User talk:Calton: Difference between revisions

; 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;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:02, 26 January 2014

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

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.
This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.
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.
There is no Rule 4.
Don't post when drunk. Seriously.
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.
Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
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.
Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.

Thank you. -- The Management.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

I know you scrutinize many users that cause trouble, usually ones that cause real problems. For that I also find this award very much in-line with what you've been doing.

But, I'm going to briefly talk of the recent edit (though there have been editS, that's right with a capital "s" made by you, all correct in judgment) you enacted upon my user:Yogurtforthesoul Wiki homepage.

Truthfully, today, for the first time if you will please forgive me I have finally learned that indeed you haven't edited and left me just ONE edit/talk; you've left me two really (though I made four total edits; one you edit was after I had revised my "homepage" three times, then I revised it again later on literally with no clue that I once had something there, which lead to the most recent--it was back in March of 2012 so don't feel sorry for not remembering it...I don't use that page very often).

I can easily see why in fact you did change after looking at your user page; I'll eventually redo mine, but I will be far more careful and obey the guidelines. I do however have a favor to ask... Do you have a quick link handy that specifically dictates what can and cannot go on a user:"x" page? It would be helpful.

I'm thankful for people like you that are around to keep Wikipedia clean and clutter free. I thought what I did was harmless, but I FULLY agree that if it doesn't follow the guidelines it must go and as you said (I posted some links to a few of my profile pages at various sites), "It is not a free web hosting service". This rings even MORE true with me as I am a very ardent contributer to Wikipedia's funds. It's one of the best things we have on the Internet and losing it would literally be an injury to all of us that use the Internet...a deep one.

Again, you are the type of person due to your diligence and your unwavering ability to still deal out "equal justice" no matter who it is or nor matter how much they will cry and throw virtual temper tantrums; though I'm MORE than sure you've been targeted in real life as well...

SO, take it from someone who you have edited, who you have rebuked...you ARE doing the right things. You are a great and valuable user for Wikipedia. So with that in mind I therefore deem you more than worthy of the Barnstar of Diligence.

Again, I will endeavor to not draw your attention again, in the wrong way. Have a good day.

Thanks,

    Kimball Eaton (user:Yogurtforthesoul)

PS- If you want to know more about me look up yogurtforthesoul--VideoSift is a good place to start and a good community, if you're looking for a new experience. It's a "meta-Youtube" basically acting as a "video-aggregator" from across the entire web, which allows for very tightly controlled quality and a thoughtful community... I hope I didn't waste your time and you appreciated this, if you didn't I really am sorry.

--I also hope I used the award system properly as I couldn't find any real rules on it immediately available. Though I TRULY believe whole-heartedly you deserve this! Yogurtforthesoul (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Bells

Jingle bells, jingle all the way! Oh what fun it is to ride on a 1 horse open sleigh! :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P2ewVviUh8 JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Kevin Surace

Could you check up on your nomination of Kevin Surace to AfD? In the article itself, there's a redlink for "this article's entry" in the AfD box. I clicked on the link in your edit summary, and got a very weird phenomenon: rapid juddering of the page, suggesting some kind of feedback problem. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Calton, seeing your recent post on Deicas' page I thought you might care to glance at a new essay about WP:AGF, which is a "behavioral guideline" that should perhaps be put out of its misery. Or at least the practice of linking to it, which is an umbrella for so much hypocrisy. I don't think most of the people who refer to it have actually read it. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I responded to your point

G'day Calton. I clarified what I meant by "friends" of Epeefleche. It's a bit buried in the drama, so here's the diff. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Calton. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

v/r - T P 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buckwheat

Don't call me "Buckwheat", that's a personal attack. Yworo (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for racist edit sumamries & general awful attitude towards others. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Giant Snowman 13:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're following the discussion at AN/I but just in case you're not, I've stated there that I will immediately unblock if you will give a simple undertaking not to use the term "Buckwheat" in future when referring to fellow editors. No explanation or apology is necessary; I'm uninterested in the past, and your assurance about the future will be good enough for me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just the "buckwheat" term - you should not use any term which is deemed offensive to other editors. That also includes any and all passive-aggressive nicknames you bestow upon those who cross you. Giant Snowman 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Calton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Seriously? Racist? This is beyond stupid. All right, I will not use the word "Buckwheat" -- no matter how bullshit the complaint is -- because some people find it offensive. Of course, being insta-blocked without even the chance to point out that the source should not be standard operating procedure]].

Accept reason:

Not the most gracious unblock request I've ever seen, but I believe Calton's assurance that this term will not be used again. Please consider carefully Calton whether other edge-pushing terms you might choose to use could also give offence. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block reinstated

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_use_of_derogatory_racial_epithets_in_edit_summaries_by_User:Calton, there is a consensus the good-faith lifting of your block by Kim Dent-Brown was at best premature. Your use of racist terminology in edit summaries is longstanding, and you were warned about this particular term back in 2005. If you want the block to be lifted, you will need to demonstrate an abandonment of the battleground mentality which you have been displaying.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Hi Calton. I've unblocked you per consensus at ANI. That consensus included the following provision: any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block. FYI and regards. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to add that I believe you when you said there was no racial intent in your comment, I've seen it in Farscape and other TV shows, and used it as a kid myself, with no racial overtones at all. I wouldn't use it here simply because I accept that in a global community, some people will be offended, for right or wrong. In some people's experiences, it is only used as a slur and frankly, not using it just reduces the hassle factor of having to explain myself. That said, toning back the summaries is always a good idea. You are an excellent editor and a great asset to Wikipedia in the work you do, it is a shame to see that overshadowed when you chose to let your frustration get the better of you. We all get frustrated. Hell, there are times I would like to reach through the monitor and choke the stuffing out of someone acting dumb. But I don't because it creates a bad atmosphere for everyone, and young editors in particular have trouble dealing with that kind of bluntness. I'm a stubborn old fool, but I have to remember that not everyone has skin so thick. Anyway, if I can be of help, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons are back in "List of Iron Chef America Episodes" article, against MOS

Late in February you were significantly involved in a discussion on this article's talkpage about following MOS by removing the flag icons. Someone waited a month and went back and put them in again today. Just a heads-up.24.168.19.34 (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

You got pissed off. I don't blame you. Please come back, your work is valued. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

external link

Re your comment here: when I look at that page's history, I see that some "Mike" is the author. I'd say that this link does not qualify per wp:ELNO #11 and #12. And per WP:OTHERSTUFF does it matter that sourcewatch is all over the place? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have removed the link again per the above reasons. Feel free to discuss on article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for using the term "Buckwheat" yet AGAIN. 2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Andalemono.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

I'm glad this has come up, since you may have been linking all geographical entities in sight. From about 2006 to about 2011, en.WP has gone through a change in practice concerning linking—of which the date-delinking arbcom case and the associated referendum, massively attended, were turning points. Sure, some items are in a grey area and require careful consideration or a well-honed judgement call by the gnoming editor; and there are occasionally debates. But NYC and professions (unless little-known) are not in grey areas.

MOSLINK discourages bunched linking and encourages specific rather than broad targets. For every city or country link, I usually think immediately of a more specific offspring or section link as superior; but then we come up against the "Easter-egg" issue, which is that piping a more specific link with a vague item ("Culture in South Africa" piped to "South Africa") is likely to be ignored by even more readers than an explicit, non-piped link. One solution is to create or add to a "See also" section, where you'd be mad to pipe anything. I occasionally do this as a service to readers as I unlink the vague ones and the dictionary-term links. Tony (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your harassing emails to me have been forwarded to the FBI as well as to Jimbo Wales. You CANNOT harass someone outside of Wikipedia due to a conflict on Wikipedia and NOT expect repercussions. Threatening to "cut you like a like a pig" is a legitimate death threat and as such, I will be pursuing all legal options. 2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boze

Greetings. As you contacted me, I checked to see what all of this is about. First, I am not the stated IP address. Second, I must say that I am puzzled as I thought this had been out to rest years ago. Third, we are absolutely on the same page with wanting to avoid stating anything untrue. That is why we are all here (well, most of us).

The unnamed IP editor is probably correct in that there are several untruths in his simple statement that make it libelous and inflammatory. Boze was never stopped by security nor was she painting signs. She "painted" (covered an arrow) on one sign. While somewhat minor distinctions, getting stopped by police/security lends this a gravity that is neither accurate nor deserved. The story reported by her colleagues (higher education is a very small world) was quite different, in that she was an action-oriented executive (even something of a hero to the students) solving a long simmering problem. But regardless, our job here is to report the facts, where they are of sufficient relevance and importance. As she was not stopped, arrested, charged, convicted, etc. I tend to lean on the side of letting it go.

Happy to hear your thoughts.