User talk:Rklawton

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

NRHP Photo Contest

Just a reminder that the WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest will start on Friday, October 21.

Email?

hello mr. Lawton. Can i find your email address here on your talk page? I am not too experienced in wikipedia, except looking up words. I would like to communicate with you on team composition.

Kind regards Peter malling

I prefer to work on articles here in the open. Rklawton (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Should this go ignored?

A comment on a fellow editor's talk page has greatly disturbed and upset me, there is an interaction ban between us, which has been violated a few times [1]. I know this can be regarded as an interaction ban, but given the real life threatening nature of the two comments and no admin has acted upon it (there wasn't even a warning on such a horrible and malevolent, unneccessary threatening comment) I felt it was neccessary to ask an uninvolved admin.

These [2] are the relevant comments from the editor to User: Snowded, an editor I have worked with in the past. TheFortunateSon (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Wehrenberg Theatres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Jazz Singer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Rklawton (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

'Good Friday' in the U.S.

I added citations for the Good Friday article in the U.S. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.5.246 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Perhaps your thoughts would be helpful here? --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

High IQ societies link removed by you

Could you please let me know why you have removed my external link to a complete list of high IQ societies? I'm a member of 30+ recognized high IQ societies (including OATH, Epimetheus, The Ultranet, sinApsa,...) and ex Mensa member. I just want to inform you that, inside "external links", there is a link to Ivan Ivec's societies (only two groups) which were founded recently, etc...

Please, take back your decision.

Marco Ripà — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcokrt (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read up on what constitutes a reliable source here on Wikipedia. Homemade websites for recently made up organizations do not qualify. Rklawton (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok... so I think that Ivan Ivec's webpage have to be removed as well... isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcokrt (talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good call. Rklawton (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

It appears you are getting involved in an edit war at Josephus on Jesus. I needn't remind you, given your experience at Wikipedia, that this isn't a good idea. Please stop reverting and discuss instead. Thanks. --Jayron32 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. But remember, removal of sourced material because "I don't like it" isn't an edit, it's disruptive editing. Rklawton (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

From the look of the talk page, "I don't like it" is not the reason it is being removed. Please leave the article in the state you personally dislike while discussing, so the other person can be blocked. Whoever reverts to the version they like better gets blocked. You know that is how it works. Instead, use dispute resolution methods if you don't feel the discussion is productive. Also, being "sourced" is not magic fairy dust that prevents a statement from being removed from Wikipedia. Having sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be in an article. The material also has to have consensus behind it. I have no dog in this fight, but if your only defense of your actions is "it has sources", then that is absolutely no excuse at all for edit warring. Instead, establish why the sources are valid in such a way that others agree as well. Also, give it time. If the removed text has the support of a lot of editors, then give that support time to build before returning it to the article, so that it is clear that your version has consensus support. And, for the record, I would give the exact same advice to anyone trying to remove information either: it matters not whether your revert is to add or remove information in a case like this, what matters is that discussion happens and consensus is built for whatever your personal position is before returning the article to that state. --Jayron32 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your CORRUPT adminship and abuse of power

• On the next day after the entire wikipedia website was shutdown due to planned internet censorship by the US FED, you erased an article about censored infromation.
• you did this without any warning, debate or concent from anyone. a merge tag would have been more suitable to your own reasoning.
• the link you provided for contesting the after-the-fact- destruction of work is invalid.

I dub you one of the 3 MOST corrupt admin I have ever witnessed in the 7 years of my activity on wikipedia. I urge to to undo this--Namaste@^? 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Diza, if you wish to contest this deletion, you should try WP:DRV so that the entire Wikipedia community can discuss it. Accusing Rklawton of bad-faith acting in this regard is way beyond the pale. If you've been here for 7 years, you should be well aware of WP:DRV and WP:AGF. Calling someone corrupt is a personal attack, unless you can provide evidence that Rklawton is receiving money or other personal benefits for deleting this article, rather than following Wikipedia policy, it would be best if you retracted that statement. Being here 7 years, you should have also been made aware of the WP:NPA policy long ago. Please take a more collegial tone when discussing matters with others, and use existing processes to review decisions. Go to WP:DRV and start a discussion. --Jayron32 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I haven't deleted an article in weeks (or longer). Rklawton (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This user just recreated their deleted page.Andrew Kurish (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Truthfully. Would it not be easier had the delete-without-warning-or-discussion act had an accompanying ability to protest(where's the direct link?) or even view the material to be protested? (only by a separate request, and only then can you protest). I love to assume good faith, but try to see my side.

this very "procedure"..that has evolved to be ever more obscure and impossible, changed during those 7 years. and this approach by admins to destroy and carelessly argue about "procedures" and make threats.. rather than facilitate and help out technically and otherwise be invisible has changed. if this is the new standard. talk is cheap, and I dont care for it. this article needs help, and I wont fight for it under these conditions. maybe you will. --Namaste@^? 00:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe you won't, and instead you'll start to undo any edit I've made since we "met" and delete other articles you think I am interested in. That will surely prove your righteousness, to your self that is--Namaste@^? 04:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

CSD G8

Please note that your deletion of User talk:Drippythingy clearly does not fall under the terms of WP:CSD#G8 as it specifically excludes user talk pages. It's been longstanding practice to let users who don't want to have a userpage do so, among the many, User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad then. Vandal account with racially offensive edits and talk page. What category should I have used? Rklawton (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Bernard Dumaine

Hello, You have proposed the page Bernard Dumaine to be deleted, just wondering to know if there will be a voting process ? Winford T. (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Winford T.

No, there is no voting process for a proposal to delete. If you believe the article should be deleted, you do not need to do anything. If you believe the article should not be deleted, fix the problems with the article. You can also discuss your views on the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources have been added, some parts of the article removed; I hope it will suit to have the article kept ;Winford T. (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Winford T.

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

From my talk page: Please avoid WP:OWN with regard to this article. When a new guy comes in and tweaks the language in an article a bit, the edits don't require sources, and reverting on those grounds is just biting the new guy. This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit - not just you. Rklawton (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have no abiding interest in this article, as it is one of 6,000 articles on my watchlist. In the past, anons adding small, inconsequential edits, have been the trademark of vandals, who later operated with the benefit of an established record. I looked at the edits and they really made no significant changes, although I left the first series as is, a number of edits were already being changed and challenged by others as inaccurate. Changing subtly in wordsmithing does change context and the last edits were not supportable by the references in the passages, or had no references. As I assumed the anon wanted to contribute in this field, I contacted the anon first, but again, this may just be someone interested more in semantics and grammar than the subject area. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

Semantic/grammar changes are fine. Far more editors get their start making little changes than vandals who try to gain the appearance of legitimacy the same way. As a result, we really don't want to discourage these editors. Of course, if there's a small textual change that significantly changes the meaning of sourced material, then we're bound to revert. Otherwise, let's take not to bite the noobs and trust that if an account turns rouge, we have enough admins to blast them out of the sky. Rklawton (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to say that the anon was a vandal, but the sequence of edits struck me as odd, more in the way of an editing exercise, moving commas, breaking up text and all of what a traditional editor would consider stylistic changes, or "author's choice." The edits made that concerned content, however, were summarily removed or changed by others. I considered the edits carefully before making the reversal as I did want to see what the response from the anon would be. I did not wish to trigger an admin's directive, of course. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

I find it extremely disturbing that an admin is forcing editors to accept unconstructive, unsourced edits, which have just as corrosive an effect on the quality of articles as vandalism, just to avoid offending newbies. It is not clear how your edits do anything to improve the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Pteromerhanophobia (The Fear of Flying)

Could you help me with this article? [3] It is a subject that I am very familar with, and as you can see the article is in terrible condition. I am in the process of pulling reliable sources and information to overhall the article. I realize that your time is your own, and may be busy with other projects, and if that is the case perhaps you can refer me to someone. It is very much appreciated.--Mt6617 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at my talk, and at the page. I am frustrated. Thanks --Mt6617 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Added some research articles, could you take a look at them when you have time. Thanks--Mt6617 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	its just NOT possible to mess with wikipedia's articles due to user like you... Thank you. Pritishp333 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at WT:NRHP

Your comment about getting confronted on sidewalks resounds with me — I got this photo from a spot on the road several hundred feet away, and then as I continued along the road, the homeowner came out (I hadn't seen him) and told me that because he hadn't given me permission to get the picture, I couldn't use it commercially. One photo was all I'd planned to get, so I didn't attempt to argue, but it's definitely one of the weirder situations I've encountered while photographing — even weirder than the property owner who thought I was an employee of Google Street View :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bert P. Krages Esq., a photographer and lawyer, wrote an excellent handbook on the subject. It's well worth the read. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've already seen it. I'm just not a fan of having people in most of my architectural images, so I can simultaneously attempt to avoid confrontation and avoid messed-up images by obscuring myself from people at properties, often by the angle where I'm standing; for example, the big tree in File:University Street East, 423, East Second Street HD.jpg is hiding a woman who's sitting on her porch. I'll not lie to people who wonder what I'm doing, but I'm careful to avoid trespassing and am careful not to identify myself, so the worst that can normally happen is that someone becomes annoyed at my comments and I walk away. I was once tempted to take a photo from a road simply because it was prohibited (this fence has several small signs (illegible in Street View) prohibiting photography), but I didn't feel like potentially wasting my slight time with needless images, especially since I've learned from acquaintances that people in the area can be suspicious of strangers from elsewhere in the state, not to mention people like me with out-of-state plates. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Faith

I came here in Good Faith hoping to improve an article. You and others assumed that I had clarity in how Wikipedia operates. That is fine, however Wikipedia is publishing an article that is incorrect, I have given reasons why. Additionally, "someone" I assume with Wikipedia has additionally cited inaccuracies (see top of the article). Now please see my latest comments [4] I have asked for help, and have been led down to pay sites. Wikipedia may be "your world" but this subject is "my world". Once again, I am begging for accurate help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

7 WTC RfC

Would you mind commenting here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fear of Flying, External Links, Forums

I have spent the last several days educating myself on the Wikipedia rules etc. You advised me that Forums are not allowed as acceptable External Links, however I found that is not the case. For example, please see[5]. Look the External Links on this page. Please understand my intent here is not to challenge you, but to understand what the "rules" are. Please advise. Thank you. --Mt6617 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, now go read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Rklawton (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are being rude. I am being civil. That link led to nothing useful. I consider your comment and link an attack, and not acting in Good Faith. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Chill out and click the redirect link on the page, and stop sounding like a whiney little kid crying "but Jimmy does it..." You've read WP:EL, and that's what you need to go by. The fact that someone slipped something into an article is absolutely no reason for you to try and copy it when you've been explicitly told that you can not. Rklawton (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Whiney" "crying" how rude! I have not tried to add anything since warned. Nor will I until I get permission. I find your behavior offensive. You obviously have an "ownership" issue over this. That is sad, as it is my understanding that this a "community" project. One last question... is there someone of a higher authority I can take this to, or are you IT?--Mt6617 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did click the redirect.... it goes, again, nowhere relevant to this. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the section titled "What about article x?" - the link you clicked automatically puts it at the top of your screen. You'll see that it addresses the situation precisely. Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Argument to avoid deletion discussion but would linking this been so hard?--Mt6617 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I used the customary link - it's been working for five years. I wasn't aware that someone had put it up for discussion. Had you read the page, you would have seen what was going on and found the link yourself. Instead, you make me have to spell it out for you. Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief you people are worse than the Federal Government. Can't any of you just carry on a simple dialog? I am a simple person, with simple goals. I am not a computer expert, nor have I been in this community long enough to "learn" your ways. I joined to simply improve an article that I felt needed improving. All I have been met with is hostility. I asked for your help, and all I got was links. I suggested improvements, and all I got was yelled at. Now I am whiney and crying. SHAME on you. I came here with good intentions, in good faith, and this is how I am treated. And... by the way... the article relating to The Fear of Flying, or whatever you want to title it, is STILL in bad shape. (Not just my words, but words of your fellow members, editors, administers).

I ask you again, is there a higher authority, or am I to take it that you and barek are IT? Can you answer that? If so, I will no longer bother you. Thank you. --Mt6617 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see [6] --Mt6617 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't want to dialogue, you want to argue. You don't want to propose specific fixes to the article as I'd requested, you want to complain about the bad shape it's in. You don't want to follow the rules when you don't like them, you go instead and search out "exceptions" to the rules (other stuff exists). And when you aren't able to get this to work for you, you want to complain about the people who have done the most to try and point you in the right direction. In all your fuss, you've only come up with ONE worthwhile source, and I gave you plenty of positive feedback and encouragement to use it and to find more. But somehow that's not good enough for you. Well, tough. Go find someone else to bother. Helping you has been a complete waste of time. Rklawton (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Rklawton. I have responded to some of the things you said about Sandy Georgia on ANI in a new section (since the original one had been closed). It's just below. I would rather not have had to write it, but I hope you don't miss it, as I really can't have my health used as a stick to beat Sandy with. Regards, Bishonen | talk 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

So.... my point was entirely correct? Sandy mischaracterized your departure in order to flog Brad rather than defend herself; and I was correct in that other issues beyond Brad's editing are in play, and that you haven't actually left, you're just taking a break. I appreciate your forthrightness. At any rate, the issue has been resolved, so that's something anyway. Enjoy your break. When you choose to return, and if you want them, I'm pretty sure the community would support the reinstatement of the mop without formalities. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to Jonathan

I'm posting this note to verify that the e-mail you received moments ago came from me. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread: ARS Canvassing at AfD

I have removed the nowiki tags around the closure. ANI is not mediation or dispute resolution. This is a conduct dispute between two different editors and ANI is not the place to resolve the issue, as there is no administrative actions needed to resolve the issue. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no flaw in your logic. On the other hand, the discussion clearly wasn't over, and it seems unfair to disallow an editor to respond to criticism without recourse. Rklawton (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)