It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.

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

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. Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
6. 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.
7. Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
8. Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
9. Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.

Thank you. -- The Management.

I disagree with your assessment that I am abusing this project as a personal web space. In fact, I've contributed useful photographs and other items for inclusion into the wikipedia project. Please do what you need to do to return my jepler user page to its original framework. I appreciate your speedy attention to this matter as I see my page is no longer accessible. Thank you.

MASSIVE update on the page. More information than you could want, so I think that will make everyone happy and there will be no need for the AfD tag, which I have taken down as I can't find a corresponding page to go with it. If any further updates are needed to the page, please let me know. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why, after the massive update, that the WRAJ page was still deleted? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted at the AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRAJ Internet Radio. If you object to this, you can start a deletion review about it. Metros232 11:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was probably something truthful in the above statement, somewhere, but I'm not bothering to go look for it since it's objectively false in every sense. It's a repost, nuked speedily after an AFD, which Orangemonster2k1 can't be ignorant of because he cast the only "Keep" !vote. Nice doesn't work with me, being honest does. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton,

It wouldn't kill you to be nice and honest, you know. :) You're far to valuable to this encyclopedia to lose, but, come on, he's just a newbie who has obviously rubbed you the wrong way. I've advised him not to remove AFD tags, and hopefully that will be the last of it. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls stp. f y cntn t vndls Wkpd, y wll b blckd. Wll-srcd mtrl bt lgsltv vts, nd prtclrly bt th thrng f n mndmnt t lgsltn tht pssd 400-3, s nt "trv." Dltng t wtht frst gnng cnsnss n th Tlk pg s vndlsm. Pls stpDino 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply

--GordonWatts 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this reply to your buddy, Proto, I asked him how my link was any different thant the others, and indeed I make good arguments that will stand under the light of day.

If you could consider this... --GordonWatts 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (→Your expertise - my bad - typo) --GordonWatts 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a limit on the number of links that could be included in a user page. I've removed them now.

Bonnie Ventura 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Bonnie Ventura[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I am restructuring the Australian section of my website, and as a result all Wikipedia links to Australian elections at my website will now need to be changed (or deleted). Since I am cutting back my involvement at Wikipedia it won't be me that changes them - someone else will need to. Adam 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you voted on the previous AFD (here) I thought you may wish to vote again on the article's second AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination). Cburnett 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to consider reverting your last to this page. There has been an extreme amount of discussion on the BLP and weight issues, and if you look at the talk page, you'll see that the version you've rv'ed from has the most support. <<-armon->> 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk. Do you want me to paste my response here so you can get a centralized discussion? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? I see it as a harmless joke, and, hey, I've eaten over 150 brains already. For now, I'm putting it back up, unless you give me a good reason to keep it off. - Bagel7 09:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS on valentines day too, ouch

You of all people have no business commenting on civility. Mr. Ray Lopez 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was only banned for trolling, not sockpuppteering or any other creative thing you can come up with in order to justify your "crusade." Mr. Ray Lopez 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, comparing me to Al Capone. Hrrm, name one sockpuppet that I have done, or name anything other than get on your bad side I have done and I would gladly leave the project. Can't think of one, can you? Mr. Ray Lopez 05:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are incorrect. Those accounts were never mine, I never signed up for those. I either edited under "Ray Lopez" or IPs. Go ahead and request a check user if you want; judging from the check user results, those accounts were linked to Wikipediasleepercell1 and not Ray Lopez. Nice try though, and thank you for playing. Do not launch any further personal attacks at me again unless you have your facts and your house in order. Mr. Ray Lopez 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. You're actually quite wrong. I'm sorry that you're so blind sided by the fact that you desire to be right so strongly. Perhaps you should talk over your passive aggressiveness issues with a psychotherapist vice taking it out on your "enemies" online. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for other users to communicate with one another and it is specifically stated on WP:TALK that the only types of edits you may remove are

1. Your own
2. Personal attacks
3. Threats.
4. Vandalism

None of those were the case, and the fact that you reverted such changes without an adequate edit summary makes you impeding the editing process. I'm not trying to make an issue out of this or report you to anywhere but you plainly misunderstand how talk pages are to be used. What I'm capable of enforcing is entirely unrelated to the fact that what you were doing was outside wikipedia's stated policies and should be stopped. So please stop reverting other user's edits to your talk page. If you feel it is absolutely necessary, please use an edit summary to explain why. i kan reed 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since I need to be "spoon fed" I thought I'd go extract the relevant text from the linked page

• "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning."

To my knowledge reversion counts as editing. It's not twisting the meaning at all to assert that deleting text is on par with changing it's meaning. It's uncivil to silence users you are having a dispute with, however wrong they may be in that dispute. i kan reed 07:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to do this point for point, because pendantry is the only appropriate answer for pendantry., 1. I DID NOT mean I felt I was incorrect about my statements regarding policy. It clearly states in the very first line of WP:TALK (emphasis mine)

• The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page

that's plainly stated for not just being for articles as you claimed. I was trying to avoid discussing policy because that can get in the way of meaningful communication. It was quite close to being libelous to accuse me of having false motivations in this matter. (Note: this is not intended as a legal threat, just a note that you went out of line in what you were accusing me of).

2. I did not "side" with anyone or anything. I also asked Mr Ray Lopez to reconsider his course of action because his "personalized", if you will, warnings do not match the neutral and calm tone of standard wikipedia warnings. The 3RR warning was directed at both of you. This was an understandable mistake on your part because it is a natural element of human psychology to attach sides to those you interact with. Please understand that I have no interest in this matter besides preventing inappropriate edit wars and reversions of talk page material.

3. Your links don't seem to tell me much of anything about why you reverted those particular edits. You make some accusations but that doesn't really seem to relate at all to the reverted material. They seemed to qualify as warnings regarding your behavior on wikipedia, and hence my involvement(I watch for negatives on user talk because frequently vandals remove content from their talk pages to avoid being blocked). And since it really does matter to you, yes I apologize for interefering, as it is a great deal of trouble for you over what must seem a quible. However informing users of policy regarding their actions still seems necessary to me. i kan reed 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a test to get up for in 8 hours and I can't address all of your concerns at this time, as I need sleep, however, I would like to indicate that you are engaging in wikilawerying(essay not policy) and I merely request that you reconsider your course of actions towards this user "Mr Ray Lopez". i kan reed 08:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a couple of days of interaction - I think it's an entirely pointless endeavour trying to get behaviour change via discussion. Clearly, the idea is to wikilawyer everyone to death. I'll fully support any action you wish to make in regards to a community ban (I think limited to those TS pages) should do. --Fredrick day 13:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Pleased to be of assistance. Will 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you listed Nottingham Malaysian Society for deletion. Can I ask you to also take a look at the related Nottingham Malaysian Games and Nottingham Malaysian Society, and also NUOC? I think these pages are also candidates for deletion, but as I am currently at the university, I would rather not involve myself with them. If you could look over the articles and take action as you see fit, that would be great. Thanks for your time. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"having the subject insisting on this as some sort of expression of his worldview brings up all sorts of POV and COI concerns" - have you seen Michael Netzer (in particular the history) and Mr. Netzer's userspace? It's frustrating. I feel that he is totally violating at least the spirit of WP:COI, but I don't know how to go about it. The article is totally unreferenced and is largely anecdotal. Would you consider reading my post on Mr. Netzer's talk page and offer advice how I might talk with him? Or do you think there is even a problem? --Iamunknown 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the best way to talk is to do it directly. I did not write that article and the minor edits I did there were merely factual issues such as dates and such. The article is referenced in that the entire story appearing there reverberates within the interviews and web sites cited. If there is a specific issue which you feel is unreferenced and anecdotal, I'm very willing to consider your point of view, if you point it out. MichaelNetzer 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new article.
If there is a mistake on the grammar, I am wished to point out to you. Tokyo Watcher

Calton, I appreciate that Gordon's style is at times very annoying. I also have gathered that he still doesn't seem to quite 'get' how things work around here. Nevertheless, there's no need to be gratuitously rude. Calling names ([1]) is never useful.

If you want to comment on the problem, do so—but do it politely. If you can't handle that, then ignore Gordon. While he's obviously disconnected with how he ought to comport himself around here – and he may well end up restricted or banned for it – his actions are clearly meant in good faith. Shelve the rudeness or do something else for a while. Poking Gordon with a stick until he overreacts is not a good sport. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your exhaustive and thankless devotion to reminding folks that wikipedia is not MySpace. Thanks for all the work in the proposed deletion pages. NeoFreak 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentatope of 70 Spheres Barnstar Presented to this user for enforcing the fact that Wikipedia is not your Geocities home page. Salad Days 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Calton. I and two other administrators asked Orangemonster2k1 to stay away from you. He said he would, and then, presumably as a gesture of goodwill, he struck out the remarks he had addressed to you at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Don't you think, under the circumstances, that it would have been better for you not to have responded to them?[2] Also, do you have to go after him so aggressively? While I would certainly advise him gently that it would be healthier not to keep your page on his watchlist, he is not prohibited from doing so, and his recent posts to User talk:Salad Days were not in any way abusive towards you (I had also seen and wondered about that prod tag), so you really do not have the right to be so aggressive, demanding that he take your page off his watchlist now, and replacing your message on his page after he had removed it (something that is generally considered harassment).[3]

You're dealing with a vulnerable user, who suffers from Aspergers and gets upset easily,[4] who had apologized, and had crossed out his comments, and whose subsequent posts had nothing malicious about them. Your recent behaviour has been rather Gordon-ish, I feel, in that you are going round responding to everything, instead of just gracefully letting go. But an important difference is that Gordon's posts, while they annoy a lot of people, do not show a lack of kindness. If you can't control your anger, a wiki-break would be appropriate.

You are a valued contributor here, and I often see evidence that you are working to improve the encyclopaedia. It's very unfortunate that you seem to have the idea that it's okay to trample on people and treat them with contempt if they don't match up to your idea of the kind of people who deserve respect. There is nothing in our AGF or CIV policies/guidelines that would justify your approach. It would be nice if you could try patience and gentleness and respect first, and only start (reluctantly) calling for blocks and bans if you found that they didn't work. Please think about that. Musical Linguist 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to everything, but will just pick out a few points.

Given that he a) lied about "staying away"

I don't think it's helpful to use the word "lied" without very good evidence. It is possible for someone to say that he'll stay away, and then change his mind. A lie would be if he edited your page anonymously, and then claimed that he hadn't made that edit.

How, exactly, is enabling stalking the least bit helpful

I am not enabling stalking in any way. I have already asked Orangemonster to stay away from you. And I'm extending the same request to you. Please stay away from him.

And yet you did nothing. Why was that?

Salad Days fixed his error shortly after I saw it. I find your question odd, almost as if it's an accusation. Orangemonster tried to do something, and you were extremely abusive to him as a result.

What part of the word "stalking" is giving you trouble?

Calton, may I point out that I know a lot about what stalking means, probably a great deal more than you will ever know. And I can tell you that to use that word about Orangemonster's at worst irritating behaviour is quite frankly insulting to victims of real stalking.

Wikipedia is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby.

The question is, can you edit without the aggressive behaviour?

And perhaps you need to have a look at this before making claims about "lack of kindness".

I don't see that the Passive-aggressive article has to do with my point that you need to try being kinder to people who annoy you.

it's long past the point of being acceptable.

And how much politeness and respect did you show before it went past that stage?

Musical Linguist 04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find all these talk pages that meet CSD G8? Thanks for tagging them!--Kchase T 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor Calton: Thanks to you, and to editors Will Beback, Jersyko, and Zantastik for salvaging what was a huge train wreck at the article on 1957 Georgia Memorial, etc. I deal with this kind of thing all the time in the Wikipedia articles on taxation (tax protesters always wanting insert wildly false, unverifiable POV original research) and to some extent in the article on the Federal Reserve System. Yours, Famspear 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		You have been doing a fine job recently tagging user pages which no other person (maybe some I don't know) would ever have thought of nominating for deletion. I am awarding you the the da Vinci Barnstar because you are enhancing Wikipedia by removing useless pages. :). Keep it up. Parker007 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY...EXACTLY DID YOU REQUEST A DELETION OF MY PAGE???? I did not overstep any boundaries and my page was a harmless autobiography for my clients to read upon the suggestion that i would produce something for them. It was a simple producers autobiography, not out of context. Actually, it was quite similar to those of other music producers and acclaimed song writers. There is NO reason you shouldve requested a deletion of my page. Do you even know who I am? I am emailing wikipedia to ask why they listened to such an ill-advised request. I will take this as far as it needs to be taken, or simply repost everything that was there to begin with. This action of yours was unthoughtout, and a bad decision on your part. You have no business doing what you did, and its obvious your are simply out to make people mad. Well, quite frankly, its not going to slide this time. I read all rules in wikipedia before joining and creating my page, and there was NOTHING wrong with it. I even double checked. There was no foul language, and nothing out of line. This utterly disgusts me. Is your whole life Wikipedia? Do you do anything else with your time? Do you have a job? Those are rhetorical questions so please dont answer them, i dont care. I already know most the answers anyway. Please, leave me and my page alone. You have no reason to be meddling in my affairs. I know MANY people in high places, and if you would like to start a dispute, i would love that also. Hey, lets get some lawyers involved. That'll be fun. Thanks for the wasted time -James.