User talk:MegaMom

Invitation to join WikiProject Textile Arts

Hey, MegaMom! I've noticed that you've made helpful edits to a few articles that fall within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative project which aims to help improve articles about textile arts. I think you could be a wonderful addition to the project! To join, just add yourself to the list of participants, and then check out the Project Page to find ways to help.

If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page.

Best wishes – Dok^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stained glass

Hi MegaMom!

Thanks for your edits to Stained glass. I'm the main recent editor of that page. I've just incorporated your edits a bit differently, moving them up into the second paragraph. i've left out the bit about the solder because the process is explained in more detail further down. --Amandajm 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Task Force

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem witch trials. Join us!

Psdubow 21:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Megamom,

Thanks agian for being part of this important task force.

Becuase as you know, Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials is absolutely terrible. Most of the people involved don't even have biographies written about them. Plus, the biographies that do exist are horrible. They are ridden with vandalism, nonfactual information, spelling and grammar errors, and they do not have a Neutral Point of View. Most of them probably have to be re-written! Also, most of the existing biographies are stubs anyway.

Unfortunately, besides you and I, we only have five other members. And seven people alone can not do all of this work!

Is it possible that you could help me and other members of the Task Force recruit more members?

And together, we can hopefully improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials.

Thanks.

Psdubow 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Witch trails entry

Thanks for the heads-up on your response. Unfortunately, I'm also pretty new to Wikipedia, so I really wouldn't know how to go about properly adding an attribution\reference, either. I do think those additions would benefit from attribution to the published work, however. -ReverendTed 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, that's too bad. Your contributions, although few, led me to think that you were an experienced Wikipedian. Oh, well. I'll try to figure out the whole footnote process on my own. Thanks any way. MegaMom 06:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures?

FWD: There are so many wonderful renderings of key figures in these events, as well as many photos of historic sites and memorials available online. It seems that the introduction of more images would improve many of the biographies. Does anyone know anything about adding pictures to Wikipedia? It seems that much of this material would fall in the public domain. I'm unclear on the process of adding images. Any guidance would be appreciated. MegaMom 07:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This should help you: Wikipedia:Upload and Wikipedia:Images. - Psdubow 15:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Witchcraft article

Hello there, I've made some changes to the edits you recently made to this article, which I hope you'll be OK with. As the article is about witchcraft in its general, historical context (and not modern neopagan witchcraft only) I've reduced the overall length. I've also toned down the references to 'white witches' as I've never actually heard any of my fellow Wiccans refer to themselves this way. I suspect some newcomers to neopagan witchcraft do in fact use the term, but I think it's going too far to suggest that 'most' do. I also removed the sentence on 'black witches' as I have never, ever heard or read of neopagans using the term. If you have a reference for the claim, then of course you could cite this and re-insert the sentence. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay? I think your edits are great! Thanks so much for your help. As for the use of the terms "white" and "black" witches, I understand the point you are making. I have heard these terms used more in the context of simplified explainations provided to concerned outsiders or new comers. Drawing a distinction between their perceptions of witchcraft and actual practice can provide some measure of comfort. I'm not certain I could provide a citation for the whole black/white thing and it may not really be necessary. I'll give it some thought. Thanks again for your help. MegaMom 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SWTTF Newsletter

Hi MegaMom,

I was thinking about making a Salem Witch Trials Task Force Newsletter, that would be published once a month and it would be dleivered to all the members of the Task Force. It would sort of be similar to the Military History WikiProject Newsletter (latest Military History newsletter: June 2007 issue).

What do you think? Any thoughts?

Psdubow 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter August 2007

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

SWTTF Newsletter

The Salem Witch Trials Task Force Newsletter Volume I, September 2007
Project News We have just initiated a SWTTF Collaboration. It is an effort to bring a selected article in the scope of this Task Force to at least GA status. Our current collaboration is, our main article, the Salem Witch Trials. You may nominate an article for the next collaboration here. We have also just created a new unit, the SWTTF Anti-Vandalism Unit. This Unit concentrates on stopping, preventing, reverting, and reporting vandalism in articles within the scope of this Task Force. This Unit also focuses on cleaning up articles as well. Although all members of this Task Force are encouraged to revert vandalism, to specifically be a member of this Unit please sign yourself up here. The SWTTF Fall Requested Article Creation Drive is starting, This is a task for all wikipedians, whether or not they are a part of this Task Force, who wish to participate. Prizes range for the friendly cookie, to the SWTTF Barnstar and the grand prize of The Golden Wiki-Award! For Rules and more information go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force#The Fall Requested Article Creation Drive. Member News There has been some discussion about breaking off from the Massachusetts wikiproject. Please join in at the task force talk page If you know anyone who would be interested in joining the project please invite them.(but please don't spam random talk pages :P) We also welcome all are new members. Thanks for joining!!!	Messages from the Editors This is are first newsletter, and because of me its a day late. This first issue was not very well announced (which is probably also my fault :D), but for the next issue we encourage everyone to help write it. Also for the first time I delivered the newsletter personally, but for the future Grafikbot or betacommandbot hopefully will be doing this automatically. So please place your self in the right place here. And last but not least please be bold in your editing. Happy Editing! Yamaka122 ...:) 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 10 – November 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
Articles Needing Attention Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Cleanup needed Edward Bishop • Giles Corey • Sarah Good • Jonathan Corwin • Thomas Danforth • Tituba • Abigail Williams • John Willard • Mary Warren Requested articles Bartholomew Gendey • Nicholas Noyes • Deodat Lawson • Thomas Brattle • Robert Calef • Elizabeth Hubbard • Susannah Sheldon • Sarah Bibber • John Alden • Sarah Bishop • Mary Black • Mary Bradbury • Sarah Cloyce • Mary English • Phillip English • Abigail Faulkner • William Hobbs • Mary Lacy • Sarah Morey • Benjamin Proctor • Sarah Proctor • William Proctor • Abigail Hobbs • Deliverance Hobbs • Margaret Jacobs • Mary Lacey Jr. • Mary Lacey Sr. • Sarah Churchwell • Mary Eastey • Elizabeth Howe • George Jacobs, Sr. • Alice Parker • Mary Parker • Margaret Scott • Samuel Wardwell • Sarah Wildes • Lydia Dustin Expansion needed A Break with Charity • Abigail Williams • Ann Foster • Dorcas Good • John Hale • John Hathorne • John Willard • Jonathan Corwin • Martha Corey • Mary Walcott • Mary Warren • Mercy Lewis • Nathaniel Saltonstall • Rebecca Eames • Roger Toothaker • Samuel Sewall • Samuel Willard • Sarah Good • The Witch House • Wilmot Redd • 1692 • Ann Putnam, Jr. • Betty Parris • Bridget Bishop • Edward Bishop • Elizabeth Proctor • George Burroughs • Giles Corey • John Proctor • Rebecca Nurse • Samuel Parris • The Crucible (film) • Thomas Danforth • Tituba • William Stoughton
Contributors to this Issue Psdubow (Lead Editor) Yamaka122 (Sr. Editor) Cocoaguy (Jr. Editor) Grafikm and Grafikbot (Distributors)
We couldn't do it without you!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Horticulture and Gardening Collaboration of the Month

The WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

Crop circle Flora Philosophical garden Pizza farm Straw maze

To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

Wassupwestcoast 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Departure of User:Calton

Calton hasn't left, Wyatt. Cut back, yes; left, uh uh. Oh well. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not Wyatt. I had never even heard of Wyatt until I googled your name in connection with cyberstalking. http://www.fireflysun.com/book/Berkeley_Wikipedia_cyberstalking.php It's amazing how many people on the Internet seem to have complaints about your behavior. Honestly, my husband and I are seriously considering creating a website dedicated in part to publicly compiling complaints against you. Rest assured, that if we do, we will go out of our way to expose every bit of personal information we can about you. It seems a healthy dose of your own medicine might be the only thing that might get through to you. Attempting to destroy strangers reputations on the Internet is just wrong. Your behavior is cruel, callous and unecessary, particularly when you target minors for humiliation. It's easy to behave in a cruel and heartless manner when you are anonymous. I suspect that it would be very unpleasant for you to be held publicly accountable for your conduct. You seem to be deliberately messing with people's careers. Does your employer know how many hours a day you spend editing Wikipedia? How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot? I think you should consider that. You must have some idea as to how many people you've angered on Wikipedia and other sites. Imagine if there was a whole website where they could all tell their side of the stories. You are wrong about my identity. You were wrong in your assessment of my son. How many more people have you been wrong about? How many innocent people are out there who have legitimate complaints against you? I seriously hope that you take a break and reconsider your course of conduct. MegaMom 07:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, MegaMom. Please don't type things like "we will go out of our way to expose every bit of personal information we can about you". It's not conducive to a collaborative project. Why not try being collegial toward all editors, and, where that's not possible, just ignoring them. (It's what I try to do.) Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! Going out of your way to expose personal information about people and humiliate and embarrass them on the Internet is very wrong - and against Wikipedia's rules. That is exactly the point I am trying to hammer home to Calton. Thank you for pointing out the fact that it just isn't conducive to a collaborative project. I will point out, additionally, that interjecting yourself into a talk page discussion that has nothing what-so-ever to do with you might also be considered bad form. Thanks and have a nice day! MegaMom 07:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I'm working on my form. Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter December 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Textile Arts newsletter

Happy New Year! WikiProject Textile Arts is starting 2008 by initiating a project newsletter. The project had 7 new articles at Template:Did you know in December and we hope to see more of you in 2008. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Kate Mulgrew do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ageekgal (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what it is you are objecting to. Can you please cite, with specificity, what section of Wikipedia's policy you are referring to? Readers of the Kate Mulgrew article may well find her fansite to be a useful link for information and further reading. What exactly are you objecting to? Sorry, I just don't get whatever point it is you are trying to make. MegaMom (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the link regarding External Links contained in the warning on your talk page, specifically the section on Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions on linking linking restrictions. Fansites violate the copyrights of others and are, for that reason among others, not permitted as links here on Wikipedia. Further, the site you linked is "under construction" and redundant to Kate's official site. The note I left on your talk page is a Wikipedia-standard warning template for spam/inappropriate links. - Ageekgal (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see - thank you! I didn't realize that fansites were not allowed. I wasn't meaning to break any kind of guidelines or anything. I didn't understand why anyone would be deleteing something so useful to readers. Thanks for your assistance. Best wishes for a Happy New Year! MegaMom (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Sorry if the warning template sounds a little curt. I didn't write it, and it's meant to be concise/to-the-point, but I realize it can kind of be a mish-mash of stuff if you haven't encountered it before. No harm, no foul. Happy New Year to you, as well! - Ageekgal (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User:Calton

Good afternoon. This is just a courtesy note to advise you of the above thread, in which you were mentioned in connection with diffs involving Calton (talk · contribs). You may wish to review the thread, at your convenience. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

archived here

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the kind words. I am unfamiliar with Caltn, so I don't quite get the irony , but I'm always happy to make articles better. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from Calton

Given that I just protected List of fictional ducks due to an ongoing edit war there in which you're a participant, please be aware that I find it a somewhat...unfortunate...coincidence that you've shown up at Jack Sarfatti, an article that has been edited extensively by one of your opponents.

If I see you editing – for the first time – any other articles frequented by Calton, I will block you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I am somewhat dumbfounded by your message. There appears to be some confusion here. My sole edit to the Jack Sarfatti article had nothing what-so-ever to do with Calton. I was doing some research about Wikipedia Cyberstalking victims for an article I’m writing and came across his name. I had a look at his biography and made ONE edit to it that is entirely consistent with Wikipedia’s policies regarding biography’s of living people.[1] I had no idea that Calton was a “regular” editor to the article.(Although somehow I'm not surprised!) Now that I look, I see that he made one edit to the article back in November and another back in July I’m really not sure that makes him a regular editor to the article. As near as I can tell, the information I addressed in my edit was not even contributed by Calton. Has he stalked me to the page and reverted my legitimate edit? Yes, he has. I am not following Calton, he is following me – as seen here and in this blind revert to this edit. Why are you leaving me a warning and not warning Calton? I have simply reverted some talk page vandalism by Calton, as numerous other editors have also had to do. Honestly, I don’t understand why administrators are not reverting his page blankings. Isn’t that vandalsim? Aren’t unsourced defamatory statements about living people, such as the revision I made to the Jack Sarfatti article supposed to “be removed immediately” in accordance with WP:BIO? Is there some rule that I don’t know about, whereby, people who disagree with Calton are not allowed to edit any articles he has edited? I am confused. I, sincerely, am not trying to make any kind of trouble here. I am legitimately concerned that "Calton" is using Wikipedia as a means of slandering and harassing people and I believe he needs to be exposed and stopped. As I see it, he is in clear-cut violation of Wikipedia’s policies. You leave me a warning when I have done nothing wrong – what are you doing about him? MegaMom (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Ehrenfels

Instead of hurling false allegations of sock puppetry at other editors, why not try abiding by Wikipedia’s rules?

As far as I'm concerned, I follow Wikipedia content and usage rules consistently, while you -- and probably also using a smattering of TOR nodes and anonymous IPs -- to blindly revert another editor's edits, are not. Please don't insult my intelligence with this talk of following rules while you self-servingly pick and choose which ones you follow, Wyatt. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not Wyatt, nor have I edited under any TOR nodes or IP's other than the one attached to my account. You're behavior is uncivil and inappropriate. MegaMom (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And what I have reverted is called VANDALISM. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:TALK or I will most certainly be bringing this matter up the chain of command. Consider that a friendly warning. MegaMom (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And I suggest you familiarize yourself with the actual meaning of vandalism before accusing someone of it. Say, doesn't that fall under the civility guidelines you claim to uphold?

Again, I am not Wyatt - Yeah, your sudden appearance echoing his beliefs, obsession with me, prose style, and intimate knowledge thereof while jumping in with false accusations concerning me and blind stalking of my edits is SO coincidental. --Calton | Talk 06:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, last I checked PAGE BLANKING and reposting old deleted messages on talk pages was considered vandalism. And it IS a coincidence. Go file a report - I'm not Wyatt and I have no affiliation with him. Go ahead and have me checked out - you are mistaken. Yes, I've seen Erhenfel's Cyberstalking Site - as thousands of people probably have. I have also read the very unflattering material available about you on the Encyclopedia Dramatica and numerous other sites. Whether you would like to admit it or not, you have made yourself NOTORIOUS all over the Internet for harassing people. And as for Erhenfel's or anyone else having an "obsession" with you, I would suggest the reverse is more likely the case. Famous people are seldom "obsessed" with unknown people. If you actually read the Cyberstalking article instead of just blindly reverting it, you might learn a thing or two. No one is "stalking" you. You are not the "victim". The people you have libeled and harrassed are the victims.MegaMom (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, last I checked PAGE BLANKING and reposting old deleted messages on talk pages was considered vandalism -- Really, the last time you checked? Where, pray tell, is this oh-so-specific wording, person-who-is-not-Wyatt?

Famous people are seldom "obsessed" with unknown people Famous? Wyatt? Wyatt Ehrenfels is a crackpot who has to use a vanity press to print up his bilge, and his "fame" is purely imaginary on his part. As for the rest of your hyperbole -- thousands of people are reading some crackpot's vanity website? I'm notorious "all over the Internet"? -- you need your Reality Meter recalibrated. --Calton | Talk 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)