User talk:Rklawton

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

delta in operation in neptune spear

i dont understand why you deleted my entry.according to the government devgru and delta dont exist. the gov didnt say devgru participated in raid but is only speculated by the media. cia sad operatives dont "exist" either, however, it is speculated that they do exist and participated in the raid. whos to say that delta ( a unit that government doesnt acknowledge) didnt participate in the raid?

Blanking out Osama Bin Laden Death template

I did NOT blank out or attempt to vandalize the Odama Bin Laden Death template. Please present your evidence or I will request you face disciplinary action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classic forever (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you did. I posted the evidence on your talk page. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I did NOT do that edit, or at least did not intend to. I was trying to update the info box page to reflect the fact that there were zero U.S. personnel casualties, as reflected in the second edit I made to that article, which did get approved and which has yet to be flagged. Please remove your "final warning" or I will find recourse with higher Wikipedia authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classic forever (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You did the edit. I'll accept that it was a mistake. However, your prior edit history of vandalism puts you on thin ice, and I will immediately block your account from editing if you continue. Rklawton (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

City names

You wrote: Please do not change official city names to common names. These official names are listed in the "official name" field exactly where they belong.

However, check the MoS and AP. "City of/Town of" is ONLY in reference to the corporate government of a city/town when it acts in its official capacity. The official names of "Bullhead City" or "Kansas City" inherently include the word "City"; otherwise, the name of a city or town does not include the word "city" or "town". Cities and towns seem to like to include those words as a form of self-aggrandisement.

Correct: Because its mayor was convicted of corruption, the City of Anytown decided to review all the mayor's prior activities on behalf of the city of Anytown.

Correct: I live in Anytown, USA.

Incorrect: I live in City of Anytown, USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiestrother (talk • contribs)

This policy applies to city name usage. It does not apply to the field "Offical_name" which we set aside specifically to record the city's official name. This issue is now being discussed on the MoS talk page Rklawton (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There was virtually no discussion - these things take time. Other points of view have been posted. I suspect you're jumping the gun in feeling that the matter is resolved.

Three editors volunteered their opinions, myself and two others all agree that "official name" means official name. The only one opposed is you. Perhaps more people will participate, but at this point, the discussion direction is clear, and the logic is obvious. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oknavezad didn't agree 100% with either one of us - thus: "other points of view".

Oknavezad agreed "official name" means what it says and that you were wrong to change it, and in this case, that's all that matters. Rklawton (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think this issue was considered closed/resolved way too soon. There is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to dictate to the world what "Official city names" are. This "Official name" lingo is ridiculous at best. "City of" is but an identifier used to indicate the government of the city, not to discuss the city itself. If people in this debate insist on being able to see "City of" in front of their official city names, then we need to change the infobox nomenclature. What some people are wrongly insistent on calling "Official name" should be changed to "Nomenclature of governing body". Otherwise, identifiers are NOT a part of a city name. In addition, this debate should not be limited to cities, it should also apply to the governing bodies of provinces and states and countries, etc. Whoever started this little lingo trend for cities only was in error and it's high time that this situation be corrected. I'm only writing you here because I have no idea how to reopen this debate to a large audience, 3-4 people is not sufficient for this matter. yours truly--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not dictate "official city names" - it reports official city names from official sources. If you don't like the way a city's official name reads, take it up with the city. Rklawton (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken Starr

nice work. Decora (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard at WQA

I finally got fed up with him chasing my edits and accusing me of heinous crimes - and am notifying you since your name necessarily occured in my complaint. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

24.87.12.222 vandalizing articles

I am not sure why they continue to remove information and insert false information. Unicogirl (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Operation Eagle Claw

You wrote:

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Operation Eagle Claw, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. - Rklawton (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why were the links marked as SPAM? They offer important information, including a full account of the operation, from historians who are experts in Special Operations. With the coming anniversary, it is an opportunity to remind readers of the events as they occurred, with lesson on how these operations may work/not work in the future. In hindsight, I can see how one of the articles, which lists additional reading sources might not be applicable here, but the one titled "Beyond Hell and Back" provides valuable historical information.--Ciro612 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

African slavery

You sent me a threat rather than debate a poorly sourced image. I consider your threat an abuse of administrator tools. And intend to report your threat.

Good day.

---

Akinsope —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Akinsope, let us use the talk page to resolve it. Already I agree with your observations. But we should find an alternative free image and then I will 100% support your edits. I do not think your actions are vandalism esp since you are on this occasion making a correct observation (that i only now pick up). I can only speak about edits on African slavery. Threats seem to be part of how some editors work. intimidate people to not go against them. It happens to me also. hoping that you are ignorant of wiki policy so that you will run away. But observe the rules and do not run. But do not revert the edits until we resolve it per my suggestion--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking for editors to follow the rules. All I'm threatening is blocking when editors refuse to follow the rules. And I won't hesitate. Rklawton (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to OBL death date

Your point is correct, but the section I removed was pre-announcement speculation that the death was "several days ago" (implying April 28th-29th or so) which was incorrect and out-of-date. Sorry to be unclear.Seleucus (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I invite you to weigh in here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Rklawton (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your threats do not deter me

Lawton, I only wrote on talk. How can I be blocked by writing valid points on talk? Go ahead in your threats, this will go on the Admin noticeboard if you continue your threats of block. 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Trolling and soapboxing are blockable offences even when done on talk pages. You have been warned. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your blocks do not deter me

I may be blocked but you are still an asshole. And coward. 93.138.126.185 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama mugs all round

No, not spam. And nothing whatsoever that deserves a warning for vandalism. A valid topic that is worthy of discussion in that article, and/ or possibly in "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden". Or maybe you don't do irony? Whatever, please reinstate this topic for discussion that you have decided, without any discission, to delete wholesale. Thank you. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do irony - or spam. And no, I will not repost it. And yes, I will block you from editing if you choose to persist. Rklawton (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In my experiece, most editors actually do irony. But that was just my comment, not my purpose. You have misconstrued my placement of examples of utterly distasteful mechadnising as "spam". This aspect of American culture certainly deserves proper discussion, not a rapid sweeping under the editoral carpet. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Or would you rather I raised your behaviour and comments at WP:ANI? 86.172.225.184 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We're busy writing articles while you're busy amusing yourself. That's going to go over real big at ANI. Good luck with that. Rklawton (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a valid topic for discussion and you're too busy writing the article to even consider what I have suggested. You simply delete what I have added and accuse me of hyping spam. So let's put it to the test at ANI. I am not amused in the least. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm suggesting a valid topic for discussion" - you may have meant to do so, but it didn't come off that way. Try proposing some actual text to be added to the article. Rd232 ^talk 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now asked for advice here and here 86.172.225.184 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you have theatened to ban that ip personally, I am guessing that you are an Administrator. If so, then I think you are setting a pretty bad example - jumping to a wrong conclusion very rapidy, then being very rude and accusing that editor of all sorts of things without any kind of evidence. The topic was added to the "reactions to" article, in perfectly good faith, on the advice of another editor. Why do you persist in describing the links added for that topic as "his merchandising material"? Surely they are simply links selected ro demonstrate how offensive that material is. If the editor has added example links to on-line prescription medicines, would you accuse him or her of promoting those too? the occult? assisted suicide? Your conclusion that this editor is "an established troll" seems to just prove your very strong bias. You are being vey unfair. 86.167.240.178 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Don't like material => editor is a troll". 86.168.255.179 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

TY for deleting the cite needed note on the trident thing! jengod (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries - the issue had been brought up and resolved previously, so it was an easy fix. Rklawton (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden opening sentence

Hello, I noticed you had an interest in the wording of the first sentence of the article concerning Osama bin Laden's death. I thought you might be interested in joining in the discussion on this subject on the talk page of the article. Owen (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Rklawton (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Detailed India section re-added in "reactions to osama's death page."

Hello sir. I had added a detailed section (all data well sourced) about india's reaction to the death of osama. Actually i had added it a few days back, but a "user:ichigo" removed it stating "no importance". Seeing the overwhelming requests in the discussion page, i had re-added the india section. Plz check it.Hari7478 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to review your contribution in detail. However, I support the idea on the whole. Do be careful to focus on national reactions (or national summaries of local reactions) rather than long lists of local reactions you've compiled yourself as this would verge on crossing the SYNTH line. I believe India's reactions to this event are important for the reasons listed below:

• India represents a significant portion of the planet's population.
• India is one of the world's few economic powerhouses.
• India is a nuclear power.
• India, China, and Pakistan form a regional power triangle that coexist in a delicate balance.
• India is in a significant adversarial relationship with Pakistan with ongoing skirmishes.
• India and Pakistan share a large border. Rklawton (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, this is with the respect with your reply on the India section in Talk page of Reaction to death of Osama bin Laden, what is troll(I have no idea) and please tell me if I did Any mistake in the talk page.Sir I tried to assume good faith while taking part in editing and discussions.--Tall.kanna (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kanna. Please accept my apology. I posted the comment in question in the wrong section. The mistake is entirely my own. Since no one has commented directly upon it, I simply removed it from the talk page (I'll relocate it to the correct section shortly). Again, I apologize for any concern my mistake may have caused you - the comment was not direct at you or any participant in the India thread at all. Rklawton (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem sir. Thank you for the help. --Tall.kanna (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Meyers

Your revision and talk notice overlapped with mine and my follow-up on the article's talk page.--Otheus (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So I've noticed. I've responded on the article's talk page, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You removed my comment too =/

Hi, I'm afraid that in this edit you also removed my comment, and that was without my permission. Except for the guy's thing about Bush and oil money, etc, it is a legitimate question about who gets his assets, but only if it's going to be reported by RSs of course (otherwise it is just musings of an editor and WP:SPECULATION). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm rather at a loss to understand your deletion of my comment Rklawton. It was sourced from the BBC. None of my assertions were factually incorrect - the Bin Ladens were family friends of the Bushes. It is reasonable to speculate about his chilren and his will and it would be very interesting to have material about it in the article if anything comes up. Is your beef my mention of the Bush family? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was blatant trolling, soap-boxing, and speculation - none of it oriented around improving the article. So knock it off and participate like a grown-up - or don't participate at all. It's your call. However, if you persist, I will bring the matter up with fellow admins with an eye toward convincing you to stop. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And mine? Also, speculation is not bad if the person is keeping an eye out for future developments and putting them in the article at a later date when they do come in RSs. It's only a problem when they put poorly-sourced or unsourced speculation in the article proper, at least that's how I understand it. I don't think the guy was trolling though. I think he was expressing a political view on the talk page along with suggesting something for the article, and let's face it, we've all done that. I think you're not assuming good faith here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

With the original problem gone, your response wasn't necessary. Rklawton (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's good to just delete it without asking.... I thought usual practice was to archive topics considered trolling. Though, like I said, I don't think it was trolling or much in the way of Soapboxing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls applies here. Rklawton (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think you might be mischaracterising it, and not assuming good faith, but I don't think this convo is going to go anywhere. Good day. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment was sufficient to clearly demonstrate it was made in bad faith. If you would like to humiliate yourself further by seeking additional opinions regarding the alleged "good faith" of the comment, you are welcome to do so. Rklawton (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It really wasn't trolling or in bad faith and I'm pretty sorry you've taken it that way - it also makes me speculate as to your POV, which you haven't responded to, simply labelling it troll repeatedly. I was and am genuinely interested to know if there is a will. I raise the issue of the children and wives from the highest quality source (the BBC) as being something we could include in the article. I mentioned the Bin Laden family wealth - this is relevant. I also mentioned the connection between the Bin Laden family, the Bush family and Texas Big Oil which is superabundantly referencable globally. I look forward to defending this in any action you raise against me. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think my opinion is wrong, then why are you asking me my opinion? Ask someone else - bring it up on WP:AN and ask them if the comment as originally phrased was appropriate - or are you afraid I'm dead right? Rklawton (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm protesting being repeatedly described as a "troll" (your words) and having a (clearly to you controversial) reasonable contribution deleted. I wasn't planning to take it to ANI but pointing out my reasoning as plainly above you are threatening me with retribution if I persist. If you have no further interest, fine, I will continue to discuss it on the relevant talk page as should be happening prior to your deletion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your surprise visit, Lawton

[1] and [2]. Uncalled for and sufficiently spineless for you to earn the label coward in my book. Sswonk (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what we do for indef blocked users. Do you believe Sarah777 should be treated somehow differently? Rklawton (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Replying in both places. The answer to the question is no. The previous statement, by you, "this is what we do", is vague. Who is "we", and if it is what "we" do meaning administrators, why was it not done by the many admins before you who have been participating in the discussions? Sswonk (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, an attempt to so tag the userpage of Rodhullandemu was reverted as in poor taste. Surely the same should apply here. I'm not sure calling Lawton a coward is called for, however. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched the recent edit history of that user's page and talk page and found nothing. Could you show me the diff? Rklawton (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. It's not something I did. That's interesting. So what's the template to be used for then? Rklawton (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you tagged Rodhullandemu's page in that wise. I was merely suggesting that if he shouldn't be so tagged (nor his recent sock) then surely the same might apply to Sarah. Possibly that template should be only be used on egregious types, rather than solid content contributors who have strayed from paths of rectitude. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the template to see how it's to be used. I posted my findings on the related AN/I thread. It basically says that it's generally up to the blocking admin's discretion, but it doesn't prohibit the use by others. Rklawton (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

poser

Rather than file at ANI, I'm picking the last admin that I see posting there (you :). We have an admin poser with us. He has added such things before and been messing about and others have defrocked him but he persists in adding such claims back onto his user page. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's new to me, so I posted it on AN/I for advice. Rklawton (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That link goes to secure.wikimedia.org, that's probably how you ended up logged out. Users can make up anything they want on their userpage, so long as they don't claim authority they don't have. Which that template does, so remove it and warn. Prodego ^talk 04:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - will do. Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I picked a single admin to minimize drama...I didn't realize that my link on the secure server would do that (Sorry . I've noticed recently that the non-secure links will redirect me to the secure server but only part of the time...I assume this is something the devs have been working on. Thank you both for handling this matter. You can request oversight if you don't want you're IP revealed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to fielding direct requests - I volunteered for this, and I'm happy to serve. Unfortunately, I had no experience in this matter, so I posted your question to AN/I in hopes to learn more. The solution was simple enough that I'm a little embarrassed I didn't think of it myself. Thank you for your suggestion regarding oversight. However, I'm not concerned. Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I Issue:Reply

Sorry for the misleading information posted. I will promise to try not to post these misleading infos.Alam567 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN/I on Jihad article

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship_of_Islam_related_articles_by_Adamrce

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Army Compartmented Elements

Congratulations, by deletion of this page you have caused interwiki links from three dozen languages point to nothing. Sometimes it won't hurt to first check the situation before acting. -- 78.129.220.45 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of checking first... Rklawton (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Baily Bridge Article Deletion...

Dear sir, this article Baily Bridge is a perfect article for deletion as its misleading and does not represent any true fact. I request you to Delete it as you are an Admin. I unfortunately lack both experience and authority to do so.. Thanking you.-Tall.kanna (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So - what is the highest bridge in the world? Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Its Si Du River Bridge and It also appears in the List of highest bridges in the world.--Tall.kanna (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The two bridges are different - one is the highest above the ground, the other is highest altitude. Rklawton (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Move

Then how to do a move? Requested move? *it seems history merge is an admin only feature* Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply here. Thanks, --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Rklawton (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How about complex moves? I have moved simple articles in the past (ie single page moves) but how about double page moves/page swap? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

Can you be my general wikipedia mentor? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Rklawton (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)