User talk:Cowabunga438

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Cowabunga438! I am Shadowjams and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's The Point[edit]

How do you delete an account? Now have zero interest in participating when admin abuse power

There's no technical way to delete an account, but if you don't like Wikipedia's collaborative way of working and don't want to participate further, you aren't required to. If any administrator has broken Wikipedia's rules, you can report them at the administrators' messageboard, but make sure you can explain what rule has been broken, and include a diff showing the admin breaking the rules. It will help if you understand the rules that you broke, too, so it doesn't look like you're just a new user who is blaming others for her own mistakes- we get a lot of those, so the folks at the administrators' messageboard aren't always very patient with them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cowabunga, thanks for your e-mails. My essays are, indeed, spot-on - especially in this case. You were provided a couple of days to read the policies on how to edit and interact on Wikipedia, as you clearly had missed them when you signed up. Claiming "admin abuse" was one of the interesting ones, and since no actual proof of such was provided, when you continued to attack in that vein, your talkpage rights were revoked. A lot of people tried to help you - you ignored them. This is a collegial editing environment - take people's assistance when its offered. None of us started editing Wikipedia "fully correctly". There's a lot of policies, and help is always good. You might even consider WP:ADOPT. However, saying "I'm leaving good luck" will typically be met with "ok, bye". You clearly acted outside the policies, and RATHER than being blocked forever, you were provided with the opportunity to read and learn a couple of days: most users are gone for good. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody prove the sockpuppettry. Nobody actually answered that questioned. I made a mistake on the edit warring and on the block request (I got caught in an edit conflict and missed what I had to do to re submit). I admit that. My issue is with the sockpuppet claims because it is clear it was an unfounded accusation. One you have not proved - or even attempted to. Why do you keep dodging the substantive question of the sockpuppet?

Cowabunga438 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'prove?' We have checkusers who collect technical evidence, but we don't normally bother them with the obvious ones; I hope you aren't going to pretend that ip wasn't you? Better to just acknowledge that you shouldn't have done it, and do better next time. Or don't say anything, if you're embarrassed about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean PRETEND it wasn't me? It wasn't me. Check the ip - do a checkuser, look at the date stamps. That is what I have said all along. Then some new try hard like you comes along and makes the same baseless accusation. What are you all sheep? I am confident they will find it wasn't me - mainly because I know it wasn't. So once again we get some try hard saying "sockpuppet" with zero proof. In fact it obviously wasn't me if you do even a cursory check. My Ip is still the same now as then - and is not the same as the others.

The embarrassed ones should be the people who gang together and use a difficult to defend accusation to get their own way. Cowabunga438 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""My essays are, indeed, spot-on"" Even if you do say so yourself (though a professional writer should know where the commas are meant to go). Cowabunga438 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I have an editor at work. Can't dispute the facts so you're going to randomly attack? Just hit rewind, this will blow over - keep up this track, it won't end well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the facts you are. Thank god you have an editor, maybe he can tell you the meaning of random. This isn't random it is targeted. Targeted at the people who made a baseless accusation, and now refuse to withdraw it. It couldn't be more straight forward and simple. Just step outside your cosy little box and look at this with fresh eyes. How easy is it for an established editor to get around consensus by claiming sockpuppetry? Then get a friend to block. Then when I ask for some real checks rather than just accusation I get this run around.

"Can't dispute the facts"!!! My god that is laughable. I am constantly asking that the FACTS get properly checked but you refuse. Go and do a checkuser. Do an IP trace. Do whatever it is to find out the facts. The problem isn't that I dispute the facts because I am the only one that here and now knows the facts for certain. The problem is that you refuse to verify them. I hope your editor does better fact checking at work. No wonder modern journalism is so poor if this is how you operate, and worse how clouded and illogically you think. Cowabunga438 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""keep up this track, it won't end well"" Yep nothing like a little threat to get your own way. Do you know how silly that sounds? What are you going to do. Cancel my account? The one I already asked to get deleted? What maybe you are going to type some more drivel on my talk page, build a few more strawmen, maybe the odd red herring, just to prove beyond doubt that you have this terribly wrong. Maybe jump through my screen and try and punch me? "Won't end well", sheeesh that is beyond funny, it is almost surreal. Maybe get your editor to check "keep up this track"" - very clumsy wording. Maybe you meant "Keep up this tack". More apt considering this originated in a sailing article.

""keep up this track, it won't end well"". You know you could just stop replying. It will end right there and then.

There is one thing you don't seem willing to do. Check the facts. Do the hard yards and see if that other bloke was me. Find out if it was a sockpuppet. Alternatively you could just continue this. Put up or shut up I say.Cowabunga438 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your offer, and choose 'shut up.' As far as I am concerned, it is over, and you are welcome to make useful contributions by seeking consensus with other editors. I don't feel any need to discuss it further, and I suspect I'll have forgotten which editor you are by the next time I encounter you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You talk a lot for someone who says they are going to shut up. By the way I don't know who you are now, and certainly won't remember or care later, and I sure don't know why you are sticking your oar in and answering for someone else. So I guess rather than admit the accusation is baseless you sneek away with what is a fairly poor parting shot. Good luck to you. Cowabunga438 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, stop the BS, seriously. No threats, just grow up a little, and get the chip off your shoulder. Admins do what they feel is needed to protect the project. Two editors making almost identical edits is close enough of the WP:DUCK test to warrant a block - no need to do highly-invasive technical SPI checks. If you weren't socking, then you at least have learned how important consensus is. You were KEPT blocked because of your continued attacks against the volunteers who are simply protecting the project. Since you chose to delete the entire page that contained the reasonings behind everything, and I'm adult enough that I would rather consider this closed so that valuable article-editing time is not spent with someone who simply doesn't get it. Wikipedia is a volunteer community - choose to be a part of it, or don't. I'm done with you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop the BS when you do. You complain about wasting time but put walls of text on my talk page that say absolutely nothing, and fail to do the one thing that would actually settle this matter. What are you always this silly?. You have a choice here. Actually prove I did the sockpuppet or shut up. For some reason you won't do either.

If calling a duck a duck is a personal attack, then there is no doubt the two editors I disagreed with were ducks of the lamest kind. One used an accusation of sockpuppet to avoid consensus (you seem confused here there were no similar edits - the supposed sockpuppet didn't edit the article, just replied in talk) , then got a mate to ban. I have already admitted the mistake on the unblock request - yet you bring it up again? Why? You know I made a mistake there, I admitted it. So you bring it up again as a red herring because you know the other accusations were false and the manner of their coming about was very dodgy.

Put up or shut up Cowabunga438 (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack[edit]

This is but a friendly word. This edit of yours was a personal attack, which is not allowed here. Please stick to comments about sources and how to edit them in article texts. Do not say things about other editors, the outcome of doing so will never be what you want. If you run into something daunting, you can try dispute resolution instead. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say things about other editors if they don't make baseless and inflammatory accusations about me. Cowabunga438 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what you think editors may be saying about you, personal attacks aren't allowed, ever. Either way, if you make personal attacks, you'll only make it look like you're the worry, not someone else. Meanwhile, if someone posts something which you believe to be a personal attack towards you, you can a) ignore it b) let an admin know about it in a neutral way, with diffs or c) post something neutral at WP:WQA. What you cannot do is, answer back with personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fairy nuff Cowabunga438 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]