User talk:CalendarWatcher

• Archive 1 - moved 12 July 2008
• Archive 2 - moved 26 October 2008
• Archive 3 - moved 22 January 2009
• Archive 4 - moved 1 May 2010

Query about history page

I note the first activity on this account since the matter of who is operating it was raised, last year.

I lack the computer expertise to know how and why the history page has been blanked up until this activity today. Could whoever is operating this account please explain? Tony (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your False and Insulting Accusation

That's a pretty retarded response you sent to my talk page! I don't have something stupid like what you called a "Crusade Against Common..." (but wrong) "... Usage." Take your insulting responses to someone who gives a crap what you say.

Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do).

Calendar watcher, I don't have something stupid like what you called a "Crusade Against Common..." (but wrong) "... Usage." Take your insulting responses to someone who gives a crap what you say.

Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do). Maybe I'd respond better to you if you hadn't slipped me an insult first (like that "seb" tried to do).

MaxxFordham (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(Then you said something on my page about supposed "civility.")

Haha, cw, look who's talking about civility! Looks like you need to learn a lesson yourself, as we see others saying about YOU! I've seen those on your page. You know you need it. Next, no, you're wrong about what you think was my "misunderstanding" about the word "insult." That "seb" guy INSULTED me by saying something stupidly sarcastic like, "Haha, it gets better every time." You know that's an insult when it's retardedly laughing at something I said. So no, it was NOT a "correction." YOU please make a note of THAT. Finally, I have a RIGHT to remove section headers from MY talk page. YOU are NOT the "boss" of what someone does here, especially with their OWN talk page!

MaxxFordham (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous account(s)?

Hi CalendarWatcher. During your first days of editing on WP it is clear you were familiar with concepts such as: notability, over-linking, and using monobook.js. You also displayed extraordinary speed and facility in both editing articles, and in taking other editors to task concerning their edits (reverts, warnings, etc.). Could you please declare to the community any previous accounts that you have used at Wikipedia? Thanks for your help in this matter.  HWV258.  09:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In case you think I'm just trying to annoy you, here's a few (of many) interesting edits...

• On 6 Oct 2006 Arthur Rubin made an edit to the "May 11" article. Seven days earlier (On 29 Sep 2006) you made an edit to the same article.
• On 28 Nov 2006 Arthur Rubin made an edit to the "Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories" article. Six days earlier (on 22 Nov 2006) you made an edit to the "Talk:September 11 attacks#CONSPIRACY THEORIES" article.
• At Talk:2012/Archive_2#Merge_tag Arthur Rubin closely aligned the two accounts by agreeing with yourself.
• Up until mid-October 2009, there were 68 instances of Arthur Rubin reverting someone else's edit to a version created by yourself.
• Up until mid-October 2009, there were 34 instances of yourself reverting someone else's edit to a version created by Arthur Rubin.
• Up until mid-October 2009, there were 151 instances where Arthur Rubin and yourself edited the same article on the same day. Examples include: 2009 in music—both edited on 2009-02-26; User_Talk:64.193.88.7—both edited on 2008-09-05 (with edits within two minutes of each other); 1991—both edited on 2008-12-18 (with edits within one minute of each other!).
• At least 279 pages which both you and Arthur Rubin have edited at some point in time.
• The edit summary associated with an edit of Arthur Rubin's of "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher" is particularly curious.

Could you please explain the relationship between the CalendarWatcher and Arthur Rubin accounts? Are you friends? I'll explain why I'm so interested when you finally provide an answer to my original question. Thanks for helping out with this issue.  HWV258.  11:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility complaint posted at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#CalendarWatcher

I must ask you to observe WP:CIVILITY to all editors. Tony (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)

Hi, CalendarWatcher. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ServiceMagic

FYI, it has been nominated for deletion (3rd attempt). See link on article page. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smoluk

I have restored Adam Smoluk since it's prod was objected to. I recommend taking the article to Afd if you still believe it to be non-notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

E.cassimatis

Hello

Thanks for this. I am confused, this is a list of social networks and Goodwizz should be among the list? I have provided references and articles which demonstrate that this is a known social network. Why should not Goodwizz be on a list of hundreds of social networks? :E.cassimatis (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodland (film)

Hi. You did not finish Step III of the nomination for this, so that it was never transcluded in the daily log and has not been seen by those who scan those logs. I guess those who have commented came to it via the film deletion sorting list. I have put it into today's log, marked as a relist but with a note of what happened. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note to Calendar Watcher, April 2nd, 2011, from Malachy McGreevy

Calendar Watcher: Greetings. I am Malachy McGreevy. I am writing to ask you why you deleted Malachy McGreevy from the list of 1966 births, along with the link to copyrighted material shared freely on creative commons. I am the inventor of the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System. I happen to feel that the Atmospheric Generated Water Wildfire Prevention System is a significan leap of consiousness for humanity. From before the existance of hominids, wildfire has existed on earth. It pre-exists humanity. Therefore, we as a species evolved subject to wildfire. As a matter of fact, every species in existance on the face of the terrestrial earth has evolved subject to wildfire. This is the first claim made that wildfire can and will be bounded and demarcated. This isn't science fiction. For the first time in the history of the existence of mankind on earth, humanity will no longer be subject to wildfire; quite the opposite. Mankind can now determine where wildfire will be allowed and will not be allowed to occur. This is big stuff. This is an evolution of science. This is the reason that I feel inclusion of Malachy McGreevy in the wikipedia 1966 list of births is legitimate and worthy. There are many pop stars and athletes on there, I feel this is at least as important and noteworthy as their birth dates too. Very truly yours, Malachymcgreevy (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachymcgreevy (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

May 25th 1967 European Cup win

OK, since you seem reluctant to explain your persistent removal of the Celtic F.C. European Cup win in 1967 beyond "IT'S REDICULOUSLY TRIVIAL!!1!" or something to that effect, I'll offer you the opportunity to explain here why you think it to be trivial. The European Cup win in 1967 is a significant event for hundreds of thousands of people across the world, perhaps even millions. It is defiantly significant in Europe as they are the first Northern European team to win the competition which is the most prestigious prize in club football, a sport which is very important to European culture. It has even been argued that the European Cup win in 1967 represents a cultural event for the hundreds of thousands of Irish Catholic immigrants in Scotland; a group who are traditionally victims of institutional discrimination. Just because it's not a notable event to you does not mean it's notable to no-one. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD question

Given that the text in [1] is dated July 2010, which postdates the addition of the same words to Hiroaki Yura, there's a chance we have a reverse copyvio, so I declined the CSD, pending discussion with you.

If you specifically looked into this, and see why I am wrong, please let me know.

Otherwise, I suggest posting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you do not want to, let me know and I will.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On the dates, you bring up a good point that the site in question was concerning 2002 finalists. I don't know why the particular entry is dated July 2010. I hadn't done a Google search, and that may resolve it one way or the other. <y sole point is that CSD G12 is for unambiguous situations, and I think there are enough questions that it should go through a review by the experts at Copyright problems. Do you agree, or are you convinced it is unambiguous? If you think it is unambiguous, you can retag, but I'll let someone else delete, as I'm not yet convinced. If you think it is worth posting at Copyright problems, let me know whether you plan to, if not, I will. (I did read your response, but my head isn't clear yet, so I wasn't sure what you were proposing as a next step.)--SPhilbrickT 12:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)