User talk:Cawhee/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia

Extended content

Hello, Cawhee, and welcome to Wikipedia!! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.   Introduction  5   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Get adopted If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Please ask. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC) I was looking to see if anyone knew of a place where I could get an image of John McAfee for the article, do you know of any places where I could get an image? --Cawhee (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC) There are many of us already looking. If there is one out there, it will certainly be found and added to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

William Hatteclyffe

Your template {{BLP unsourced}} is incorrect, because Hatteclyffe is not a living person and in any event the page is sourced. I have removed that and also your {{cleanup|reason=The article tends to be difficult to understand, consider revising}} because it is written as clearly as it can be for a 15th century subject. Moonraker (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If I may protest, I did not see your sources, I apologize. However, you rely on a single source. This is not appropriate. You should include more sources. You never know, perhaps you can find more information as you search for more sources!--Cawhee (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also deleted {{one source|date=December 2012}}, which is out of date. Try looking first before you add these incorrect templates. Moonraker (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

When I added the tag your article only had one source still. I'm sorry if you took my recommendations poorly.--Cawhee (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at List of Jessie episodes, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry, anon user with similar IP had been vandalizing frequently was trying to remove it.--Cawhee (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The revert you made here was to an edit made by a very experienced logged-in editor. I understand it was a mistake. Just be careful about what you label as vandalism. One of your other reverts [1] shouldn't have been labeled as vandalism either, he just ignored a hidden note. Anyway, just lighten up a bit on how you label edits, it can cause hard feelings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I had labeled that as vandalism was because he was repeatedly changing it. I understand that he might not have seen the notice and I'm sorry if I offended anyone in doing so. --Cawhee (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's just an edit conflict. It is annoying when people ignore hidden notes, particularly when they don't say why. I would have put as an edit summary "per ignored hidden note" and left it at that. Anyway I mostly wanted you to be aware of the article WP:NOTVAND and incorporate that into your judgement process. Keep up the good work you are already doing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks so much for pointing this outCawhee (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[2] Why wouldn't you permit the user to amend his own comment? --84.44.231.103 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't the user amending the comment.--Cawhee (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case it seems that I have no clue. To me, the layman, it looks an awful lot like the edited comment was signed by 76.189.123.142, and the comment was edited from the IP 76.189.123.142.

76.189.123.142 and

76.189.123.142 look kind of similar to me, but what to do I know. You're clearly right. I've undone your illegitimate revert though, since you are clearly not right. Look at the diff again. And please be more careful with Twinkle in the future. Thank you. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've offended you. It was a simple mistake and I will be more careful, however it is considered rude to use a passive-aggressive tone towards another user.--Cawhee (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about your feelings since I'm not playing Wikipedia as an MMORPG. I care only about your performance. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yellow bananas

Be careful when flagging vandalism. Bananas are yellow (sometimes) so this should probably be categorized as a content dispute. For this, I would suggest reverting with a reason why you disagree with its usage there. Avoid 3RR with stuff like this. It isn't really harmful. Thanks for patrolling! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The user replaced gold with bannanas. I feel this constitues vandalism, does it not?--Cawhee (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Jim means that gold and bananas would logically be sensible when completing the sense, "Yellow is the colour of gold" and the change to "Yellow is the colour of bananas". The citation made the first statement verified and the changed sentence is still true but unverified. Mkdw^talk 07:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but is the change necessary? The original statement was fine, there for no reason to change it. Regardless, thank you for pointing out mistakes I have made.--Cawhee (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a very strange interpretation of what consititues vandalism, and what doesn't. This edit restored an unnecessary line break and ten instances of whitespace. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in a previous edit. I was going after and vandal and mistakingly marked that user.--Cawhee (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW: given my 40,000+ reverts, I am sure I have disillusioned more than a few editors who could have made significant contributions to Wikipedia. Policy, per WP:NOT VANDALISM, one should not be marking wp:bold edits as vandalism. At worst it would be wp:good faith one should wp:assume good faith (hard sometimes). If you have the time, a bit of advice and support can go a long way. (though, often not - it goes with the job) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Rude Removal of Schmitt

Sir, thanks for at least being humane in your "imperium" here at Wikipedia...

I had not slept for several days when I composed the supplementation, but I know your intellectual conscience is biting against you right now, because, really, every thing I stated was roughly scientifically verifiable...

Thus, I say: I suppose apologies can be made for lack of perfect-Wikipedian "stylistic flair", so I guess I do apologize for not being polished in rhetorical verbal majesty: YET: SUBSTANCE TRUMPS STYLE.

The SUBSTANCE of what I stated is all HARDCORE TRUE and ACADEMICALLY-ACCEPTABLE (have you even read Paul Gottfried on Carl Schmitt, may I ask...?)...

Out of self-integrity, not as a favor to me, you should have some other "stylist" re-introduce the material per desirable criteria, even you yourself if sufficiently honorable, and render a service to Truth: the Truth a high-quality encyclopedia is supposed to be the expression of...instead of its repressive wild removal.

Hypocrisy of dead silence my words do not deserve, even if totally written poorly. The SUBSTANCE is there, and EXTREMELY RELEVANT to understanding Carl Schmitt.

Thank you for being humane as apparent Commandant of gnosiology around these parts... I'm trying to be nice, honestly. I'm hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for citations. Apologies for any misunderstanding.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

CVU

Hi Cawhee, I've had some time to check through your contribs and I'm happy to work with you if you would still like to have me as your instructor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries about asking Elizium, and if you want to go with him that's fine with me. If you would like to work with me, I've created your Academy page at User:Callanecc/CVUA/Cawhee (make sure you read through User:Callanecc/CVUA first) if you would like to start working through that. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Signing third opinions

Hi Cawhee! I saw on Talk:Ambassador of Colombia to Israel and Talk:History of the metric system/Archive 1#Recent edit by Martinvl that you generously provided Wikipedia:Third opinions, and that you chose to undo the automatic signature for your comment. It's useful to fully sign your comments when providing third opinions so that other editors can easily see and verify that the comment is from a new person who hasn't previously been involved in the discussion. Just a note; I hope this is helpful. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:45, 10 January 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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Cawhee! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 16:43, Sunday, March 27, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge