User talk:Calton/Archive14

Archive
Archives

First archive of 2007 for User talk:Calton.

Proposed Deletion?

I'm sorry to bother you, but well, I really don't want my article on Harvey Gardner to be deleted. I did work very hard on it, and everything is true, and, well, no matter how minor an actor he was, he still was an actor in American history and therefore deserves an article in an encyclopedia; I mean, if I were to do some sort of article about, say, myself (and I haven't achieved anything worth an article on Wikipedia, trust me), I would definately understand if you wanted to delete it. But this man was a piece of history, who was in a bit more than a few movies, and who had lines in movies, making him an actor, not an extra. I believe that people like him deserve articles, especially when they have already gotten them in the newspapers (I was planning on posting pictures of the many newspaper articles about him). So please, drop your proposal.

Added by J.Epler 2/15/07

I disagree with your assessment that I am abusing this project as a personal web space. In fact, I've contributed useful photographs and other items for inclusion into the wikipedia project. Please do what you need to do to return my jepler user page to its original framework. I appreciate your speedy attention to this matter as I see my page is no longer accessible. Thank you.

WRAJ

MASSIVE update on the page. More information than you could want, so I think that will make everyone happy and there will be no need for the AfD tag, which I have taken down as I can't find a corresponding page to go with it. If any further updates are needed to the page, please let me know. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why, after the massive update, that the WRAJ page was still deleted? - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted at the AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRAJ Internet Radio. If you object to this, you can start a deletion review about it. Metros232 11:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemonster

There was probably something truthful in the above statement, somewhere, but I'm not bothering to go look for it since it's objectively false in every sense. It's a repost, nuked speedily after an AFD, which Orangemonster2k1 can't be ignorant of because he cast the only "Keep" !vote. Nice doesn't work with me, being honest does. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Calton,
It wouldn't kill you to be nice and honest, you know. :) You're far to valuable to this encyclopedia to lose, but, come on, he's just a newbie who has obviously rubbed you the wrong way. I've advised him not to remove AFD tags, and hopefully that will be the last of it. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls stp vndlzng Peter Roskam

Pls stp. f y cntn t vndls Wkpd, y wll b blckd. Wll-srcd mtrl bt lgsltv vts, nd prtclrly bt th thrng f n mndmnt t lgsltn tht pssd 400-3, s nt "trv." Dltng t wtht frst gnng cnsnss n th Tlk pg s vndlsm. Pls stpDino 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

My reply

--GordonWatts 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this reply to your buddy, Proto, I asked him how my link was any different thant the others, and indeed I make good arguments that will stand under the light of day.

If you could consider this... --GordonWatts 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments on my user page

I wasn't aware that there was a limit on the number of links that could be included in a user page. I've removed them now.

Bonnie Ventura 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Bonnie Ventura[reply]

My website

Thanks for pointing that out. I am restructuring the Australian section of my website, and as a result all Wikipedia links to Australian elections at my website will now need to be changed (or deleted). Since I am cutting back my involvement at Wikipedia it won't be me that changes them - someone else will need to. Adam 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Daily Show guests AFD

Since you voted on the previous AFD (here) I thought you may wish to vote again on the article's second AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination). Cburnett 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole

I'd like you to consider reverting your last to this page. There has been an extreme amount of discussion on the BLP and weight issues, and if you look at the talk page, you'll see that the version you've rv'ed from has the most support. <<-armon->> 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Purple Font

I've replied on my talk. Do you want me to paste my response here so you can get a centralized discussion? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed?

May I ask why? I see it as a harmless joke, and, hey, I've eaten over 150 brains already. For now, I'm putting it back up, unless you give me a good reason to keep it off. - Bagel7 09:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS on valentines day too, ouch

Civil

You of all people have no business commenting on civility. Mr. Ray Lopez 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was only banned for trolling, not sockpuppteering or any other creative thing you can come up with in order to justify your "crusade." Mr. Ray Lopez 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, comparing me to Al Capone. Hrrm, name one sockpuppet that I have done, or name anything other than get on your bad side I have done and I would gladly leave the project. Can't think of one, can you? Mr. Ray Lopez 05:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are incorrect. Those accounts were never mine, I never signed up for those. I either edited under "Ray Lopez" or IPs. Go ahead and request a check user if you want; judging from the check user results, those accounts were linked to Wikipediasleepercell1 and not Ray Lopez. Nice try though, and thank you for playing. Do not launch any further personal attacks at me again unless you have your facts and your house in order. Mr. Ray Lopez 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. You're actually quite wrong. I'm sorry that you're so blind sided by the fact that you desire to be right so strongly. Perhaps you should talk over your passive aggressiveness issues with a psychotherapist vice taking it out on your "enemies" online. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not the case

Talk pages are for other users to communicate with one another and it is specifically stated on WP:TALK that the only types of edits you may remove are

  1. Your own
  2. Personal attacks
  3. Threats.
  4. Vandalism

None of those were the case, and the fact that you reverted such changes without an adequate edit summary makes you impeding the editing process. I'm not trying to make an issue out of this or report you to anywhere but you plainly misunderstand how talk pages are to be used. What I'm capable of enforcing is entirely unrelated to the fact that what you were doing was outside wikipedia's stated policies and should be stopped. So please stop reverting other user's edits to your talk page. If you feel it is absolutely necessary, please use an edit summary to explain why. i kan reed 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since I need to be "spoon fed" I thought I'd go extract the relevant text from the linked page
  • "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning."
To my knowledge reversion counts as editing. It's not twisting the meaning at all to assert that deleting text is on par with changing it's meaning. It's uncivil to silence users you are having a dispute with, however wrong they may be in that dispute. i kan reed 07:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine

I'll have to do this point for point, because pendantry is the only appropriate answer for pendantry., 1. I DID NOT mean I felt I was incorrect about my statements regarding policy. It clearly states in the very first line of WP:TALK (emphasis mine)

  • The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page

that's plainly stated for not just being for articles as you claimed. I was trying to avoid discussing policy because that can get in the way of meaningful communication. It was quite close to being libelous to accuse me of having false motivations in this matter. (Note: this is not intended as a legal threat, just a note that you went out of line in what you were accusing me of).

2. I did not "side" with anyone or anything. I also asked Mr Ray Lopez to reconsider his course of action because his "personalized", if you will, warnings do not match the neutral and calm tone of standard wikipedia warnings. The 3RR warning was directed at both of you. This was an understandable mistake on your part because it is a natural element of human psychology to attach sides to those you interact with. Please understand that I have no interest in this matter besides preventing inappropriate edit wars and reversions of talk page material.

3. Your links don't seem to tell me much of anything about why you reverted those particular edits. You make some accusations but that doesn't really seem to relate at all to the reverted material. They seemed to qualify as warnings regarding your behavior on wikipedia, and hence my involvement(I watch for negatives on user talk because frequently vandals remove content from their talk pages to avoid being blocked). And since it really does matter to you, yes I apologize for interefering, as it is a great deal of trouble for you over what must seem a quible. However informing users of policy regarding their actions still seems necessary to me. i kan reed 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a test to get up for in 8 hours and I can't address all of your concerns at this time, as I need sleep, however, I would like to indicate that you are engaging in wikilawerying(essay not policy) and I merely request that you reconsider your course of actions towards this user "Mr Ray Lopez". i kan reed 08:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Watts

After a couple of days of interaction - I think it's an entirely pointless endeavour trying to get behaviour change via discussion. Clearly, the idea is to wikilawyer everyone to death. I'll fully support any action you wish to make in regards to a community ban (I think limited to those TS pages) should do. --Fredrick day 13:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User page

You're welcome. Pleased to be of assistance. Will 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Malaysian Society

I see you listed Nottingham Malaysian Society for deletion. Can I ask you to also take a look at the related Nottingham Malaysian Games and Nottingham Malaysian Society, and also NUOC? I think these pages are also candidates for deletion, but as I am currently at the university, I would rather not involve myself with them. If you could look over the articles and take action as you see fit, that would be great. Thanks for your time. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Netzer

"having the subject insisting on this as some sort of expression of his worldview brings up all sorts of POV and COI concerns" - have you seen Michael Netzer (in particular the history) and Mr. Netzer's userspace? It's frustrating. I feel that he is totally violating at least the spirit of WP:COI, but I don't know how to go about it. The article is totally unreferenced and is largely anecdotal. Would you consider reading my post on Mr. Netzer's talk page and offer advice how I might talk with him? Or do you think there is even a problem? --Iamunknown 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the best way to talk is to do it directly. I did not write that article and the minor edits I did there were merely factual issues such as dates and such. The article is referenced in that the entire story appearing there reverberates within the interviews and web sites cited. If there is a specific issue which you feel is unreferenced and anecdotal, I'm very willing to consider your point of view, if you point it out. MichaelNetzer 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear carton!!

I created a new article.
If there is a mistake on the grammar, I am wished to point out to you. Tokyo Watcher

GordonWatts comments

Calton, I appreciate that Gordon's style is at times very annoying. I also have gathered that he still doesn't seem to quite 'get' how things work around here. Nevertheless, there's no need to be gratuitously rude. Calling names ([1]) is never useful.

If you want to comment on the problem, do so—but do it politely. If you can't handle that, then ignore Gordon. While he's obviously disconnected with how he ought to comport himself around here – and he may well end up restricted or banned for it – his actions are clearly meant in good faith. Shelve the rudeness or do something else for a while. Poking Gordon with a stick until he overreacts is not a good sport. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

The Editor's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your exhaustive and thankless devotion to reminding folks that wikipedia is not MySpace. Thanks for all the work in the proposed deletion pages. NeoFreak 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A Barnstar!
The Pentatope of 70 Spheres Barnstar
Presented to this user for enforcing the fact that Wikipedia is not your Geocities home page. Salad Days 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon and Orangemonster2k1

Hi, Calton. I and two other administrators asked Orangemonster2k1 to stay away from you. He said he would, and then, presumably as a gesture of goodwill, he struck out the remarks he had addressed to you at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Don't you think, under the circumstances, that it would have been better for you not to have responded to them?[2] Also, do you have to go after him so aggressively? While I would certainly advise him gently that it would be healthier not to keep your page on his watchlist, he is not prohibited from doing so, and his recent posts to User talk:Salad Days were not in any way abusive towards you (I had also seen and wondered about that prod tag), so you really do not have the right to be so aggressive, demanding that he take your page off his watchlist now, and replacing your message on his page after he had removed it (something that is generally considered harassment).[3]

You're dealing with a vulnerable user, who suffers from Aspergers and gets upset easily,[4] who had apologized, and had crossed out his comments, and whose subsequent posts had nothing malicious about them. Your recent behaviour has been rather Gordon-ish, I feel, in that you are going round responding to everything, instead of just gracefully letting go. But an important difference is that Gordon's posts, while they annoy a lot of people, do not show a lack of kindness. If you can't control your anger, a wiki-break would be appropriate.

You are a valued contributor here, and I often see evidence that you are working to improve the encyclopaedia. It's very unfortunate that you seem to have the idea that it's okay to trample on people and treat them with contempt if they don't match up to your idea of the kind of people who deserve respect. There is nothing in our AGF or CIV policies/guidelines that would justify your approach. It would be nice if you could try patience and gentleness and respect first, and only start (reluctantly) calling for blocks and bans if you found that they didn't work. Please think about that. Musical Linguist 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to everything, but will just pick out a few points.
Given that he a) lied about "staying away"
I don't think it's helpful to use the word "lied" without very good evidence. It is possible for someone to say that he'll stay away, and then change his mind. A lie would be if he edited your page anonymously, and then claimed that he hadn't made that edit.
How, exactly, is enabling stalking the least bit helpful
I am not enabling stalking in any way. I have already asked Orangemonster to stay away from you. And I'm extending the same request to you. Please stay away from him.
And yet you did nothing. Why was that?
Salad Days fixed his error shortly after I saw it. I find your question odd, almost as if it's an accusation. Orangemonster tried to do something, and you were extremely abusive to him as a result.
What part of the word "stalking" is giving you trouble?
Calton, may I point out that I know a lot about what stalking means, probably a great deal more than you will ever know. And I can tell you that to use that word about Orangemonster's at worst irritating behaviour is quite frankly insulting to victims of real stalking.
Wikipedia is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby.
The question is, can you edit without the aggressive behaviour?
And perhaps you need to have a look at this before making claims about "lack of kindness".
I don't see that the Passive-aggressive article has to do with my point that you need to try being kinder to people who annoy you.
it's long past the point of being acceptable.
And how much politeness and respect did you show before it went past that stage?
Musical Linguist 04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost talk pages

How do you find all these talk pages that meet CSD G8? Thanks for tagging them!--Kchase T 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I caught up with you again. =) Thanks for tagging all those Talk pages. I think I'm going to wear out my delete button because of you. ;) -- Gogo Dodo 07:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving the Georgia train wreck

Dear editor Calton: Thanks to you, and to editors Will Beback, Jersyko, and Zantastik for salvaging what was a huge train wreck at the article on 1957 Georgia Memorial, etc. I deal with this kind of thing all the time in the Wikipedia articles on taxation (tax protesters always wanting insert wildly false, unverifiable POV original research) and to some extent in the article on the Federal Reserve System. Yours, Famspear 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job

The da Vinci Barnstar
You have been doing a fine job recently tagging user pages which no other person (maybe some I don't know) would ever have thought of nominating for deletion. I am awarding you the the da Vinci Barnstar because you are enhancing Wikipedia by removing useless pages. :). Keep it up. Parker007 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime again?

I was noticing T's history that new puppets from Primetime reverted edits by Georgia guy, and he had to revert every edit/unrevision this puppet, among others made to T. I was also noticing Georgia guy make edit summaries like "Revert vandalism; please block this puppet of Macaw 54!" Macaw 54 is in fact a Primetime puppet.

AppleMacReporter 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

--GordonWatts 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon

Re "No, the point remains, whatever slack you're granting Gordon: 'his massive talk posts'"

Not, "no." When an editor feels they've been mis-represented through elision, being pedantic doesn't work ("you're wrong about what you felt you wrote"?). No, sorry. I pointed out how you mis-represented my comment. That's all. Marskell 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, the correct response from the beginning was "sorry, I choose only the words that suited my point." I did not dispute that my post criticized his talk posts; I pointed out that including "I deliberately stopped editing..." but dropping "with[out] malice..." placed that criticism in the wrong light. But admission does not appear a part of your vocabularly, so carry on and ignore me. Marskell 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Your point of view." Yes, my point of view. Given that it was my post, I thought you might've replied by acknowledging it. ("Ah, I see" or "sorry", rather than "No"). That I stopped editing a year ago was extraneous, and I could only assume it was included to suggest that Gordon was the reason for the departure. (He wasn't—I was certainly tired of "Michael murdered Terri", but Gordon was only one part of that, and the page attracted some truly lunatic people unrelated to Gordon.) As for the rest, we're both a little guilty of baiting, so I'll stop: my "vocabularly" [sic] could always use improvement. Marskell 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quadraxis/The Game (oldish version)

  • Hi there. First off, i'll say that I didn't actually get to see what reason you gave for the deletion of this page, because it'd been deleted by the time I got your message. Basically, that page, in my understanding, falls under the category of a user subpage, not that of a general encyclopedia page. As such, it follows the criteria listed here. I don't see a reason there for my page to be deleted. Of course, if there is a reason, i'm fine having that page deleted, but If possible, i'd much prefer to be able to hold onto it, as I am keeping it with the intent of working on a new version of "The Game" eventually. I say eventually, because currently I don't have much time to edit wikipedia (also the reason I didn't see your message until after the page had been deleted). I know you don't have delete/undelete powers, but I figured it'd be best to talk to you to see if you still wish it to be deleted before I brought it up for Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Quadraxis 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon again

Calton, these remarks are decidedly unhelpful. Gordon's judgement and behaviour have been poor, and I believe that everyone will be best served by forcefully giving him some time away from Wikipedia. However, your snideness, rudeness, and now gloating toward Gordon have not helped. Please don't misunderstand a community consensus that Gordon's actions are problematic as carte blanche to kick him while he's down.

I said earlier on this page that poking Gordon with a stick until he overreacts is not a good sport. That also applies now that he's been blocked.

There's also no excuse for attacking Musical Linguist, who is both a good editor and a good-faith contributor to the discussion. I will block you for your next incivil remark on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once said that you cannot politely disagree with other editors. However, you have instead been insistently inflammatory and rude. I have brought this up with you before. Several other editors have commented on this problem, including Musical Linguist and Proto. See also the request from Firsfron just up this page.
I will ask Musical Linguist to take care with her tone, but frankly she does not have the history of persistent rudeness that you do. Civility is not optional around here, and honesty and civility are not mutually exclusive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I've admired your work in the past, but in this case I have to add my voice, it may be best to let Gordon and his activities go... your comments may seem apt and funny but they might be less than completely helpful. Walk away and let others handle it, there is no danger at this point that the community is unaware of the issue. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Calton replies, from my talk, redacted here) You're a day late and a dollar short, considering that he's been blocked for the next month and won't be doing anything more -- whatever his faults, I've never seen him sockpuppet, I assume because he firmly believes he has The Truth and God on his side* and will be victorious -- so there's nothing I need to concern myself about.
On the other hand, if Musical Linguist wants to continue her smear campaign to make me a scapegoat, I will defend myself.
*The latter part is NOT hyperbole, I'm afraid. Diffs upon request.
--Calton | Talk 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not about what state things are in now, (I'm aware he's blocked) the point is that edits like this one [5] or the "HA" one, are not helpful and if you are thinking of making more, that's where my advice applies. You're a smart and hard worker but sometimes, in my view, it's helpful to walk away. I'm done, I don't mean to hector you, but I did want you to know. Take it as you like. There are those that may well use your tendency to be blunt against you, though. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Proto wants to make bad-faith pronouncements that are, shall we say, detached from reality AND then immediately deny having said what he was quoted as saying, he ought not be surprised to be called on it. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I strongly prefer to keep threads together. I AM watching your page and will reply here. OR, if you like we can move the whole conversation there.. IF there's more that needs saying, but please don't answer my posts here on my talk, thanks) OK. But basically I said all I wanted to say. You can take or leave my advice as you like. But there are those that may well use your tendency to be blunt against you, though. There's really no need to reply further. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This remark is skating very close to the edge of what counts as civil behaviour. Gordon's already blocked for a month; what are you hoping to accomplish through gloating? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-editor user pages

Calton, since I first saw your userfied pages to watch, I've been wondering if I might be able to help out: not necessarily systematically like you have been, but occasionally adding a user page I find. If yes, then what is your method to the madness; if not, then I'll just prod them myself. --Iamunknown 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You've recently passed through a number of Ancient Near East articles, deleting professional information as "bad links". What is your issue here? --Wetman 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same. In many articles, you deleted not only broken links, but the properly formatted references to reliable sources (principally news stories from outlets such as AP and Reuters) that accompanied those links - see [6] for a case in point. By all means remove dead links, but please take more care in future not to delete the accompanying references. I've reverted a number of your edits (see contributions to identify them) so if you want to go back and remove the dead links without removing the references, please feel free. -- ChrisO 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Removal of dead links should generally not be done. The internet archive allows recovery of some of for example. Yahoo News may be a poor place to link to but the underlying story was real and was produced by a reliable news source, so the deadlink is irrelevant. If all else fails you should keep the reference data but drop the actual link.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a failing to AGF towards the editor that added the link, you should trust the link was valid. The link itself is immaterial, what matters is the underlying text. For example, say I produced a correctly formatted reference to this story in an article. If that link went dead, you may not be able to verify it by clicking on the link, but it is still attributable to a reliable source - all you would need to do is go locate the edition of the paper that was published in. The source is still reliable even if it is not accessible online. This is particularly true for the traditional reliable sources: the media.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Nilfanion said. If articles "disappear" it's simply because they've been moved into archives or pay-per-view sections. They can still be accessed by digging up the original print source or using a service like Factiva or Lexis-Nexis. Please see [7] for an example of what you should have done - if the links don't work, then deleting them is often the only option (I doubt if the Internet Archive keeps copies of old newswire stories simply because of the copyright issues involved). But don't delete the accompanying references. If you don't understand the point that Nilfanion and I are making, please leave link maintenance alone - you'll just end up making more work for other people who have to fix things. -- ChrisO 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Matrix scheme

You've recently altered this article, removing several key points in the Legal section. This was actually agreed upon in mediation, and you have altered it to remove key elements. I will now be reverting the article as it was agreed at mediation - please either leave alone or if you feel this should be changed I ask that you discuss on the Talk page before taking action.

Thank you.

--Cybertrax 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of RichardBennett

You're once again reverting all of my edits on Net Neutrality without citing reasons or by citing deceptive or off-topic reasons. You've been reported to the Admins for persistent harassment.RichardBennett

Thanks!

...for tagging so many talk pages for speedy deletion. I've gone through and deleted all of them. Keep up the good work! alphachimp 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional images galour

Calton, I've decided to start tagging promotional images for speedy deletion if the image is in fact repeatable. I created a custom template, and have only orphaned and tagged one image / notified one uploader. Since you have experience with tagging and notifying user's pages, would you consider offering any suggestions? Feel free to dirctly edit my template at User:Iamunknown/promomsg or comment on the talk page. I've invited Durin as well, since I know that s/he has a lot of experience with fair use images. Thank you, Iamunknown 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have some tools that may simplify your "Where I have been" secton of your user page

I see you have a list of nations and/or states/provinces on your user page. I would like to offer you some templates for this task I created for my own list. One pair of templates will create entries identical to the one I use. (I suggest you copy my legend if you use them.) Other templates will provide just a flag or name (nation or province/state).

Highlights
  • All use a simple code.
    • Nations are identified with a two letter top-level Internet domain code (except for the United States of America, which uses "USA").
    • States and provinces are identified with postal codes (so far anyway).
  • Nation and state/province names are linked.
  • The low level templates return flag images with just the filename allowing you to control the image size and caption.
  • All flag images located so far are SVG.
  • If any flag images or names on your page officially change, your user page will get the update as soon as I know about it.


One drawback
  • Currently the province templates can only look up data for the United States of America and Canada. However, additional capability can be readily added. All I need to do is create a starter template and let you add the provinces.


Templates to build a list of where you have been
Enter this Purpose Sample outputSubst this template?
Creates an entry in the list of places where I have been. Rather than call this template, most will call a template listed below. They will call Flag Entry as needed for you.
*‡§{{{title}}} — Illinois (The state where I was born and grew up.)
No
Creates an entry in the list of places where I have been
*‡§{{{title}}} — United States of America (I visited other nations, but have yet to live in any)
  • {{{title}}} — Canada (Year unknown as I was too young to remember)
  • {{{title}}} — Mexico (Twice: 1977, 1982)
No
Creates an entry in the list of places where I have been. Important: See the notes for GetProvinceName and GetProvinceFlag.
*‡§{{{title}}} — Illinois (The state where I was born and grew up.)
  • {{{title}}} — Ontario (Year unknown as I was too young to remember)
No


Note: Not all templates in this next category are listed in the interests of space. To see a list of the missing functions, please see {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/GetProvinceName}} and {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/GetProvinceFlag}}.
Templates that look up the flag or name of a nation or province of a nation
Enter this Purpose Sample outputSubst this template?
Detemines the name of the country from a code No
Detemines the flag of the country from a code
United States of America Canada
No
Detemines the name of the country from a code. Note this relies on a series of templates that aren't listed here in the interests of space. You can find the complete list on the template's page. If a nation is not yet supported, you can add it in my namespace by asking for it on my talk page. I'll create a starter page and you finish it with the instructions I provide. The template also supports using templates from another user's namespace. No
Determines the flag of the country from a code. Note this relies on a series of templates that aren't listed here in the interests of space. You can find the complete list on the template's page. If a nation is not yet supported, you can add it in my namespace by asking for it on my talk page. I'll create a starter page and you finish it with the instructions I provide. The template also supports using templates from another user's namespace.
Illinois Ontario
No

Will (Talk - contribs) 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I consulted with one of the admins and I'm planning on doing an RFC on Richard Bennett. You in? WolfKeeper 02:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RichardBennett need signature from you, you need to show you tried to resolve an issue.WolfKeeper 05:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more stuff and tidied it a bit. You need to find evidence that you attempted to persuade him not to lie/attack in the subject line or something similar. I actually had difficulty because they had deleted the Personal attack notice board thingey, but I eventually tracked down some tags I had added to one of his anonymous IP accounts. But I've signed it now.WolfKeeper 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign it if you have ever asked him to stop adding insulting subject lines, I need at least one other signature.WolfKeeper 08:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luna Santin signed anyway. I've moved you to the 'users who also certify', because I didn't have a diff of you asking him to stop. Did you ask Richard Bennett anywhere to stop insulting people in the edit summary or to assume good faith or anything?WolfKeeper 12:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Pizza (AfD discussion)

Hi Calton, in regards to Extreme Pizza (AfD discussion), you earlier said the "refs are pretty weak". I've added 11 mainstream media articles whose primary subject is Extreme Pizza. I am letting you know in case you would like to update your opinion in the AFD given the new information. Regards, —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:00Z

  • Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza

Your pictures on User:Calton

Calton, I really like your photographs of China. I find myself coming back each time you change them. If I may ask (tell me "No!" if not), under what circumstances did you get to travel to China? I'm always interested as I'd really like to go someday. --Iamunknown 23:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Vernon article

Why did you tag that for speedy deletion? It's not a listed article, it's just something he saved and is keeping in his own userspace. People fill their userspace will all kinds of coding, pages, articles in progress, etc. TheQuandry 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me in the direction of the policy that states this. I'm genuinely curious, as I've seen many instances of people saving information this way in the past. TheQuandry 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"What is my relationship with this guy?" We work on Chicago Articles of the Week together, a Wikiproject that Tony heads up. How did you happen to come upon something that isn't in the mainspace and only Tony has edited? TheQuandry 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow what it says in the link provided, the article should be listed at miscellany for deletion rather than speedied. I don't see Tony's page listed in your cleanup queue. Anyway, I'm not interested in a fight. Could you at least take the db tag down and ask him on his talk page to take it down? He's a pretty agreeable sort and it would be a bit more diplomatic than tagging it for speedy. TheQuandry 02:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God saves us all from the wikilawyers.
Sorry, but if you aren't going to follow the rules, how do you consider yourself worthy of enforcing them in regards to other people? God may save us from the Wikilawyers, but I'd rather he saved us from the Wikipolice. The reason I bring up Tony missing from your huge bloated hitlist is because you presented it as some kind of entitlement to perform your "cleanup". What I don't understand is how you think Tony's disagreeing with the deletion of his mainspace article last SUMMER makes him disagreeable. I guess you'd actually have to write an article and have it prodded before you could understand that, though. See? I can be a jerk too. What I've done before our discussion descended into incivility is to as politely as I could ask you to ask Tony to delete his own article. He may very well do it and then the article is gone and you can go about your life happily. Instead, you seem intent on having it speedied, which doesn't give him a chance to copy the contents and save it to his computer. Not very friendly, that. TheQuandry 03:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, your speedy request has been denied. Have a nice day. TheQuandry 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime

As far as I know, a ban on one site, even by Jimbo, only applies to that site. Do to a variety of reason Primetime has ben banned on some other sites as well, but it isn't automatic. That attack page has been up for months - if nothing else it's insight into his thinking. While copying into Wikiquote is acceptable, translations could still be a problem. He minored in Spanish so he could have done the translations, but unless he's better in Spanish than English his writing is too poor to render poems so gracefully. So my guess is that he's plagiarizing the translations. Someone already placed a notice on their AN board.[8]. -Will Beback · † · 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother. I think he graduated last year. The local PD might be a better phone call. -Will Beback · † · 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is hermaticles, i want to know why you felt the need to request deletion of my page. i did not use it in violation of the terms of wikipedia, i was warned about false articles months ago and i stopped, i did not vandalize current pages only used my page for navigational purposes while on wikipedia, this is bullshit, why are you guys so full of this crap? i use wikipedia for educational purposes and if i am to find something that i feel the need to edit so be it, but there is no reason that my page should have been deleted.

World Heritage Infobox

Hi! I response to your message in the World Heritage Site talk page, I made an infobox (see Hadrian's Villa for example). However, I'm having trouble adding this to the Chaco Culture National Historical Park article (the infobox has been placed in the other World Heritage Sites already, except this one) since an editor kept reverting it. I forwarded a mediation case and the mediator needs additional perspective concerning this. If you're interested, please leave a message in the talk page of the said article. Thanks. Joey80 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

FYI, your notability - references - COI at Jeanne Marie Spicuzza got RVed again. This is a farce. Griot 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling back the rollback...

Er, I misclicked. Bad hand-eye coordination today, I guess. So, I reverted myself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'North America (Americas)' ... again

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way, and the article has been deleted, this has reared its head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of deleted RFA images

Hi,

Policy is that we keep talk pages of disputed image deletions. It's useful to have a record of what happened. —Chowbok ☠ 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G8 is what I'm referring to (took me a minute to find it). —Chowbok ☠ 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RUABOT?

  • I've noticed you have been doing some high-speed:
  1. 2007-03-15T01:51:37 (hist) (diff) Talk:BSkyB DTT ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
  2. 2007-03-15T01:51:27 (hist) (diff) Talk:Hearts ASC ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
  3. 2007-03-15T01:51:22 (hist) (diff) Talk:Seven-ball ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
  4. 2007-03-15T01:51:12 (hist) (diff) Talk:Comic Book Movie Age ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
  5. 2007-03-15T01:51:06 (hist) (diff) Talk:Fan Siu Wong ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
  6. 2007-03-15T01:51:00 (hist) (diff) Talk:Greg Armistead ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
  7. 2007-03-15T01:50:54 (hist) (diff) Talk:William Scotto ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
  8. 2007-03-15T01:50:33 (hist) (diff) Talk:Grobitz ({{db-talk}}) (top) [rollback]
tagging. While these seem to be valid CSD nominations this level of editing can flood recent changes list. If you will be doing this often it would be better to run this type of tagging from a bot-flagged account. You can request a bot flag at WP:RFBOT. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, looks like I just caught you on a fast streak for that minute; even without programming a bot script, you could still register a seperate account as a bot if you want, but run it manually; really only needed if you will be sustaining a high edit rate (>3-4 edits per min on average) during tagging. If you have any questions about it please let me know! Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

well some of us have jobs and lives and cant afford to go looking for things to edit 24/7, like i said if i find something in need of my knowledge it shall be added


Quantcast

by the way I am having another go at Quantcast which you tagged for deleted. I've blocked the four obvious single purpose sock puppets who argued with you --BozMo talk 09:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 05:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Aaron John Waltke

You've recently tagged the article I created for Aaron John Waltke as a "ludicrously trivial bid for fame" and thus suitable for deletion. However, the previous world record holder for the same record with near-identical accolades, Matt McAllister, has been listed on Wikipedia for months, almost a full year, without being contested.

Also, I'm not sure that simply because the record is strange and gained media attention for its oddity automatically make the record trivial. Many articles on Wikipedia are noteworthy simply for their strangeness. If anything, I'd buy a recommendation to roll the McAllister and Waltke entries into one article on the World Record for Most T-Shirts Worn at Once, but I'm not sure that automatic deletion is the best course of action here.--GoodAaron 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I feel like you're taking my contention of your deletion nomination a little personally. I honestly meant no disrespect. I merely wished to voice my reasoning as to why I didn't believe WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS was applicable to this situation.--GoodAaron 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, I was informed on my Userpage that the article was being deleted and was encouraged to come and put in my two cents. I'm sorry if it was too long for you to read.
I've been nothing but civil with you, and it seems you've done nothing but taunt and sneer at every opportunity in return. I honestly don't appreciate being insulted for offering the olive branch of peace (see psychological projection). If you actually looked at the argument you're referring to, you'd see that there is a valid deconstruction of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but since you never really addressed my argument per se, I don't know if you did or not. I should probably point you in the direction of ad hominem reasoning, since that seems to be what the body of your persuasive techniques entail. Simply disparaging someone doesn't make their arguments unsound. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.--GoodAaron 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For tagging talk pages of deleted images. utcursch | talk 07:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, I've been thinking about asking you how on earth you find all those. My deletion log is full of talk pages you've tagged :) – Riana ঋ 08:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High speed editing

You are currently editing a a VERY HIGH rate of speed. This can cause flooding of watchlists and recent changes. To edit at this speed, you should use a flagged BOT account. Would you have another option for these bulk CSD nominations, such as creating a list? — xaosflux Talk 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of flooding CSD, but flooding watchlists and recent changes. Most of these nominations are fine (in fact i've deleted tons of them). As these are all practically the same thing, you could produce a list of pages that need deleting with only one edit though, instead of hundreds, by creating a page of these and listing it on CSD, sort of how User:Ganeshbot/Not created is. Please be sure you are checking your edits though and not just running off a list. At least two of your nominated pages, Image talk:Tonyjaapannarittikrai.jpg and Image talk:Dharmendra.jpg are not {{db-talk}}'s, as they have associated image pages, and some of them appear to have deletion discussions that are not present in other locations upon them. — xaosflux Talk 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that admins deleting prior pages missed these pages, and don't have any issue with your endeveour. Admins processing these on CSD should be catching your listing errors. You are doing a pretty good job finding these, but instead of creating all of these edits, could you achieve the same affect by just posting all these links in a single page? This would still allow admins processing the deletions to go through them and delete them or not as needed, but would do so without all the edits (which are almost all getting deleted anyway)? — xaosflux Talk 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you getting these off of the deletion log? Where you would see entries such as:
  • 2007-03-25T01:54:33 User:Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DF Army" (Deleting page per CSD A1: Empty article.)
And just picking all the blue links, going to that page, then editing that page? If so wouldn't it be about the same ammount of effort for you to copy and paste the text, e.g. "DF Army" above in to a text editor, then post up the entire list? Please note, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just think there is a process issue. — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at this in edit mode, and saw the templates, are you:
  1. Grabbing the deletion log
  2. Inserting the templates
  3. Manually looking for bluelinks
  4. Editing the bluelink to add the tag?
While of course you can't see if the links are valid or not in edit mode, are you placing these on-wiki to see the blue/red state? If so producing a list may be workable. — xaosflux Talk 02:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the process is: 1) Grab the log, 2)Format the log 3)Display in preview mode, 4)Go to each blue link and tag it; and you are not error-checking the bluelinks you could just post the entire log (blue and red links in all) on one big page, tag the page for CSD, then put a big note on top "Please delete all the blue-links on this page as per {{db-talk}}". When all the links went red the page could be deleted. Again, this goes on the assumtion that you are not error-checking before you edit these blue links. It would have the added benefit of saving you a ton of time, and would save the recent-changes log from flooding. — xaosflux Talk 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No insult meant regarding error-checking, that's why I prefaced that a list like that wouldn't be any good as long as you were. — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do a lot of process work, IRL, and would like to help you, but am reminding myself of how I got in to this discussion today in the first place, it was simply to do with edit rate and flooding. You are more then welcome to run a manual repetitive process in a manner that would prevent log flooding by registering an alternant account that we can put a bot-flag on. You would not have to program anything, just do what you are doing today, while logged in under an another account used for this purpose. Having thousands of almost identical edits easily qualifies for this. You can request such flagging at WP:RFBOT. — xaosflux Talk 02:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for flooding, you are currently consuming about 75% of the recent "recent changes log" for image talk's [9]. If you made these changes under a bot-flagged account they would be filtered from here, allowing this log to be more useful for other editors. — xaosflux Talk 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Calton, just popping in from my watchlist...my suggestion (take it or leave it) is to create a new account ("CaltonBot") and request approval for a bot flag. I'm sure you'll get it; I'm always amazed at how efficiently you figure out how to do things (I would have never thought of your methods for the image-talk-page cleanup) and how quickly you get them done. Best, Iamunknown 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'd just like to ask that you stop the image-talk tagging for the time being, while this kerfuffle is sorted out. Martinp23 10:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Ted kulongoski.jpg

Hi. You recently tagged the above talk page for speedy deletion under criteria G8 - talk pages of pages that do not exist. The thing is, the image does exist, so as far as I can tell the talk page doesn't meet the criteria. This could be an oversight on your part - tagged the wrong page or something - but if there's something I'm missing please let me know! Natalie 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar and an RfA offer

The Barnstar of Diligence
I really appreciate not only all the work tagging all the user pages that should be deleted, but also the detailed comments you leave that make it so easy to determine that they should indeed be deleted. —Doug Bell talk 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you'd like to be an administrator, I'd be happy to nominate you, as long as you realize that you can't delete your own PROD pages or speedy delete the user pages. (As a side note, your edit counter should come with a disclaimer as I personally have deleted several hundred of your edits that will no longer show up there...I suspect there are a couple thousand altogether by now from all the deleted PROD pages.) —Doug Bell talk 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

I sent you email through your "email this user" link. Is there a better way of contacting you? Jkelly 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and that's fine. The whole thing is a courtesy, in any case, and there's no urgency to it. Jkelly 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gateman1997/Cicero's Pizza (Cupertino, California)

Question as to why you tagged this page as you did? According to two different sections of WP:USER this is exactly where a page like this belongs and doesn't appear to violate any portion of WP:NOT that your template linked to. Accordingly I've removed your tag and noted as such on the talk page. However I have requested the speedy deletion of the duplicate page as I had forgotten it existed. Gateman1997 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm aquiring sources and waiting 1 year to bring it back to the mainspace. I've added a few if you'd care to check. There is no time limit on the length of the development phase according to WP:USER or WP:NOT. Also the section you link to
   Wikipedia is not MySpace. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:

       1) Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

       2) File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.

Doesn't have anything that pretains to this page. This page isn't a personal webpage or social networking tool so it doesn't violate part 1, nor is it a file to be stored as it's not an image so part 2 doesn't apply. I'll be continuing to maintain the page until July or August when I'll attempt another run at the mainspace once my upgrades are complete. Gateman1997 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the GNAA article? And why would I want to recreate it? All I'm saying is my article may have been deleted, but just barely and on tenuous grounds at best, which was WP:REF. I'm working toward rectifying that and will be completed later this year. And as stated before there is no time limit beyond on development in the userspace beyond "permenant" which has no definitive ending per any of the policies you've shown nor any I've seen. This article will eventually be brought back to the mainspace when it's fully ref'ed and expanded a tad more. Gateman1997 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring the counter examples. But since they've been deleted and have no history I can't review them other then their article names. Several of which seem to be nothing more then personal vanity pages, which the article I'm developing is obviously not. Also where does it say that there IS a time limit. It just states it's not a permenant home. There is no definition of permenant. People work on projects for years on this site, especially when they're not on it 24/7 like myself. Can't you just trust I will be repairing this article in due time as your original template itself stated I was entitled to do so? Gateman1997 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't show you what's not there. But nor can you show me what's not there either. It neither states that there is or isn't a time limit. It just states permenant. Which is about as ambiguous as it gets. Anyway since this page is very similar to the examples from WP:USER I'm going to go about my work as I was before. Good night. Gateman1997 06:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll thank you not to do the same implying that it is in the userspace permenantly. Gateman1997 06:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said. The page is being brought back the the userspace 1 year later. (ie:July). Also it's been 8 months, not 9. Also can you keep your attitude down to a minimum if you're going to post on my talk page. We're not competing here. I came here initally to leave you a friendly notice that I'd pulled the tag. And I'll leave in that spirit back to working on that and other pages. Good night. Gateman1997 07:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you minimize your wikilawyering, excuses, and insults to my intelligence, fine and dandy. I've no more wikilawyered this evening then you have. And if you think I'm insulting your intelligence my apologies, but please WP:AGF and rest assured I will bring the page back when I said I would. You've now been informed of my timetable and it is no longer a mystery. Again, good night or afternoon as it may be over in Japan. Gateman1997 07:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's how you're going to misinterpret my statements this evening then there is little point in furthering this discussion. You seriously need to read WP:AGF. It's not like I'm some 5 contrib user who doesn't evolve my work. Just because it's not fast enough for you doesn't mean it violates policy. For the final time I state I will be bringing the improved and hopefully delete proof version of this page back when I'm ready to. Until then it will reside here pending a few more additions. Gateman1997 07:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pretended not to see links contradicting your position placed directly in front of you Statements like that prove that you obviously know nothing about what WP:AGF says. I'll thank you to stop assuming I'm a liar. Now if you'll excuse me this discussion is over. No need for further responses on my page they won't be answered. I don't converse with people who call me a liar to my face. Gateman1997 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Userpage

Please accept my apology. I misread the text and I thought it said March 2007. Sorry. Randomfrenchie 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I reverted the change. Cheers! Randomfrenchie 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage deletion

I noticed a couple of the userpages you recently PROD-ed were User:Christopherquilesbrown and User:Marikina kenworth. Were they just part of an inactive bunch you were going through? I came across both when removing some meme-spam from some sort of Globalist Manifesto outfit, and both of these seemed to be connected (I stuck them on my watchlist, but forgot to look further until they popped up after your PRODs). There seem to be some other similar cases:

Did you want to include them in your cleanup, or should I? David Oberst 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

[Trolling deleted]

The Deserter (2006 film)

Calton, Thank you for contacting me via my talk page. Did you review at all what I wrote in defense of the article? I believe the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I expected that there would be some sort of discussion on the talk page before it was just deleted again. It was not the reposting of the same article and the article contained considerablly new material. Why was there no discussion before it was just zapped out of existence? The article Democrazy (film) went through the same process of being deleted because it was not yet released and someone started another article later and it was deemed valid. There should be some sort of debate on this. Dwain 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


LaRouche

Hi, please explain your position on Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. I understand that you claim he and his publications are an unreliable source. To save people time in understanding your basis for your claim, I thought I might ask you to write a quick explanation that anyone might check out. Thanks. (A non-wikepedian, but reader of many political journals and historical texts, including those of Mr Larouche). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.66.171 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AfD nomination of Anthony Minnuto

An article that you have been involved in editing, Anthony Minnuto, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Minnuto. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Your edits:[10][11]

Josh Warner

Calton I noticed that you went and added the {{notability}} tag to the Josh Warner page that I have been working on. If you take a look at the Talk:Josh_Warner page, you will see my arguments for notability (that were seconded by others). Another admin has already agreed to the notability for this page and I feel that your addition of the {{notability}} without ANY reasoning on the discussion page is uncalled for. Since we have already made our case to an Admin, please make your case otherwise.

Also, for the {{COI}} tag that you added, this is absolutely untrue. I am a jewelry collector who has purchased Josh's work at Traffic (in Los Angeles) and feel that he is a notable designer.

Again, please make your case otherwise on the Talk:Josh_Warner page.

-Shaun (Shaunco 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi! Calton

Are you a teacher of moral education? You crack me up! For God's sake, please revert it in terms of content. DDRG 08:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gl*b*l*st M*n*f*st* nutcase

Dear Calton:

Firstly, we wish to apologized for the two articles on Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto, the User: Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto and the User: Christopher Brown. In fact, our decision is not to continue those articles and we have written that in our User: Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto. We understand you, even your used of words, we understand them.... you are just doing your job.We dont feel bad about them. We are just feeling some form of "discomfort" about them because maybe, we are not used to that.

Before we go on, lets thank each other, because the User:Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto article in Wikpedia is the number 1 in Advanced Google Search in the topic "formation of a global government". It is also number 1 or 2 in the Google ordinary search for the topic of "the Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto" over millions of entries. Even today, after we agreed to discontinue our article, the high ranking of that article is still there.

We are both business executives and we must admit between us that as the Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto Party gained some mileage because of Wikipedia, we think you must also agree that to a certain degree, our beloved wikipedia has also of gained some degree of mileage also among the Google visitors surfing in the topic of "Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto" and "formation of a global government". we are only talking here of Google exposure. How about the Yahoo and Alta Vista exposure.

That is why, we are very thankful to Wikipedia and it really pain us to be seeing "nice" comments about us from a website we consider our partner and we respect so much, that eventually led to us deciding to leave this wonderful site.

I wrote this letter not to pick up a fight, we respect you and that respect will forever be intact. You earned it long long time ago. In fact, we want to extend our hands of friendship with you, the old fashion way, even if we already decided to discontinue our articles.

Actually, we admitted our mistake...two articles, different user. It was an experiment. Anyone who participate in the world wide web has the motive of advertising themselves deep from their subconscious. We all know that.Its a given. Aside from this given universal human nature tendency, our article also wishes to inform the global public that there is a global crusade for the formation of a global government which was hatched at the Asian Institute of Management and their websites are ranked number 1 in Yahoo and Alta Vista Search engines over million of entries in the topic of "formation of a global government" and "Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto". So please, if you have an impression that we are just advertising ourselves in wikipedia (which we will not deny),think also of the information side that we are providing to the global public. Yahoo and Alta vista did not think that we are just advertising over million of other entries.

We wish to extend our hands of frienship to you personally and we say thank you once again. You are the boss round here so your decision will matter, not ours. We agree on your short note the other day.If in your judgement,things has to be done this way, its your call as the boss. In fact if you will suggest to us that maybe we should continue the article with some remedial meassures that has to be done, we will reconsider, because we are thankful to wikipedia and we consider you as our friend and boss,regardless of what you feel about us.

But deleting the articles is fine with us and it should be deleted very fast so that the nice insinuation about us will be deleted too with it. There is no point of saying bad things between us...we admitted our honest mistake, we apologized, we explained, we extended our hands for genuine old fashion friendship, what else... we can even offer a Catholic Mass for Wikipedia and for you in our Catholic Church in Marikina.. what else. The point is there is no point of verbally rendering nice insinuation with each other.We understand, its maybe in the Wikipedia system...or maybe not, we really dont know.But whatever that is, we understand from where you are coming from.

So, God Bless you, and we say this as a unilateral genuine gesture of friendship.

Prof. Toti Dulay Gl*b*l*st M*nif*sto Party totidulay@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.86.3 (talk • contribs) 02:06, March 30, 2007

ps. about the link, this article is listed # 1 in google search in the topic of "formation of global government" and gl*b*l*st m*nif*sto in their advanced search so i would think that there will be some people looking for this article, would you not want to extend a little help to these people on where to find this article? Wikipedia has full of links, and I am sure your boss in the Japanese firm you are working now will understand the concept of service to the public specially the fact that wikipedia is dedending on the donations of the public. Common, just allow the link there for say 6 months,just in time for the rating of this wikipedia article to settle down and lesser number of peole are looking for the article.If you allow other links, why not allow our links, for the last time,and just for your kind consideration. By the the way, when you say that Wikipedia is not our link farm, its supposed to be sarcastic right? but, fortunately, I did not grow up in the farm so, the sarcasm does not affect me that much.I can exchange insults and sarcasms with you endlessly but both of us are busy. And remember, we are extending our hands for friendhsip with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.8.7 (talk • contribs) 17:07, March 31, 2007 `````````