ability to become a great editor, and I look forward to seeing your progress! -kotra (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will go to you for any questions I may have on Wikipedia, or any advice I may need, or even if I need help with a dispute if that should happen again. I shall not assume that you will always be an ally. If I should mess up in any way, please let me know and please help to get me back onto track. But if I should be unfairly accused or harassed on something, please do advocate on my behalf as well. I don't anticipate on any of this happening as I plan on doing my best to avoid any such problems. But I'm not perfect as you have noticed and I have made some past mistakes. Any help from you is what I think will be the best help and it should make others feel much better. Once again, thanks so much Kotra for believing in my ability to become a great editor and for your fair and honest support.  Caden S  ( talk ) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say, while I realize Realist2 is...stubborn, to say the least, he is not a bad person. I don't agree with how aggressive his conduct with you has been, and I've chastised him for it (predominately off wikipedia since he and I chat on AIM frequently). I want to put my next few words as delicately as possible: While both of you have clear bias, you're edits, Caden, tend to be much more obvious in comparison, which includes your conduct with other editors. I'm not saying Realist2 has perfect conduct either, but he consistently works on controversial subjects and has a earnest need to keep information as neutral as possible- something all editors should strive for. From a third person perspective, your edits to the E.O. Green shooting and heterosexuality (strictly as an example) display(ed) POV based on minority opinion and your personal experiences (which although valid, do not represent neutral or academic perspective), and combined with your temper, leads to disruption. IF you are to continue editing LGBT, sexual orientation, and rape-related topics, you need to devote yourself to placing your personal experiences aside and rely wholly on credible academic sources, making sure to balance every negative and positive detail in accordance with policy -even when its something you personally disagree with. Not only that, you need to pay close attention to how you actually write/phrase your contributions. Even statements which are factually true can be written to appear bias. I would be more than willing to work with you on any of these topics to make sure civil environments are kept in tact. As a general rule, I would suggest consulting the article's take page before making controversial edits, as wikipedia policy also require consensus. I've asked Realist2 to come to an agreement to discontinue monitoring your contributions if I take over as your adopter. And with kotra in agreement, I'm sure he won't feel the need to. If you agree, feel free to contact me. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer but I would prefer if Kotra could adopt me instead. Please do not take offense as that is not my intention. To be perfectly honest, I'm not comfortable with your association with Realist on and off Wikipedia. Again, please don't take offense as I truly believe your intentions are indeed good. As for controversial subjects, I did do my best to keep information as neutral as possible. I have no interest whatsoever on editing LGBT topics but please do not take offense to this either. I am just being honest. I am however interested in editing male rape topics but I promise to place my personal experience or feelings aside. I will also pay closer attention to how I actually write or phrase my contributions in the future. I plan to try my best. I'm also still interested on working on other articles as I have worked on before that are not related to this whole messy situation. Caden S  ( talk ) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I've still made it clear, I'd prefer if Realist2 discontinued watching your edits. From this point forward, I'll disassociate myself from you as well. If we cross paths on articles again, rest assured it will be by coincidence and not wikistalking. Best regards. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making that clear to him but please do not disassociate yourself from me. I never believed nor thought that you were wiki-stalking me. I apologize if I gave you that implication. I would appreciate any feedback from you on any edits I may do. Feedback is good and can help in many ways. Caden S  ( talk ) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer, BotO. Co-adoption (two adopters, one adoptee) is an option as well, and it might resolve the situation more quickly, but that is of course up to CadenS. I'll do my part to help out either way. -kotra (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep watch on any article's you'd like feedback on and I would suggest getting into the habit of using your sandbox: User:CadenS/sandbox to fully prepare a section of prose before adding it to an article. That way, you have all them time in the world to find a reliable source and in the same process prevent people from automatically reverting your edit. Regardless of the subject, when I (and most editors in general) see contributions without a citation, there is a tendency to assume vandalism, simply because the vandalism rate on wikipedia is so high. I also notice you are a fellow college student, which is good for contributions because your university web site should give you access to online periodicals, journals and newspaper reports that would otherwise cost money to read. Take a quick look at your university's web page for its library and look for anything along the lines of LISTING OF ONLINE JOURNALS AND OTHER DATABASES BY TOPIC/SUBJECT. Also google books and google scholar are great way to read books and gain information for free. For instance, google books lists 863 books on "male rape" that allow you to preview the entire book for free and 1980 books that offer a selected number of pages that can be viewed for free. All you would have to do is write the prose and add the appropriate citation (see Citation templates). Books, for example, would use the following template: I hope you find all this usefull. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  13:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to go through most of those online books to figure out how many of those actually deal with the topic of male rape. Most books usually touch very little on this subject in general but focus heavily on prison rape instead. I'll see what I can find that may be useful for inclusion. Thank you for the help. You're a good woman. Caden S  ( talk ) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with this conclusion. I'd suggest to Realist2, whom I know has the best of intentions, that he just stop watching your contribs. Like I said earlier, if CadenS were to engage in highly disruptive behavior, somebody else will deal with it anyway. If it comes to that (which I assume it won't), it is best if the person reporting the behavior is not Realist2, for obvious reasons :) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Caden, I forgive you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whisper I appreciate that. Caden S  ( talk ) 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexuality
I was reading through the article and I think over all its poorly written. Right now it's very jumbled and doesn't flow smoothly at all. While a comprehensive article on Heterosexuality will have some overlap/comparison of bisexuality and homosexuality, I think the article currently reads as if it were an overview of sexual orienation - not heterosexuality. For instance: The bulk of the Behavioral studies/Kinsey Reports seems like its should be in the sexual orientation and bisexuality articles -not removed completely, but condensed. If you plan on giving it a serious overhaul, I'd suggest speaking with User:APatcher as he is a (retired) professor of human sexuality and an author. I would ask him to consider giving the article a detailed Peer Review. I would also ask User:SandyGeorgia, a Featured Article reviewer to give it a PR as well- or ask her if she knows anyone who may be able to give you and other editors working on the page good tips to clean it up.
 * It needs major work. Some parts are good, are well written and actually deal with heterosexuality. However, overall it's not an article about heterosexuality. I agree with you on the Behavioral studies and Kinsey Report section. I find this part feels more like overkill to me and should be trimmed down as it's confusing for the reader who will be looking for an article on heterosexuality but will instead find a second article on bisexuality. At least it appears this way to me. Of course you're right that the article should have some comparison to the other sexual orientations but I believe that should be kept to a minimum in the same way as those other pages do. Speaking of those two other pages, both the bisexuality and homosexuality articles are well written and keep to the subjects unlike the heterosexuality page. I was interested in helping to save the article but since Realist has suddenly become involved, I'd rather stay away. I believe it's best that he and I work separately at all times. But I think I could still help indirectly by taking your suggestions and dropping a line to the two users you mentioned above in your post. Thanks once again for the excellent feedback.  Caden S  ( talk ) 23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a wise course of action, just to be safe. -kotra (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather be safe than sorry. Caden S  ( talk ) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember:

What is a good article?
A good article has the following attributes.
 * (a) ; and
 * (b) . It is highly recommended that the Manual of Style is broadly followed, but this is not required for good articles.
 * (a) ; In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * (a) ;This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics. and
 * (b).
 * 1) . Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
 * :Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
 * (a) ; and
 * (b) . The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
 * 1) . Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
 * :Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
 * (a) ; and
 * (b) . The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

You should always have this guideline to work with on every article you work on. If people get into disagreements with you, remember to keep a cool head and always ask for outside opinions. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! This is perfect and will be very useful for me. Thanks so much for taking the time to share this with me. Caden S  ( talk ) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All the info you need is at Good articles and Featured articles. BTW I actually think homosexuality and bisexuality are pretty lame. Bisexuality is probably the best written. homosexuality is WAY too large- that nearly gave me a heartattack. Unfortunately, I was looking through the Sexology Project and not many people in involved with the project are professionals on the subject and instead just have a general interest, which makes it difficult to have such complex fields of study brought up to GA. If I were you I would still take the time right now to at least contact those two editors and put the page up for peer review. It takes forever for someone to pick an article off the list and decide to review it, so the quicker you list it the better. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's done. I left messages with both editors. Let's hope the heterosexual page can be reviewed soon. I'd really like that. I still think the pages on homosexuality and bisexuality are written well. But then again I'm hardly an expert on those subjects. At least it was educational though. Caden S  ( talk ) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GLAAD 2008
As President of Mt. San Antonio College LAMBDA Student Association, I was lucky enough to receive free tickets to the 2008 GLAAD Media Awards. Our VP, Comic artist Aubrey Miranda was also in attendance. Here's what would have happened had I decided to take the plunge. Hope you find it amusing. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I found this amusing because I got the point that you're a Janet Jackson fan. The artist is actually quite good. Caden S  ( talk ) 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexuality Article Peer Review Request (continued from above)
Thank you for your peer review request on the Heterosexuality article. The article is quite awkward. A lot of the general sexuality information is probably already written about in other articles. I tried to do a quick re-write on the first paragraph, but even that might still need some work.

One of the things it looks like they were trying to do was include some type of background information for the theory on the "cause of heterosexuality". This angle was a trend that began in the late 1990s when scientists could not come up with anything conclusive regarding the "cause of homosexuality" combined with a powerful effort from the gay community to dismiss the idea that homosexuality should be researched like a disease. The inclusion of any of these types of research always leads to a lot of discussion on the general theories of sexuality. It looks like they might have been laying out the background for such an effort in this article, and it's probably not the best place to do this sort of thing because it causes the article to stray. It's also a difficult concept to document/reference online because not much has been published on the "cause of heterosexuality". Therefore, unreferenced content may have been removed from the article or never included in the first place, which makes the whole effort to lay out the background for the theory pointless anyway.

I think all further discussion on this article should be published on the Talk:Heterosexuality page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APatcher (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I do like your re-write in the first paragraph. I don't think that paragrah needs any further work. As for the theory on the cause of heterosexuality I think it should be removed as its caused the article in my opinion to become yet another article on homosexuality. The extremely long part on the Behavioral studies/Kinsey Reports suggests this and is complete overkill for the readers. It should be removed entirely and transfered to the sexual orientation or bisexual articles instead. Anyways, I'm no longer taking part on the heterosexual article but thanks for taking the time to drop by and help out with that article. Caden S  ( talk ) 05:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

David Beckham
I saw the note you left on Realist2's talk page and I've spoken to him yet again, but aside from that- David Beckham actually has a well documented history of being revered as both metrosexual and as a gay icon. The gay icon article I've been working on quite heavily for the past two weeks. Once I get it to GA I plan to make sure everyone documented in the article has the LGBT tag on their Bio for their status as a gay icon which is an LGBT study, though most already do. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  14:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Booker if he's ever going to stop stalking me. He's been doing so for many months now and it looks like he's never going to stop. If you can't get through to him then no one can. Regarding David Beckham, yes he does have a history of being revered often. But this whole "metrosexual" term is nothing but a bogus word that was coined by a homosexual. I mean no offense by this. I just think it's stupid. Look, taking good care of one's looks, body, diet or even dressing well has nothing to do with one's sexuality. It has nothing to do with trying to look like a well groomed homosexual either. Just because some of us heterosexual males care about our physical appearances doesn't mean that we are metrosexual. It just means we care about ourselves and we happen to be heterosexual. And as for the gay icon study, personally I think it makes no sense. Nevertheless, I wish you luck with it. Caden S  ( talk ) 14:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the term "metrosexual" is lame, in and of itself (in fact most gay people I know think its stupid), but this is one of those situations where you have to put personal feelings aside in order to write a comprehensive article. see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Same rule applies to gay icon. They are commonly held terms in modern society - which have even generated academic study to a small degree - that are well documented by a wide variety of sources. If you look at Janet Jackson, she is a gay icon, but the article only goes into so much detail to keep in line with WP:WEIGHT. And remember I'm not picking on you, these are rules which apply to all articles, regardless of subject or content. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term "metrosexual" is both lame and stupid. It's true it's become a common word (that is btw still not in the Englsh dictionary) thanks to the promotion of it through the liberal mainstream media. In any case it's still nothing more than stupidity. But regardless of this, my edit on the David Beckham page was within policy. The metrosexual category is on its way to being deleted and therefore that is why I removed it in the first place. My decision was based on that fact and had nothing to do with my dislike towards the term "metrosexual". Furthermore, the original user who added the metrosexual category has since been blocked for adding this category to multiple articles non stop even after he had been warned by several editors to stop doing so. Caden S  ( talk ) 04:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking off watchlist
I am taking your articles off my watchlist. Sorry if this is causing you stress. My main concern is for the articles, but not at the risk of further damaging a person who is already vulnerable. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly hope you mean this because you have made things extremely difficult for me on Wikipedia. Caden S  ( talk ) 04:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My comment at WT:FOOTBALL
Hey Caden, I meant to put that comment on this page. Do you mind if I remove the entire section, including your comment? I'm asking the others who have commented there as well. -kotra (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Go right ahead. Caden S  ( talk ) 10:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting
I wanted to let you know your original assumptions on the subject were correct, though I still do not agree with the idea that any form of harassment can justify murder. You can read the full article Young, Gay and Murdered. I'll probably expand the article myself, but given the nature of the content I would seriously advise you not to do any editing; You have vastly improved on keeping your temper, but I don't think it would be the wisest plan of action for you to contribute. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it but I told you so. Of course sexual harassment does not justify murder but then again the LGBT community has got to wake up, take responsibility to a large extent and admit that sexual harassment and bullying are serious crimes that played very large roles in this tragedy. The biggest problem with that community is that they like to ignore anything that sheds bad light on them. I know this all too well through my own personal experience. Instead of dealing with unpleasant things in life that may make some of them look bad, they focus instead on furthering their political agenda that serve their causes much in the same way that the liberal mainstream media does. However, if you do expand the E.O. article, I would ask that the article be as NPOV as possible. As it stands now it's POV and biased. It literally reads as propaganda by painting the deceased as a martyr. I believe your intentions are good and I think you can very well improve the E.O. Green School shooting article. Good luck with it. I will be keeping on eye on that page. Caden S  ( talk ) 10:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly Caden, what community, national, political, ethnic or otherwise wants to deal with negative publicity? What are the implications it presents? "This one Black/Asian/White/American/Arabic/Democrat/Woman/Man/Republican person did this, therefore all people associated with this group are exactly the same way". Its not limited to LGBT people. No one, even on a personal, levels wants to have their misgivings thrown in their face. Think back through you experiences here on wikipedia, did you like having documented evidence that can be used against you? Of course not. No one does. That instinctive need to protect your own identity permeates all levels of human society. I think one thing you will probably never understand is that up until 20 years ago, ALL LGBT representation in the media, from the early 1900s up until the 1990s, was negative -- all of it. And even today, with situations such as the shooting, a lot of people in the heterosexual community are inclined to believe the only thing responsible for the entire situation is a persons sexual orientation. If they're LGBT something is automatically "wrong" with them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and thats why gays shouldn't exist. The last thing any of us want is to see a solidified culture clash based on the "Gay vs Straight" mentality. If this shooting had been between a male and a born female, it would not have gotten nearly as much press. But it did, and it was based on the sexual orientation (all gay people are bad vs all str8 people hate gay people) rather than the mental state of both individuals. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope it's ok for me to jump in here. I think both of you agree on the important point here: Wikipedia should be NPOV, and in articles like E.O. Green School shooting, that either means not talking about the motives at all (and sticking to just the neutral facts), or describing as many well-sourced views as possible. In reading the NYT Newsweek article (especially page 5), it does put forth both sides, so it could be used as a reference.
 * As that article stands now, all it says about motives is "It was reported that King was shot because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in a "feminine" manner." This does strike me as sort of misleading (overaggressive and attention-seeking pursuit of Brandon, problems at home for Brandon, and other reasons probably had an impact as well) and it should probably be expanded on. -kotra (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kotra your thoughts are always welcome. And yes, both Booker and I agree that Wikipedia should always be NPOV. Sadly though, the E.O. Green School shooting page is, and always has been POV and that must be corrected asap. The article is misleading to the reader due to the fact that it lacks neutrality from beginning to end. The article should mention possible motives but only briefly. Only one biased view is mentioned and its the one you quoted above which is misleading in the article as it appears to serve a political agenda. Newsweek gives us another take on this which would balance things out concerning NPOV. It's been reported that the motive for King being shot was because he was sexually harassing and stalking Brandon McInerney. And I quote directly from Newsweek, "he (King) was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger." Why the hell is this not in the article? Furthermore, the current biased Wikipedia article says, "It was alleged that the suspect's motivation for the crime was that King was gay". Well guess what folks? It has also been alleged that King bullied, stalked, and sexually harassed McInerney daily and that McInerney was the victim of King's unwelcome and unwanted sexual advances. Newsweek mentions this but yet none of this appears in the current non-neutral and very biased Wikipedia article. Why not? Whatever happened to the NPOV policy that so many editors on here scream and cry about? And on top of this, several months ago I provided a reliable source on the talk page that shed a different light on this tragedy much like the current Newsweek source does. But guess what? Instead of it being included within the article for NPOV, nearly all of the other editors were far more interested in a witch hunt. Yes, it was more productive for them to "hang Caden (me)" upside down by the balls than to work on making the article NPOV. Therefore, my reliable source was never used and now sits secretly away rotting in the archives. The Newsweek article of July 28, 2008 should be used as a reliable source along with my forgotten source for the E.O. Green School page in order to maintain some NPOV and to solve the articles current biased, misleading and misinformed take on things.  Caden S  ( talk ) 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just like point out the article you provided months ago stated in its own words that all reports of sexual misconduct were reported as "rumors" and that it was one source compared to literally hundreds which stated the opposite. The current newsweek article is the only one which has hard evidence and it came out three days ago. I'm still looking over it trying to figure out how to intergrate the info. Great articles, hell- decent articles, aren't written overnight. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not that source was stated as rumors, it still should have been used. Infact it can be used. I remember coming across yet another reliable source that touched on this as well before the Newsweek article was released. I'm going track it down as it can also be used as reference. The Newsweek article does indeed have hard evidence as you mentioned, but that does not mean that the other sources should be swept under the rug. What's important is that we have a biased, misleading, misinformed and POV article that must be corrected for it goes against NPOV policy. Yes, I know good or decent articles are not written over night. But all good editors strive to follow Wikipedia policy and that's what I'm trying to do here. Caden S  ( talk ) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Caden, I've just now done the NPOVing I said I would do on that article. The rest of the article seems fairly neutral to me, but if you see any more examples of POV, feel free to point them out to me and I'll see if I can correct them. -kotra (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know that. I just had a look at it and it's much better. Good job. There's still a couple of POV issues in the article though. The Valentine part says, "The shooting occurred shortly after King had asked McInerney to be his valentine, and prosecutors took this as evidence that the shooting was a hate crime". This is misleading and is POV, it implies that McInerney was homophobic and there is no documented proof of this as a fact. Furthermore there's no citation for this in the article. The Newsweek article says, "And then there was Valentine's Day. A day or two before the shooting, the school was buzzing with the story about a game Larry was playing with a group of his girlfriends in the outdoor quad. The idea was, you had to go up to your crush and ask them to be your Valentine. Several girls named boys they liked, then marched off to complete the mission. When it was Larry's turn, he named Brandon, who happened to be playing basketball nearby. Larry walked right on to the court in the middle of the game and asked Brandon to be his Valentine. Brandon's friends were there and started joking that he and Larry were going to make "gay babies" together." I think this gives a clear picture on the whole Valentine situation. I'm not sure how you can add some NPOV to the Valentine part. Also, the Response section is biased, POV and supports a political agenda. Where's the support for McInerney? Newsweek refers to him having plenty of support, "Hundreds of his classmates have signed a petition asking that he be tried in juvenile court." It's even mentioned in the article that he has support from teachers, one said, "We failed Brandon, we didn't know the bullying was coming from the other side—Larry was pushing as hard as he could, because he liked the attention." Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Wikipedia article for the sake of NPOV? Caden S  ( talk ) 10:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pages protected
I've semi protected your userpage (indefinitely) and this talk page (for a short time) since you are away on wikibreak and there has been some vandalism occurring. Feel free to request unprotection of either at anytime, by visiting WP:RFUP or by leaving a note on my talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Caden S  ( talk ) 09:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Automated or not, it's no intrusion. Caden S  ( talk ) 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I just worked on the article. Please read through it before tilting at my windmills. I'm watching your page now. Please reply here. --Moni3 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I just read through it. It looks much better now but there's still no mention on King's troubled background. Why not? Caden S  ( talk ) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I did that edit in an hour and I need more time to read more sources. You can help. --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you beat me to it. I see you included the information on the troubled lives of both McInerney and King. It looks great. All of your recent edits look both good and NPOV. I'm quite happy with the page now. I really don't know how to thank you. But thanks a million times over! Most importantly, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to listen to my concerns and was willing to work with me to make the article better. I salute you for that Moni! Caden S  ( talk ) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope it sticks. Remove the POV template when you're ready. --Moni3 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)