User talk:Calton/Archive03

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

Reckless revert

I told Mustafaa what I would do. I removed the long quotes and reinserted them into the talk page where users can work on them with other users to find a consensus solution. Until someone makes a version in talk, the unacceptable version shouldn't be there. I do not appreciate it when people who have no background on the dispute come in and start throwing their weight around. You have no idea what the dispute is, you don't know where the contention lies, so ask before contributing to a revert war.

Guy Montag 06:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy is right in that the insertion of these lengthy quotes a couple of days ago was terrible style at best, and pretty obvious POV pushing. The person who inserted them should be responsible for putting in something reasonable in the first place; I don't see why it's incumbent on Guy to do so, or why obviously sub-standard insertions should remain until those who disapprove of them can come up with better alternatives. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glengarry Glen Ross

I'm holding a copy of Glengarry Glen Ross [Grove Press] in my hand. The information that I inserted into the article appears on page 9, as I clearly cited in the edit summary. Please use the talk page to explain or cite the source for your information.

Copying from Wikitravel

Some of your additions to Expo 2005 were copied from my edits to the article of the same name on Wikitravel, as discussed on Talk:Expo 2005. The licenses are incompatible and thus technically this is a copyvio... but I've hereby retroactively granted you the license to do so, so no worries, just please be more careful in the future. As penance you are hereby sentenced to enter 5 of your favorite restaurants or watering holes into Wikitravel's Tokyo page. =) Jpatokal 05:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my page

Kindly stop vandalizing my user page with nonsense.Enviroknot 01:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out my errors regarding Enviroknot. The reason I didn't add the sockpuppet tag was because I want to see some solution other than a revert war take place. In my opinion, the evidence against Enviroknot isn't strong enough to justify tagging him as a sockpuppet, though a suspected sock tag is justified. Again, the reason I didn't include either is because this revert war is getting ridiculous.

Sorry for the trouble. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 17:25, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

I see that David Gerard did an IP check, concluding that Enviroknot and KaintheScion are the same person. I'm convinced now. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 20:34, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

GAP Project

Hi Calton. I'm glad to see you're interested in clearing up the copyright issue at GAP Project. Could I encourage you to be as diplomatic as possible in dealing with Coolcat on the talk page there? English probably isn't his first language, and he might find it easier not to "[sputter] indignantly" if he doesn't feel attacked.

For what it's worth, I too am quite frustrated by the responses he has provided thus far. On occasion I admit to finding it difficult to assume good faith as much as I should. But...I don't see the harm in being patient on the talk page as long as the material isn't added back to the main article. I assure you it won't go back in until the questions surrounding it are resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cantors

I'm unsure how I missed those. Both are now deleted. —Xezbeth 07:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Policy enforcement

Can I ask why you reverted this page, removing an edit by me, amongst others? Filiocht | Talk 11:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sound's like the kind of mistake I'd make! Thanks for responding do quickly. Filiocht | Talk 11:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Paperback Writer / I Feel Fine Single infoboxes

Thanks for helping to deal with this anon reverting the infobox updates. Cbing01 03:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Economy of mainland China

Hello Calton. I noticed you have cast a "delete" vote at CFD, with the remarks "Political POV category". I am not sure if you're familiar with the term "mainland China", but I have to let you know that this is a neutral terminology to refer to PRC-administered territories excluding Hong Kong and Macao. You may be interested to take a look at the discussion at talk:Mainland China. I am not requesting anybody to change her/his vote, but it is always a responsible act to be familiar with the subject matter before casting a vote. Sorry if you find this message offensive. Feel free to discuss with me if you wish to. :-) — Instantnood 07:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is never a POV crusade, but rather, an NPOV drive. Would you mind telling why you consider the term propaganda-loaded? Thanks. — Instantnood 11:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes "People's Republic of China" is the official, formal, legal name, but "mainland China" is also official, formal and legal that the People's Republic of China government also uses it when it is necessary to distinguish the territories it administered subracting Hong Kong and Macao, as well as ROC-administered territories. The term is used in laws, for instance, in Hong Kong. It is also used in press releases and official documents of the PRC. These are actual facts that nobody can deny. I am actually curious to know why you consider it POV and should not be used.

There's nothing unclear with "you're wasting your time trying to enlist me", but as you may already know it is Wikipedia tradition to have things sort out through discussion. — Instantnood 12:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am neither pushing a POV, nor trying to make you agree with anything. As I have said, I am curious to know the rationale behind your belief. Anyways, I respect your will, this will be my last message to you over this matter. — Instantnood 13:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, seeing that you have a strong opinion with regards to Mainland China, may I invite you to the discussion going on there? I'm very curious about what kind of propaganda the phrase might be used for, except that of Instandnood's. The discussion would (hopefully) be restricted to that ariticle only. Thanks. -- Alassius (talk) 30 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)

Project Broadway

Okay, sign me up. Dunno how much I can contribute, but I'll give it a shot.

Part of the project will be formulating some standard formats and credits for articles, right? --Calton | Talk 05:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad you're interested in joining. Yes, creating standard formats for articles is absolutely a goal of the project. Right now I'm working on organizing the project assets before I get to in depth with working on stuff...see especially the to-do list on the New York Theatre project page (I may link the sub-project to-do's to that one. Glad to have you aboard! EvilPhoenix 05:22, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Bring it to my user page

He's been playing numerous articles for months with little to add but what is already known. I got tired of the tit for tat with this imbecile on that page due to the fact that the argument was continuing and going nowhere. All he and I were doing was throwing insults at each other so it would be better to do it in my user page, don't you think? It's nice to see you have a user page. Aside from that anon, I rarely respond to anyone that is too lazy to open one. Check his edit history on those numerous IP's he has and yuou'll see that he has zero to add to this endeavour. I think Noel"s comments in that section pretty much sized him up.--MONGO 4 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could remove his personal attacks from the above, Calton. Thanks. -bro 172.157.33.19 4 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Border States

Calton - greetings. I noticed you recently reverted an edit I made in response to another revert at this article. While I believe your stated reason of avoiding a revert war was a good faith effort to prevent one from emerging, I would ask you to consider the circumstances of the piece of information at issue here. The edits at issue, and accompanying reverts, concern a simple matter of documented historical fact. The problem emerged when another editor, User:JimWae, was evidently researching the subject online and found two personal websites containing historically incorrect information about the Civil War in New Mexico. JimWae subsequently transposed this information into the article, which I reverted to the previous and added appropriate sources to correct the erro. The personal websites erroniously asserted that the Confederate Army had invaded and captured the town of Mesilla in July of 1861 - a reference to a battle fought there at that date, but also a factually inaccurate claim. As I documented on the talk page, at the time of the July battle the town of Mesilla (along with Tuscon, Arizona) had already aligned itself with the Confederacy and organized a pro-Confederate territorial government the previous March.

As you can see on the article's history page, a subsequent revert was then made to JimWae's version containing the erronious material by User:Willmcw. This revert is of note because it is an atypical incident with little genuine interest in the article itself. As I noted in my attempt to restore the fixed version, Willmcw has a lengthy history of stalking me on Wikipedia dating back over 6 months and covering over 50 different articles. Unfortunately the two of us have a long history of poor relations on wikipedia due to this behavior, and I am certain that his involvement and reverts on this particular article were simply more of the same. I am currently pursuing outside intervention to rectify the problem between myself and willmcw over his stalking of me and general harassment of my edits, however the wikipedia dispute resolution process takes time and at the moment we are only in the earliest stages of mediation. An equally unfortunate consequence of this slow process is that Willmcw's harassing behavior towards me and virtually all of my edits, on which grounds I have sought intervention, has continued unabated even while mediation is being initiated, and this article is simply the latest case. Given these unusual and unfortunate circumstances, I would ask you to review your reversion of my edit on this article and discuss any pertinent information with myself or on the article's talk page as the material it concerns is truly a matter of simple documented historical fact that never should've been the subject of a revert war to begin with. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

SF Oakland Bay Bridge

Hi, I'm trying to understand your recent edit to the bridge article about Dustin Hoffman driving the wrong direction. You said it was a correction, but your version does not contradict what was there before. It omits the part about shutting down the bridge to film the scene. The filmakers wanted him on the top of the bridge with San Francisco in the background, and driving towards Oakland. Do you mind if I combine what you wrote with the previous version? -- Samuel Wantman 7 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)

Now I have a good excuse for renting the movie again. I haven't seen it in decades. I thought I saw a mention of him driving the wrong way at the IMDB site, but I can't find it now. Memories can be faulty. When did you see it last? -- Samuel Wantman 7 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

I did some googling and found postings validating both versions. One of them mentions that he crosses the bay bridge TWICE in the movie, both times on the top level, one time going towards SF and one time going towards Berkeley. I also found mention of them filming early morning to stop traffic. No definitive sources though. I'm just going to have to watch it again. -- Samuel Wantman 7 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Please be more polite

RE:the Mushroom Kingdom vote

I don't mean for the sake of courteousness. Right now a group of idle and ORGANIZED young males is developing animosity against Wikipedia. This can easily turn into a rampage...that many other editors will have to cleanup. This is based on site historical precendent.

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Were my colors THAT bad?

I saw you deleted when I quoted someone on the 3RR page. (Actually, I was quoting myself, --and the color was in the "original" quote cited; and I used, by convention and concensus pastel colors in my text to differentiate; On some boards, ALL users have a specific color, but on our board, only some.)

1st, why did you delete? Are you an admin who has trouble reading this -or, instead, was it for others' benefitsa?

2nd, I do recall you having made a smart comment about me promoting myself in an online posting. While technically this is correct, I DID something to promote, that is, if you look at the Schiavo "Activism and Protests" section, you;'ll see another user added a link to my court case; Was your comment factual in nature, or were you tryingf to insult me?

Thank you in advANCE FOR CLARIFICATION oops capitols.. andhow, thx in advance for your feedback on these two points, --GordonWattsDotCom 02:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

John Bacon

If you wikilink him, you'll get a British sculptor. Try http://users.ev1.net/~gpmoran/CeltChron5.htm. 1775.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I just might, though you might find other users more discerning. I doubt Irish Minute Men were that common, and there's no others on the list. Whether an entry needs to have an article to themselves to justify being on the list has been suggested, but nothing concrete has been agreed yet.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This a new trick Lapsed Pacifist uses, putting people on the list who are white but not of Irish ancestry. 64.109.253.204 14:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

It's not like I'm the one that wrote the original article, but I feel the article as it was, was fine and it didn't need to be edited and was being edited for malicious reasons. 64.109.253.204 14:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

Well, that's all very logical, and maybe tomorrow I will change my mind, but at the moment I am so pissed off at being involved in an apparently unending series of edit wars with these fools that I really don't care. Thanks for your comments. Adam 15:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Craig Isherwood

Please discuss your reverts on talk. Cognition 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather civilly discuss the merits of each contending version on the talk page-- like any constructive editor-- than engage in finger-pointing. I am opening to considering your take on this matter. The problem is that you have not stated it yet. Cognition 16:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Adam Carr can discuss his conversation with the administrators on the WP:AN/3RR page too. In the meantime, you have the burden of responding to the explantion for the removal of the attempt to spoil the well against Isherwood on talk, like any civil editor. Cognition 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America attempt 6

Anyone can close a VFD where the result is not delete, especially one with an obvious result like this. --SPUI (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My decision was the only possible one; there's no question about what the outcome was. --SPUI (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Name calling

SPUI was wrong to close the VFD debate which he participated in, but there is absolutely no excuse for calling him "buckwheat". Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not know what you meant by calling SPUI "buckwheat" on his talkpage. When I looked up "buckwheat" and "insult" on google and found for instance this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I see, then maybe you can explain what you did mean by calling SPUI "buckwheat"? From the tone of your notes to him, I have a hard time believing that it was meant as a compliment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

reverts

Please do not revert content on micronation without reference to the discussion, irrespective of if you are a sockpuppet or not. --Centauri 02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Centauri has been putting messages on people's talk pages for removing an advertisment for his micronation. He's already threatened to RFC me for removing his advertisment. A look at Talk:Micronation shows that Centauri is the only one that wants these micronations to be advertised; removing the list supports consensus. Samboy 03:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have evidence of me being a sockpuppet then by all means, publish it. I've heard the same silly story from a number of people and I've yet to see anyone produce any real evidence that supports the allegation. --Centauri 03:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

By "evidence" I mean IP checking and a complete correlation of editing patterns over time. --Centauri 04:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

oh no!

If this continues any longer I fear I may be in danger of developing a grudguing respect for you. --Centauri 07:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey I don't mind you posting crap on my discussion page, but it's generally considered bad form to edit someone else's user page. They're reserved exclusively for the owner's hysterical rants. Seriously though, take a closer look at what Samboy's playing at over a micronation. It's a grudge match, pure and simple, and his logic just don't add up. Personally I think he's a twit, and yes, I'm enjoying winding him up (it ain't hard to do), but I'm also a serious contributor to Wikipedia with a history of writing good content on a range of subjects, and when I see a twit making common cause with a known vandal like Wik, who's caused the project more grief than anyone else, to concoct a "consensus" designed to give the twit "ownership" of content that he obviously has issues with, it really gets my back up. This explains my reasoning more clearly. --Centauri 08:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot for being honest about enjoying winding me up. And, yes, I guess a part of me enjoys letting out agression in an old-fashioned flame-fest. But, you know, sometimes we take it to far. This is why I really appreciate Keith Tyler's input on the issue and why I asked for input from people who supported Mr. Cruickshank during last years arbitration mud-fest. Because I know that I'm too angry to see this objectively; this is also why I delete comments because I do want to end this flamewar sooner or later. Samboy 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, I agree that it was inappropriate for User:NoPuzzleStranger to push the "three revert" envelope; but it takes two to tango in a revert war. To Centauri's credit, he hasn't reverted after Calton removed the list in question. Samboy 23:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added a poll to Talk:Micronation for anyone who is interested. Hopefully, this will cause there to be a civil consensus. Samboy 08:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote Delete for the Wrong Reasons

You shouldn't have voted to delete the Irish-American Mayors page because of a revert war I had with Lapsed Pacifist. The page is a good and useful page. It should stay and not be deleted just because I created it. I hope you will change your vote because the page is not a bad page, it has nothing to do with a revert war between me or Lapsed Pacifist. Thank you. 64.109.253.204 20:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to reason with Lapsed Pacifist recently. Also, I don't think then your vote will be taken too seriously since you are voting for deletion because of the creator, you would vote to delete anything I created. 64.109.253.204 05:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You say you have no sympathy for me, but you are almost being mean. You are just trying to be cruel to me because of my problems with Lapsed Pacifist. You wouldn't care what page it was I created, you'd vote for deletion, which you've obviously shown is true on my talk page. 64.109.253.204 05:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with a list of Irish-American Mayors? You want to cause trouble with me. You aren't focusing on the actual subject. 64.109.253.204 20:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's been days since I've done anything with Lapsed Pacifist. 64.109.253.204 20:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Facts are you voted to delete Irish-American Mayors without giving reasons related to the topic, you only voted to delete because I created it, you only talked about my revert war with Lapsed Pacifist and nothing related to Irish-American Mayors. Because of this no one will take your delete vote seriously. 64.109.253.204 22:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You are also in violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks rule. 64.109.253.204 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I made another comment, why didn't you respond to that? And I have stopped making personal attacks towards Lapsed Pacifist or anyone else. Look at our current situation between me and you, I am handling myself with class. 64.109.253.204 23:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you owe me an actual explaination as to why you would vote to delete Irish-American Mayors, you haven't given one yet. 64.109.253.204 00:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to be reasonable and trying to see if you had any actual reasons for voting to delete or get you to change your vote. I never tried to anger you, I do not know what happened. You should remember wikipedia is not a democracy, your vote will only help me because it shows that people would vote delete not for the topic, but because of a problem with me. 64.109.253.204 03:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to handle myself with class, and I do not want to stoop down to your level, but you must be kidding about temper tantrum. I am not at all angry, I just want answers, you on the other hand, well, anyone can go see what you have been doing on my talk page. 64.109.253.204 03:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

{{Broadway-stub}}

I'm glad youve decided to participate in the New York Theatre WikiProject. Recently, a stub that I created for the project, {{Broadway-stub}}, has been nominated for deletion. I apparently neglected to follow the correct procedure in creating the stub, however I do feel the stub would be useful. If you would care to add your opinion to the deletion discussion, I would be most grateful. EvilPhoenix talk 02:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Engagement

You're doing a really ass-awful job of not further engaging the anon revert warrior. ;)

Yes, I would like for him to go away as well. Clearly that's not going to happen. You wanna start the RfC, or should I? —chris.lawson (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What for, Clawson? What have I been doing wrong? 64.109.253.204 03:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Selected...

Some of what you selected is debatable. Also the last one you selected was on the 15th, which is also a debatable one. I could probably show you several examples of you loosing your cool, all from today. Also, do you know what vote for deletion is about? You are good at selecting out examples, select the examples that show your misunderstanding of the vote for deletion process. 64.109.253.204 03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Anger Problems

I don't know why you have become so angry with me, I am not angry with you and I did not want you to become angry with me. You voted to delete for the wrong reasons, so I thought I'd point it out, I had no idea it would make you snap like this. 64.109.253.204 04:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Irish-American Mayors on Irish American page

Why should a link to Irish-American Mayors not be on the Iirsh American page, the page is not doomed as you say, and even if a page is considered for deletion, people are still free to edit that page. The deletion policy is something you don't understand. 64.109.253.204 05:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)