Articles I've contributed to

Examples of my contributions:

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza (born 1969) is a poet, performance artist and actress, author of novels, children's stories, plays and screenplays, watercolor painter and illustrator, musician, composer and herbalist. She is the founder of Seasons & a Muse, Inc.[1]

Life

Jeanne Marie Spicuzza was born the middle child to Robert and Marianne, teachers and devout Roman Catholics, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Jeanne grew up in the midst of her numerous Sicilian-American relatives and was highly inspired, particularly by her great uncle, Francesco Spicuzza, who made his living as a painter in the earlier part of the twentieth century. She excelled in her parochial education, particularly in theatre, writing and visual arts, but was troubled by her mother's hospitalization during her early years.

At the age of sixteen, Jeanne became pregnant with her daughter, Stephanie, and was encouraged by teachers and administrators to withdraw from Shorewood High School. She determined not to marry. Guided by her mentor, Dr. Nanette Metskas, she obtained her equivalency, and attended the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Residing on Milwaukee's fashionable East Side, Jeanne discovered community among its artists. She began training as a master herbalist, completed her first illustrated children's book, studied tarot and engaged in social and political activism. Jeanne marched for peace and women's rights, and struggled with university psychology department staff. After years of persistence, and with the help of the campus animal rights group, Jeanne was granted her request that the department provide alternatives to animal research. She attended the Wisconsin Conservatory of Music and studied classical guitar. In 1993, she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and psychology.[2]

Three months later, following a hike through the Maine wilderness of the Appalachian Trail, Jeanne founded Seasons & a Muse, a seven division entity that was to become the first arts and film corporate collective of its kind. Within one year, she was one of several poets to feature at Lollapalooza. Her play, "Hope is My Favorite Color," was staged by director Yvonne Johnson at the Betty Brinn Children's Museum soon after. In 1996, Jeanne performed segments of her multi-media performance, "NAKED" at the Pabst Theatre. She soon met Guy Hoffman, drummer of Violent Femmes, whom she would later marry.[3]

In 1997, Jeanne made her first journey abroad, traveling and studying in cities such as Florence, Venice, Crete, Bingen, Amsterdam and others. She met her beloved family in Sicily for the first time, and passionately commenced what would become seven years of research and three years of writing for her screenplay "Breath of God: The True Story of Hildegard von Bingen." "Breath of God" would later be blessed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II, and would receive honors from the Vatican Division of Arts and Culture and the Academy of Arts and Sciences Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting. Segments from "Breath of God" may be found on permanent exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum as part of the Judy Chicago installation The Dinner Party. Additional works may be found at David Barnett Gallery. Jeanne studied acting with talents like Diane Salinger, Jason Alexander and Courtney Burr, and trained at Ivana Chubbuck Studios, Theatre Royal Haymarket and others.

After ten years of international performances in New York, Amsterdam, London, Chicago, Los Angeles and others, and various awards and nominations, including The Golden Headset Award and Shepherd Express Best Performance Artist 1998, Jeanne's screenplay "Making Angels" attracted the talents of Emmy- and DGA Award-nominated director Julie Dash ("Daughters of the Dust," "The Rosa Parks Story"). "Making Angels" is scheduled to commence production in 2007.[4]

Works

Making Angels, (2007) (pre-production)

beautiful terrible & true, 2001, 2005 (ISBN 0-9763952-0-7)

Field Day (DVD), 2004

Images of Women (Internet and one-woman performances), 2002

Jeanne Spicuzza (CD), 2001

Labors (VHS), 2000

Naked (VHS and live performances), 1998, 1999, 2001

Hope is My Favorite Color (play), 1995

Breath of God, a movie

References

http://www.poetsencyclopedia.com/jeannespicuzza.shtml

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19981218/ai_n10460184

http://www.onmilwaukee.com/music/articles/spicuzzahoffman.html

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/filmsites/filmsites_S.php

External links

http://www.seasonsandamuse.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1138219

Ralph Nader

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Adam McCormick 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of vandalism. Contributions are appropriate, researched and accurate.

See "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." See also, "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited."

You removed more that half an article because one quote was innaccurate, then did it again after it was revered. Justify why it was removed and we'll stop fixing itAdam McCormick 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False, "You removed more that half an article because one quote was innaccurate" was never done from this IP addess. Please check your sources for the alleged offending party.

These four edits, [1], [2], [3], [4], during the 24 hr period beginning March 4, 2007 at 04:09 (last edit on March 5 @ 02:21) constitute a violation of the three revert rule. Please stop. There are obviously a number of edit conflicts going on at Ralph Nader right now ... but constant reverting will not solve it. Please take it to the discussion page and talk it out. Further reverting without discussion could get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Pastordavid 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False, those that have reverted the above changes are in violation of the three revert rule, and, if in continuance must be blocked. In good faith, this ISP repairs the damage.

This IP has been reported for violation of the three revert rule. To read the report, go here and scroll down to the bottom of the violations section. -- Pastordavid 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pastordavid, that is an accurate account posted to here.

Hildegard

Thanks! By the way, when you leave comments, be sure to start them by using the "+" by the "edit this page" tab so they're easily visible at the bottom of the page, and also to sign them with four tildes (~~~~). By the way, have you considered getting a user account? It's very easy (takes only a few seconds), and your edits will be more credible. Think about it! Alekjds ^talk 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alekjds 76.166.123.129 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :)[reply]

Ralph Nader

You've removed the Atlantic Monthly quote in the Ralph Nader three times. Why? What's the point of saying that Nader was the 96th most influential American without stating why? This quote is quite small and doesn't take up much space on the page, but it describes the Atlantic's reason for including Nader on the list. Please don't remove this quote. Griot 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+Hi Griot, I understand your thinking; however, my reasons for removing the quote are sound. The quote clearly construes a form of criticism and bias (see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200409/littlefield2 and http://www.slate.com/?id=2064804&entry=2064909 for evidence) not appropriate to a biography, and best left out or moved to criticism. In addition, the conclusions asserted by the quote are recognized by numerous political analysts to be an inacurate assesment of Ralph Nader's involvement in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections (see 'Dude Where's My Country,' Michael Moore, 'Addicted to War,' Joel Andreas, "An Unresonable Man" and other sources). Furthermore, if it is the intention of 'The Atlantic Monthly' to contend that Ralph Nader's influential status in the United States, albeit worldwide, is reducible to one who "made George Bush the president," then the quote is not merely inaccurate but, as the Wikipedia article beautifully illustrates, blantanly obtuse. To maintain a source or quote because it "is quite small and doesn't take up much space on the page" is arbitary and absurd. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, its contents and information, which is, after all, our primary objective, I have, again, removed it. I hope this message, once and for all, clarifies my actions and resolves the matter. 76.166.123.129

The quote simply explains why the editors of the Atlantic made their decision to put Nader on the list (at the 96th place). Without the quote, saying that Nader was on the list is meaningless. It's not POV, as putting Nader on the list was a decision made by the Atlantic. Griot 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Griot, check the web sites provided. The 'Atlantic' most certainly carries Demo-bias. There is clearly criticism/POV not appropriate to a biography. Can't agree that the quote is necessary. However, if it is insisted upon that the mention necessitates the quote, then motion to strike the mention and quote entirely.

Here are some additional sources:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Quality_Problems_at_Reuters_and_Atlantic_Monthly.asp http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1851372 "

The national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly [James Fallows] is a former Nader Raider-cum Democrat. " - from "Nader Seen as Eroding Kerry's Support" by Mike Pesca, 'The Nation' (April 26, 2004)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/21/18339484.php

Hope this clarifies. It's great to hold a strong position, but not if it is evidenced that the view is erroneous. Thanks. 76.166.123.129 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember the three revert rule and take you criticism of the article to the talk page. Selket ^Talk 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the edit history, while whether to include the quote is a legitimate content dispute, removing most of the article (starting mid sentence) is probably not justifiable. Therefore: Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Ralph Nader. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Selket ^Talk 07:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+From above, and once again, "False, 'You removed more that half an article because one quote was innaccurate' was never done from this IP addess. Please check your sources for the alleged offending party." Again, this was not done, and those who share this IP have been questioned. Thank you.

March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk:Ralph Nader. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _?AzaToth 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice

+ Yes, yes, If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice is correct. The horse is dead. No more "Vandalism" posts, please. Danke. Double merci. Tripple prego. That's three thanks for all three posts on "Vandalism." 76.166.123.129 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

The citation and quote in question on Ralph Nader are not vandalism -- they are from a reliable source and are pertainent to the topic of the article. Continuing to revert this article will be in violation of the three-revert rule and will lead to an editing block. A conversation has begun on the article talk page, please take the discussion there, and seek to develop a consensus for your view of what should or should not be in the article. Thank you. -- Pastordavid 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Hello Pastordavid, did we miss something? No one at this IP is accusing anyone of "Vandalism" over content and no one is insinuating that the "quote" itself is "Vandalism," merely its continuous reversion; further, no one here has committed any "erasures," save the quote, as we've been so accused. Clearly, the aim is to maintian the diginity of the article, or we would not be having this discussion! Ergo, the horse is truly dead and buried. Let it go.

As for the motion to move the discussion to talk page, a post was placed from this IP at that location and subsequently eradicated by another editor. Is that permissible? Perhaps only newbies with good intentions are being blocked, while other editors with a longer history can supply biased information without foul. If that is the case, it certainly does little to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and THAT and that alone might be construed as "Vandalism," and the only one visible at present.

As for the need to "seek to develop a consensus for your view of what should or should not be in the article," such actions are not necessary. Vital support for the *facts*, not opinions, surrounding the source and quote have been provided. Your statements that "they [quote] are from a reliable source and are pertainent to the topic of the article" are both, unfortunately, uninformed opinion, not supported by facts. See our post to talk page.

Finally, re garding the "blocking" this IP for differences of opinion, that would be a violation (see note, above). The three-revert rule applies only to a twenty-four hour period. Suggest you pursue the editors who continue to revert to the quote without adequate support for its inclusion. Thanks! 76.166.123.129 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that I said nothing about blocking for a difference of opinion, I was talking about if there is a violation of the three revert rule (and yes, I am aware that it is 24 hrs). I provided that warning precisely because I do NOT want to see you blocked, I want to see a consensus acheived rather than a continued edit-war. Three reverts: 20:58, March 7, 2007; 01:04, March 8, 2007; and 14:52, March 8, 2007 ... which is why I reminded you about the 3RR. I did not see your post at the talk page, but no, it should not have been removed. Thank you for explaining your edits on the talk page (again), I think we can get somewhere now. -- Pastordavid 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Thank you Pastordavid. Thank you for apprehending that the quote expresses POV, and that the issue at hand is not whether one "agrees" with the intentions set forth by the quote, but that it was placed, inappropriately so, in a NPOV section. Thank you for maintaining logic in the face of contrasting personal views. I deeply respect that. Thank you for not wanting to see our IP blocked, and for your wisdom, assistance and acknowledgement in this matter. I think your philosophical and theological background is a blessing in relieving disputes! 76.166.123.129 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing disputes: How-Not-To (restored from Griot talk page)

Please review the Wikip policy regarding POV. The point of view policy is about individual contributors to wikipedia expressing their points of view. It doesn't oppose a point of view referenced by a reliable source. Griot 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Griot, and fellow sock-puppets, once again you're fabricating support for the inclusion of POV. "Stick to the facts... the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to improve the article or the category description, so that it is no longer POV." --Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial

I strongly suggest that you register with wikipedia and take a name.Griot 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bother writing on my Talk page until you register into Wikiedia under a name or else use your Nervous Mermaid name. I find it hard to discuss things with anonymous users. Thanks. Griot 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griot, wow, gee, thanks for the suggestion. Sorry, not "Nervous Mermaid"-- again, your "facts" are inaccurate. Please don't bother to post on my Talk page. Not interested. Really not interested. 76.166.123.129 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media

The first step to uploading media is to make an account. All you have to do is choose a username and a password and fill in a captcha (maybe not the captcha) to prove you're a human. Then, in the toolbox on the left hand side there is a link to "upload file". Sound files need to be encoded as Ogg files, I use Audacity for this and it works quite well. Another important thing is to choose the proper licensing for the file. For more information see Wikipedia:Media. Cheers, Mak (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent post to WT:RFA

You recently lodged a stalking complaint at WT:RFA. That is the place for discussing the adminship promotion system. To reach an administrator regarding user misconduct, post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —dgies^t_c 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks Dgies. 76.166.123.129 21:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegard, again

What do you mean? There is only one file there ("O frondens virga"), and it's in the proper format (.ogg). Alekjds ^talk 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check 04:14, 11 March 2007 Makemi. There are two excellent media files that this editor simply deleted altogether. One is clearly public domain, since it's available at a museum! I can't say I agree with his/her removal of infobox, either. Thanks Alekjds 76.166.123.129 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility

Hi again,

I think you found in me a good resource, as I've been inolved in similar online communities for over 20 years -- since I was 12 years old. When I was 13, I tried being a sock puppet, but was caught "red handed". Throughout my years, I have behaved badly and unsocially, been called in by the Dean a few times, etc. So I have some experience here. However, the pill I'm offering might be very difficult to swallow. You can email me (AT gmail.com) if you want to discuss any of this in private.

Basically, you need to establish credibility. Though in theory, wikipedians are all equal, in fact, their credibility is not. Actions speak greatly toward credibility. So first, IF you are indeed the pretty and talented Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, or the talented Violent Femmes drummer, or have a close relationship to either of them, or you work for or have a business interest in Seasons & a Muse, Inc., you should make that clear on *this* talk page and the corresponding talk pages. Second, edit a varity of pages, not just the ones you are alleged to have ties to. Third, apologize to Feldspar for vandalizing his User page (see [5]). I call it vandalism becuase it was (1) unsigned (2) a personal attack (no matter that it was sly sarcasm), and (3) unreverted several times. For help on this topic, see WP:User_Page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space and WP:NPA.

Concerning Griot, he and I have not yet crossed paths. However, I do note that according to his user page, he ran for Mayor of San Francisco on the Green ticket. So his views of Nader might not be so different than yours (unless I'm misreading your comments about Nader).

But his complaints about your being "User:The Nervous Mermaid" have some weight to it. See [6], in which you used the word "obtuse", and [7], in which TNM also used "obtuse". TNM attemptes to appear as a German-native-speaker, but living in Austria, I can testify that this is not a word native speakers would use or pick up. Furhtermore, the word seems to be used incorrectly in both contexts. (So perhaps the German speaker picked up and copied the error.) I will also note, in case it's not clear, that the use of "sock puppets" and "meat puppets" is against policy. Users have been banned and indefinitely blocked to blatant violation of this policy. So if this is not you, please be careful not to further appear as such. If it is you, come clean, apologize to the RN Talk page, and remove TNM's comments from the Nader talk page (or re-sign them). See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry.

Concerning removing talk page edits, it's not against policy to remove something from one's own Talk page (again, see WP:User_Page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space). But there was situation with the Nader talk page (here) in which one of your edits (accidentally, I think) removed a large section of the Talk page. I suspect your browser might have some problems, but whatever. I think one of Griot's comments got lost in the shuffle, which may have inflamed him a bit. You might want to apologize to him for that. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments.

About the Ralph Nader article, I have not bothered to read it.

Good luck, and contact me again when you have decided how to act.

--Otheus 10:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Otheus, Thanks for your help. I can tell you that the complaints aren't founded. I'm too tired to go through a list of "suspects" anymore. I think the Pastordavid Talk page, and Peter says it best. 76.166.123.129 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otheus 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Please note, I mean no harm or disrespect with this accusation. There was a lot of evidence for your being a sockpuppet, and your dismissal of the claim challenged me to find the evidence. If you are involved in this, you should come clean now.[reply]

Otheus, I've commented on my discussion page. I've posted my complaint about Griot/User 71.139.27.85 stalking and being a sockpuppet, which is why apparently I'm now accused. I moved his/her ( I think his) post to your page. user

Ah, I thought he posted on mine. But, no, to be open, it wasn't his comments that had me "investigating" him, it was your original cry for help. You said he was harassing you, so I started going to the pages you started going to, and lo and behold, there are the same users! --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you've read my history, and before all this started, I openly admitted that this is a shared IP (see my talk page). There you are. The big conspiracy, the faces of Eve, or Adam, whoevever.user

Yes, but unfortunately, this argument holds no water. Do you really want me to tell you why? --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Griot/User 71.139.27.85: I don't need to defend myself, because there's nothing to "defend." The truth will come out, and I think the truth is, your HOSTILITY, your user history and violation of talk page ettiquite, policy, whatever, speaks volumes-- "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks" I've asked you before, stay off my page. Which, by the way, I'm gladly exiting. Hey, I thought you were "leaving"? No, it's just another attention-grabbing tirade. You'd make a perfect politician.

Will someone embracing justice see what's happened? A bunch of us disagree with this person and he's jumping the monkey cage guilty of what he's accusing?

I agree. This is also a conclusion I have tentatively reached. However, with his apparent farewell, it would seem the point is moot. For now. --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's that for defense? 76.166.123.129 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: Donald Rumsfeld. --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: I did not realize this was your User page. Feel free remove my comments or move the whole conversation over to your talk page. --Otheus 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous section blanked because this was a misunderstanding on my part; faith restored:--Otheus 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Question

You claim this is "a shared IP". Are you saying that you, TNM, and Telogen all use this IP address? --Otheus 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are at least two other people besides us that have used it since January. 76.166.123.129 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and did any of you have prior "handles"? Or is it the case that you all started editing WP at about the same time (sort of "ooh, check this out" sort of thing)? --Otheus

I do not have any priors, and I'm pretty sure the other users wouldn't do that. I think I started it. I was researching Ralph Nader. Then the others got involved in the debates and editing and creating pages. Walked into a bit of a fire, there ;) 76.166.123.129 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, per WP:AGF, I believe you. Now, the next step is... I don't know what the next step is. Let me do some research. I will attach these comments to the SSP page. Meanwhile, I emplore you all to continue using Wikipedia, but don't edit the same stuff, at least until we can sort out what's the best way to handle this, okay? I mean, I know you all want to edit stuff on Nader, but if it looks like sockpuppetry... see WP:DUCK. --Otheus 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and trust. I can agree, and understand the WP:DUCK and all that, especially because of the controversy and the Donald brigade and all. But I'd like to make a request, if I may. You're right in saying I want to edit Nader. I'm thinking of staying away from pretty much everything, for now, because, well, it's not going over so great so far, as you can see! If you would, please have an admin assist with the Nader article, and any others I've contributed to that might "suddenly" take a turn for the worse. A certain user is clearly out for personal revenge (even contributed to an article on "Revenge"! See Griot's other User IP history). For some, it's more about ego, and power. But I really feel on principle, and what I think WP strives for, is quality and objectivity. The reason I fought was because I really do care about how people become educated. I wanted to share that.

TNM says she's done. Don't know about Telogen. Thanks for the encouragement to return. I do feel the need to step back, for a little while, because this is stressful and, well, I'm not retired! I need to place some much-needed attention back to my life :) This Wiki can be addictive!

I meant what I said when I told you I appreciate your help. You've done good work, Otheus. You're a good fairy. Be well, stay cool. I'm sure we'll meet again ;) 76.166.123.129 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 08:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Hi, and welcome. Just letting you know, if you want a user blocked, you will probably get a fast response if you post them at WP:AIV. Cheers- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 08:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thank you

Thank you CattleGirl! Cool name. I posted the info on the AIV page per your recommendation. Now, I'm off to sleep... zzzzz... :) 76.166.123.129

Okay, my reports on User:Calton and User:Griot were promptly deleted from AIV page. Feel a bit of collusion and bullying is going on here. Request your assistance, big time. Thanks. 76.166.123.129

I've had a look at the contributions for both of the users, and it seems to me as if they are in good faith. Do you have any specific links or versions that cause conflict?

I think one of the reasons the posts were removed from AIV was because the users had also not been talked to. A good idea to compromise is perhaps to contact each of these users on their talk page and explain the problem.

Perhaps reply to my question above and I'll be able to help you more?

By the way, have you considered registering an account? It's free, and it also means that you have the ability to do things like create pages. Just a thought- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 10:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to advise the anon -- who is almost certainly the owner/subject of the articles in question -- that she's had several MONTHS to make the slightest assertion of notability and has failed to do so. Also, removing unambiguous speedy tags? Definitely a no-no. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'd bet folding money that the anon has already registered an account. Check the edit history of the previously deleted version of Seasons & a Muse, Inc., and I'm guessing that it was originally created by an anon IP beginning with "76". --Calton | Talk 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, Calton. You just keep coming up trumps.

CattleGirl, check out the history. Calton has axes to grind, but admins have admonished him already. I reported him and User Griot on the Incidents board. Thanks again for your help. 76.166.123.129 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Firstly, this seems to me to be a few problems- a number of misunderstandings, especially. I'll take it one at a time- Firstly- Seasons & a Muse, Inc. was deleted according to policy. I am not going to take sides in this debate, however according to Wikipedia policy Carlton was right- the article did not fit our notability guidelines. Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, however, is borderline- as seen from the appropriate AFD debate. If you would like this article kept, I suggest adding some more sources to the bottom from 3rd party websites. I'm not going to participate in this AFD. I haven't got enough time to elaborate further on this, but I do suggest one thing- cool down, and assume good faith. To be blunt, if you want to contribute to this article, then contribute and be civil. Looking at the deletion page of the article, people are leaning towards delete on this as there's a concern for the lack of notability for an article. If you can find some more external sources, some reviews, etc to fit our guidelines, go ahead and maybe put a comment on the debate saying you are doing this- but leave it at that. Perhaps these articles are not notable enough for Wikipedia, but they are somewhere else. I suggest perhaps editing related articles? If you have any more questions, please ask, but please take my above suggestions into account. Cheers- CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 10:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Calton's Bad Apples

Thanks Calton, but I didn't create the article. 76.166.123.129 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: I don't believe you.

Not concerned with what you believe. 76.166.123.129 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to respond. Your actions speak for themselves. 76.166.123.129 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic empty rhetoric. Zero actual content.

No, just true. You've got a history of trolling, disruptive edits, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT problems, etc. 76.166.123.129 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my normal actions (i.e.; editing history), as anyone can check, involve a lot of tagging of spam and vanity pages. In this case, not a coincidence. --Calton | Talk 11:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, definitely not a conicidence. Your "obnoxious" edits, comments, etc. are well known on WP by many.

Again, feel free not to stop by. 76.166.123.129 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairly Blocked

This address is used by User:Telogen, and both [he and user 76.166.123.129] have "voted" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. This is a violation of Wikipedia's sock puppet policy, so I have blocked this IP for 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may appeal by placing the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

76.166.123.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Uh, because it's not true, completely unfounded, total lack of evidence, and done out of spite by a group of SPPs who are offended by diferences of opinion to the point where they bully other users.

Decline reason:

I'm not too sure about that. Both the IP and the account have the same penchant and use the same variety of cynical sarcasm and have a general (deliberate and/or accidental) disregard for Wikipedia policy and norms. And can you kindly explain what an "SPP" is? — Kyриx 04:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Checkuser confirms this IP is used by the aforementioned user; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

76.166.123.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes. SPP means sockpuppet. Griot, the user who instigated these past and present SPP accusations and Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article deletion, is an SPP. We challenged 'his' Ralph Nader article, so he began stalking my contributions, saw me contributing to an article that's been around for years before I ever came to Wikipedia, and he's determined to get rid of it. He felt powerless, so he's reacting out of fear and spite. He announced his departure from Wikipedia, but went around 'secretly' vandalizing user talk pages and links to the JMS article (see Telogen's note on the article's deletion page). It wasn't enough, so he prompted Calton to put boxes all over the article. I was away. Telogen reported it to the AN/I board. A few admins told Calton not to do that, and Calton got very miffed, violating WP:CIVIL, 3RR, etc. Calton placed the article on his AfD list. He and Griot, SPP, gathered some editor and admin friends together (why else would so many people vote "DELETE" on such an "obscure" article, as he called it, in 24 hours?). I try to fix it, I'm COI, SSP, etc. I must be blocked. It might become too good to delete or something. Telogen tells it like it is, now he and I are being trashed. My GF edits have been reverted by the same people who are now promptly voting to delete articles that Telogen and me and contributed to. As for the IP ID, per instruction of WP, I choose not to adopt a name, and Telogen adopted his with TNM hers (see above). I understand taking a name is an option, not mandatory. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to disregard WP policy. Per WP:AGF, you might chalk it up to the fact that I've contributing off and on for all of two months. I have a history of good faith edits, and Telogen guided the Ralph Nader article resolve that Griot was aggravating. TNM left for good. I pulled back. Otheus asked me to. I did. That's why we're being accused of what exactly what Griot is doing. He's had some practice. He's got a Dick Cheney approach to personal politics. I'm pretty fed up with the whole business, I don't like all the conflict and backbiting. I'm noticing a lot of quality problems with articles, a lot of people not qualified to edit, poor writing, bullying, COI not addressed because these users know more people to back them than first-timers. Users aren't who they say they are. That's ironic, by keeping my IP visible, I'm MORE outright about who I am. I'm concerned about teachers telling their students not to come to WP, because it's so inaccurate. I wanted to help. Now, I'm just tired of it all. Griots of the world think they've won, because they get their way. They bully you into their way. Or do they? As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, man is powerless to the results, etc. The way some people are acting, you'd scarcely recognize their humanity at all. Maybe it's the computer, they think no one can see. Fear. But it's that much more visible, really. The best people do great things when they don't know or think someone else is watching. The heroes. Others hide behind an eponym, and by trying to hide, revealing their true natures. How lonely it must be, and so hunched over a keyboard most of your life. Telogen and I stated before that we are different people. We know the truth. Others continue to accuse, to cause confusion and divert from their own transgressions. Monkey politics. The hope of it-- I can leave here, have my life, know I'm honest, do good work. That's all I've got to say on that. 76.166.123.129 08:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not appear to be an actual request for unblock, is much too long and does not bear on the point why your block was supposedly in violation of the blocking policy. The conduct of others is irrelevant for the question of whether or not you should be unblocked. Additionally, unblock requests that contain personal attacks on other users are not considered. Your block is extended to a week for disruptive use of this template. — Sandstein 09:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

By the way, Akhilleus, those edits of mine you reverted on [Mouth of theTruth]]. Pretty poor, for an alleged "expert" in Classical liturature. Spare me from your presence on my page again. 76.166.123.129 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

"liturature"? --Calton | Talk 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, here is an example of the kind of bullying that Calton and his sexist 40YOV's don't want you to see. He just erased my comment, then his own. Calton, you've been ordered off my page. And don't you DARE erase and alter my talk page. You will be reported for this. 76.166.123.129 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example:

What is your major malfunction? I formatted your "Unblock" tag so it could actually be detected and acted upon by an admin. You couldn't even cut-and-paste the simple tag you were given, so I did it for you. I don't expect you to thank me, but I do expect you to have at least a minimal understanding of what's going on. So go ahead and "report" me, but you're not going to like the answer. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Calton, you've been ordered off my page? 1) It's not your page, it's Wikipedia's; 2) It's not your user page, it's for an IP number; 3) You have no authority -- legal, assigned, or even moral -- to "order" anyone to do anything here. --Calton | Talk 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example: You know, perhaps you should actually read the message you're whining about. You know, for actual content. Once again, IF YOU DON'T USE THE TEMPLATE CORRECTLY, NO ONE CAN SEE IT.

I've (once again) fixed it for you. That you're making an active effort to not understand this simple point speaks volumes about your suitability to edit productively. Again, I don't expect you to be thankful, but I do expect you to have at least a minimal understanding of what's going on before you begin ranting. --Calton | Talk 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem with the formatting of the unblock template was my fault, since I didn't close the italics in my message ([8]) properly. My apologies. Still, it should have been apparent that Calton was doing something nice. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader

kk, please help in any way you can (usual suspects at it again). Telogen 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes. Thx. 76.166.123.129 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calton WP:CIVIL violations, harassment

Your campaign of fanning other's flames against Calton is disruptive and constitutes harassment. I'm giving you the same warning I gave Neutralhomer. FeloniousMonk 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page. 76.166.123.129 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making any comment which might be construed as a legal threat, as you did here. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, any such language can result in an indefinite block until the threats are either withdrawn or resolved off-wiki. We don't intend to limit your legal options, but we do ask that you avoid editing Wikipedia while engaging in or seriously considering any related legal action. Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore warnings at your own risk. One more comment like that which Luna Santin warns you about and you will be blocked. FeloniousMonk 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, again, on user's talk page. Second request for user to stay off my talk page. 76.166.123.129 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, FeloniousMonk is an administrator of this project, so he comes here to give sage advice, or if you push it he can do more than that. Second, your anonymous, so you have fewer rights than registered users. Lastly, I don't think you own this page. You can delete stuff. you can complain if someone is vandalizing it. But anyone can post here. So relax. And how about registering yourself. Orangemarlin 18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage advice? That is funny. Replied on user's talk page. 76.166.123.129 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this addition to my user talk page. No. Orangemarlin 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page. Also, I have filed my complaint to the ICC. 76.166.123.129 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Case

Why not create an account? *Cremepuff 222* "As cool as grapes..." 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make an account and transfer all this stuff from this IP to it. Thanks so much. Please help. 76.166.123.129 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

Since you continued to issue legal threats, after my rather unambiguous notice that doing so would lead to your being blocked, I've blocked this IP address from editing until such time as those threats are withdrawn or resolved. Again, this is not intended to prevent you from exploring any legal options available to you, but Wikipedia policy firmly insists that users seriously considering or engaging in relevant legal actions refrain from editing the wiki, while those actions are outstanding. Thank you for your time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's One-Way Streets

Greetings,

It appears that, hours after your message to me, you have been blocked from editing for reasons I will not address here since I'm not familiar with them. However, I will briefly reply to the concerns you expressed at my talk page.

I hope you understand that the accusations you assert are very serious; yet you haven't provided any evidence to back them. You'll also forgive my skepticism when I read this sort of charges from an editor using an anonymous IP address, even tho you may be a registered user, something that I can't be sure about.

While I gladly offer myself to help reach an agreement between Calton and any other editors who disagree with him, I refuse to accept as valid any accusations of bad faith on any involved part beforehand. I will therefore talk to Neutralhomer and Calton if necessary; but I hope you understand that the comments you made at my talk page cannot and will not be considered a solid argument regarding this matter, as their very nature is completely opposed to the very spirit of Assume good faith on an uninvolved party like me. Best regards, Phaedriel - 07:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Phaedriel,

Thanks for responding.

I have opted not to take a name. I understood this as optional, not mandatory.

Technically, I am not in legal dispute, since I reported Calton to a Federal agency. The IRS is another.

You may wish to consult ElectricEye and Andman8, and a number of other users who have observed and experienced Calton's ongoing

WP:CIVIL problems and personal attacks. You'll find many of them identified through Calton's talk page, and Calton's history of WP:CIVIL

violations. His misuse of his position is observable. You mentioned Neutralhomer, so you are aware of some of these problems.

Griot and his WP:SOCKS are pretty obvious. A little research would reveal.

The injustices are glaring for many of us who are leaving. Some of the evidence has been erased already. I have done all I can. Thank you. Good

luck. 76.166.123.129 19:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: User Honesty 64 is someone other than me. I happen to agree with what he/she says. Please check IP and you can confirm it. I can produce witnesses who will swear in afidavit that I was no where near a computer when Honesty 64 messages were posted. Really, anyone who opposes Calton is a WP:SOCK? Injustice is glaring. Calton and his buddy Griot are colluding. It's out of hand and must stop. 76.166.123.129 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and so will the ICC

"Accusing someone of being mentally ill, no matter what weasel wording you employ, is pretty much a straight-up personal attack. Don't do it. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)"

"If Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week wants to start having conversations, he ought to try NOT replying with utter nonsense, outright falsehoods, paranoia, psychological projection, and insults to my intelligence. Like this bit: It doesn't mean troll around Wikipedia trying to find my posts -- has anyone ever explained the concept of a Watchlist to you? Making changes to an article on my Watchlist, which I've edited before, regarding the same issue I edited on before is about as far away from "troll[ing] around Wikipedia" as you can get -- unlike, say, edit warring over someone else's vanity edits immediately after I've removed them. The only reason I know it's him is because he's simply repeating the same behavior in the same places -- and because he said it was him, outright. And "communication" with Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week consists of him making ownershipdemands untethered from policy, guidelines, practices, and (occasionally) reality, having a hissy fit when challenged, stalking my edits/inserting nonsense until called upon it by an admin, issuing a non-apology apology ("Calton made me do it!"), and swearing he won't do it again, rinse, lather, repeat. The person on the platform waiting for the fast train to Banville? Not me. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)"

" =="Years of premeditated disruption"== Calton, again I must commend you for taking the brunt of this week's Honesty 64 - Telogen - Nervous Mermaid - Marie Spaccuzzi -- Guy Hoffman -- Anon User -- Seasons & Muse clusterf*ck. (I especially liked Honesty 64's "Years of premeditated disruption" comment -- it sounds like the title of a B movie). If you ever need help fending off this multiple personality disorder, don't hestitate to ask. Griot 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

"Calton

I have replied to your comment on the noticeboard.--Honesty 64 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Take your meds and shaddup. Griot 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)"

Group Imagination = Reality

"Since the "Internet Crime Commission" is as imaginary as the "World Crime League", I'm not concerned with your "reporting" anything. And I'd call threats to tattle to an imaginary authority figure pretty childish, myself, not to mention calling it a legal threat -- a particularly nonsensical and easily dismissed legal threat, but a legal threat nonetheless. --Calton | Talk 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)"

http://www.ic3.gov

Regarding your Mexican-American war edits

Your edits to this article were unnecessary, clumsy and confused. It was riddled with mistakes both grammatical and technical. Important quotes are put in "blockquotes" for a reason. If you feel the need to edit that article again, bring it up on the talk page first, save me some time cleaning up the mess.Fennessy 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Management"

Revision as of 02:23, 2 July 2007 (edit) SamuelJohnson714 (Talk | contribs) (→Missed the Point) ← Older edit Revision as of 03:28, 2 July 2007 (edit) (undo) Calton (Talk | contribs) (Removed obsessive-compulsive's trolling) Newer edit → Line 251: Line 251:

Missed the Point

- You obviously missed each point I made. At the time, you had made just 8 edits for the day and 4 of them were about me in some way. If you have better self control than me and are more mature than me, it should have been 0 of those 8, not 4 of 8.

- - "Which I do." If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

- - "more experienced and knowledgeable editor", more experienced in what exactly? Deletions? If so, then yes. In removing pages, then yes. In PROD'ing userpages, then yes. Since about April or May of 2005, you stopped edited pages or adding to them and went all delete, all the time. I, on both accounts, have only nom'd 10 articles for deletion, the rest of my edits were on talk pages (mostly yours) and actually forwarding articles. So, experienced, that's debatable. As for knowledgeable...you haven't actually shown any real knowledge for any given subject in the entire time I have known about you. You let everyone know of this knowledge, but never really demonstrate it.

- - "you draw my attention..." There is where that self-control would kick in and force you the other way. Away from me, even if changes should be made. If you have so much trouble with me, then why not have another editor take care of that for you? So, it would not seem like you are trolling around looking for edits I have made...and if you are actually going to argue over whether 4 of the 19 names of worst terrorist attack on US soil should be on a page over the charter and founding of a US town, then you, my friend, are beyond anyone's help and disgust me.

- - You are not the great, intelligent, mature, all knowing, all powerful Wikipedia editor you make yourself out to be. When you understand that you are wrong about 95% of the time, you are an incivil ass about 110% of the time, and you have an ego about the size of China (and that is insult to the Chinese), and people aren't out to "insult your intelligence" or break one of the "ten commandments of Calton", then Wikipedai will be a better place for it.

- - Also, if you notice, I was [not] rude to you first and I actually [tried] to be civil with you from the start. You obviously have some problem with me, about what, I am not sure and I don't care. You can go be Mister Wonderful somewhere else on Wikipedia. Since our paths do not cross and I have not asked of your assistance nor your opinion, I leave you with this....

- - "By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." - Confucius

- - Do take care Calton. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Management," again

Calton signs his user page "The Management." Calton offends other Wikipedians without penalty. Calton enforces rules without adhering to them.

Calton's post from http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/30/wales_ads_on_wikiped.html:

Friday, December 30, 2005

Wales: Ads on Wikipedia are a possibility (UPDATED)

Wikipedia's founder told a UK paper this week that the user-edited online encyclopedia may carry advertisements at some point. Given current traffic levels, such a move could generate hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Snip from article: Jimmy Wales told Times Online that despite widespread "resistance to the idea" of advertising on Wikipedia, "at some point questions are going to be raised over the amount of money we are turning down." Wikipedia would be in a prime position to exploit the current boom in online advertising. It expects to record around 2.5 billion page impressions this month and traffic volumes are doubling every four months. According to figures released this month by Nielsen/Netratings, it was the ninth-fastest growing site on the web in 2005.

Link to UK Times interview. (thanks, Kevin) UPDATE: On Jimmy Wales's Wikipedia User Talk page, he says the quote has been taken out of context for the sake of hype and headlines.

Please read the story, not the headline. :-) I said to this reporter the same thing I have been saying to everyone for years. Nothing has changed. What I have been saying forever is that I think we will eventually, as a community, face the question of whether the amount of money we are turning down, and the amount of good we could do with that money towards our charitable mission, is worth more than our pride in being ad free. The way I like to put this is as follows: it is easy for us to sit in our safe Western wealthy nations with broadband internet connections and pat ourselves on the back for not having any ads, but if, for example, having some google-style ads on the search results page only could bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars per month, and that money could be used to bring Wikipedia to millions of people who currently have no access, I think that we, as a community, have to be serious and thoughtful about that decision.

Having said that, I personally remain opposed to having ads in Wikipedia. It's just that a serious NPOV discussion of the matter necessarily would involve us being really serious about what we are turning down and why. This is exactly what I've been saying for years. If you know why the press likes to run inflammatory headlines every few days, well, please let me know. I find it all a bit baffling to be honest.

A statement from me "I am personally opposed to having ads in Wikipedia" somehow becomes "Wikipedia chief considers taking ads".

-- Jimbo Wales 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks, Calton Bolick)

The content of these user pages is well within the allowed limits for a User page. Reality check: User:Losplad: 1) advertises band. 2) not an individual, a role account 3) Account created in May, but this is its only edit. Really, pretty obvious. User:Chris funk bass: 1) advertises band. 2) No edits since August 2006 3) Only edits (11) are this page and attempts to add self or his band to other pages in July & August 2006. Really, pretty obvious. The "G" in CSD:G12 stands for "General"; i.e.; ALL pages. User pages aren't exempted, and spam disguised as user pages is deleted all the time. This batch is just from the last fewmonths. FYI. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC) "Spam"? "Advertising"? How can an unlinked userpage advertise anything? !) 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. 2) Also, did I miss the "incompetent" exception clause in the spam prohibitions. 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. Looks like you missed the meaning of the word "General" (i.e., everything) and also the first words of WP:USER. Let me refresh your memory: Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. Was that difficult to follow? By deleting their user page, we are making it more likely that they never will. That's already been established. See here for a list. Check their "contributions". I know similar userpages are being deleted--incorrectly--all the time. I used the phrase "reality check", but perhaps that wasn't strong enough phrasing, since you couldn't be more wrong if you made a deliberate effort to do so, both on policy and pure common-sense grounds. I'd appreciate your help in stopping this practice. 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 Oh, grow up. If you don't like being contradicted, don't whine about it. If providing you with evidence is "condescending", I'm wondering how you deal with debate with the real world. And spare me the condescending, mindreading lectures of your own -- or is your talk about "civility" only for the little people? -- as a way to avoid actual evidence and actual debate on actual evidence and actual policy. If you talk nonsense about how "similar userpages are being deleted--incorrectly--all the time", you should expect such a claim to be treated as the nonsense it is and asking me to sign on with such nonsense doubly so. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia SP incivility shuffle from Jimbo Wales and Crew

should try growing up. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Oh, grow up. --Calton

grow up. --Calton

growing up. -- Antaeus Feldspar