User talk:Calton

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)

Trying to impart common sense into the clueless is a tough job, one which you do particularly well. [1][2][3]. As such, you the very first of Raul's common sense bricks. Raul654 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

um....you deleted an article within fifteen minutes of its creation

while i was posting a message on the talk page, please let it be so that it can be developed.Carstenboswell 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell

James Joyce as an atheist

It's interesting how some people love to just add categories without bothering to provide any useful information in the article itself. I'm pretty sure Joyce would object to just being branded a simple atheist.

While there is no doubt he abandoned the Catholic church in the late 19th century, it's up for debate whether he was an atheist in the strictest definition. He just preferred disdain towards discussion of religion in general after his break with Catholicism, without ever making a distinct statement, although he made cryptic ones - in later life, when asked when he left the Church, his reply was "That's for the Church to say."

It's a testament his unwillingness to even discuss the matter that a few terse statements like these, all in the first 66 pages of the book, and the somewhat amusing fact that whenever he'd start fighting with Nora she'd use the threat of having the children baptized as her final trump card, is all there is about Joyce's religious outlook in Ellmann's massive 900 page biography. - dharmabum 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered that your interest was just in the cat tag... thought you'd like some ammunition in case the tagger turns it into a revert war. :)

While I was a science major so have never been forced to study him (outside of a reading of "Araby" in a first-year English course), I acquired an interest in Joyce years ago. The ending of "The Dead" is one of the greatest in Eng. lit, and I've read Portrait a half-dozen times... I loved Ulysses, although I admit it's at times a chore and a good book of annotations is crucial... but Finnegans Wake. I made an effort to actually read it this year. I made it about a third of the way through (comprehending maybe 10% of what I read) and had to stop; it's almost like an exercise in cognative dissonance, it does funny things to your brain. It's wise to be scared of it. - dharmabum 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mortimer Gerald Bredon Wimsey, 15th Duke of Denver

You, sir, are a spoilsport. I put Category:Fictional dukes on the article, after all. ;->

He's at least as important as several of the real nobles we have articles on; but the information is the Duchess and their relations, whom I will be getting to in the next day or so. Septentrionalis 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See what you think now. Septentrionalis 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

{{nonsense}}

Hello there! Thanks for the good work on the "clean-up duty" as you put it. May I suggest if you avoid tagging "nonsense" with {{nonsense}}. This tag is specific for Patent nonsense. You may conside {{db-empty}} instead. Cheers! --ΜιĿːtalk 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch wives

I dont think it's a candidate for speedy deletion, not under the "no context" banner. Thethinredline 08:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... It's been deleted despite my objections. Nevermind Thethinredline 08:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics

Hi Calton,

I see you've marked out this page for speedy deletion. It was originally deleted as it was considered spam - I have no idea what the page looked like in that iteration, but I'm curious as whether you think is there now actually constitutes spam? If you look at my contribution history and my messages on the Talk page, you'll see, I hope, that it's part of a wider creation of information on the Seduction Community which various guys have been updating for a while.

My questions for you then: Are you marking it for speedy deletion because you currently think the page is spam, or is there some deeper reason I'm missing?

Thanks

WoodenBuddha 13:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As Shimgray mentions on the talk page, it doesn't fall under CSD G4 - the same content has not been reposted, like you suggest. I'm sorry you feel the entirity of Wikipedia's knowledge of the Seduction Community falls under 'thinly veiled spam' - are you intending to similarly mark all other commercial enterprises which have substantial media coverage and pass the google and alexa tests, as spam? I await Microsoft's speedy deletion tag with glee!

WoodenBuddha 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my last comment about David Cross

Carlton, I did provide a citation on your talk page [4] yesterday (your most recent reverting edit summary was rv - I'm sorry, but what part of "not important enough for the article, not important enough for a category (even assuming its true)" was unclear? What part of "cite" was unclear?). Please stop reverting this; if you still believe it is something that you believe should not be in the article, please make your case on Talk:David Cross. If you have a problem with the Category itself, there are proper channels for you to express that; deleting references to it is not one of them. If you continue to revert it, you would be in violation of The Three Revert Rule. Thanks -- MicahMN | μ 17:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pending arbitration

Please note that I have added a charge against you to the pending arbitration to which you are a party, regarding your alteration and deletion of statements I have made in that case. Monicasdude 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)