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 19:32, 13 December 2019

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 48,219,126 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

User talk:AndreyVorobyov

Posting further gibes at him is disruptive. The dispute had been dealt with and is over, and you need to move on too. So stop it and leave him alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits, refusal to drop the stick, and escalating a dispute that has already been closed. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say you weren't warned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the comment (the "trolling") that was left over from the dispute was fine, but the dispute had already been closed after that, he had been warned about his behaviour, and he had moved on (and possibly left Wikipedia altogether). Heading over to his talk page two days later, trying to start the fight up again, and escalating the aggression with personal insults was absolutely not acceptable. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not fighting petty schoolboy battles, remember? Anyway, you know how to request unblock if you wish, but I would oppose unblocking you until you have regained a sense of perspective and agree to stop with your escalating anger and aggression. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have also been grossly uncivil with another editor recently...

No matter what the content dispute, those are are all examples of unacceptable incivility and personal attacks. I don't know why you are acting so aggressively these days, but it has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, you may want to keep an eye on this page. One wonders how this guy is only being blocked for 31 hours for that sort of language. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ILoveTheVoice

Why did you remove all of the contest from his page? ILoveTheVoice II (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia user pages are not free web space for you to host your own fictitious material, and I have now deleted your new user page per WP:U5. Please see WP:User pages to learn what user pages are for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google LLC

Hello, I wanted to let you know that it is common practice to state the legal company name in the article, despite it being a common name or not. Common name is used for titles, not the start of a heading. You can refer to other company articles such as Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon (company). Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for a repeat of the aggressive interpersonal behaviour that led to your previous block. Further similar behaviour will lead to further sanctions, and if I'm the one who deals with it your next similar offence will result in at least a one-month block. To echo what I said last time, no matter what the content dispute, the edit summary "Again: no one left you in charge of ANYTHING, so no one is taking any orders from you. Suck it up, buttercup" is absolutely unacceptable. You must (in fact will, one way or another) stop the aggression and insults.

You know how to appeal this block if you wish to do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on some more of your recent edit summaries, I see escalating aggression, including sarcasm, "WTF", general snark, before reaching the level of outright personal insult. You really need to learn when to stop and step back. If you're in a bad mood, feeling frustrated, or whatever, the best thing to do is stop editing Wikipedia for a while. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: And you need to grow up, Sheriff Respect-Mah-Authoritah. A bad block, of course, but that's a typical overreaction from you. Maybe you should try paying occasional attention to things that are actually happening instead of running interference for bad editors. --Calton | Talk 09:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know how to request an unblock if you disagree with my reason for the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting edits

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - I wont hestitate to request for an administrator's attention if you decide to continue, you seem to have a colourful history in reverting edits and being disruptive. I suggest you stop being aggressive. The talk page exists for a reason. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism copyvio

Can you explain it to me how is that copyvio when there is proper attribution?Sourcerery (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(passer-by) @Sourcerery It's because the copyright rules are tightened in wake of Articles 11 and 13 of the European new copyright legislation. Also since there is an ongoing "constitutional crisis" caused by a WMF ban you have to be extra careful these days. 202.126.216.142 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

When discretionary sanctions are in place (WP:ARBAPDS), and there's no consensus for a change, the status quo is to be retained until a consensus is met. You should self-revert. Loganmac (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your undelete at the Ty Cobb page

Dear User:Calton. Thank you for sparing me one more maddening escalation toward an edit war with not only one but two different editors, applying common sense both to the congruence of the image and caption as currently mated and the context the latter provides.

That photo in particular shouts for context. Initially I thought it was a pre-game or Spring Training picture, given how empty the stands were behind the players. It's arresting - even moreso in the un-cropped version of the photo here:[1]. The fact is, it screams for a whole lot more than can reasonably be provided. The Senators only averaged 7,500 fans a game in 1924, yet they were 4th in AL attendance (with just 584,000 total). And were by no means the "Florida Marlins" of their day. In fact, they were en route to their first and only World Series championship.

I don't know the specific team standings on Saturday, August 16, but it would not have been a "throwaway" game, as the pennant race ended up tight (with the NY Yankees just two back) and the Sentaors' opponent Detroit Tigers finished 3rd, just 6 games behind (back when winning the pennant meant everything, before endless rounds of dilutionary play-offs and play-ins).

It's hard to imagine such empty outfield seats, but the image captured them for perpetuity. I've dug quite a bit to find game day attendance, but can't turn it up. Just how empty was the rest of the ballpark, considering all games back then were day games, and weekend games, particularly Sundays, and once highly popular double-headers, drew much larger crowds than weekdays? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Ember. I had originally created this article and in this case made an error in considering the weight of the sources. It seems right to delete it, and I would not support its reestablishment until and unless this person were the subject of 2+ additional reliable sources. Thanks for the the fun exchange in this and good call. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange and Diplomatic Asylum

Why did you remove

Matthew Happold, Julian Assange and Diplomatic Asylum, EJIL:Talk (Blog of the European Journal of International Law), 24 June 2012

from the page on Julian Assange?----Bancki (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lsparrish

Hello, Calton,

I have moved your comments from the "uninvolved admin section" to the general section involving this Arbitration enforcement case. I haven't altered their content but you might want to check to make sure they are worded as you choose them to be. You are a very experienced editor and I hope you won't comment in the admin section in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP on at Donald Trump talk page

I am enforcing BLP. You can bring that up for review, but you cannot revert to restore what I deem to be a BLP violation. That is prohibited. El_C 21:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

goat

Clown town (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi. I would really appreciate it if your Edit summaries explained why you made the edits. A couple of your recent ones didn't do that. I think you know which ones I'm talking about. Heh. Check out Help:Edit summary. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly closed NPOV dispute section on Jack Posibiec talk page; mischacterized comment from mine

Earlier today, you edited the talk page for Jack Posobiec and in so doing, you marked an open dispute over NPOV (still open on BLP noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard) as closed and labeled my statement of disengagement from discussion (due to contention with a specific user) on my talk page as "dropping" the matter (disputed NPOV for the page). This is an incorrect assertion regarding the still-open NPOV dispute, and I do not feel that either the label of having dropped the issue nor the premature closure of the topic on the talk page while the discussion is still open and in dispute over source accuracy and NPOV on the aforementioned BLP and NPOV noticeboards. I would ask that you reopen the NPOV dispute section on the Jack Posobiec talk page and clarify that my comment does not mean that the NPOV dispute has been "dropped." Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- The section has been reopened and the noticeboard discussions have had a procedural close, all by Ad Orientem. The above-stated issues have been resolved by a third-party. Thank you for your time. Ihuntrocks (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please understand.

Hello, I should probably explain the situation better, since you're coming into the middle of it and there's been a lot of lies and deceit in a particular user's harassment of me. I won't address your comments in the ANI thread, but the edit you made on the "Nocturnes (Debussy)" talk page.

AnUnnamedUser had been harassing me. I didn't report it, I just dealt with it myself. At one point he tried to divert a thread where people including me were having a perfectly reasonable peaceful conversation. AUU's diversion was intentional, designed to deplatform. He posted something and signed it with my user name, making it look like I was saying or responding to something I wasn't because I didn't write it. He actually took a previous post of mine in another thread, modified the words, and presented it in this new diversion thread. This of course is a complete violation of WP rules. I had the right to delete it and I did.

He then engaged in an edit-war, constantly reposting it and changing the post each time. Finally he stopped and went away. But the next day he was back and restoring it again and even added a "reply" to this fake post of "mine". The reply was insulting and more harassment.

A lot of other things happened which I won't go into here, but suffice to say:

1. I have the right to delete damaging, slanderous (libelous), and harassing posts about me,

2. I have the right to delete fake posts that make me say something I didn't,

3. I have the right to delete my own posts (which this at least "appears" to be),

4. I have the right to edit my own posts, and

5. I have the right to not have the same person "replying" to something I don't want to say, for everyone to read and think God-knows-what about my character.

Chuckstreet (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Roppongi Hills, you may be blocked from editing. "Lifestyle" isn't advertising, it is a descriptor, in this case for a multi-use development that goes beyond shopping and business, which clearly is Ropponggi Hills. There are spas, salons, and other leisure amenities in said complex, that's why it qualifies as a shopping, LIFESTYLE, and business complex. Do not revert without valid reason. This is your first warning. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COIN

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um

User:Colin hasn't made a single edit to any medicine-related article since he started the discussions about the way drug prices are being mishandled in them several weeks ago. You need to go to ANI and strike your accusation that he's been edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Front

I changed the descriptor of Tacoma Against Nazis from "anti-white supremacist" to "anti-fascist." To be clear, nazis are BOTH white supremacists AND fascists (just look at the PF logo, which literally features a fascio). However, I found that "anti-white supremacist" does not read well. This minor lack of clarity is more major in this case because the far-right so often accuses groups like that of being "anti-white," which is simply not true. I obviously know what is meant by "anti-white supremacist," but at first glance, I thought it was describing them as anti-white. I had to do a little double-take. The wording "anti-fascist" definitely still fits the bill, has much better clarity, and is therefore less problematic in political context, which must always be carefully considered.

@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 User:Colin hasn't made a single edit to any medicine-related article since he started the discussions about the way drug prices are being mishandled in them several weeks ago.  You need to go to ANI and strike your accusation that he's been edit warring.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
+== Patriot Front ==
+I changed the descriptor of Tacoma Against Nazis from "anti-white supremacist" to "anti-fascist." To be clear, nazis are BOTH white supremacists AND fascists (just look at the PF logo, which literally features a fascio). However, I found that "anti-white supremacist" does not read well. This minor lack of clarity is more major in this case because the far-right so often accuses groups like that of being "anti-white," which is simply not true. I obviously know what is meant by "anti-white supremacist," but at first glance, I thought it was describing them as anti-white. I had to do a little double-take. The wording "anti-fascist" definitely still fits the bill, has much better clarity, and is therefore less problematic in political context, which must always be carefully considered.