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

1. 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.
2. This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.
3. 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.
4. There is no Rule 4.
5. Don't post when drunk. Seriously.
6. 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.
7. Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
8. 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.
9. Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
10. Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
11. Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.

Thank you. -- The Management.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• 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)

"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)"

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)

Notability: Lukas Ligeti

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Spicuzza Sockpuppet Rampage

Carlton, Spicuzza is on the warpath again. If you remember, Jeanne Marie started warring on Wikipedia when she objected to a quote from the Atlantic Monthly in the Ralph Nader article. That article has seen a huge number of sockpuppets in the last week. Editors have come out of nowhere to edit that artile in the exact same way:

• SquidSwim], nothing but Nader, joined Wikpedia two days agao
• 76.87.44.173, noting but Nader for one day, same edits as SquidSwim

Is there anything we can do about Jean? It's tiresome. Maybe we should giver her back per personal page on Wikpedia so she isn't so lonely. Griot 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hombre. Astruc 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

EComXpo

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

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)

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)

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)