User talk:Cacadores
Welcome
Hello, Cacadores, and
{{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- 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
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a
vandalism
Please read
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 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
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Cacadores. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)