User talk:Calton/Archive17

; 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;

Promo Material?

Your removal of URLs on Sarfatti's site seems totally inexplicable. It seems that all references to Sarfatti's writings, his TV/movie appearances, indeed the whole web page is "promo material" using your criterion. Isn't the fact that Sarfatti is in a multi-million dollar motion picture with Uri Geller relevant to his bio? This movie is made by a multi-millionaire with close connections to the Dutch Royal Family. Can you explain your reasoning in this case? :-) SamuelJohnson714 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Samuel Johnson[reply]

User:Ajaxsemaphor/Adam Long

I noticed your offer to help in the Adam Long case on deletion review. Ajaxsemaphor has created User:Ajaxsemaphor/Adam Long at my suggestion and I've given him some pointers on sourcing, which he has accepted, and I told him I think it's basically okay. If you agree that it's acceptable as a reasonable Wikipedia stub, we might put it to the debate at the Adam Long deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Godwin

First of all, the unqualified deletions of a rude anon are not a breach of 3RR. They are removal of vandalism. Second, why can't you even look at the evidence I've provided on the talk page before reverting in a knee-jerk fashion. If I could do it for the anon, you can sure as hell do it for me. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification of your post on the violations noticeboard. That's a courtesy most would not do if they could avoid it. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic edit summaries

My edit summary at Lyndon LaRouche was intended to be a parody of the previous series of summaries by Cberlet. Personally, I like my edit summaries brief and factual. --NathanDW 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Losplad, User:Chris funk bass

The content of these user pages is well within the allowed limits for a User page. For article namespace I would gladly remove it under CSD:G12, but a user has much more leeway when it comes to their user page. I removed the speedy tags. Owen× ☎ 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam"? "Advertising"? How can an unlinked userpage advertise anything? Who other than RC patrollers even sees this page? I think you are chasing shadows here. Yes, G12 can be applied to any page, but review WP:USER--the standards for a userpage are very different from those of the article namespace. I also notice these accounts haven't made any useful edits since they were (recently!) created. By deleting their user page, we are making it more likely that they never will. I know similar userpages are being deleted--incorrectly--all the time. I'd appreciate your help in stopping this practice. Owen× ☎ 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Owen×. These type of pages, when created in mainspace, are actually moved to editors' user pages. I don't see a problem with these. - auburnpilot talk 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as you are aware in relation to version of pages such as these User:Losplad, User:Chris funk bass when you put up Speedy Tags, I agree also with Admin OwenX et al and others that have posted comments on your talk page in relation to you adding such tags where those pages are simply not SPAM. Indeed your edits especially here come across as disruptive and in breach of WP:POINT. Indeed you should consider this response my warning to you that you please refrain from adding these type of messages on an administrators talk page when you simply do not get your own way.--VS ^talk 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS When you come back to look at this issue again can I suggest that you actually try to Google the exact content of a talk page you are intent on deleting? Please come back to me with an exact link found through Google and I will be very supportive of your endeavours. Cheers!--VS ^talk 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "Google"? It's what's known as a "search engine": I understand all the kids are using it these days. [...] Don't be ridiculous. When you return to Earth, let me know." --Calton | Talk 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "civility"? It's very popular among Wikipedia users. Don't use that condescending, patronizing tone with me. I know you believe you are the smartest guy around, but the fact that none of the admins involved in this discussion seems to agree with you should give you a reality check. Cool down--you're already treading very close to 3RR violation with those speedy tags, in addition to your total disregard to any kind of civil behaviour standards. Owen× ☎ 15:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: Lukas Ligeti

I think it is given now. Do you remove the notability module?--Engelbaet 10:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen, you may be interested in voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants. PageantUpdater 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

I invite you to take some time to discuss your dispute with edits to September 1 on the article's talk page Talk:September 1. Otherwise it will end up protected again. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

userfication

I hope you have noticed that I have given up userfying. Moreover, I have noted a few cases of user pages that you might like to watch. Look at this contributions list and search it for "Calton". -- RHaworth 11:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens City, Virginia (Sept 1/Oct 3)

Sorry Calton, it's not "gone" just because you say it is. When something happens in a colonial state and it only happens THREE times in that state and only THREE times, yeah, it's notable.

I have many forms of proof that Thomas Lord Fairfax only helped with the charter of Stephensburgh (later Stephens City) and no other town. He helped with the founding of Stephensburgh and what would be modern-day Leesburg, Virginia and the expansion of Winchester, Virginia.

With all that, he was only instrumental in the charter and founding of Stephensburgh. No other Lord from England did this and it was not common practice for Lords to do this. So, yeah, it's notable and way beyond trivial. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shea, Lake Placid, NY and BLP

Since Jack Shea died in that car accident I believe that BLP no longer holds sway. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicalendar guideline

I hope that you will consider contributing to the discussion about making Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time a guideline for Wikicalendar articles. Discussion is on the talk page. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Jon.baldwin

Why did you tag User:Jon.baldwin for speedy deletion? Was it just a mistake? How can a user page be blatant advertising? Billlion 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your case for deletion on User:Jon.baldwin's talk page. It seems that you have set about speedy deletion of a number of User pages. I know nothing about the others but I do know this user. You seem to be suggesting that the existence of this user name itself is spam. But it is just the Jon Baldwin's name. What is wrong with that?Billlion 21:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I think I see what you are doing from the deletion log. It seems to me that a not-very active user has had his page spammed, perhaps by someone with the same name. If you delete rather than revert the page, then when he does log in he will be confused as to why he is given a warning when trying to create his own user page (not having much wikipedia experience). If you had simply reverted the edit he could at least see what had happened on the history tab. Actually I don't know how to check who was the spammer was as I can't see the history log. I am pretty sure this User:Jon.baldwin is not Jon Baldwin, President Circulation Service America, but of course I cannot be sure without looking at the history. Billlion 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive275#This is officially pointless

So what avenue would you recommend for this?

Add "#REDIRECT [[User:White Cat]]" to User:Cool Cat. Presto, done. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Either obey or obey" is not a part of WP:DR. That would not fix my archive redirects. -- Cat ^chi? 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also inter namespace redirects aren't allowed I believe. -- Cat ^chi? 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Either obey or obey" is not a part of WP:DR - Nor are they dessert toppings or floor waxes -- which is just as much a non sequitor, perhaps even less so, than that bit of handwaving. Hint: objections should be made about things that are actually said instead of making up incoherent nonsense to rail at.

Also inter namespace redirects aren't allowed I believe - "User:OLDNAME to User:NEWNAME" is an inter-namespace redirect? Are you sure you know what "inter" means? --Calton | Talk 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You altered your comment... In any case as per past experience I do not desire to continue this. -- Cat ^chi? 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Prince what's his name

For better of worse (worse in my opinion, which doesn't account for much) consensus at WP tends to want to keep articles about minor royals even if they are exiled from the kingdoms, dukedoms, etc., even if they are minutes old (just wait the Countess of Wessex gives birth), so they are not candidates for speedy deletion; take it to WP:AFD if you disagree, but please do not keep tagging it. Carlossuarez46 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)

You participated in the first AFD, so you may be interested in the second AFD over the recreated article. THF 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom for Speedy Deletion:Scott Allen Caplan

Yo, buddy, you tagged this article for non-notability back in March. Just wanted to let you know I've nominated it for speedy deletion. (I think; my first time doing the process, hope I got it right. If you don't mind, would you check and give me feedback if I screwed up the tag or something?) Caplan seems like a fine journalist, but so are lots of others; and he's not outstandingly recognized as such by any independent source. Definitely just a piece of vanity self-promo, IMHO.--Textorus 04:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I getcha. The various deletion categories and processes are a little Byzantine for my taste, hard to figure out what applies where. But thanks for rectifying the tag! --Textorus 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Kunz

I deleted the db-repost tag from Diane Kunz. Although the AfD was closed as a delete, this was overturned in deletion review.[1] Accordingly, it would need to be renominated through AfD before it would be eligible for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Collegesequoisseal.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Collegesequoisseal.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Esrever 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Collegesequoisseal.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Collegesequoisseal.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Esrever 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a logo is. :) I was simply pointing out above that the logo you uploaded doesn't include source information or a fair use rationale for its use in the College of the Sequoias article. It's not my rule, and I frankly don't care what you choose to do with it. I just wanted to let you know that I'd tagged it. As to the rainbow flag icon, it seems pretty clearly to be a public domain image, as indicated on its page. Cheers! Esrever 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Just to let you know that some of your favourite non-notable beauty queens have made been making some interviews on TV... check out Shauna Sabir on the Morning Blend, Lauren Peterson on KSDK, and Chelsea Nelson on KULR. Serena Karnagy has also been KHNL and KITV in Hawaii and Chelsea Welch on WBOY-TV in West Virginia. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And still more! Wow, really non-notable, aren't they?! Alabama, Hawaii PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yawn, you really fire me up. Well, perhaps you also missed this... and that's just a start :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socionomics

Just because I am an Elliott Wave proponent does not mean I get anything from Robert Prechter, or that I even believe that socionomics is useful, or agree with him. If you read the quote in my book, I said that I really did not believe one could forecast fundamentals with the Wave Theory (which is what socionomics suggests). I supported keeping the article merely because I believe that socionomics is noteworthy, and that there is ever growing research into the field (meaning my comment in my book could prove to be wrong, although as of know I just don't know). I also support the article being rewritten by somebody other than RFolsom because of the COI, but I do not know enough about it. At some point, if I have time to read up on it, I will write about it. I do not understand why you think I should not write the article. Can you give me a good reason?Sposer 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil of the Future episodes

I noticed you voted delete on the individual NCIS episode which I closed. I redirected per recent concensus on other episodes articles, including the link above. Just a head's up. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Monkey DRV

Calton, I realize tempers our high around the Infinite Monkey Theorem article, but please try not to continue the bickering with Michael Hardy on the DRV. It has tremendous potential to inflame the situation all over again.--Chaser - T 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture and special knowledge

I don't want to clutter Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture any further, but you mentioned several times that mathematicians and statisticians have no special knowledge of the article. I have a different opinion and am curious if we could work it out. -Weston.pace 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, do you believe that pop culture articles should exist at all (a valid opinion)? If not, then I agree with you, mathematicians and statisticians have no special knowledge against that argument.

If you do, then there must be some decision as to whether the article is a valid culture article or not. It's here that I believe mathematicians and statisticians could have special knowledge. They would have a better idea from personal experience (because on average, I believe they pay attention to monkey references more often than the average person) as to whether the article is significant enough or not.

I'm not trying to argue about deletion policy or the article itself, but you seem frustrated that no one is answering your question, and I'm intrigued by your point of view, so I hope we can have an interesting discussion. Feel free to reply here or there. -Weston.pace 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for the user page revert. Cheers! Dust Filter 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing e-mail addresses

Let's not do it, for obvious reasons. It causes too much fuss. Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 06:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

How do you prod user pages so fast? I occasionally do the same thing you do, though not at the efficiency of you. What's the secret? :) -WarthogDemon 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Beyer Volvo

you put a speedy deletion tag on this article. there are dozens of auto dealerships on WP (see Category:Auto_dealerships), and they are there without a problem. In this case, there is ample explanation for notability in the article, including the extensive reference in the article to unusual public service outreach and the owner is a public figure. I will be replacing the info box to a smaller size logo; meantime, I intend to remove the tag -- pls. comment on my talk page. Thanks! 13:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Feel free. I can't think of much else I've written that could reasonable be deleted so have fun! And if you do start rabidly nominating things for deletion, I've got pretty good grounds to argue your bias against me. Enjoy :) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deleting image talk pages

Hi Calton. Just to let you know that many image talk pages cannot be speedied because they contain a discussion of their deletion. Often, this is the only trace non-admins can have explaining why their favorite image was deleted. Common practice is to err on the side of keeping even when there is fairly limited info about the deletion process. For instance, I won't delete Image talk:Aya Hirano.jpg (not that anybody would care if I did but stil...). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't want to be a jerk about it but the fact is I've seen quite a few of these end up in DRV, creating a complete waste of time for everybody. As far as I'm concerned, even those containing significant debate should be deleted as I don't think anybody actually reads them after the fact but that's the way everybody agreed to do it. In any case, these errant talk pages are not posing any problem and it's unclear to me why you would choose to spend much time hunting them down. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they waste server space even after they're deleted. As a matter of fact, everything that was ever written or uploaded on Wikipedia remains on the server and admins can restore things that were deleted years ago. The only difference about these parts of the database is that they are not accessible to ordinary users. The only motivation for deleting talk pages of non-existent pages is to keep things tidy. You are right to say that the deletion discussions make no sense whatsoever for users who can't see the image but the reason these talk pages are kept is for users who previously did see the image as part of their favorite article and want to know what happened to it. There's no need to get upset here, all I'm saying is please don't tag these talk pages with a db tag because people like me who are cleaning up CAT:CSD will just lose time removing the tags. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Girl, other media

Hey, I want you to know, I reverted the removal of the mention of the Power Girl fanfilms from the main Power Girl page because there was a pretty healthy debate over it when articles about the first two came up for deletion. In the end, the compromise that seemed to satisfy everyone was to delete the articles themselves as not notable enough to warrant separate articles, but to keep a small mention of them in the "In Other Media" section of the main PG page, since they ARE the first motion-picture (i.e., film, TV, cartoon, whatever you want--any visual medium that's not static) depiction of Kara Zor-L/Power Girl herself, thus meeting the notability requirement for a passing mention in the main article. (Indeed, DC seems to have given Blinky Productions its tacit approval, in that a DC-contracted writer, Gail Simone, recently did a pro bono script for one of his other films.)

Just wanted to explain this here, rather than get into a fight when neither of us understood the other adequately through edit summaries... Rdfox 76 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Collins (director)

I was looking at that and trying to think why on earth I would have even created it. Then I found this. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Sieunarine

The article was prodded by you, the prodding was contested shortly after deletion. Just to let you know. Lectonar 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Spin"

Forgive the inquiry, but how am I "spinning" to note that "indicted" and "AP" is insufficient criteria under WP:BLP1E? That seems an uncivil characterization, but if I'm wrong about BLP1E, I'd appreciate the education an explanation could give me. Many thanks. THF 05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your crap about "left-wing blogs" is the spin. Oh, nice double spin with your characterization above: generally, one is supposed to address arguments actually made by the person you're arguing with, not ones you've projected onto them. See Straw-man argument. Find the accusation uncivil? Stop the behavior prompting the accusation. --Calton | Talk 05:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what you're complaining about. The subject has been covered by left-wing blogs. Your argument still doesn't address the BLP1E issue. And, yes, calling my argument "crap" is unWP:CIVIL, and I've raised it here. THF 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(WQA initial response) THF, I don't really think Calton ment anything by his orignal "spin" comment. Although "spin" can be pejorative, it isn't always -- in some regions of the US, the term is used as generic slang for the way someone presents any argument (i.e. as a synonym for "the way you made it sound"). Also, Calton never mentioned WP:BLP1E in his deletion comment (about your spin), he was talking about WP:CRYSTAL. Your inquiry, while politely phrased, did indeed seem to suffer from a bit of straw-man. If you disagree with his AFD argument, or it's not well-enough explained in your opinion, you don't need to respond to it, that's the beauty of AFD. If he doesn't explain his arguments well enough, they won't play much of a factor in the decision of the admin who closes the AFD.

Calton, your reply to his inquiry did cross the line of civility. Referring to another editors opinion or statements as "crap" is rude, in my opinion. Just because another editor does something that you disagree with is no excuse to behave rudely. Your remark,

Find the accusation uncivil? Stop the behavior prompting the accusation.

sounds like you're excusing rude comments to an editor because you disagree with their behavior. I'm sure you know that's not acceptable, you've been around long enough to know that. PLEASE keep that in mind when you choose how to phrase your comments to other editors.

I hope this helps you both with a little perspective on the issue. This same message will be posted on both of your talk pages to ensure you both see it. If you'd like to respond, or wish to have further discourse with each other, please do so at the WQA page. Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV dispute

Hi,

If you wish to dispute my restoral of the new draft of Gaeltacht (a choice that I do consider silly, as neither G4, nor AfDs, nor DRVs apply to content that is substantially different than the prior version), you'll need to open a new DRV request. It's a new day -- for one thing -- and your reasons are very distinct from the previous request. Reopening an old DRV for a wholly new purpose will only hopelessly confuse people. I have re-closed the old DRV for this reason. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I'm guessing the reason I moved the content is that it is a wonderful new, sourced draft the creator produced after userfication, which was wholly different from the AfD and DRV versions. You really haven't looked into this much, have you?

The reason I closed the August 23 DRV early was because the deletion had been endorsed the prior day at DRV, and the newbie DRV nominator made a nomination that sounded clueless, and wasn't going to garner support. When I talked with him a bit, I realized that -- despite his (understandable) mistakes in presenting his case, he was a good-faith guy with a good case for undeletion. When I prompted him to write a new draft, he did a fabulous job in just a few hours. Yay for him, yay for Wikipedia, yay for solid, sourced content. You are welcome to open a new AfD on the new draft, but I suspect it will survive. In any case, there was no abuse of process whatsoever -- wiki-process always allows for substantial article improvement to supercede prior deletion decisions. You've been around long enough to know that; and to know also that the question of whether an article is "substantially different" is routinely left up to individual admin judgment through CSD G4. The goal is a good article, and that's what now exists, and what changed over the course of a day. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found A User For You

User:Rome492000 - his talk page at any rate. Not really sure what to tag it as. Can one prod talk pages? -WarthogDemon 03:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Seems like it's already being taken care of. Sorry for the interruption. -WarthogDemon 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfM - eComXpo

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/eComXpo, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Cerejota 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SWAP Technology

I only just read the note from you about the tagging of SWAP technology. We wanted to reedit but it has already been deleted. How can we get it back in order to fix it up? Jaely 10:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history.

eComXpo

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/eComXpo, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EComXpo

these are no necessary any longer the article is very much different yuckfoo 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments

Regarding the comments you've recently left at the talk pages of myself and VigilancePrime, I politely ask that you remember there is a human being reading the comments that you leave. There's no need to be rude or confrontational, despite a disagreement in editing practice. A good rule of thumb would be not to say anything on a talk page that you wouldn't say to that person's face. I would welcome rewording or retraction of some of the things that you've said, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The comments (or lack thereof) recently left at the Deletion Review of Caitlin Upton would be better received if you avoided name calling. You just referenced a page without reading the essay, which included "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Please don't attempt to insult my intelligence, I will not insult yours. Tdwinz711 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

politeness

I have VO's talk page on my watchlist, and I saw your recent disagreement with him regarding the GFDL, etc. I understand the point you're making, and you may be right about the GFDL and cut-and-paste moves, etc., but your comments struck me as rude. You could have made your point just as effectively without belittling anyone. Please, try to be more civil to people you disagree with. I know you've heard the Wiki-cliche about a nice cup of tea and a sitdown -- it really is true. I like Wikipedia, and I want it to be a welcoming, friendly place as much as possible. I'm not saying everyone has treated you perfectly, but please, try to be a part of the solution here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I too would like Wiki to be a welcoming place. No bullies are allowed in my neighbourhood so I don't want them here either. Please try to make your comments less belittling and rude and try to be more mature in your comments and responses. Thanks and have a cup of tea (or Greek beer) on me. Cheers, FC Freecyprus 02:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pattern of behaviour

I also agree. After reading how you insulted one editor recently with the following comments:

What part of "enough of your trolling" was unclear, Troll Boy? Too many syllables? Sorry, I meant, were the words too big for you? --Calton | Talk 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that in creating a list of behavioural requirements you have hastily scribbled up on your user page you have forgotten what wikipedia stands for. May I remind you of a golden rule:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. --Burgieman30 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATE Question

Thank you for fixing the Marie-Louise Meilleur page, I couldn't do it without violating the 3RR. I get a lot of reversions whenever I try to clean up these pages per WP:DATE, it's good to know that I'm not being wrong or subjective when I d ==o it. Cheers, CP 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bgdigital

Hi, I notice that you have speedy tagged another of this guy's images. Unfortunately if you check his contributions there are dozens of them! What we need is some admin action or by tomorrow there could be a load more :-( I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Bgdigital where you might like to comment. BlueValour 04:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Companies List

Just replying to your comment on my discussion page...Hey take it easy. Have a beer and relax. There are more important things in life to worry about. Cheers, FC. Freecyprus 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment you left on my page:

"Uh huh. You first, Mr. Edit-Warrior. Whether I happen to choose this bit of spam-fighting isn't of your concern. Oh wait, it is -- which is why your faux-concern will receive the attention it is due. I've already filed a report at WP:AN/3RR, so you might have some time to relax yourself. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freecyprus"

This seems to me a response a bit out of proportion but it's up to you. Also seems to me that you use Wikipedia to over-compensate for some personal inadequecies you might have (like some men overcompensate by yelling at their wives or buying large SUVs) but that's just my opinion and may not accurately reflect your state of mind. Freecyprus 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this comment you made on my page: "Oh dear, did I touch a nerve? It didn't take long for that veneer of faux-concern to fall away, did it? A read of this and this might prove informative. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freecyprus"

Nope, it's not really easy to "touch" any of my nerves. Name calling and bullying never seemed to work with Greeks all these 8,000+ years and probably won't work with me. :-) I have my opinions and my responses to your comments and I expressed them. It's obvious to all you would like to frighten folks into not saying anything but that usually doesn't work in the free world. Freecyprus 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reply to one of your comments on my page. RE: this comment of yours:

Name calling and bullying never seemed to work with Greeks all these 8,000+ years and probably won't work with me - And yet you feel free to indulge in it yourself: is this a form of Greek exceptionalism, or simply universal jerkitude on your part? --Calton | Talk 11:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, wrong again (you keep striking out). Based on the comments on your own user page, YOU are the one who resorts to name-calling and bullying. I think what bothers you the most about me is that my comments are calm, mature and civil. What also bothers you about me is the fact that I'm not frightened by a bully who hides behind his computer. As to your comment about "Greek exceptionalism"...in addition to name-calling and bullying, we could probably add racism to your long list of character flaws. Cheers, FC. Freecyprus 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your latest comment:

Ouch, REALLY touched a nerve there! The problem is that you yourself haven't read Wikipedia's rules about personal attacks (or you have and don't feel these rules apply to you, only to others) We are all trying to make Wiki a friendly and welcoming place. You are not. Anyone can read the comments on your user page. I repeat: countless users have complained about your rudeness and lack of civility. All of your comments are there for all to read, now and forever. You are a bully, pure and simple. We will all continue to make Wikipedia a welcoming place, whether you like it or not. Cheers, FreeCyprus Freecyprus 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend walking away from the computer once in a while and interacting with real human beings. Learn to be civil with real, live humans and you too can help make Wikipedia a beautiful, friendly place. Cheers, FC Freecyprus 21:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Inasmuch as you've apparently asked that he not write you, it is probably appropriate that Neutralhomer has not informed you of his having raised concerns with respect to your civility an AN/I, viz., here; I write, then, to apprise you of the existence of the thread.

I should note that, according to NeutralHomer's recitation of the facts, which appears on its face to be accurate, you replied to a comment he made at User talk:VigilancePrime, focusing, in part (and, one supposes, untowardly), on him qua contributor rather than on his contributions (although I certainly understand the occasional need of one to reference an editor's previous problems comporting his editing with policy in addressing certain actions or comments of that editor), and then upon his replying to you there accused him of wikistalking and the like. One gets the impression from reading NH's comments, at the very least, that you (perhaps quite properly) joined a conversation between NH and another editor and then suggested that NH's replying to your comment evidenced his wikistalking you; such a suggestion would seem rather absurd, of course, and so if there's some clarification that might be helpful here, you might be well served to offer it, should you think it worth a bit of time, at AN/I. Cheers, Joe 04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't mention him, even if you feel that he is perpetuating the inertia, parochialism, distortion, etc., of this or that wikiproject. Deal? El_C 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Have it your way. Everyking 10:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A threat in the sense that you were clearly going to request that I be blocked if I didn't remove the comment. And no, I'm not making any more appeals to the ArbCom. It's only two months to go. Everyking 10:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right thing! I only wish I could aspire to your level of virtue, Calton. Instead of immediately seeking to get a person blocked for criticizing you, you offer that person the chance to censor himself first. Such generosity! Everyking 10:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/eComXpo.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Enough

Alright Calton - I was given permission by Morgans Hotel Group to distribute these photos. Please tell me how to go about submitting them. I did not steal them off of the Web site, they were sent to me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgdigital (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?????

When I will login it says I have a message and then I see a message from you saying something about blocking me and a hoax? Then I login and is gone? Some explanations please...Heltzen ◩ 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding right? I also don't know who you are! I come to login and before I enter my data it shows up the banner "You have a message", I click and at the top says User talk:213.133.97.162 and a lot of nonsense, then I try to edit the page and tells me I am blocked. All this still out, not logged, then I login and puff! all is gone! Someone is kidding with both of us or what? Heltzen ◩ 14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but now I am lost. Why it shows up to me if it is not for me? Was I hacked or my username was hijacked? Sorry, I am totally lost in this one . So I get that is not for me but why it pops up to me ? I also understand is not yours right? Heltzen ◩ 14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked now and my IP is 213.133.97.162, so what that means? Heltzen ◩ 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not worry, just preventive, you never know. So, for closing the matter, the thing is for someone else with the same IP, right? One more thing, there is between your messages an unsigned bit telling me that "in my panic...(whatever)" was that you? That was a talk to someone else right? Are we OK? Don't need to bother you or get bothered any more right? Heltzen ◩ 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so quick to judge

your so quick to throw someone under the bus, but when they ask for your help your arms stop moving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgdigital (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidlines & Mabel

"There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, ..." => That's exactly what my remarks are ment for; about the widely known weapontrade for Bosnia and how/if (as partner of Sacirbey) Mabel was involved, with naming the sources, so they can be investigated further. When the sources are verified, this info can eventually be incoorporated in general page instead of discussion. 201.237.112.206 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I said some of the things I wanted to say about you and your good friend Guy at that Administrators Noticeboard thing. If you're so concerned about why I'm defending a good editor like NeutralHomer against a troublesome editor such as yourself, look there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to accuse me of working in collusion with NeutralHomer (as you are with Guy) then just come right out and say it, so that I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. I do not know NeutralHomer on Wikipedia, and I do not know NeutralHomer in real life. The first time I had any contact with him was when I left him a message telling him about your unwarranted attempt to discredit him on another users talk page. I'm sure that you can check on that and discover for yourself that I am telling the truth. The reason I posted comments about your attack was because I think it was incredibly unfair how you attacked him with no provocation, then when he did the right thing and complained about you, you had your admin friend twist the argument around, so that your admin friend (with a documented grudge against NeutralHomer) could block him for quoting policy incorrectly, while keeping the spotlight off of the real issue, which is your constant incivility, and your inability to leave NeutralHomer alone. If you doubt that I have no connection to NeutralHomer, then send an admin (and NOT one of the admins you keep in your pocket) to question me. I will give them any information they want, personal or otherwise, to prove that I do not know NeutralHomer, and that my interest in your attack is simply from a concern that a bully like you is always let off the hook. As for why I make no edits, I stated that on the administators noticeboard. I advise you again to read it if you have any further questions. Have a nice day! 66.35.127.0 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be failing to comprehend what I wrote on the noticeboard, I will spell it out. I no longer edit because of you. So it is my interest to make sure that you do not run other good editors off, as you did to me. Interesting how you and Guy suddenly became so quiet when people began to question you on the noticeboard. 66.35.127.0 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was none of those, and I didn't have a username then, either, or I would be happy to share it. I made several small edits under an IP address, you bit my head off, I saw no point in continuing. And I haven't been banned, I stopped of my own accord. I repeat, if you doubt the sincerity of anything I have said, have someone question me. Again, interesting how you want me to stop responding when I bring up the fact that you and Guy became much, much quieter when his motives were questioned. I will continue to watch everything you do, because you can't threaten me with a block, and you can't stalk me, as I make no contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Templates

Yes, I know, I wasn't paying enough attention when I did them. I realised after a while >_<

Cabe 6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the comment about deleting

Im using information in the public domain under the heading of " Advertising ". As InBev is using this platform globally as it's major marketing push campaign ( and from what I can gather will put more effort into gold Standard rather than TV advertising ) then to say it's blatant advertising is rather misguided to say the least. However, if you are the Wiki police then I guess there's nothing I can do. I do however stand by the integrity of my information in view of InBev's move away from it's traditional and acclaimed TV and Cinema advertising Thank you Simon Cuthbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickcommunications (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ODYSSEY Driving Around the World and Odysseyshow

Calton and SGGH. Dude seriously you guys...I'm glad you both think I am trying to pull secret little sneaky Wikipedia move but if you'll understand that this is new to me I am merely posting a new tv series titled ODYSSEY. I work in film, not on this one. I live in West Hollywood and wanted to post this series because currently its my favorite. I've seen its prescreening and its worthy of being on Wikipedia. Not sure why you keep trying to mark it for deletion.

READ THIS AND UNDERSTAND IT...This is my first posting to wikipedia and when i first tried to do it i was confused as to whether the username is the same as the article.. it certainly looked that way when i was first creating the page because the first header said Editing User: Odyssey Driving Around the World... so i figured i was editing that site.. after reading the piles of rules and regulations and spending 3 days now tinkering with this stuff i discovered that users can actually have a user page (like yours) then i realised there were differences between entries and users.. Now recently I've discovered that TV series are entered as categorically tv series. Understand that learning to use this is very complicated. Thats why there are so many usernames and corrections to the pages...I am not promoting my services all the writeups are from press release materials here in Hollywood. I would love to own a tv series, but unfortunately, like you, I'm not that cool. --Burgieman30 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the former as it is clearly a promotional account of similar ilk to the original odyssey (tv series) account. While Odysseyshow may possibly be a similar account again, with no contributions and no spam userpage (or userpage of any sort) at the moment I don't really have enough evidence to block. If you spot Odysseyshow promoting this Odyssey program on his or her userpage or contributions, you can let another admin know or report it at WP:UAA because I will be unavailable over the next few days I'm afraid. Thanks for bringing it all to my attention though, smart stuff :)

Regards, SGGH ^speak! 10:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this - why is info about Stella Artois connected with this? Please clarfiy this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickcommunications (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is IntraPoints information different than that of other Commercial companies such as Black Board? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumkeswani (talk • contribs) 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton - ok, Im very new to all this. I thought I'd add worthwhile and accurate info to the Stella Artois page and I get a comment saying it's " blatant advertising " and will be deleted and links to your page. I'm afraid Im still at a loss or indeed why I keep seeing your name as the editor. Am I doing something wring here? Honestly, this is a genuine enquiry and I'm baffled as to what I'm doing either right or wrong. Appreciate any help you can pass on thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickcommunications (talk • contribs) 03:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, please & thank you

(all smoking materials are out.)

I am very new to the workings of editing wikipedia - In fact (as I am slightly embarrassed to say) I didn’t even know that it was user submitted until just the other day! That being said, there is an article up for deletion that has you in the history - and along w/ being non-notable, I would be willing to bet that the subject is most likely the main contributor (on article AND talk pages). And it appears that same person (or small group) is submitting/editing the content as multiple new users. You seem very knowledgeable, therefore I wanted to ask: is there is a way to request that someone look in to the ip addresses to verify this? Or do they automatically look at that when they consider a page for deletion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Bortolucci

Thank you Saffie7 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I noticed your reversion of spam from User:Fineartgasm, had a look at your contributions, and reckon this star is well deserved. Tyrenius 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For numerous jobs cleaning up the project. Tyrenius 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Pierce

The previous AfD was for a different Tony Pierce. A blogger whom the GNAA was taretting, like many other bloggers. --Oakshade 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion agency

Instead of deleting the userpage, I blocked them for a username policy violation (While it did come under G11, the username was the really problem. In similar cases in the future, consider a report to WP:UAA. Daniel Case 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Addis User Page

Hi I don't know why I've been accused of seeking attention. I am not friends with Paul Addis.

I am a total wiki noob. I don't have a complete wiki page to prove this persons notability but i believe in good faith that it will. I would like the time to work on it. I need more than 5 days. I have a life. Most of my energy on this has been deflecting the intense attacks of WebHamster. Please don't be threatened by my meta page. At the very least please explain yourself. How the heck does any page get a chance to be completed with an army of deletion taggers? Help please. --Natevoodoo 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Calton. I don't know what you have invested in this. I felt attacked by WebHamster not you. I got upset by what he was saying to me. I felt the need to respond. It seems that this is a noob mistake on my part. This is not a forum. I also was trying to defend my post in the best way I knew how. I'm sorry if this caused you any problem. But if I did it's unintentional. I ask for your forgiveness for making a noob mistake. I have seen a lot of references on here to cutting noobs some slack. Any truth to that? I could have put a lot of the stuff I said on WebHamster's user page instead, but you could say the same of a lot of his words. Please don't get vindictive on me. I'm not looking to rock the boat anymore. I don't have time to write another sentence because I always have to respond to one of you guys. Find another page to flame for a while please. --Natevoodoo 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton. Thanks for your nasty note showing your contempt for me. I am aware of psychological projection. While I'm new to the bureaucracy of Wikipedia editing, I am an avid reader and student. I am aware that I am capable of doing it. You are also capable of it too. We begin to understand anything in the outside world (including other people) through ourselves, even when we try not to. Everything is filtered down to a subconscious level. You don't have some omnipotent viewpoint that I lack. I don't think you can possibly understand who I am by reading my text, nor I you. Let's give the couch psychology a rest. I do feel misunderstood by you, but I don't have any malice towards you. I hope you can take my apology and find something on wikipedia more worthy of your clear understanding of wikipedia method. I truthfully envy that in you and hope to improve. I was convinced by those that spoke clearly on AfD that the page sucks as it is and I am not contending the deletion anymore. If you insist on trying to delete my User Page in some sort of retribution for my verbosity and bickering with WebHamster on AfD, I will do my best to approach the problem calmly and accurately. My current reckoning is that the standard to delete my user page is higher than to delete an actual page. It's probably more trouble than it's worth to you. But I've been wrong before. --Natevoodoo 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DatingTraining

See any connection with the articles deleted and this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Democrat4 paid to create articles in wikipedia for customers: A new MyWikiBiz? My comment is right above the Craiglist subheading...one of the ebay buyers had just recently bought a bunch of articles on online dating advice, and I'm trying to match up buyers and articles. And if you give cookies to nice people, I like snickerdoodles. Flowanda | Talk 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Pro Wrestling

I agree with you. I do not think this promotion is legitimate, as I have seen nothing about it on the wrestling rumor sites I frequent. It seems to be a hoax or prank or something. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Sorry about myself not editing to my full potential, its just all the articles I see have more information than I know, but I have created a list of different cancer types which could also use some improving. You can see it here. Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 00:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll try to make more constructive edits to other wikipedia article than my userpages. Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind the 3RR

I'm advising both parties of the same behaviour that I'm observing. Consistency and all that:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Bortolucci. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for defending my honour. :) --WebHamster 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for fixing my user page back there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused - but the note says refer to Calton.

Hi again Calton - There is a comment saying Maverick is blatant advertising. And it says to refer to you. I am therefore asking again ( as I;ve explained I'm really, really new to this what exactly am I doing wrong? I'm not advertising my company in any way but still there's a message saying refer to you. Either there's been a mistake and someone is using your name or perhaps you've overlooked me in all your other editing tasks. I'm sorry to bug you but I'd like to get to the bottom of this and find out if I'm doing something wrong in your eyes. Thank you - Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickcommunications (talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN

Hi,

You'll probably have more luck with Radiant!, Guy, Cyde, or someone. As the DRV closer, I don't want to go around asserting myself too broadly. After the Gaeltacht DRV, I was pretty sure you didn't want me asserting myself too broadly either! ;) (Seriously, just a light joke... I respect your difference of opinion on the latter issue, but the alleged appearances of COIs do explain why I might want to be cautious here.) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space music

Hi Calton, thanks for reverting Gene_poole's WP:OWN edit on Space music today. He's been trying to control the definition in that article for many months even though no-one else agrees with him and his meaning is not based on the sources. He runs an ambient music radio show and has said in an interview that he "detests" the term "space music", so there's a bit of conflict of interest behind his campaign to control the article.

In the last couple weeks, his change has been reverted by four editors, and not once has any editor restored his version - because it's incorrect. His talk page comments get quite "colorful" to put it mildly.

Anyway, he's already reverted your edit. I or someone else will revert it again after a while, but I've done that twice in the last day or so, so I'm being careful not to overdo it. I welcome you to revert it again, though of course, don't get yourself into 3RR either. There are a couple others watching that page and eventually someone else will do so too. But for now, since he's active today, if you don't mind one more revert, that would be cool.

If you'd rather not, no problem either way; thanks for your help and have a good day. --Parsifal _Hello 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another editor has already made an update, so no urgency at this point. If you want to keep that article on your watch list, you may see some interesting activity now and then. --Parsifal _Hello 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification - can you just inform me in a calm and reasoned fashion - no need for all your aggression in upper case.

Calton - ok, you've lead me to get to the bottom of it all. Although while you originally claimed to know nothing about it I've no idea. I've told you each and everytime that I'm new to all this. If people make an eror is this the kind of responses they all get? We're not all bloody experts you know - try to cut a bit of slack and see if we're making genuine errors which can be corrected with a nudge from someone such as you. If after consideration you think we're deliberately messing about then fair enough - let go with both barrels. I'd appreciate a little more restraint please from you in the future. Regards - Simon Cuthbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickcommunications (talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATLFED article

Thanks for posting your copy-edit to the material.

Perhaps you know whether wikipedia receives and government funding? We're broaching this subject on the NATLFED talk page. Thanks, karl m(Malbrain 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ODYSSEY (TV Series)

Attention other users, I've had an extremely difficult time learning how to use Wikipedia while attempting to add a new entry, and instead of consructive criticisms, I've been incessantly harrassed by user "Calton". He is claiming that I am the owner of a TV series. I'm not sure what world he lives in but I can assure you that TV producers have better things to do than spend their evenings writing on wikipedia. So. that being said, I'd like to continue to add Odyssey and will continue to try as new series are announced here in Hollywood. Cause yep, I'm a film Masters student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgieman30 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I suggest you revisit the Wikipedia page Don't bite the newcomers under Policies and Guidelines and pay particular attention to the following:(especially the last)

Avoid WikiLawyering. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
Avoid using bans as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you ban them.

Try to use standard welcome/warning messages, which are both cordial and correcting, such as those in the first two columns of the chart at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Warnings. Other greetings can be found at Wikipedia:Welcome templates.

Consciously choose the steadfast ground. Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, one will not provoke or be provoked easily, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building an encyclopedia that everyone is encouraged to improve.

Common newcomer errors One common error among newcomers is to create an article in mainspace about themselves or their band. One way to deal gently with this is to userfy the article, and leave a note saying why. {{nn-userfy}} is designed for use when userfying autobiographical articles. The remaining redirect can be flagged for deletion using {{Db-rediruser}}. Userfied articles on bands could be tagged with {{PROD}}, since they tend to hang around and Wikipedia is not MySpace.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the policies of not biting and assuming good faith. If you prosecute and judge people because they are ignorant of our policies and guidelines, you are in fact violating our policies and guidelines!

Try instead to follow the points set forth here to relieve the new editors of their ignorance. Keep in mind that this is not the way many other things work, and even seasoned editors fail to follow our guidelines from time to time.

The point of not biting is to attract editors into Wikipedia, not to turn them away by mistreating them, even if they may have deserved it. --Burgieman30 07:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question does this user actually contribute or does it just recommend other people's stuff for deletion? they had a pretty big mis-step concerning current aviation entries and after reading this ridiculous talk page I am wondering where their real motivations lie. 66.220.110.83 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

I have 29,000 edits on 15,000 pages...ooooh, goodie for you! How many were actually CONTRIBUTIONS? I don't mean your constant templates, or your numerous deletion tags, or your snide, catty, insecurity-revealing comments, I mean real contributions, where you add something to an article other than conflict? I'm guessing it's not many. You prefer to deal with things where you feel that you can't be contradicted, or where you can use wikilawyering (for all of your professed hatred of wikilawyering) to subdue any party who dares to disagree with you.

All that proves is that you are a socially inept, incredibly insecure, self-loathing person who needs people to think that he is intellectually superior to them in order to have some sense of validation, and anyone who questions you threatens that. I point to my last conversation with you, where you tried to accuse me of being blocked in the past (untrue) and unwilling to "reveal my identity" (I never had one), as an example. When I called you on teaming up with an admin to have a person blocked simply because he had not bowed down to you, and you then realized that you can't do the same to me because I truly wouldn't care, you tried to make out that I had some hidden agenda, and then used that false excuse to not answer any of my questions. If you choose to respond to this, I have no doubt you will cut out a sentence or two of my post and reply to only those sentences with some comment that is meant to be insulting and demeaning, and even though you know I'm baiting you, you won't be able to resist. That's ok, though. I could use a good laugh. Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahahahahahaha! I'm "not worth responding to", huh? And yet you just couldn't help yourself, could you? Which was exactly what I predicted you would do. So I will assume that makes me right about everything else I said about you. You can keep trying to say that I was blocked or banned (I was neither) and that I'm trying to hide something or I am being less than honest (I truly never registered, I don't know what IP address I was using then, and as is your habit, you left your nasty message on my page instead of yours, and I don't know how to find it now) but all you're doing is trying to deflect all of my questions by pretending that you had some right to treat me badly, and that you have some right to continue to treat others badly, when you don't. Now let's see, last time you said I was not worth responding to (but did anyway) and the time before that you tried to convince me not to respond to you. So what will you do this time? 66.35.127.0 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]