User talk:Calton/Archive19

Start below and post at the bottom of the page

User:Magnus Blaze (rock band)

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on User:Magnus Blaze (rock band). The reason is:

The page looks like a definition, not an advertizement.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of past Magic Kingdom attractions

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on List of past Magic Kingdom attractions. The reason is:

"redirect no longer needed" not covered by any CSD

No incoming links on Wikipedia doesn't mean that no one will come looking for it by other means. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on List of fictional ducks

Please, stop edit warring on the List of fictional ducks. The majority of editors on the article clearly disagree with your POV. There is a consensus and I suggest that you respect the wishes of the majority. Your repeated reverts to this list are disruptive and inappropriate. Please, stop. MegaMom (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect better...

...from such an experienced and intelligent contributor who has been reminded of WP:NPA and WP:CIV so many times. Stop calling Neutralhomer names ([1]); it doesn't help.

I've left a sternly-worded warning on his talk page not to follow your contributions; I also expect you to stay clear of him, and to adhere to WP:CIV in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Regarding this edit, please allow me to remind you of WP:AGF. Hopefully no offense will be taken. 58.88.55.173 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action Action

Hey, I put some effort into this page; in its current condition, it's not even close to speediable, even as a G4. You're welcome to take it to AfD, but I think we're all over the hump of notability at this point. Chubbles (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second album on Victory Records passes WP:MUSIC, as do the connections with several other major bands and the touring. Chubbles (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User:Calton

This is just a courtesy note to advise you of the above thread. Pedro :  Chat  16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do it

Hey there, I will just like to tell you that I did not create the user name ITunes69. It might have been someone else. And can please stop blaming me for it. BatterBean (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Thanks for telling me about the policies regarding non-free images. I have taken a look at the pages you provided and was wondering if you could replace the images you deleted with images which can be used. Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Paul Baymon

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Timothy Paul Baymon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Timothy Paul Baymon. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- Some of the links you've been removing are to reviews by published authors and recognized authorities. See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, item #12. Thanks RedSpruce (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Blog links, with rare exceptions, are not reliable sources.
  2. Because I said so" is not one of those exceptions.
  3. Reprinting of reliable sources from elsewhere isn't either.
  4. If those reprints are, in fact, reliable, link directly to them or cite them. If you can't, then they weren't reliable sources to begin with.
--Calton | Talk 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, all of your points are based on a misunderstanding about which WP rule applies here. The issue here is external links, not sources being used as a reference. The latter are required to be WP:Reliable sources, while the former are required to meet the requirements listed under WP:External Links. As you can see from the link I inserted above, the links are acceptable and appropriate under WP:EL.
Re. your point #4, these reprints aren't available anywhere else online, as far as I was able to determine. Luckily, the WP rules are quite clear-cut on this matter, and they make it clear that the current links are acceptable.
If you have any further response, you can do so here. RedSpruce (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Well logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Well logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Lack of Civility

Please, stop accusing myself and other editors of being sock puppets of Wyatt Ehrfrenels as you did here,here,here, here, here, here, here and in several other places. I told you very clearly some weeks back that I am not Wyatt, nor do I have any affiliation with Wyatt . Unfounded allegations such as these are less than civil, particularly when used to obfiscate the fact that you have been blanking other users’ pages, accusing them of being “non-editors” and reposting old deleted messages on other users' pages. All anyone has done is reverted your vandalism and harassment of other users. Instead of hurling false allegations of sock puppetry at other editors, why not try abiding by Wikipedia’s rules?

If you sincerely believe that all the editors reverting your talk page vandalism are sock puppets of Wyatt Ehrfrenels, I suggest you file a formal complaint. A simple IP check will surely clear me. Rather than playing “ net cop” for Wikipedia’s user pages, you may wish to dedicate your time to improving ARTICLES. I’m sure there are more positive contributions you could make to Wikipedia. MegaMom (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of hurling false allegations of sock puppetry at other editors, why not try abiding by Wikipedia’s rules?
As far as I'm concerned, I follow Wikipedia content and usage rules consistently, while you -- and probably also using a smattering of TOR nodes and anonymous IPs -- to blindly revert another editor's edits, are not. Please don't insult my intelligence with this talk of following rules while you self-servingly pick and choose which ones you follow, Wyatt. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not Wyatt, nor have I edited under any TOR nodes or IP's other than the one attached to my account. You're behavior is uncivil and inappropriate. MegaMom (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And what I have reverted is called VANDALISM. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:TALK or I will most certainly be bringing this matter up the chain of command. Consider that a friendly warning. MegaMom (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And I suggest you familiarize yourself with the actual meaning of vandalism before accusing someone of it. Say, doesn't that fall under the civility guidelines you claim to uphold?
Again, I am not Wyatt - Yeah, your sudden appearance echoing his beliefs, obsession with me, prose style, and intimate knowledge thereof while jumping in with false accusations concerning me and blind stalking of my edits is SO coincidental. --Calton | Talk 06:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Gee, last I checked PAGE BLANKING and reposting old deleted messages on talk pages was considered vandalism. And it IS a coincidence. Go file a report - I'm not Wyatt and I have no affiliation with him. Go ahead and have me checked out - you are mistaken. Yes, I've seen Erhenfel's Cyberstalking Site - as thousands of people probably have. I have also read the very unflattering material available about you on the Encyclopedia Dramatica and numerous other sites. Whether you would like to admit it or not, you have made yourself NOTORIOUS all over the Internet for harassing people. And as for Erhenfel's or anyone else having an "obsession" with you, I would suggest the reverse is more likely the case. Famous people are seldom "obsessed" with unknown people. If you actually read the Cyberstalking article instead of just blindly reverting it, you might learn a thing or two. No one is "stalking" you. You are not the "victim". The people you have libeled and harrassed are the victims. MegaMom (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of User:MegaMom being a sock-puppet

I've looked a bit at MegaMom's edits, and she doesn't look to me like a sockpuppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels. It's possible, however, that I'm wrong. If you believe that there is reasonable evidence linking them, please file a report at WP:SSP. Feel free to ad any other users who you suspect are also sockpuppets of Wyatt. Until filing such a report, please refrain from calling her a sockpuppet of Wyatt. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to comment on the note you left on my Talk page, saying pretty much the same thing as עוד מישהו, who beat me to it. I don't know who Wyatt Ehrenfels is, and had not heard of User:MegaMom until (s)he posted on my Talk page, so I don't know if you are right or wrong. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, post it in the appropriate wikipedia page. It is unacceptable to simply go around tossing accusations. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "proof" are you looking for, fingerprints and DNA? It's called "circumstantial evidence"; namely User:MegaMom's sudden unsolicited appearance in an unrelated dispute on WP:AN/I repeating Wyatt's original nutty paranoia and adding some bizarre claims about how I mistreated "her" child.
For some nutty paranoid goodness so you can compare, see this bizarre page of Wyatt's.
As far as I'm concerned, this passes the duck test, and I will continue to treat this character like the obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet he/she is. --Calton | Talk 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say she isn't. I didn't say you shouldn't say she is - I said there's a right way to do things like that. If you think she passes the duck test, feel free to file a report at WP:SSP. Until you file such a report, please refrain from calling her a sockpuppet. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, file a report and stop leaving me uncivil messages, rife with defamatory commentary and personal attacks against this poor author you have apparently invested so much time and energy into harrassing. Again, I am NOT Wyatt, I do not know Wyatt and have no connection with him, what-so-ever. I had never even heard of Wyatt until I began researching your cyberstalking activities. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service, for people like you to use as a means of publicly smearing people you don't like.[2] Frankly, I think your destructive conduct is out of control and you should be permanently blocked from participating in this project. The harm you do, far outweighs any good. Go, right ahead and file a report. You are mistaken, which makes your commentary all the more UNCIVIL. MegaMom (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proof I'm looking for is some sort of report detailing the evidence of sock-puppetry: cases where the same IP address was used by the two different aliases, cases where one alias referred to the other as himself, or, at a minimum, a pattern of the two editors making the same edits on the same articles. None of this exists, so, no, I don't think this passes the duck test, or even comes close to it. All I see is one editor - Wyatt Ehrenfels - who was active for all of 2 weeks more than 2 years ago, and edited 4 articles. Then we have MegaMom, who started editing in March 2007, edited completely different articles, and then 7 months later clashed with you, and brought up Wyatt Ehrenfels' web site in a report against you. You see this as proof that MegaMom and Wyatt Ehrenfels are one and the same, which is a self-centered world view. To me this seems like a user whom you've irked, who Googled you, found the stalking charges against you on the web, and posted them. I don't know which one of us is right, but until you go to the trouble of actually trying to establish that this is a case of sock puppets, by filing an appropriate report, you cannot go around tarnishing the names of editors in good standing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet theatre

I thought you should know that a user who was making personal comments about you a few months ago has turned out to be a sock of Primetime. Whenwith21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was found in a checkuser search. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a chance that 66.35.123.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and some others are the same user. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing my user page, thank you -- Lir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.254.61 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nixzmary Brown Page

Okay, I give up! What on the page informs you that it's a blog?--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. I'm going by a long-ago discussion on Talk:Terri Schiavo, where this website by one June Maxam was a part of the "Terri Schiavo is being murdered" faction and campaign.* Since then, I've been removing tlinks to there wherever I find them. Given that you already have other sources, what's the point of fighting for this one?

*Since I'm NOT trawling through the megabytes of material in the archives, I'll be lazy and point to some external results pulled up through Google -- most of which I wasn't actually familiar with until now, but certainly strengthens my case.

None of these are reliable sources for, say, writing an article about June Maxam, but do show the unreliability of "North Country Gazette" as a bonafide source. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Thanks for this information! Who would have thought! It really looks legitimate by looking, but the news at the badcops website is enough for me. Thanks!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For continued vigilance against spammers, both current and ancient. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The on-going saga of Wyatt Ehrenfels

Thank you for your message. I had read the contributions of Wyatt, Tai Streets and the two IP's prior to forming my view, and I agree with your summary of Wyatt's campaign under those identities on the various subject matters of cyberstalking, privacy, and the like. Were he to create another sockpuppet with which to continue his campaign, do you really think he would bother building up a history of sensible editing to unrelated articles for nine months before relaunching his campaign? Personally I'd think it unlikely - particularly given the nature of the articles concerned, as I said in my earlier message to MegaMom.

Having seen, and been on the receiving end, of your particular style of communication, and having seen the voracious speed and single-mindedness with which you perform your chosen tasks on Wikipedia, I think it entirely more likely that you've crossed paths with her son and (assuming good faith) without knowing that they were a minor, come across somewhat harshly. Her popping up at WP:ANI here is therefore not surprising - I agree with Canadian Monkey's comments above on this. That you conclude from her doing so that she is Wyatt is one stretch too far, in my view. After all - I contributed to that ANI myself. Would you like to slap a Wyatt sockpuppet tag on my userpage?

At the end of the day, however, you need to sh*t or get off the pot. Accuse her of being a sockpuppet, if you like, but there are now multiple editors telling you that they can see no evidence of sockpuppetry from her contributions. If you accuse her again, and still remain unprepared to go to WP:RFCU to seek the evidence required, then I will request that you be blocked for continuing to breach WP:Civil. I suspect I'd find myself in a queue. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you missed it, I'll highlight it above. Look for the boldface. Note: Arguments from Incredulity don't carry much weight with me.
Thank you for the highlighting. Please note that, given we're talking about sockpuppetry, the nature, rather than the number, of the edits carry weight with me.
And I think it best not to pull things straight out of your hat, especially given the ironclad standards you're demanding of me regarding the recycled nonsense generated by User:MegaMom.
As you'll see from her userpage, her providing the username of her son would go some way to clearing this up relatively quickly. I have asked her to provide me with that information - off-wiki if preferred.
You first. Care to back up that weasel-worded "entirely more likely" with something reality-based?
"Something more reality-based" is an interesting choice of words for someone persistently refusing to go to WP:RFCU and get, er, something more reality-based to support his accusations.
Try reading above: Focus especially on the recycled nonsense at AN/I. There were "multiple editors" noting the bizarre nature of "her" claims, but those don't count, I guess.
I have made my position clear, I believe. Do what you will. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three different editors, one of them an administrator, have already told you that your assertion that User:MegaMom is Wyatt is dubious. There's no need for you to comment on this any further on my talk page, and I hope you take Giles Bennett's warning to heart. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to file a formal complaint against MegaMom at WP:SSP. However, if you continue to make accusations off that page, you may be blocked for civility issues. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be aware that I'm not reading your detailed evidence linking these users. Some admins, but not me, look at WP:SSP to try and determine which reports are correct and which aren't. It's them you need to convince, not me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my reply on my talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wyatt Ehrenfels

I have blanked the above page, removing your sockpuppet tag. The "evidence" you provide is an edit by Tai Streets - that would justify putting a tag on Tai Streets' page stating that it he a suspected sock puppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels, but does not justify putting a tag on Wyatt Ehrenfels stating that he is a suspected sock puppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels. Perhaps this template would be more appropriate? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 08:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read the link. In fact, I read the link before I posted my message to you. Apparently, however, you didn't read my message before posting your message to me, as if you had done you would have seen that I've never argued that Wyatt Ehrenfels is not Tai Streets. The link which you cited is just one piece of evidence of this. Since, however, Tai Streets started editing after Wyatt Ehrenfels started editing then the correct approach is to tag Tai Streets as a sockpuppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels, and tag Wyatt Ehrenfels as having abused one or more sock puppet accounts. Tagging Wyatt Ehrenfels as a sockpuppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels and citing an edit by Tai Streets as an example is simply incorrect.
If you think that the phrase "shit or get off the pot" is hostile, then I happily apologise for it. It summed up my thoughts at the time quite neatly, and they remain as above. Since you don't seem to understand my purpose in this, let me repeat it for you one more time. Either MegaMom is a sockpuppet of Wyatt or she is not. You think she is, I don't. I could describe your rationalisations as "ludicrous", but don't, as you are entitled to your view and for it not to be denigrated by others. What you're not allowed to do, however, is to continue calling her a sockpuppet without being prepared to back up your accusations by completing the very quick, very easy process at WP:RFCU which would establish whether or not you're correct - a process which I see you continue to shy away from. There's no obligation on you to make a check-user request, so long as you continue (as you have been for 18 hours or so) from refraining from accusing her of being a sockpuppet until you do so. This would appear to be the makings of an uneasy truce between you and her...long may it continue. And not just because half the pages you war with her on have been fully protected. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the tag slightly, and hope that it achieves what you we both think it should achieve. As for User:172.150.92.250, there are no undeleted contributions remaining, so it's a bit pointless putting the sockpuppet tag on their userpage - the current tag shows a link to an edit by User:67.129.121.254, which doesn't constitute evidence that User:172.150.92.250 is a sockpuppet - I am sure they may have been edits in the past which are now deleted, but given that IP address are not static, it would be inappropriate to leave the tag on that page. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly the deleted material (I only flagged it for db-author, as I'm not an admin) wasn't to do with your identity, but MegaMom had grasped the wrong end of a stick and was shaking it furiously by confusing the edit history of the user page with the account history of the user concerned. I thought deletion was, in all the circumstances, the more sensible option as you two had enough to argue about without a misapprehension adding fuel to the fire.
As I said to her, Wikipedia's a pretty big place, and hopefully it's big enough for both of you to co-exist without having to bump into each other again. gb (t, c) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of copyvios

If an article has enough non-copyvio information to survive other CSD criteria, as Little Angel Theatre does, then it shouldn't be deleted as a copyvio - instead, the copyvio sections should be removed. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Angel Theatre

Thank you for pointing out the procedure. I have recreated the article with the minimum info for a stub. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: University of Pittsburgh accounts

See here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Userspace

Don't mess with my user space again.

Anonymousfishinthesea (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Rolled some back here. KC109 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeMolay vs. Mossimo

I have undone your edit to the added data I have put into the Mossimo page. While I do understand that I am not allowed to put in links to blogs and opinion sites, the Mossimo design on t-shirts in the Philippines does exist and this controversy is still unresolved among members of the International Order of DeMolay in this country. When Mossimo reacts to this controversy I put in verifiable sources of the company's reaction as well. There has been no reactions whatsoever from Mossimo as of yet, either to deny their having made such a design or that they have recalled the said t-shirt product.

--Imaginetweb (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WP:ROBO

NASA Spirit Rover Model
NASA Spirit Rover Model

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits on Automation and wanted to see if you would like to hop on our bandwagon and help us clean up some of this new WikiProject's articles. Thanks for your time. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages which seem to be articles or advertisements

When you run into a userpage which looks like an article or an advertisement, it's probably a good idea to check if there are any non-free images in it. Such images are allowed, under some circumstances, in the article namespace, but never anywhere else. If such an image is in the userpage, feel free to remove it, with an appropriate message for the user. If the image isn't anywhere else, then please tag it with {{subst:orfud}}, and it will probably be deleted a week later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete on ED page

You tagged User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica for speedy deletion. Please note this page was not designed to incite controversy, but merely host arguments and evidence as to why this deserves a WP entry. Please note that "stop the drama" is not an argument and does not cite WP policy. However, "ArbCom does NOT decide policy" IS policy. In short, leave this alone, or at least read the page you are tagging before you tag it. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

While I appreciate ""Popular Culture" sections -- especially loosely connected, unsourced, and minor list items saying, essentially, "I saw this bit flash by on TV last night" -- are deprecated on Wikipedia. So I'm deleteing this loosely connected, unsourced, and minor list items saying, essentially, "I saw this bit flash by on TV last night" item. --Calton | Talk 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)" as posted to Equal pay for women strike me as deprecating and uncivil, especially in the sight of good faith edits. Please make an effort to remain WP:CIVIL in the future. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

I've been impressed by yours and other users conduct recently, and I'm prepared to offer you an RFA nomination. Your judgement shown at CAT:CSD and UAA is exemplary, and I wish for you to be an administrator to help defeat the backlogs we can get there sometimes! You've shown that you can handle the buttons you've got already, and I think you're ready for the 'tools'. If you wish to decline that's fine. :) Regards, Rudget. 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, but I am withdrawing this offer per a recent ANI incident regarding the manner in which you respond to other editors. Apologies once again. Regards, Rudget. 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

Old pal, I was getting set to write you a note and I see you’re already way ahead of the curve. Thank you very much!

What I was going to tell you is, you may not remember, as it’s water under the bridge, but some time ago you and I had a run in with Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, the notorious user 76.166.123.129, who wrote blatantly self-promoting article about herself on Wiki that you and I thought didn’t belong, and who furthermore repeatedly vandalized the Ralph Nader article. It seems Jeanne Marie thinks we bullied her, and now her niece or sister, Mary Spicuzza, is writing an article about me for the SF Weekly, a San Francisco newspaper. On Feb 5 I got a note from Mary Spicuzza saying, “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up -- my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article.” Her original note on Jan 23 said, “I'm working on an article about Wikipedia and I'd love to speak with you.” On Jan 31 she wanted “to get your perspective on Wikipedia -- especially on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.” But now her article is about me. Please check my Talk page to read her notes to me. I wonder if her editor knows what her ulterior motive is.

Furthermore, this Mary Spicuzza has been sending queries to editors who submit to the Ralph Nader and Ralph Nader's Presidential Campaigns articles asking for interviews. See her Contributions page to find out what I mean. The attack of the Spicuzzas! Cyberstalking by any other name! It’s all very weird -- even by Wiki standards!

I wanted to send you a heads up to let you know that you may be in Mary Spicuzza’s article, too.

As you know, Boodlesthecat and 76.87.47.110 are obsessed with me, but did you know they have taken me to court in no less than three different Wiki venues:

I know I’m an SOB, but do I really deserve this merely for editing Ralph Nader articles? You’re a stand up guy and I’m glad I have you for a friend. Griot (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks amigo! I'm marking my calendar for six months from now when the beast will again be let out of the cage. Meantime, Boodlesthecat has initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Griot on me. I will be curious to see whether Boodles disappears with the other one -- maybe they originate from the same IP? Or is that too much to hope for? I think these people will pursue me to the end of the earth (which is all right by me, as I hear it's very pretty out there). Thanks again! Griot (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this

Yah know you could tell me to take it off yah know. A LITTLE PIECE OF DEATH (talk · contribs)

Krispy Kreme please

So you've completed your investigation and have concluded I've been falsely accused. Looking forward to those donuts. Boodlesthecat (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me an apology, but you insult me instead :(

OK, enough of your insulting drivel. A) I'm not their sock puppet, so an APOLOGY, not insults is in order, and B) I hadn't "allied" myself with anybody; I was trying to balance the hostile, disruptive and guideline flaunting edits of an editor with a serious grudge against the very subject he's editing that you have allied yourself with. An editor who lies about my edit history, makes paranoid accusations, distorts edit history discussions, insists that his POV trumps reliable sourcing (see Matt Gonzalez article]], and deletes other editors talk page comments that throw him in an unfavorable light. I can "Diff" all of this. So if you're not going to give me an apology and my donut, then go away and come back when you learn how to play nicely. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Griot's sock puppet confirmed

...here. I think that qualifies for TWO apologies and TWO boxes of donuts. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]