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.

Amazing...

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

RE: User:Flatsky

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

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

Temporary userpage?

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

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

Deleting Grammy Reference

Hello Calton,

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

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

Thanks

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

Calton,

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

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

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

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

I think it should remain

Hello:

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your feedback.

Mary Spicuzza

Article in the San Francisco Weekly: [2].

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

User:Gindi holdings

Hi,

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Hediedwithafelafelinhishhand.JPG

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Printplast

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

Miss Tourism Queen International

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

Cavachon

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

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

User:Newyorklenin

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

Alesana

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

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

Favor

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

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

Spam on userpages

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

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

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

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

World Without Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy Deletion request

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

WP:NPA

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

Gratis Internet

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

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

Template:temporary userpage

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

Hello Calton, I'm reiterating the same concern expressed by RP. It should generally be used only on the userpage after an indef block (per Template_talk:Temporary_userpage) and really should not be on a user_talk page since user_talk is not deleted even after a block. Thanks – Zedla (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WQA

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

User:Eva Evangelakou

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

Moved here from your user page

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

Please delete the Peggy Dylan page as spam.

Magazines and books

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

Bagamoyo

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

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

My e-mail

Calton, did you really write this?

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

Tagging user pages of unblocked users

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

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

User:Therese Dvir

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

Inappropriate content removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Lir. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

FYI

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

Dude.

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

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

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

Do not undo my edits to my talk page

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

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

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

Your reversion on Mockingbird Don't Sing

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

It's spam.

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

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

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

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

Hi:

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

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

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

Thanks for your feedback.

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

Random misplaced crap

Hello:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalking your edits

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

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

Unlinking

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

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

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

Removed Article

Hello Sir,

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

McDonald's products

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

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

User page spam

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

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

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

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

Hanlon

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

Re: Whatever it is you are on about now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See previous comment, boyo.

Ditto.

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

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

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

Ah, so you want to discourage me?

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

Why, thank you.

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

¹Or should that be "behaviour"?

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

Christ, you're insufferable.

There seems to be another call for Mr Kettle.

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

I have. What did I miss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:UAA

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

Edelsten

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

Wow...

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

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

So, any reason you don't at least have rollback or do you just not need it?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You now have it. You've been around long enough and do enough anti-vandal work that you ought to have it even if you never use it. Please don't edit war, particularly with this tool. Basically it allows you to revert a whole series of edits by a vandal all at once. It is intended to be used only for vandalism as defined in policy. It basically reverts to the last edit by another editor. It will leave a default edit summary that just says Reverting edits by joe shmoe to last edit by john doe or something like that. You can try it out at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback, it used to be just for admins but in January it was opened up for experienced editors with no recent history of edit warring. I know you have been warned for edit warring fairly recently but on a quick review I didn't see the alleged edit warring - just some disputes over POV tags. Any admin can grant or revoke the privileges and if you edit war or rollback non-vandalism someone certainly will. If you've used Twinkle you'll find that this rollback is much faster but less flexible and it doesn't automatically open the vandal's talk page for warning. You may actually benefit from the canned edit summaries, less likely that you'll say something someone will take wrong. ;-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if 2 or more nincompoop vandals have been taking turns inserting derogator info about their high school, its staff, and its students, one rollback doesn't accomplish very much. An examination of the article history and a "save" of the last good edit is much better. Edison (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

See WP:ANI#User:Kilts Across Canada. Mangojuice^talk 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:temporary userpage

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

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

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

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

Expelled

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

Jack Thompson (attorney)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jack Thompson (attorney). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Strongsauce (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Missions, etc.

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

Please do not remove "neutrality disputed" tags

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

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

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

3RR warning

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

Happy easter!

Open your card >> >> >>

Happy easter you guys! Sorry if the picture looked crappy, but it's the best I could do on such short notice. Sincerely, BoL (Talk) 04:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Credits: This card was inspired by BoL, an administrator/bureaucrat and head designer of Codesnippets. Join the community today!

Days of the year guideline

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

Pioneer Clubs article and its speedy deletion

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

User:DiveTrash

Ah, should probably have Googled a bit before declining that. Well, now I know I should do that next time. (Sorry, I'm new. :P) Thanks for the heads-up! (By the way, your rule about Montel Williams made me laugh.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that what that's from? I thought it sounded vaguely familiar but couldn't place it. No, never really watched X-Files much. Though now I see maybe I should... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (attorney) #2

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jack Thompson (attorney). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Strongsauce (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For your war against spam on Wikipedia, I hereby award you the Anti-Spam Barnstar. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Contract project management

What is a cookie, you say you can't reinstate our file but you can provide a cookie??? We just had a group University assignment deleted and we are more than happy to never bother trying to use Wiki again if we can have a copy of our document back? Please email j.meiklejohn@student.qut.edu.au if you can help us do that. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contract project management (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Contract project management has been restored. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bandshell/Swati

Dear Calton: I think the mistake that I made is not being an experienced Wikipedia person; I've posted the article before it's done. The article that I am attempting to post is no different than the article posted for Cary Brothers - same type artist, same record label. My article, when complete, will ultimately be informative, not only promotional. Bandshell

thanks

Hi Calton - thanks for removing that nonsense someone posted on my user page. Much appreciated. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Help

I would like to work with you to be sure that the information from the page could be posted in the format that you require. Please tell me how we can do that.

Lon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonsafko (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Puppeteer

Please do not remove the names of prominent puppeteers from the Puppeteer wikipedia page without discussion. Do you actually know of the work done by these puppeteers? If not please desist. Finneganw 15:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your answer on my page is not a good enough reason to remove them. I suggest you desist. Thanks in advance. You should discuss the matter on the discussion board. Perhaps I will get time out of my busy schedule to write articles on these prominent puppeteers. Finneganw 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reply is terribly exciting for you and irrelevant to what you have done without discussion in breach of wikipedia guidelines. Finneganw 14:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to explain in detail what remains in the wikipedia Puppeteer article that warrants a 'laundry list'. There is little evidence of you making any constructive improvement to the article through provision of verifiable information on the topic. Finneganw 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy O Boy what a reaction! One wonders what you know about puppetry? I really am not interested in engaging in your time wasting games. Like many others connected with this topic I am interested in providing information for fellow wikipedians. I wonder whether you are? Please desist. Finneganw 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Work

(cur) (last) 12:05, 29 March 2008 Calton (Talk | contribs) (24,245 bytes) (del "*2008 - Last Season of Battlestar Galactica starts airing. :)") (undo)

Haha you must really hate Battlestar Galactica. Just kidding. I was curious as to how long it takes for someone to erase my "lame edit". Quick. I won't do it again. (feel free to delete this)

User:Argabar12

May I ask why you marked this page for speedy deletion User:Argabar12? Mww113 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: speedy deletion

Sorry didnot see that. I will restore the {{hangon}} to {{db-spam}}

Your comment is requested

Sorry but I've had to say that I think your tagging practice is at least part of the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk_pages_for_indef_users. You may want to direct your attention back there as others are now looking to understand your position better. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Spam pages

I was not commenting on your CSD tags of their userpages. I was commenting on the fact that reporting for a block after one infraction seems harsh. Many users write promotional pages in article space (which are quickly removed of), yet are not reported. At least to me, reporting a user who may not know the policies to be blocked seems a little bit strong of an action. Dropping them a note and blanking their userpage could solve the problem; if they care enough to replace it, then the block would make more sense. FusionMix 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack, I severely misunderstood something. I'm not sure if I read something wrong, or what, but I was an idiot. Sorry for all the fuss I made, it was stupid of me. FusionMix 14:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

For your convenience, I have reproduced the following message from the User talk:Ldemery page:

"I do read this page; I do not respond."

"All whom it might concern are advised of the following:

"1.) I do read this page, and regularly.

"2.) I do not, and shall not, respond to material posted here.

"As a matter of personal policy, I do not respond to any communication, through any channel, from any person not known to me, unless that person provides their true name. It is obvious that virtually all persons who post messages on "User talk" pages such as this not wish to "sign" their posts under their true names. (Their personal choice; fine by me.)

"3.) Matters concerning any specific "Wikipedia" article may be addressed on that article's "Talk page."

"4.) With reference to 2.) above: I have stated my true name previously, and shall do so again: Leroy W. Demery, Jr. All who might wish to contact me through some other channel (e.g. e-mail, U.S. mail) are invited to do so; I reiterate that I shall not respond to any person not known to me unless that person provides their true name. Ldemery (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on article naming you

I have decided to write, in my own good time, an article about certain "recent experiences" related to Wikipedia, the nature of which are, or should be, well known to you. This article shall name you, under your moniker, "Calton."

In the interest of fairness, I shall provide you with a copy of this article, prior to publication, for the purpose of feedback, provided: that you disclose, to me, your true name (I remind you that my true name is known to you; see above). You might wish to do this through a "non-public" channel; if so, then e-mail me and I will send you my mailing address. You might also wish to request that I keep your true name confidential; if so, then I shall honor that request. I shall consider the fact of your "non-response" to this invitation as subject for "fair comment" in the article. Ldemery (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is surely harassment by Ldemery. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_demands_that_editors_reveal_their_personal_identies_before_he_will_respond_to_them_on_his_user_talk_page. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Has anyone talked to you about getting sysopped? You've demonstrated you'd be excellent at it. If you're interested, I would be honored to go ahead and nominate you.--Hu12 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'm surprised you aren't already. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Calton let me know....--Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Suspicious user

It's not me, and it's clearly an impostor (I can guess who did it as well), but the account has been indef-blocked, so that should take care of that. I'd also assume the edits were rolled back, but they're on articles I know nothing about and have no interest in. MSJapan (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The face of Calton

A new user, The face of Calton, claims to be you. If this account is yours, please let me know so I can unblock it for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Possibly another troublemaking whackjob from WR or ED. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: thanks for blocking him.

Didn't think so - otherwise I would have waited for an answer from you before blocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Calton. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seriously

Seriously Calton, you've had numerous admins telling you to stop tagging every person you warn with {{temporary userpage}}. I'm now formally telling you to stop tagging user talk pages as such. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned Calton, simple as that. There is no policy saying you delete these pages, certainly not speedily and not all those you tag are going to be blocked. You've been asked to stop by about 5 different admins - I strongly suggest you do. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You show me the part of the deletion policy that states that talk pages of news users are deleted... There isn't one. You are tagging pages of people that aren't even blocked, some are even very unlikely to be blocked. This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted. No more wikilawyering, just stop it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I reccomend stopping as well. There appear to be a number of people opposed to this, which is often a good sign you should stop, and attempt to get some clarification on the policy by engaging on discussion on the policy talk page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should spend your time trying to help the user in question, opposed to assuming bad faith and tagging their page. Tiptoety ^talk 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - List of fictional ducks

An old friend of yours (User:NoCal100) has appeared to continue his war with you on the above page (it was on my watchlist from the time of User:MegaMom and bounded back up to the top in the last few days). I had queried him about his username when he first popped up (as his first four edits on two different pages were stalking your own), but for some reason I didn't make the connection between "100" and the slang "ton" - unless I am mistaken in that connection, and I don't think I am, he would presumably be a sock of a previous user, probably blocked. There isn't enough evidence to merit a block at this point, I don't think, but you might wish to file a checkuser to flush out the master account and any other socks. _GB^T/C 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

user:tv3435

but i use user:tw3435 not the normal page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tw3435 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You For Being Blunt

I understand. Some of the things you said are true, but it doesn't change the facts. Throughout my career I spent more time trying to develop new technology and help the disabled, than looking for recognition. The items that were listed on the page were all true. You mention the Smithsonian is only some corporate records. No, take a look at http://www.lonsafko.com/2005/01/27/smithsonian-institution/ and you will see that in addition to the 30,000 corporate records there were 18 inventions. All of the certificates and photos are there. There was a reason they wanted those 30,000 documents. They actually sent their senior archivist from Washington D.C. to Gilbert, AZ to spend three days here. I didn't just donate all of the items, they asked for them because they said they felt that "I made one of the most significant contributions to the computer / human interface as did anyone". Again, while I was developing I wasn't focusing on "proving" that I did these things. For this work I was honored with the Westinghouse Entrepreneur of the Year Award, the Arizona Software Entrepreneur of the Year Award, Arizona Innovation Network Innovator of the year, twice nominated Inc. Magazine / Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year, honored by the Veteran's Administration, etc. There is a reason for all that. Photos of the awards are on the site. Go to YouTube and you will see a dozen or more old NBC / CBS / ABC news feature videos of the people who actually used the equipment and were saved by it. Look at the U.S. Patent Office web site to see my patent on Virtual-Electronic-Retailing / Three Dimensional Advertising. Look on my web site for the certificates showing where the Computer History Museum asked for 14 of my other inventions. The books are true, not 'ground-breaking', they were fun. Of the five I have published, only two were self published and the other three were published by Pearson Educational. Any claim that was made on the page can be substantiated, truly. Now is the time to chronicle these events, not while they were taking place. I could only imagine how difficult it must be for you to try to filteri through the nut jobs out there to maintain the integrity of this site. I wish you would reconsider and assist me in telling the true story in a way that is educational, unbiased, substantiated, and in the quality that is Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and dedication. Lon

French Laundry up for deletion

Someone has placed French Laundry up for deletion. The WP:AFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/French_Laundry. —EncMstr (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent postings to UAA

You seem to be posting some promotional usernames to UAA, however most of the accounts are quite stale. Most last edited 2 weeks ago. Also, UAA has recently tightened up its crtieria for posting; only names that need to be blocked right now (i.e. similar to AIV requirements; such as activly spamming usernames or blatantly offensive usernames (racist, cursewords, things like that). You have posted close to 3 text pages of these usernames to the UAA page, I have not looked at every one, but a random spot check of about 10 of them showed that all of them are quite stale, the most recent edit I could find from ANY of them is from April 13th. Blocking the mass of them takes some considerable manpower from admins, and the admins could user their time more wisely addressing more pressing needs than blocking inactive accounts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly suggest slowing down at UAA. Have you ever considered talking with a newbie instead of just reporting them? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It creates extra work for us that may not be necessary, however, I don't think Calton's approach is wrong here. These aren't new users experimenting with Wikipedia who might make good edits; for the most part, these are simply spammers and blocking is appropriate. (It may not always be necessary -- blocks are preventive, after all, and who knows if these people would ever come back.) My only complaint, Calton, is when you report usernames that don't closely match what the user was promoting. I feel like the entity they are promoting needs to be specifically recognizable from the username alone to merit one of these {{spamblock}}s. In some cases (e.g. User:Mobilephone5) there is a connection but the username on its own poses no inherent problems. Mangojuice^talk 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop placing userpages in CAT:TEMP that aren't indef blocked!

Calton: I see you are back at it - Stop now!! Read the Category instructions, you are filling a category with inappropriate userpages. If you continue to do this you will undoubtably end up blocked. You were warned about the use of the since deleted {{temporary userpage}} and you did not stop (until you went on a wikibreak apparently), now that you are back and the template is gone you are simply categorizing the pages in the same cat. The WP:AN thread you initiated ended with a clear consensus that what you are doing is not appropriate. There is no issue with you adding indef blocked users to CAT:TEMP, but if you add one more user to CAT:TEMP (ie. Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages you will be blocked). Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition Calton, you need to go back and remove all of these categories from the pages of non-indef blocked users or I may be forced to use a less discretionary method such as rolling back all of your edits that include the tag or removing the category using AWB without taking the time to check blocked status as that really takes too much time and you definitely knew better. This is creating unnecessary work and creates a risk that pages will be deleted due to your miscategorization.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite your flippant attitude about this, I can assure you that there was a clear consensus at the AN thread that you shouldn't be adding the cat to talk pages, so I am therefore prepared to block you should you continue. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I went ahead and cleaned up the mess you made, and I think much you would be surprised to know that a significant number of users who's usertalk pages that you slapped with CAT:TEMP where never blocked, and often continued to make better contributions. I hope you take this as a lesson learned and stop with this very un-helpful tagging. All it is doing is making more work for everyone else. Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

= Talk:Jonathan Hoenig

I saw your comment on Talk:Jonathan Hoenig. Have you considered proposing deletion? I came to the article from the birth date page because it seemed like such a non-notworthy article. My suspicions were confirmed once i saw the content.

OPS - have you thought of developing a rule #4? Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ca-calhd.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ca-calhd.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

I took your comment to be sarcastic opposition. Do you actually have no objection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten

You may want to see p.18 of [8]? Edelsten threatens legal action?! Michellecrisp (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson

Regarding his rumor mongering re: Michelle Obama: I agree with your removal of the allegation. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for character assassination based on unsubstantiated rumors, even if they get some news coverage. The rumors have some mainstream coverage, but I have come to believe that WP:BLP forbids mentioning any specifics of a derogatory, racist, utterly unsubstantiated rumor. Show me the videotape, bring forward some identified persons who are quoted in mainstream media saying they heard the alleged remarks, and I will reconsider. Edison (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I feel like you're accusing me of spreading the ugly rumors about MO. Johnson has repeatedly posted these rumors on his blog to attack Obama and it should be acknowledged, especially as he is mentioned by name on Obama's Fight the Smears website. How is mentioning this in his bio "rumor-mongering" or giving credence to these rumors? The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article includes their allegations AND includes responses by Kerry and/or supporters. I feel that by removing what he has said sanitizes his page and is a POV by omission. --The lorax (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Spam-warn-userpage

Template:Spam-warn-userpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Calton, when you deleted quotes from sources at G. David Schine, you were changing things in contradiction to the consensus that has been achieved on the talkpage. I also find it curious that you made this edit, considering that you had never participated on the talkpage, nor had you edited the article before. But you jumped right into the middle of an edit war, reverting to someone else's version without discussion.[9] Can you explain why you got involved with the article? Also, if you disagree with the current consensus, you are welcome to join the discussions at the talkpage, but in the meantime, please do not engage in any other reverts on that article. Thanks, Elonka 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Calton -- Although Elonka makes some rather odd statements above, like suggesting that because there is a "consensus" on this article you therefor have no right to edit it, and suggesting that the only issues under dispute are footnote quotes (wrong), I agree that it would be great for you to initiate some discussion on the Talk page. There hasn't been any "real" discussion there for quite a while; just a lot of bizarre stonewalling on the part of User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) See my description of the "discussion" here. Alansohn is currently under an ArbCom restriction (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn restricted), so he's unlikely to misbehave as blatantly now as he did then.

If you're so inclined, please start some discussion at this article's Talk page. I'd be delighted to join in on some actual rational and substantive discussion, and perhaps we can make some progress with the article. RedSpruce (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?

So now, instead of joining the discussion, you've decided to edit war? Amazing. Please point out, in detail, where consensus has been reached for a blanking/redirect solution. Just when I thought we might be getting somewhere with Jaysweet's suggestion for a Request for Comment, you go and do that. Wow, and why? S. Dean Jameson 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my attitude and tone

In looking back through my discussion with you (and others of your view), I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Wikipedia, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. S. Dean Jameson 20:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and oh, by the way, I'm being mugged at Steve Windom

Color me naive. I had hoped that my talk page entry on the article might get people involved, and give us some consensus on the article. Because of that, I didn't mention the inactivity on Dem1970's clear legal threat.

My reward?

• Dem1970 has made another legal threat. - "carefully read Irish laws on the subject...and Alabama law as well ..." - "Maybe once you brush up on Irish law, you'll even consider removing certain aspects of your discussion on this talk page."
• Cleo123 has swept in and seized control of the article, giving it a far more pro-subject tack than even Dem1970 (whose edits you kindly reverted) did - basing her entire conclusion (and the language and tone of the article) on a 95 word, unsourced, unbylined New York Times "news brief" that does not take into account the later developments I carefully sourced.
• What is even more upsetting, Cleo123 posts a Talk comment which is, to understate it, insulting of my integrity, and inappropriate in tone. It's "cyberstalking" (her exact word) to do a newspaper article count after the admin asked about the importance of the topics? Give me a break ...
• She says I was "WAY OUT OF LINE" (her emphasis) for "speculating" about Dem1970s identity in talk. (I guess the admin was, too, as he did.) Except I didn't speculate, I noted his self-identification as the source of the pic he uploaded, and the WP:AB issue that raised - or the copyright issue it raised if he's not the subject.

I gathered that you kind of picked up on the situation by your edit summary comment and reversion. (I didn't want to revert while trying to see if Dem would Talk.) I'm not asking for help in the fight (unless you're so inclined, if only to ask people to slow down) - but maybe take five to look at it, and if I'm so far out of it that I'm the only one who thinks I'm being mugged, tell me? In any case, thanks for your past and future help. (and WP keeps ignoring my signatures and I get bot sigs, so don't think I forgot if it did) Audemus Defendere (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again. Audemus Defendere (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

John Tyler Hammons

It doesn't qualify for CSD as a repost, because the article has significantly changed since it's AFD discussion. If you would like to start a new AFD discussion, then go ahead, but neither a CSD nor a PROD will cut it now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO

Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

Boardgameguy

Thanks for the note about speedy deletion of my user account's page and cleaning up the mess I left out. I was using it as a working/draft page for an article and must have misread the purpose of user page. Was never intended for use as personal web page or anything. It was an article in-progress that I later submitted, but forgot to delete on my user page (sorry!). I'll be more careful about clearing it out when finished.

One note on content: Content flagged on my user page for speedy deletion referring to board game company Merillian followed the exact same format, and even had more information that may be encyclopedic in nature than that of article Out of the Box Publishing. Not a complaint or anything, but it seems one of the necessary evils of CSD A7 that "notability" does not good content make. A stub on a well-known company can be acceptable, but a more in-depth write up on a lesser known company could be in danger of speedy deletion for lacking notability. Well, we all know Paris Hilton isn't in danger of speedy deletion :-)

Seriously, thanks for the heads up.

Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Good work on tagging of spam-only accounts and their userpages! Maxim(talk) 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

anti spam award

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your amazing and impressive streak of reporting spammers, and tireless challenges of promotional articles. —EncMstr (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your non-revert edit with revert edit summary

I was confused by this edit - your edit summary suggests it's a revert of my edit, with no explanation. However, it's not a revert?

Also, if you're familiar with the topic, can you help with the seating capacity for Aurora? - http://www.thamesclippers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=83 contradicts itself.

Thanks. 12.192.82.81 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting your unencyclopedic metacommentary, is all. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your original edit summary pointed to a website claiming 12 vessels, yet your most recent edit claims 13. Having trouble keeping the numbers straight? --Calton | Talk 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my metacommentary. Anyway, hope you can understand the source of the confusion - your edit summary said "Undid revision 228707818 by 12.192.82.81" but in fact it wasn't a verbatim undo.

I suspect they have more than 13 vessels. However, the revision was because the top of the referenced page says "...now operates a fleet of twelve luxury hi-speed catamarans..." but the page actually lists details for 13.

Thanks. 12.192.82.81 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Non-administrators adding blocking templates

Please review the above thread. Non-administrators should not be adding block templates, administrators will do so when appropriate. Also, this represents a personal attack. I see you have a history of being disruptive in this arena. There's no need to be taunting the users after you've had them blocked. –xeno (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the talk page of that user who's talk page you are tagging, you would see that I was in discussion with him both over the worthiness of the article and his username. Thus, your actions are unhelpful. Please stop. –xeno (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've also noticed you have a tendency to summarily blank or otherwise edit other user's pages. This should stop as well. People are free to use their userpages as a sandbox, and you should not be interfering with this. As for your edit summary suggesting I read WP:NPA, saying "don't be daft" in an edit summary is indeed a personal attack. –xeno (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am prepared to unblock as soon as they choose another username. It's under control. Cheers, –xeno (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The blanking I was talking about was some months ago, so perhaps you've stopped doing that (specifically, you were blanking users who had added example images to their user pages). I don't see anything in my comments that approaches the level of personal attack the way saying someone is being "daft" would. In any case, I am in discussion with the user - which may indeed end in the conclusion that the potential article is not worth of inclusion and should be deleted - in which I will do the needful. Until then, please let me work with the user in question. There's no need to be uninviting to people who don't understand our policies. –xeno (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHU. What I'm trying to explain here (and clearly doing a poor job at it) is that if someone is working with a user to explain to them relevant Wikipedia guidelines and practice and bring them in line with them, someone coming in and unnecessarily tagging their pages during the discussion is unhelpful (and frustrating to the user trying to do the explaining). I'd appreciate it if you kept that in mind for the future. I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot, and perhaps my approach could have been more tactful. –xeno (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's out-and-out spam and this user had the respect to ask us if the article was worthwhile of inclusion, the least we could do is have the respect to discuss with him whether it is, or why it is not, rather than just templating him. All I'm asking is that you use some common sense in deciding when a template is appropriate and when it might be better to personally discuss the issue with a user. Best regards, –xeno (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was attempting an appeal to your rule #3 above. I'll make this perfectly clear: do not template a user in which I, or another admin, is conducting a discussion with. Full stop. –xeno (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Please do not continue to re-add listings that have been declined, not only once but twice. If you feel it was a bad call to not block these names, please raise the issue elsewhere (such as WP:AN). Continuing to re-add user names that have been declines is not productive. Shereth 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

These names were first declined by User:Rspeer, re-added by User:MCB and then re-declined by myself. Do not re-add these to the UAA page. Your comment when reverting my edit was also borderline incivility and I would suggest you stop. This needs to be handled elsewhere if you disagree with the decision (made not only by myself). Shereth 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Calton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Calton. Thank you. –xeno (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Losplad

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Losplad. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that it is against policy to re-add speedy deletion templates once an administrator has rejected it, the correct venue if you still want something deleted is WP:XfD. That being said, this is all in the past and no action needs to be taken. I am assuming you did not know this, and I don't think you were acting in bad faith. In the future however, please remember this. Chillum 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Long-belated thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For helping a newcomer to find his way, two years ago. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tonight, a few users and I were discussing our experiences as newcomers to Wikipedia, the misguided moves some of us made or cracks we fell through. Some of my earliest edits have since been deleted, but what I believe was the first article I myself created from scratch, Dean Lesher, is still around. I still remember that nervous feeling, wondering how it would be received, hoping for a good reception but fearing something else. Probably you won't recall this -- I didn't realize it had been you, until I checked it tonight -- but on that day, two years back, you made a simple tweak to that new article. A rather upset user reverted your change as "vandalism" shortly after that, an edit which I in turn reversed.

All in all, it was a minor incident in terms of Wikipedia's scale, but for me as a newcomer the exchange proved pivotal: this was the first article I'd started; the first time I'd had my own writing tweaked for a neutral point of view, reinforcing the concept; it was among my first experiences collaborating with others on a wiki; the juxtaposition of one obviously helpful and diligent user against one obviously troublesome one introduced me, firsthand, to Wikipedia's problems with vandalism and disruption -- problems I have since spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to mitigate. While I've expanded into other areas, recent changes patrol has, to date, always been one of my prime motivations and reasons for being here.

Had I not had this experience, would I have gone on to become an active Wikipedian? If another editor had been first on the case, would things have turned out differently? These are difficult questions to answer, but fortunately the facts are that I did have this experience, and you were there. People often thank me for my help, answering questions about using and editing Wikipedia, or reverting vandalism and dealing with trolls or sockpuppets, but it seems possible to me that none of my efforts would have begun in earnest without this early interaction with you. All of these editors also have you to thank, in turn, for that.

I thought you might like to know. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stay the fuck off my userpage

Just because you don't like what I posted there gives you no right to delete it, asshole.--Folksong (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)