en User talk:Calton Archive30

; Archives
	Archive01 12:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC); Archive02 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC); Archive03 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC); Archive04 12:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC); Archive05 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC); Archive06 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC); Archive07 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC); Archive08 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC); Archive09 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC); Archive10 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC); Archive11 00:20, 4 December 2006; Archive12 23:59, 31 December 2006; Archive13 07:20, 12 February 2007; Archive14 14:46, 4 April 2007; Archive15 23:59, 31 May 2007; Archive16 23:59, 30 June 2007; Archive17 22:59, 14 September 2007; Archive18 23:59, 31 December 2007; Archive19 21:26, 8 February 2008; Archive20 09:50, 25 February 2009; Archive21 15:03, 4 July 2009; Archive22 08:13, 19 April 2010; Archive23 09:20, 17 November 2012; Archive24 00:00, 6 July 2015; Archive25 00:25, 3 November 2016; Archive26 16:00, 13 June 2017; Archive27 07:54, 28 June 2018‎; Archive28 01:34, 16 March 2019‎; Archive29 01:20, 18 May 2021; Archive30 07:02, 15 February 2022; Archive31 00:00, DAY MONTH YEAR;

It's not a "parakeet [sic]"

It's a conure of some type, and if you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conure you would agree with me, assuming, of course, that you actually saw "I, Tonya", which I doubt. I don't need a source to flag an obvious error and what source would I use? No ornithologist has weighed in on this matter. Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me. Autodidact1 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Autodidact1: From the lead of the WP Conure article that you linked: "The term 'conure' is used primarily in bird keeping. ... The American Ornithologists' Union uses the generic term parakeet for all species elsewhere called conure." Deor (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Autodidact1: @Deor: - Ouch. I hadn't even bothered to check out the Conure article because reading it wasn't relevant to the point, I thought. Looks like actual ornithologists have spoken here. --Calton | Talk 03:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look I’m sorry about all that

I’m sorry about all that stuff at WikiProject medicine and Fringe theories noticeboard. Look I try my very best to make information here on Wikipedia reliable. I go to Wikiprojects and noticeboards to ask whether or not certain sources are reliable or not a lot.

I really am trying my best to help Wikipedia.CycoMa (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. categories

TJD2's edits are certainly, to my eyes, disruptive, and likely a visit to WP:AE (American politics, as usual...) might be warranted at some point in the short-to-mid-term-future if the edit warring continues (especially if it does so after page protections put in by El C expire), but some of their edits are actually correct despite being disruptive (i.e. you can do the right stuff for the wrong reasons). See WP:DEFCAT - categories like this shouldn't be put in simply if a person said something stupid once, they should help readers find the most prominent figures by being used only for defining characteristics (those that define a person's importance/notability). For example, Donald Trump is probably a right fit for Category:American conspiracy theorists (and a couple others - he is well known for various such fact-less statements), as would be Andrew Wakefield (the author of a dubious paper and a prominent activist thereafter) for Category:British anti-vaccination activists. In cases like Ricky Schroder, who just happens to have said some stupid stuff rather recently, I'm not sure (doesn't seem to be a defining aspect, and smells a fair bit like WP:RECENTISM). That of course does not excuse the WP:POINTY, mass removal of categories they don't like by TJD2, but it's an issue that needs to be kept in mind in either case. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-R

Hi Calton, have you seen Special:Diff/1034206047? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The usual notice, and a warning

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

If you edit war or knowingly ignore policies when editing in this area, you may be topic-banned from it, possibly without another warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shaun Attwood. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You are edit-warring unsourced changes on a BLP; Please self-revert Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Shaun Attwood. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. See Special:Diff/1036558476 and Special:Diff/1038266840. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Calton reported by User:JeffUK (Result: ). Thank you. JeffUK (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I see this, "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block", in your edit summary. You're on very thin ice here. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Janine Beichman

Hello, Calton. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Janine Beichman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on the Assange page

You recently reverted an edit and reinstated a sentence in the Assange article | here giving as your reason: “What SPECIFICO said”. In fact all SPECIFICO had said was ““This removal of longstanding text has been challenged” – perhaps you can explain exactly where the removal had been “challenged” – as far as I can see (and I’m involved with the issue and the page) the removal has not been challenged except that the sentence was simply reinserted – the topic has been brought up on the talk page but nobody has given any reason as to why the sentence should remain except in SPECIFICO’s (above mentioned) edit summary saying it is “long standing”. That is not a good reason by itself. If you must back up another editor on an issue, please check the facts first “What SPECIFICO said” is not very satisfactory. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2021

Hi there, so I just wanted to say I don't think it was appropriate to engage in personal attacks towards me on the Talk:2021 page. We are perfectly entitled to have agreements and disagreements on who should be added to the 2021 deaths section, but you can engage in discussion without a strong undercurrent of hostility or engaging in personal accusations of "gatekeeping" - or referring to myself or anyone else as "Mr. Gatekeeper". Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back

Hope all is well! Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Edit and removal of sourced material

You deleted a submission of sourced material with a summary of one word, SPIN. That may be your opinion, but you give no reason for constantly editing something you disagree with no source. You have been asked before not to edit without reason, yet you continue in spite of being warned. Please stop removing three sentences that have RS unless you have something sourced saying the contrary. Thank you Dec212012 (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi! I saw you might have gotten a bit wikistressed by other editors in the J K Rowling thread and I hate to see an RfC I started with good intentions lead to hot-headedness and infuriation in veteran editors. Have a kitten! Hopefully seeing how confidently its marching towards a fun adventure can help you ignore the bludgeoning just a bit more easily.

Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neal's Yard Dairy

Hi, thank you for creating the Neal's Yard Dairy article fifteen years ago. You might be interested in the article on Monmouth Coffee Company I have created to keep it company. TSventon (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful

"That particular ship sailed a long time ago" is not helpful. Particularly to editors who might not understand the expression. But Merry Christmas anyway! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Game playing

I just didn't want the draft to be deleted for having spent almost 6 months without being edited, I don't know what game you mean but I definitely don't know what this free attack is about. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Mr. Gatekeeper”

We have already dealt with this in the past and you were reported; you have no right to refer to me as “Mr. Gatekeeper”, for which you were condemned last time you were reported - not just in the report discussion, but also on the Norm Macdonald discussion itself by most of the regular Talk:2021 participants. This is your only warning. Do not refer to me as “Mr. Gatekeeper” again. TheScrubby (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheScrubby (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Calton/Archive30