User talk:Cali11298

Welcome!

Hello, Cali11298, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hi, Caili. I've deleted the edit summary of your recent edit to Bob Menendez. Don't attack living people anywhere on Wikipedia, most especially not in edit summaries, which remain in page histories unless they're deleted using admin tools. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Fine, I won't do it again. Still, that doesn't change the fact Menendez is exactly what I said he was. Regards, Cali11298 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to advocate your political views. Abandon that behavior now, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I wouldn't do it again. Cali11298 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Would recommend you get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
So there is no surprises if you continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abstinence-only sex education. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cali11298 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

Kuru (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cali11298 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I'd just like to say that I'm sorry for edit warring. Make no mistake - this was my bad, I'm not blaming anyone else, and I shouldn't have done it. It did what I did because I felt my edits were right; however, I now know that you can't edit war even if you feel your changes are correct, that you must achieve consensus first. I'd like to note that I did try to achiveve consensus on the talk page and at least one user agreed with me, I didn't just revert other editors with no explanation. Nevertheless, it is wrong, and I won't do it again. Whenever I get into an edit dispute with someone, I'll make my case on that article's talk page, and not try to re-edit something in. I'm more educated about Wikipedia's policies, and am aware I exercised poor judgement. However, I will not behave like this again. For this reason, I'm asking to be unblocked. Cali11298 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

About as perfect an unblock request as I've seen. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, I see you are new here. There's a lot to learn. Please read all that stuff they posted above in your welcome packet. I hope you learn the local culture quickly and as painlessly as possible. You've already gotten a block, so you might want to slow down and observe awhile before jumping into the fray. Some editors bite newbies, which hurts. Wikipedia is different from a discussion forum or an academic conference. Best wishes as you learn your way! YoPienso (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cali11298 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Jesse Helms, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You are going to need to refrain from stuff like this if you want to edit here. Incidentally, you are expected to provide the support for material you add or restore per WP:BURDEN. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, WP:DONTBITE. Please try reasoning with Cali before threatening. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cali, I'm coming back to add that you can't expect a kind, helping hand when you lash out like that. You've said several times you're "a reasonable guy," and that's been my experience with you so far. But I don't think swearing at people is very reasonable. YoPienso (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, including edit warring at Jesse Helms and mini war at Soon and Baliunas controversy; and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Hello, I just like to say that I'm sorry for what I said to that user in the edit summary on Jesse Helms. I should not have said it, and it was in a moment of frustration. However, I'm here to note that I did not edit war on Soon and Baliunas or Helms. In fact, in both cases, after I added my text in and it was reverted, I tried to reach a consensus on the talk page. Once it was clear that the consensus was against me I stopped editing the page and accepted the editors' preferred version of the second sentence of that page which I disputed. In the Helms case, I added info about how Thomas voted for Clarence Thomas – a black american – to rebut the charge that he was racist. After a user reverted my changes out of a complaint that it was unsourced, I reinserted the info about the Thomas vote, along with a source, per his request. Subsequently, he reverted it again, this time saying I violated both of Wikipedia's rules on original research and synthesis. After that, I went to the talk page and created a new section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesse_Helms#helms.27s_votes_on_black.2C_federal_judicial_nominees. (here)] to make my case. Again, the editors were against me, so I asked a compromise: I would add helms's voting record on Supreme Court nominees, but not include it as a rebuttal. Another editor said I was on solid ground if the votes had significance. Then I added them in. However, another user has reverted my changes, noting that the sources I provided didn't have any significance to helms's votes. Because of this, I am not going to try to add my contribs into Helms anymore, since the consensus is again against me – which is what I did in the other case. And yes, I will not curse at other editors anymore, and I'll always assume good faith. It is for this reason, I believe I should be unblocked. [[User:Cali11298|Cali11298]] ([[User talk:Cali11298#top|talk]]) 15:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)}}

As nicely as your unblock request reads, given that it comes a day after you were unblocked because you made similar statements of contrition, I cannot accept your request. For a relatively new editor, you've gotten yourself into a heap of trouble very quickly. You're going to have to learn how to control yourself before violating policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cali11298 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bbb23, you've completely missed the forest for the trees. When you declined my unblock, you never mentioned the fact that I've been blocked for doing something I didn't do – edit warring. Nor did you explain why I'm guilty of supposed edit warring. If my block shouldn't be dropped entirely, it should at least be shortened. *sigh*. Listen. There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you, and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're shackles, letting the bias prevalent in some Wikipedia articles get ahead. One day,Bbb23, you may face such a moment of crisis, and in that moment I hope you have the courage to do what's right, to plunge your hands into the filth, so that others can keep theirs clean. And if you do that and get blocked, I hope that you appeal that block request with all your might. Regards,reply Cali11298 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First of all, see WP:NOTTHEM. Secondly, edit-warring is not limited to breaking 3RR. During your break, please carefully read WP:SYNTH; your attempts to add a bit about Clarence Thomas to the Helms article clearly violates that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cali11298 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm perfectly familiar with WP:NOT THEM, and in my unblock request, I never blamed anyone else for what's happened, in fact, I didn't mention any other editors on the Helms and Baliunas articles by name. I merely mentioned the fact that edit warring is when you keep reverting without discussing on talk page. I did not do that. I clearly discussed the matters on the talk pages of both articles, and when the consensus was against me, Guess what? I accepted defeat. I didn't revert anymore. I let the other editors who had the consensus have the last word. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair. That's why I'm asking to be unblocked, I'm not blaming everyone else, I'm just saying that I did not edit war, I chatted significantly on the talk pages. Cali11298 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is, indeed, a cruel world, filled with despair and gnashing of teeth, hurt and pain and sadness and loss. I weep, knowing what I must do, but it would not be moral to do otherwise. Floquenbeam (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Cali, I think you've exhausted our assumption of good faith. Even though I think if VQuakr had approached you more diplomatically you may have responded better, you are nonetheless responsible for your own behavior. You need some time off to cool your jets--as I mentioned to you twice before--and read all the pillars and major policies. I hope you assimilate them and become a productive editor. YoPienso (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caili11298, since I warned you above,[1] I will leave the unblock review to a completely uninvolved admin. But I want to note here that I don't think a week is too long, and I agree with Bbb23's comment above. I had warned you explicitly and specifically against lashing out in edit summaries, and you had said you wouldn't do it again. Yet here you are again, less than three days later, saving an edit summary so nasty that an admin had to revision delete it. Also, you've been edit warring again, another thing you said even more recently you wouldn't repeat, in the unblock request User:Jpgordon praised. Please don't make the mistake of thinking your first unblock (which was proper IMO, considering your good unblock request) means you can continue to violate our policies as long as you express contrition in nice unblock requests. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Cali11298, you talk about editing almost as a moral activity. This approach will lead you into conflict. Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for guidance. Coming to Wikipedia to right great wrongs or set the record straight will lead to future blocks of longer durations. It would help if you edited on articles that you didn't have any attachment to, where a WP:NPOV is easier to maintain. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I'm not trying to get into conflict, I'm just trying to yes, set the record straight – while following Wikipedia guidelines to cleanse articles of bias and at times inaccurate information. Listen, There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you, and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're shackles, letting the bias prevalent in some Wikipedia articles get ahead. One day, Liz, you may face such a moment of crisis, and in that moment I hope you have the courage to do what's right, to plunge your hands into the filth, so that others can keep theirs clean. And if you do that and get blocked, I hope that you appeal that block request with all your might. Thanks, and see you later, Cali11298 (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Liz, you and I are going to face the same crisis (see further above). Maybe we can form a support group. Really, @Cali11298, don't you think you're being a mite overdramatic? BTW, that's more a rhetorical question; it doesn't require a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'll respond anyway. Look, Bbb23, let me give it you straight. You and I are not so different. There are 24,000,000 Wikipedians on this site. And those teeming masses exist for the sole purpose of lifing the few exceptional people onto their shoulders. You and me, we're exceptional. However, these Wikipedians, the majority of them, are liberal. And they love to advance liberal/progressive causes, but also find some Republicans/conservatives amusing. But the one thing they love more than a conservative politican, is to see that conservative fail, fall, die trying. In spite of everything this conservative has done for them (such as Jesse Helms), eventually they will hate you. That is why I came to Wikipedia. I came not only to fix some factual errors prevalent in some Wikipedia articles; I also came to give a much more NPOV to articles involving conservatives, where oftentimes bias, and even some out-and-out factual distortions, are prevalent. Wikipedia's time has come for fixing. Like Constantinople or Rome before it, this place has become a breeding ground for suffering, bias, and injustice. It is for this reason, Bbb23, I'm asking you to unblock me. Yes, I will follow Wikipedia's rules to the letter if you do. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in Wikipedia's rules against removing bias from articles. In fact, WP:NPOV encourages it. Think about it, Bbb23. I could accomplish a lot of good. Adios, Cali11298 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you might try a less dramatic, more practical unblock request for your last chance before removal of talk page privileges (repeated unsuccessful unblock requests are a timesink). I very much doubt it will succeed - "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" - but it is more likely to succeed that melodramatic complaints about the cruelness of the world and how much good you could do in it.--Floquenbeam (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Floquenbeam. I might be a bit dramatic, but there are some things that just need to be said about Wikipedia. You see, I consider myself a public servant, a knight in shining armor, if you will. Some people might call me greedy for doing these edits, and at times thumbing my nose at other editors (most of the time I don't do that). But guess what? Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed. And you know what I'm greedy for, Floquenbeam. I'm greedy for unbiased, neutral Wikipedia articles. I'm the hero Wikipedia deserves, its knight in shining armor. However, don't consider me your hero. I'm a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight. Adios, and best, wishes, Cali11298 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, you're just trolling. I guess you were before but you were given the benefit of a doubt that you were actually sincere. You've ignored all of the advice that has been given to you and while you may think "there are some things that just need to be said", you have to face the consequences of your words, attitude and conduct. Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT a troll, Liz. Just look at my contribution history on Wikipedia. Click older 100, and If you look at it, you'll see I've devoted my energy to useful things, such as updating outdated articles, adding info about a senator's indictment, and fixing punctual or grammatical errors, removing dead links and replacing them with live ones – things that a good Wikipedian, not a troll, does. I'm not a lost cause, which is what some are implying here. Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss. I'm not in the abyss right now. Cali11298 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, User:Bbb23, and Floquenbeam, no replies? Nada? Guys, I sincerely think you've been drinking way too much Kool-Aid. I trusted you guys – I trusted that you would give me due process, which is what administrators are supposed to do when reviewing requests. Instead, you obviously haven't – which leads me to believe you haven't given it to the thousands of other users you've blocked over the years. Do you guys have any conscience? Or are you instead vultures, who take pride in preying on the little guy, the weak and downtrodden who are supposed to trust you? Now, I want you both to consider this seriously, if you've ever seeking redemption: What can you offer to make up for the misery you have wreaked, and are still wreaking, on thousands of people who trusted you? What fanatics do to us with guns and bombs you've consistently done to other editors by unjustly blocking and not unblocking them. Don't you think for a minute that you deserve anything better than they do (the fanatics). Shame on the both of you. Cali11298 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked your Talk page access because of these posts. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Mike V • Talk 02:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upped to indefinite for another sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal, regarding the indefinite block, why did you indefinitely block without the current WP:Sockpuppet investigation closing as a sock of Cali11298? Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

--Non-Dropframe _talk 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]