User talk:Calton

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

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

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. Don't post when drunk. Seriously.
6. All communication sent via the "E-mail this user" link is considered public, at my discretion. Reasonable requests for confidentiality will be honored, but the whole "e-mail is sacrosanct and private" argument I do not buy for one solitary second. Do not expect to use that argument as an all-purpose shield.
7. Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
8. 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.
9. Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
10. Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
11. Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.

Thank you. -- The Management.

September 2007

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:66.35.127.0, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I've already reported the troller to the admins and thought you might be a candidate too 'cause you're feeding him/her so much, but it wouldn't be fair to report you just because someone made you angry w/o warning you —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine so. Next time, just report the troll and save yourself some undue stress and demeaning conversation. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 01:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message

What? I'm just trying to help, and as for not being able to carry out my "threat", of course I can report you to the admins and I thought I was being nice by not doing it immediately! Okay, I'm starting to see 66.35.127.0's point of view... —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Db-meta

It's been standardised per WP:TS. All of the template messages used on articles are going to be (or have been) updated. --MZMcBride 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I know it doesn't have the image, but it's using the same red bar down the side as other deletion templates and the background color has been adjusted. MediaWiki:Common.css was recently updated, so you may need to WP:BYPASS and WP:PURGE to see the effects. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously not a client-side cache issue, but if you click here and you've cleared your browser cache and the template still doesn't look standardised, then I don't know what the issue is. It looks standardised to me; perhaps a screenshot would help. --MZMcBride 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello Calton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the trolling war with me, you and 66.35.27.0. The discussion can be found under the topic User:Calton. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

—Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 03:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2007

Calton, in response to this, I have absolutely no intention of ever defending any of my edits to you. But I'd like to give you some feedback. Your post breaks your own "Rule 9" - you know, the one about hostility being unwelcome. (Unless the rule applies only to others, and not to you. Hmmm. ...) My earlier experience of you was one of hostility writ large; and apparently nothing's changed in the past 18 months or so. When hostility emanates out of a person's every pore, it's a bit rich when they demand that others not act likewise. But then, defensiveness is your thing, apparently - so much so that it's your Wikipedia motto ("It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that"). Negativity begets negativity. Think about it. And maybe have a think about why you're so angry. Have a nice day. Oh, and further communication with me, on any topic whatsoever, will be unwelcome unless it's done in a reasonably courteous manner. Otherwise it will receive short shrift. Bye now. -- JackofOz 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

(From User talk:TenOfAllTrades')

Reality check: it's a lousy edit summary if it's not actually informative. And this one, you know, wasn't: it was used to describe blanking what looked like a perfectly valid entry. I've cleaned up thousands of similar edits on the date pages, and 99.9% are crap. If he doesn't want his edits mistaken for crap, he should leave an obviously accurate edit summary instead of forcing people to check their validity. It's called "wasting other editors' time", don't you know.

Oh, and the rule is "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Given JackofOz's actual track record in my encounters with him, assuming good faith is the last thing that should be done with him. Quite the opposite, really. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, what? What justifies your assumption of bad faith in this case? If Jack has been vandalizing articles with sneaky edit summaries (or engaging in any sort of subtle vandalism) I would like to know. That sort of behaviour – especially from a long-term contributor – would be extremely worrying, and the sort of thing that would tend to require investigation and administrator intervention. If he hasn't, then you owe him an apology. Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

? If Jack has been vandalizing articles with sneaky edit summaries (or engaging in any sort of subtle vandalism) I would like to know.

And if I had actually said any of what you just claimed, I would tell you about it. Since I didn't, that would be rather difficult. Are there any of bits of projection you wish to add to what I actually wrote? Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, perhaps?

Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here

Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here

As for blanking what looked like a perfectly valid entry, on one of a series of pages where 99.9% of similar edits are vandalism, using an edit summary that on the face of it didn't apply in the least, by an editor whose "long-term" contributions, in my experience, include edit-warring -- incorrectly, at that -- over trivialities? Thanks for the advice, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with what actually happened. --Calton | Talk 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When you revert an editor's edit with the edit summary "Undid actual vandalism by JackofOz...", it rather appears that you're accusing him of vandalizing an article. Since JackOfOz used the edit summary "removed vandalism" for his edit, it would appear reasonable – had your edit summary been correct – to conclude that Jack was indeed vandalizing articles with deceptive edit summaries. If it wasn't your intention to suggest that JackOfOz was vandalizing articles under the cover of misleading edit summaries, what exactly did you mean by your edit summary?

The fact that 2007 is a frequent target of vandalism is both absolutely true and entirely irrelevant in this case. The vandalism – "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" – that that article sees is very nearly wholly carried out by anonymous IPs and new, minutes-to-days-old vandalism-only accounts. I imagine I would be hard pressed to find any instances of vandalism to that article by any regular contributor; if such incidents actually occur with any appreciable frequency, I would be interested to know.

That you've had a disagreement with JackOfOz in the past is not a reason to revert his contributions without conducting any research. Leaving aside what you think of Jack, a cursory examination of the article history would have supported his edit. The line that Jack removed from 2007 had been added two edits earlier ([1]) by an anonymous IP whose contributions were conspicuously 'semi-subtle' vandalism. In reverting Jack, you restored a notice giving the nominal date of the 'death' of 1960s singer Mary Hopkin, who is still alive and well. The IP editor had added a date of death to that article, along with such valuable information as "Her favorite words are motherfucker and (fucking) lag" and that her last hit was the 2007 chart-topper I Hate The Angry German Kid.

What it looks like is that you reverted Jack based on your old grudge against him, and in the process restored vandalism to an article and accused a good-faith contributor of being a sneaky vandal. You didn't do any fact-checking on the material that you reverted. After another editor cleaned up your mistake, you left a snarky message on Jack's talk page blaming Jack for your lack of care [2]. You've continued to heap insults and criticism on Jack here. Regardless of what issues you've had with Jack in the past (your run-in was over a year ago, wasn't it?) he's been a courteous and positive contributor for as long as I've dealt with him. You, on the other hand, have always treated our requirement for civility as something that applies to other people. Follow your own ground rules—quit treating Wikipedia like a personal war, don't assume other editors are stupid, and stop treating everyone with whom you disagree (or have ever disagreed) with contempt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Thanks for the support, Ten. Calton, I've responded on my talk page to your earlier post. -- JackofOz 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Comments like;

1. "I don't take the advice of the dishonest, incompetent, fanatical, or hypocritical ^^ and certainly not the self-serving advice of spammers looking for an edge."
2. "What part of "enough of your trolling" was unclear, Troll Boy? Too many syllables? Sorry, I meant, were the words too big for you?"
3. "I say that you're a liar about your past, and coward for not revealing it."
4. "Your feedback, as usual, was as worthless, dishonest, and insincere as it's always been."

...and many others in your recent contributions are completely unacceptable. Wikipedia's no personal attacks, civility, and harassment standards apply to ALL contributors. The deliberate taunting and belittling of others, which you seem to engage in frequently, violates all of these principles. You need to radically adjust your behaviour and learn to interact politely with others here. Any certainty you might have that they are 'trolls', 'spammers', 'liars', 'vandals', or whatever else is irrelevant - you aren't allowed to abuse anyone here, and further actions of this kind will be stopped. --CBD 11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Hi. In this edit you replaced content that has been labelled as needing verification since February. As you know, everything here needs to be verifiable. In taking it out I was proceeding on the basis that if something cannot be verified in that kind of timescale it has no place here. What do you think? --John 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Of trolls and smelly old socks

When a user, on their second edit ever, posts a screed like that on WP:AN/I, with an edit summary "don't censor me", it's 99.999% likely to be a sock puppet of a banned user. He's trolling. I hope this helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

This user has been trolling us with the sexual humiliation/terrorism nonsense for days. It isn't acceptable to compare others to rapists, and I will therefore be removing his comment again. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton, in case you haven't met before, Picaroon is an Arbcom clerk. He knows what he's doing. Cheers, and happy editing! - Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, hold on, that doesn't have anything to do with this. I do happened to have run into this guy before, though. Calton, I've responded on my talk page. Picaroon (t) 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a comment request

Hi, thank you for tagging the Wouter Hamel article with {{articleissues}}. It got my attention and I have put some effort into improving the article. I do believe that some of the issues are resolved, but I do not like to remove the note of those issues myself, being the only significant contributor to the article. Therefore I ask you to take a look at the new version, and possibly comment on it. -- Pepve 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New Here

I know your lengthy introduction is meant to be funny, but please also remember that not everyone who is forced to visit your talk page is a “criminal”.

I am a (very) new Wikipedia (wannabee) “editor”. I created a new Wikipedia entry for a candidate in the upcoming Ontario elections. I am not here to “spam”, and I do not have a “conflict of interest”. What I am though, is very confused about how one is actually supposed to enter material and who calls the shots here. You are the third official looking editor who has commented on the material I created. The first Wikipedia official (JodyB) deleted my original entry, but after some discussion and advice back and forth decided to re-instate the improved version. Someone else (I forget who) also want(s/ed) to delete this entry and now you.

Here is what I saw before I entered my article (and decided to be bold):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!

Ottawahitech 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack via edit summary

With regard to your comments on User:Just James: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Just James ^T/C 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the next time you wish to remove something from my user page, discuss it first.--Just James ^T/C 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing due to persistent incivility and taunting of other users. Subsequent to the warning about this above you have continued this activity with comments such as;

"Was that simple enough, or will crayons and butcher paper need to be deployed?"

"Hint: sticking your fingers in your ears and and saying "I'm not LISTENING" is not a convincing rhetorical technique."

"Reality check, sparky" & "To recap: grow up." (this last in response to an objection about you having just previously told the user to "grow up")

These comments are clearly intended to mock and annoy those they are directed to. This deliberately inflammatory behaviour is extremely disruptive and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. Please reconsider your communications and strive to continue your work, which seems otherwise very positive, without belittling your fellow contributors. --CBD 12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New comment

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mcmcmill2 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Solutioneering

Hi, thanks for the info. I had a discussion with one of the other moderators and have pulled the plans for the time being. We can actually host this material in our own wiki but I wanted to assure people that the resulting efforts would be 'open-source' which is conveniently provided by your reputation and technology.

Let me know if you reconsider or want more info in order to make a decision. Probably best over the phone....