User talk:Calton

; 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 clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.

Some ground rules before you leave a message

I am not an admin. I did not delete your page or article, nor did I block you. I may have, at the very most, suggested or urged deletion of pages or articles but I have no power or ability to do so on my own. I'm just an editor.
This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.
If you are here to make an argument dependent on arcane or convoluted interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines or rules, note that Wikipedia is not game of nomic nor a court of law. Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned. I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt, thankyouverymuch.
There is no Rule 4.
Don't post when drunk. Seriously.
All communication sent via the "E-mail this user" link is considered public, at my discretion. Reasonable requests for confidentiality will be honored, but the whole "e-mail is sacrosanct and private" argument I do not buy for one solitary second. Do not expect to use that argument as an all-purpose shield.
Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams. Do I look like Montel Williams? Do I? NO? Then don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams.
Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.

Thank you. -- The Management.

Amazing...

I will ask, but one more time Ma'am, do not post on my talk page again. If you do so, I will ask for assistance from an adminstrator. I hope I will not have to do that, though. Good Day to you, Ma'am. - Flatsky (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User:Flatsky

Out of curiosity - do you intend to report Flatsky as a Neutralhomer sock? JPG-GR (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Took care of it. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neutralhomer JPG-GR (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary userpage?

Just curious about the use of the {{temporary userpage}} template when applying spam notices? As in: [1] .

Is that template transcluded in the tag you're using? Should it be there? Thanks for clarifying :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Grammy Reference

Hello Calton,

Nothing against you personally, but your reasoning for eliminating the Grammy reference: "fame ain't contagious" was a bit rash don't you think. Really it'a an interesting and relevant fact about Rhymefest that ties directly into why he was mentioned in the article in the first place- because he won that Grammy for authoring "Jesus Walks".

I have to insist that we change it back, no disrepect to you.

Thanks

24.15.22.244 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calton,

Are you really going to deprive people of information because your worried about it making someones accomplishments more credible? Rhymefest as a grammy winner is a fact and is something that someone reading thar article would care to know. You are being unreasonable at this point and I really don't think it's right. Your denying factual information, not opinion.

24.15.22.244 (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Calton, My information is improving Rhymefest's article, don't single me out, by you changing back my edit in rhymfests article you returned it back to having orphaned and unworking links, which again denies the public information. If your purpose is to clean up and improve wikipedia, your actions are contadictory. It's hurting...

24.15.22.244 (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should remain

Hello:

I just wrote the page "The Union Theatre" and my understanding is that you feel it is a commercial or advertisement for the space.

The space is CLOSED and does not exist except as a piece of theatre history of Peterborough, Ontario. The intent is to have the history of this unique space noted.

I will place a "hangon" note at the top of the page.

Is there something in particular that I could add or delete that would make the entry more appropriate?

Thanks for your feedback.

Mary Spicuzza

Article in the San Francisco Weekly: [2].

I posted on WP:ANI about this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_in_San_Francisco_Weekly. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gindi holdings

Hi,

The Gindi Family of Israel is a very prominent family, among the wealthiest in the country. If you'd like we can delete the links, but Wikipedia is full of links, so I thought it was ok to add them. My only intention is to have the history of this family noted.

Gindi holdings (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)from: Gindi holdings[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hediedwithafelafelinhishhand.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hediedwithafelafelinhishhand.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Project FMF (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Printplast

Thanks for your WP:CSD work. In cases of users named the same as companies as in User:Printplast for example, it would be better if you reported them to AIV as they are in the user space, not main space as articles. Thanks for your help. Alexf⁴² 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International

I'm reviewing this article [3] and have noticed that you once voted for the deletion of a related article on Miss Tourism Queen International 2007, however, there are still remnants since the following editions are still existing: Miss Tourism Queen International 2004, Miss Tourism Queen International 2005, and Miss Tourism Queen International 2006. Please cast your opinion and votehere. Thanks. --Johnsoul (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cavachon

Hi. Thanks for tagging. Did you mean to use the empty template? --Dweller (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed from your reply that your tag must have edit conflicted with an expansion of the article, but it didn't. It wasn't a very good article, but I'm struggling to see how it fit the criteria of empty. Anyway, I've prodded it, because the last time it went to AfD it was deleted because of lack of RS, which I guess will lead to a similar result this time around. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newyorklenin

I did this guy a favor by userfying his page. No good deed goes unpunished. :-) Bearian (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alesana

I went to DRV and had it restored. Also, it has a raft of sources. And apparently they're well-enough known internationally to have an article on seven other Wikipedias. What gives? Chubbles (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the AfD notice in there for the sake of full disclosure. I went to DRV the day after the AfD closed and had the article restored. Chubbles (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Our journalist friend may have been made to walk the plank. Her name no longer appears on her paper's masthead.[4] I sent copies of the letter I sent to her two days prior to publication to her editors. I ambushed them, I think. I believe the editors were surprised by the revalation but had to print because cancelling was too late. Notice in the article that the sister stuff appears tacked on at the last minute. Maybe Wiki people stepped in for me. Maybe the editors had a fit. I don't know. A favor: Can you fix all links to my Talk page on "Attempted Outing"? "Attempted Outing" will go into archives soon and be uneditable. I would like the links to work, so can you make the links to archived versions of my Talk page as the current page is a blank? Two bloggers that I know of are going to write about the incident and maybe rival papers to the Weekly as well. I'm sorry for what happened but those yatches hounded me for a half a year and I had to take measures. Life without Wiki bullshit is pretty good. Lots of free time. Thanks for all. This message will self-destruct in ten seconds. 71.139.24.255 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Griot, aren't you banned indefinitely? Found another sock in the drawer? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam on userpages

Hello Calton, while I admire your drive to rid Wikipedia of spam, I'm not sure tagging user pages with WP:CSD is the way to go. Have a look here for the right procedure. I know you've tagged a lot of these and may have had this discussion before, so please forgive me if you already know this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my own thoughts - and per an exchange I just had on my talk page - I think it's clear that obvious advertising can be deleted per CSD. Blogging or using the user page as a personal MySpace would still need to be MFD'd though. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)

Hoo boy! I've never seen the s.p.a.s come out in force quite so eagerly as for this one. He's got a pocketful of The Truth, don't he? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Without Cancer

In answer to "what part of 'empty' was unclear?", the simple answer is that the article was not empty in the terms of the speedy criteria you sought to apply to it - A3 covers articles with no content, which consist primarily of links, etc., but specifically excludes stubs which have valid context, which this did. Complain about pointless bureaucracy all you like, but the policy is quite clear on this, which is why your tag was rejected. Twice.

If, in the future, you have an issue with a decision of mine, kindly leave me a message on my talk page rather than a snarky comment in an edit summary. Thanks. _GB^T/C 08:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I had a problem with legitimate criticism? Irrespective of the question of whether your "criticism" (a) even constituted criticism, as opposed to a snide one-liner, and (b) was legitimate or otherwise, its method of delivery was, put simply, uncivil. I would suggest you follow the link you provided me with and read the paragraph below. _GB^T/C 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much you may wish to obfuscate, this conversation is not about me, it's about you, and in particular it is about your lack of civility. To save you having to re-read the paragraph I linked to first time around, and lest you fail to spot the relevance to your own behaviour, allow me to quote (with added emphasis to make it as clear as can be) the pertinent sentence. "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation".

Your edit summary failed in that regard, and I would ask you, again, to be civil in your future dealings with myself and others. As I cannot be clearer than that, this discussion has nowhere further to go. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, in any of the foregoing, has been in any way remotely uncivil? Clearly nothing, if you are reduced to the hyperbole of "endlessly pestering" (for which read "replying to your posts") and "wielding link after link" (for which read "pointing you to the same two links on civility twice"). As for ending this discussion, well, I did - just one paragraph above here. Tell you what, since you clearly didn't see it first time around, I'll do it again. This is the end of the conversation. Period / full stop. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion request

I was using my user page to temporarily draft an article before posting it and then deleting it from my user page. This is acceptable. Leave me alone. Ununtrium (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please do not lash out at other editors on topics you are not involved with simply because you have a personal grudge against an editor, which you did here. If your thinking is that you are going to follow me on Wikipedia to attack me (replete with such violent imagery as needing a "two by four") as part of your personal, irrational, and childish grudge, let me strongly disabuse you of that notion now. Please do not make me have to revisit this issue again. This is your first and only warning. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gratis Internet

If you are going to tag an article with Articleissues please address your complaints on the talk page. Without any additional information explaining your concerns the tags will be removed. For example, you've disputed the neutrality, but without any discussion there is no actual dispute. 69.143.164.143 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that article is a disgrace and needs a lot of work (or deleting) I second Calton's actions in this matter. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:temporary userpage

Hey Calton. I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind stop putting {{temporary userpage}} on every user talk you tag with a first warning. I've just seen you tag someone with a promotional username for creating an advert - yeah, I blocked them, but the block message automatically transcludes the page into temporary userpages. It's just that the template isn't all that friendly and really isn't that helpful for most of the time. If you really want to tag them still, could you just use Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages? Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Hey, just so you know...I noticed this WQA thread was just created right after the ANI thread closed. --Smashville^BONK! 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eva Evangelakou

Hi, I removed your speedy G11 tag from this page although it was a perfectly legitimate tagging. I am currently trying to help this good faith cooperative user make their overly promotional article into some more appropriate. See User talk:CIreland, User talk:Eva Evangelakou, [5] and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 22 for background. CIreland (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from your user page

The SUNDOOR and Peggy Dylan entries are spam. They get deleted and then re-posted.

Please delete the Peggy Dylan page as spam.

Magazines and books

and creative works in general cannot be deleted under speedy A7, per WP:CSD In any case, I think Railfan and Railroad might be one of the two leading magazines in its subject. did you check that? Please do not use speedy when not strictly within the specifications. DGG (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bagamoyo

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Bagamoyo worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see the problem - but was this really necessary with your placement of the template on my talk page? Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 16:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My e-mail

Calton, did you really write this?

If you'd been paying the slightest attention (which I'm doubting) I've already said -- twice or more -- that I didn't write such crap. That you'd think so even after that is insulting. I'd have thought you'd have the slightest familiarity with concept sockpuppetry by now.

If you have anything to say to me, do it publicly on my User Talk page. Your next e-mail to me gets reproduced in full here, complete with headers. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been paying very close attention thank you very much. And I'm sorry if you were insulted by my query but I only saw you deny making posts on the SFweekly page other than the highly offensive one directed at me, which I've quoted below. I am glad however that you are now stating that you did not write it.

“

BillyTFried, as you slovenly pickananies should know, is a well known troll,

libeler, and character assassin on Wikipedia. His parents were more than likely related before they got married, and I would not be too surprised if his father in fact, forced himself onto his "me so hor-ney" mother. Bad trash breeds bad trash, as BTFried is evident of. I also see this thread has not been taken down. Fine. Lawyers contacted period/full stop.<br\> Comment by Calton — February 18, 2008 @ 04:02PM

”

And yes I know exactly what a sock puppet is and have witnessed the fullest extent of such abuse by your now permanently banned friend Griot, who you so passionately defended to the very end. BillyTFried (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not my friend, to know that, you'd have to be paying attention (which I'm doubting even more). As for the sockpuppetry, a modicum of common sense would have saved you from asking the insulting query in the first place, so no, I don't think you really understand the whole "sock puppet" thing.

It's interesting how I'm libeled, insulted, attacked, and my character assassinated by crude forgeries, and your only concern is whether I said something mean to you -- which common sense should have told you otherwise. That, and the hypocritical dig about "my friend" -- boy, you had no trouble whatsoever sucking up your own abusive sockpuppet friend when it was convenient. Your complete lack of shame and principles is hereby noted. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calton please be civil and refrain from insulting me and making anymore accusations that I am a hypocrite or that I lack common sense or shame or principles. Also please stop falsey accusing me of "sucking up" to this user Telegen whom I have never been involved with in any way whatsoever. That is unless you'd like to show even the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary (though none exists and you know it). I'm warning you Calton, do not insult me, harass me, or make false accusations about me on my talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. You saw what happened to the last guy who made that mistake. BillyTFried (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging user pages of unblocked users

Why did you tag this page to be deleted? John Reaves 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought we only deleted the pages of indef blocked users. John Reaves 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Therese Dvir

Hi, I've removed the speedy tag again on this user's user page. The assertion that it is a spam page has been challenged twice now, so speedy deletion is inappropriate at this time. If you believe the user page is spam, please list it at Miscellany for deletion. Thanks, Reso lute 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate content removal

As for purging another user's user page, that is in my opinion, and as far as I know also considered by applicable guidelines, quite inappropriate. Also, purging my notice on the same user's discussion page I believe is covered by the same characteristic. If you find it unacceptable that, as I enter a message, I concurrently purge a one year old bot warning about an uploaded image that has already been deleted, well, I won't object if you find it necessary to restore that bot warning. Removing a message entered by a user in the same swipe, is at best careless. If done intentionally, it warrants censuring. __meco (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for purging another user's user page, that is in my opinion, and as far as I know also considered by applicable guidelines, quite inappropriate.

And my opinion -- which is explicitly backed by policy -- is that WP is not a soapbox, that User pages are for assisting editors in their editing (which he explicitly is NOT doing), and therefore he's using it as a free webhost. All which, again, is explicitly backed by policy rather than vague handwaving.

Also, purging my notice on the same user's discussion page I believe is covered by the same characteristic. If you find it unacceptable that, as I enter a message, I concurrently purge a one year old bot warning about an uploaded image that has already been deleted, well, I won't object if you find it necessary to restore that bot warning. Removing a message entered by a user in the same swipe, is at best careless. If done intentionally, it warrants censuring.

If you're too lazy to add your message without wiping out other, legitimate messages, that's not my concern. I won't object if you find it necessary to restore, but it's not my responsibility to fix your carelessness. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your three points are non-sequiturial. User:Lir is a user with close to 10,000 edits on the project. He got into conflicts with some other Wikipedia users, apparently one being Jimbo Wales, and this resulted in banning. This expired in December 2007. Then in January 2008 Lir makes an edit to his user page (after having edited it anonymously since the ban was lifted), in effect creating the page which you purged. On his user page Lir states his opposition to the government of Wikipedia, which he is explicitly entitled to; and I quote from WP:USER: "Another common use is to let people know about [..] your opinions about Wikipedia". The page does this succinctly and without transgressing the limits of WP:CIVIL or WP:ATTACK.

As I read WP:SOAP I find nothing in this applicable to the content on Lir's user page.

Your premise that Lir's user page may be purged because "User pages are for assisting editors in their editing", something "which he explicitly is NOT doing", is certainly not mandated by the section removal of text on the WP:USER page. If there exists some document that I am unaware of or consensus by praxis, I would need to be shown this if I am going to accede your action as being in accordance with community spirit and/or policy.

I shall revert your page deletion on account of the detrimental precedent that would be set by your vigilantism were it not reprimanded or you yourself relented of your own initiative, and I am intent on seeking approval for upholding this if you insist on removing the content on user:Lir's user page. __meco (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing my user page. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not on the arbitration committee. You have no authority in this matter. Please pursue this matter with the mediation committee. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, you must be a very strange individual to want to waste so much of your time going around "tagging 1,500 of so-called user pages for oblivion". Wow, just imagine what else you could have done with that time; collecting lint would seem more profitable. In any case, you are clearly over-stepping your authority and delving into blatant censorship. I suggest you find a new hobby. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well, I disagree with you. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as I'm not the one who wastes their life on Wikipedia doing trivial trite things; uh, I just pity you. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree, wasting time here is trivial, and wasting time arguing with you about my user page is exceedingly trivial; but yet, I'm wasting my time on one user page, whereas you have wasted your time on 1500. Wow. That's special, let me find you a barnstar. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you can say I waste my time all I want... and all I think is "Wow, this guy has done the same thing on 1500 other pages." LOOOOL @ U! Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

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/User:Lir.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:30, 5 March 2008 (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.

FYI

Figured you might be interested to know - Neutralhomer has been banned. JPG-GR (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude.

Hey man. Not to be a jerk, but how about you dont edit other people's userpages. Thanks, bud. --Pbroks13 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the personal attack "the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR" from your user page. You should not be soapboxing or making such inflammatory comments. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Firstly, I would like to point out that I did not call you a jerk; I was merely letting you know that my intention was not to be one myself. Secondly, you should assume good faith. It was not meant to be disruptive, but simply a joke. What if someone sees it and gets the joke, enjoys wikipedia more and spends more time editing? I see that as a positive effect. I can see that as that being a reason to ignore this guideline, as it could lead to improvement. However, in spite of all of this, I do apologize if it disruped your editing time. --Pbroks13 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not undo my edits to my talk page

I don't know what on earth makes you think you can undo changes I make to my own talk page, and add yet further creepy, stalking personal attacks, but you will stop it immediately. You are extremely creepy. DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, if a user (in this case boodlesthecat) has removed your message it's been seen. Adding it back with further commentary is not productive. I don't know the history between you two but I'd suggest you avoid each other. David D. (Talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readding what a user has removed from his/her user page is not forbidden, however, it has been identified as enough of a problem that someone wrote Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. It's probably not something you would want to do unless you were looking to incite a hostile reaction, or, and that doesn't apply to Calton, you were a newbie. __meco (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion on Mockingbird Don't Sing

Sorry if you thought I was causing trouble but I thought that if the only reason why it was being removed was because it was added by a WP:SPA that didn't mean that it couldn't be added by another user if they wanted to keep it. Is there another reason why you wanted it removed? For An Angel (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's spam.

Is there a reason you keep adding it back? So far, it's three other editors taking it out, and only you wanting it back.

I've a mind to AFD the whole thing, since I'm not seeing the least sign of notability for it. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been confused about what was the definition of spam. I thought if one editor was adding links to the same site over many articles then that is spam. And that is certainly what happened the first time. But when I added it to the article I didn't add it to many other articles. Also, since it was first added about 5 months before it was removed for the first time I assumed that everyone who had seen it there and didn't remove it (like me) also wanted to keep it. The only reason why I wanted to keep it was because I thought linking to the trailer for the movie would improve the article. It's a rare and unique movie and I thought seeing the trailer would help people understand the movie than just reading the plot; much more so than for most movies.

Are you saying you want to nominate the article for the movie for deletion? I know it's not a well known movie but it has been reviewed by independent sources. However, if you want to do it, obviously I can't stop you. Nor do you need my permission, so do what you feel like you have to do. For An Angel (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

I just wrote the page "Sixth Dimension" and my understanding is that you feel it is a commercial or advertisement for the space.

We've modelled the page against existing pages like "Wipro Technologies" and "Infosys".

Can you please let me know about what is the difference between this page and the others mentioned. Otherwise, let me know if there are specific sections that I need to edit.

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixthdimension (talk • contribs) 06:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random misplaced crap

Hello:

I just wrote the page "The Union Theatre" and my understanding is that you feel it is a commercial or advertisement for the space.

The space is CLOSED and does not exist except as a piece of theatre history of Peterborough, Ontario. The intent is to have the history of this unique space noted.

I will place a "hangon" note at the top of the page.

Is there something in particular that I could add or delete that would make the entry more appropriate?

Thanks for your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germahughes (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Peggy Dylan page that you tagged is spam and it keeps reappearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.76.152 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carlton, Would you please let me know what can I do to keep nonamehifi page takes place in Wikipedia. This is the most comphrensive web portal of the world and should be at Wikipedia Since we are all not familiar with Wikipedia, making lots of mistakes against to rules Pls advice Many thanks, nonamehifi or oatalay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.254.250 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking your edits

In regards to your edit summary here: [6], I just wanted to point out that I was not "stalking" your edits. In case you were wondering, I was actually reading your talk page (curious as to how you interact with other people) and read For An Angel's comment to you. I noticed your afd comment, and decided to help with the article. Good luck accusing people for things they did not do, pal. --Pbroks13 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your talk page is not stalking your edits. Going to your contributions and following your edits would be stalking.
I do believe that the article was not deleted, and I helped to have it not deleted. The fact that one of my sources were used to add notability is help.
"...and your eagerness to assist one long-term, indefinitely blocked troller and two troublemakers in training is noted."
How about you note the fact that I have neither spoken to Lirath Q. Pynnor since you gave me the heads-up about him being previously blocked for 33 months, nor have I ever spoken to whomever the other two "troublemakers in training" are.
The whole "this may be informative" thing makes no sense. What is my "joke"? If you are referring to my userpage, then please refer to my previous discussion with you. You never responded to it, so I figured that you understood my reasoning. If you don't, then please let me know.
Finally, I recommend that you take your own advice, especially when talking to other people. Your people skills are lacking. --Pbroks13 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking

Hi. Re ([7]) It's an automated function. I assume the Twinkle developers thought unlinking is appropriate because otherwise the nn entry would still remain, but with a gap where the linked term was. I guess it's my job to go back and tidy up the unlinkings, so thanks for doing it for me - I only became aware of it in the last few days. --Dweller (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Np. I also reckon there'll be occasions when the nn word/term/name should be left in the text, as relevant to the issue, but not significantly notable enough for its own article. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/Dweller for 10:51 / 10:52 (following a speedy that's in my log). It's actually quite useful, as it prompts me to go check. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Article

Hello Sir,

I understand that you requested to remove the article that was posted by jefferspetsupply. I have read all the rules and noted that in the article I would like the oppertunity for someone to write an article about the company and tried to abide by all of the rules posted help in a few discussion areas as well. A lot of our companys in our field have articles written about them and I would like the oppertunity to show you or whom ever that we have a lot of useful information that we can provide someone about their pet. An example of this is we have many specialist that people can email or call for information on the care of there animal and products that will help them. Please consider us for an article. If you are not the one I should be talking too please suggest whom I should. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.201.34 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's products

OK, a you claim a blog is unreliable as a citation, but this particular one is a first hand account of a 50 piece chicken tender, with accompanying photos of in-store advertisements.

--- Jeremy (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page spam

Hi. I noticed you've been doing a great job identifying spam on user pages. Thanks for the great work. If you wouldn't mind, when you identify users such as User:The Gospel Magazine‎ and others that violate the Wikipedia:Username policy, if you could add something like:=

==Username concern==
{{usernameconcern|Your username contains the name of a copmany or organization}} ~~~~

to the User talk page, it would be helpful. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No- actually I saw that and it's a good solid tag, but doesn't address the username. I just like to give folks the opportunity to change their username before slapping a username block on them. Folks like that magazine would easily qualify for such a block. I'm not saying you did anything wrong at all. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanlon

Whose hanlon bud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuirghhn (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Whatever it is you are on about now

Kindly lose the pedantic hat, take a chill-pill or umpteen, and calm the deuce down, china. Enjoyable though being pompous and caustic is (especially when you're being pompous and caustic behind the internet-accorded cloak of anonymity), it is completely unnecessary in this instance -- much like my edits, apparently. Quite why you feel the need to label my every edit "pointless" or, bemusingly, "wrong" simply because it does little to change the overall complexion of an article is beyond me. It is arguable, in fact, that reverting a pointless edit is as pointless as the edit itself. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here in response to the same incident. I know its pointless to ask you for civility, but I thought I'd just let you know that I've been around in various incarnations twice as long as you have, have edited in considerably more difficult areas, and think your attitude is consistently counterproductive. FWIW.

Also, I have to admit that the "rving pointless edit is itself pointless" is a rather valid - er - point. Relata refero (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If in a hurry, slow down. I'm sure none of us will see any measurable difference. And if you think telling you directly that your attitude is counterproductive is passive-aggressive....

Really, why bother? I can't imagine you enjoy working here, you're always irritable, and you spread that irritation wherever you go. Why not try something else? Relata refero (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its Relata. or Refero. Not Relato. Slow down and read.

Direct statement of fact: "pointless to ask you for civility". I would prefer it, but it has been demonstrated as pointless. Mentioning that its counterproductive, however, might be worth a try.

And if you're in a hurry because of off-wiki requirements - work when you have time. Which is what, for example I do. I don't use my perfectly full off-wiki life as an excuse.

Really, I can't imagine why you'd go out of your way to antagonise people. Especially when it's not even particularly funny. Relata refero (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've already explained the "hurry" comment, and yet you persist in your mistaken interpretation. Not taking the time to read carefully yourself?'

Except here I was pointing out that you appeared to still be in a hurry the second time you replied.... so perhaps I did read, and was right the first time. Or not. Whichever keeps you ticking.

I was responding to your dippy comment, or had you forgotten that, too?

And half your troubles solved if you ignore the dippy comments. Put that in with "reverting pointless edits is pointless too".

Really, what part of the term "response" is unclear to you?

Actually, I was talking about me. Re-read my opening statement on this page and compare it to your response to see what I mean. Relata refero (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You first, sport. "Mr. Kettle? It's Mr. Pot on Line 4; he says you're black." See also previous comment re: your lack of authority -- note the inclusion of the adjective "moral".

I note it, but fail to see how it bares out the hotheadedness that I supposedly share with you. I am actually in a perfectly merry mood at present.

See previous comment, boyo.

Ditto.

First part false, second part true, Buckwheat. See below.

I am curious as to what it is about me that puts you in mind of fagopyrum esculentum.

Given that reverting pointless edits restores the status quo ante, removes the reward for the bad behavior¹, and serves to discourage further pointless editing by making clear that nothing is gained...yeah, I'd say that reverting pointless edits is, in fact, the very opposite of pointlessness.

Ah, so you want to discourage me?

A further information page for your edification is offered, guy.

Why, thank you.

--Calton | Talk 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¹Or should that be "behaviour"?

I'll say. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, you're insufferable.

There seems to be another call for Mr Kettle.

Thanking me for this page is not enough: you actually have to READ it.

I have. What did I miss?

It's not very long really, so in between your bouts of merriment, you can take the time, as well as to all of the other policy pages people have been pointing you to.

Come again? I would strongly advise that you breathe a smidgeon deeper before banging out these ireful diatribes. That's the sort of thing that I pointlessly edit, you know.

From making pointless, trivial, and policy-violating edits?

They are far more trivial than pointless and policy-violating; indeed, I do not think that they are pointless at all.

Your tireless bedevilment has brought about a change of heart in at least one respect: I now always make an edit summary. If my edits were pointless, however, I probably would have nothing to summarise.

Of course. Given that you like doing so and all it does is create extra work cleaning up after you

Largely unnecessary work. What you have against the addition of a comma or two I have no idea.

Of course, wasting other people's time actually be your goal, so maybe attempting to discourage you would be taken by you as a sign of success.

Neya. I take most of it as pointless -- there's that word again -- pedantry. Robertson-Glasgow (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA

When reporting a username at WP:UAA, please use {{user-uaa}}, not {{userlinks}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edelsten

Thanks for the message. The removal of citated info and reinstatement of the self published source of Edelsten's own website makes me think it's either Edelsten or a close friend. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...

I am not an admin...I'm just an editor.

Why not? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

See WP:ANI#User:Kilts Across Canada. Mango juice^talk 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I reverted you the second time only because I assumed I had been unclear in my previous edit summary that I thought the page wasn't spam. Mango juice^talk 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:temporary userpage

Calton, I want to commend you on your hard work on userpage deletions and note that I think it's mostly only the "nothing but userboxes" pages that I have any real issue with - most of the pages you are Prodding appear to have much inappropriate information. However, I notice that you are also adding {{temporary userpage}} to user talk pages that you tag for deletion. I do not believe that is a correct usage of that tag. It is essentially an alternative for {{indefblocked}} and both place the pages they are tagged with in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, a category specifically designed for indefinitely blocked users. I removed one I found and then realized you were doing this to most or all of your Prods, so I thought I'd better mention it. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was looking really quick, but you may want to consider whether a few of those would be G11s.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what, pray tell, is the difference? . . . Your distinction is completely arbitrary.

I respect your opinion that these pages are a violation of policy, however, I disagree. I would take the same stance if User:Supersuperidiot were a text page that said "This user's name is Benson, this user is a teenager, this user is a moon citizen", etc. When someone creates a set of userboxes that say "Hi my name is Joe Schmo, I work for XYZ Corp in AnyCity, USA and it's the best manufacturer of widgets on the planet, if you're interested in them or in hiring me contact me at +1.555.555.5555 or joeshmoe@myisp.com, my resume follows" feel free to nominate it for deletion under G11 and ping me if you like I'll delete it for you forthwith, together with all the userboxes. Until then, userboxes are not only allowed, they are pretty much the norm and the fact that the user hasn't been active is meaningless - they still get a userpage if they want one. We gain nothing by deleting those pages and we never know when one of them will decide he or she has gotten enough practice transcluding userboxes and now wants to edit the encylopedia.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled

The sources removed can source claims about the Kitzmiller trial, not claims to assertions made in this film. Does this film promote ID? We need a source to that claim, not to whether ID is creationism. Please see WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH. Kitzmiller court documents NEVER make claims about this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson (attorney)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jack Thompson (attorney). 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Strongsauce (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missions, etc.

This is a bit of a sore subject. The user posted this same paragraph on many articles, in an apparent effort to make a point of some kind. This discussion Talk:Spanish missions in California might be of some interested, along with the WP:ANI discussion, the latter of which prompted the user to give up rather than argue his case further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove "neutrality disputed" tags

Hi Calton. With this edit you deleted the {{pov}} tag from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Your action was contrary to WP:NPOVD's guidance, which says:

"if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

I'm going to re-tag the article. Please do not delete the tag again. Thanks. NCdave (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

This is just a friendly note to let you know that you have reverted Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed three times is less than 24 hours, so that you don't accidentally violate WP:3RR by reverting it a 4th time. NCdave (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy easter!

Open your card >> >> >>

Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Clubs article and its speedy deletion

$[[Media:Insertformulahere]]$ My attempt at creating an article for Pioneer Clubs resulted in a speedy deletion because it was deemed blatant advertising. I want to rewrite the article to conform to the Wikiepdia content policies. Do I then just resubmit? HELP, I seem to be lost in Wikipedia land after going from page to page to page trying to find answers. Thanks. Forgot to end with a Pcmidweek (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]