Jump to content

User talk:Calton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Donchimee (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 9 February 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
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.

Welcome to Wikipedia Asian Month!

Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event:

  1. Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
  2. Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
  3. Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
  4. If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
  5. Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for language editions
  6. If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Best Wishes,--AddisWang (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Calton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elevations Credit Union

WP:GNG, yes I've heard of it, just as I've heard of sarcasm. If you did a simple Google search of this you would find there is enough independent coverage to qualify this article. Tag it for needing more citations, but saying it may not meet notability guidelines is clearly wrong. Garchy (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your cleanup at [1].

After some research efforts and work expanding the page, I'm taking a step back from editing it for a while.

Not sure what to make of these edit summaries and edits: [2] and [3].

Do those choice of words in those edit summaries seem appropriate to you? Might they display an underlying motivation?

Sagecandor (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, thanks for pointing that out, now I see the topic ban by NuclearWarfare. In light of the violations of WP:SYNTH and No Original Research [4] and then edit-warring to add back again the same violations, [5], might it be time for another WP:AE ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR report

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about this situation. However, please note that the reverts of mine you reported as violating 3RR did not, in fact, do so, as they were not made within a 24-hour period of each other, as that rule requires. I am very much aware of it and checked as to when I had reverted before doing so ... if I had thought I was even close to a third revert within 24 hours, I would not have reverted.

Please take more care to be aware of the rules you report people for violating next time you make such a report. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not take 3RR as an entitlement to revert 3 times within 24 hours and then stop, primarily because I did not revert three times within a 24-hour period. I made two reverts on 14 December, and two more on 18 December, yet you reported all four as if they had occurred in the same 24-hour period.

I know you may have reasons for questioning the sincerity of my apology, but please try not to voice them. I do recall that at one time you were a very helpful editor (albeit a little overzealous) in reporting suspect usernames, and as one of the admins who regularly worked that page at the time I did appreciate it, even if some other people had a few problems with your work. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DDE, reports to WP:3RR can and should only be made when someone has reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period. It says that pretty clearly (There is also a warning somewhere, although I can't find it right now, that editors should not be reported for two reverts on the grounds that they are trying not break the rule that otherwise they really want to). Don't confuse restatement of the rule, and editing within its terms, with attempting to game the system.

Your claim that bluntly restating what I did amounted to an invocation of 3RR as a right to revert is irrefutable evidence of failure to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I said that you were a helpful editor because I'm not actively involved in UAA anymore, and so I can't speak to whatever you've been doing lately since I haven't been keeping track. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Meguro Parasitological Museum) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Meguro Parasitological Museum, Calton!

Wikipedia editor Meatsgains just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Consider adding reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

To reply, leave a comment on Meatsgains's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Err...

"Given your fundamental misunderstandings of some pretty basic concepts, I don't think you get the luxury of that smirk."

Who was that intended for? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the usual and customary meaning of WP:INDENTing (not to mention the context), the reply would seem to have been directed at the editor who smirked.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was prety sure I knew, but it came right after my reply, which made me think - bc the editor C and I are having difficulties with is more than a little passive-aggressive - a bit paranoidly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I should put in more marker words. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

Hi, I noticed your post on Dicklyon's talkpage. Bit tough.

But more important, you live in Japan; I wonder whether you read/speak Japanese, and do you have any knowledge of jp.WP? I ask because the Signpost would really like to have a contact between it and a notoriously impenetrable WP version and community. We have never covered anything about that site, and it's one of our largest. Tony (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question: You evaded it.

I asked when it is proper to delete another person's comment on Talk page on WP. My question was general, those who addressed it ignored the question, and it seems tried to attack the person who they think asked the question. 67.5.233.63 (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I have removed the comment you added at User talk:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. They are not allowed to reply, or to discuss the matter at all, so your engaging in it on their talk page is not helpful and might even serve to inflame. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems worth mentioning

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

This notice of the applicability of WP:AC/DS to discussions of article titles and the manual of style, "broadly construed", seems necessary. I don't care for its wording/tone (which sounds menacing instead of advisory), but WP:ARBCOM does not permit it to be modified. This is response to your "MOS is ... not a religious doctrine and ... people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith" comment at ANI, which is precisely the kind of personalization of a title/style dispute and histrionic and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy casting of WP:ASPERSIONS that were why discretionary sanctions were authorized to be applied to title/style discussions (in the WP:ARBATC case linked in the notice).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:James O'Keefe. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not author of article on Creo Concepts on Main Wikipedia

Hello,

You slapped a suggested for deletion on an article I didn't move onto Main Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nkansahrexford#Proposed_deletion_of_Creo_Concepts

I'll urge you take a closer look at who to slap a suggestion for deletion on their profile before proceeding. Check the logs, and you'll know the right thing to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creo_Concepts&action=history

Because I started the article somewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm the author of the article on main wikipedia.

Geesh

Unigned comment by Nkansahrexford (talk · contribs) at 18:07, January 26, 2017‎

And an automatic notification, at that. If that's not correct, then there's something wrong with the system or history. I'll go check, but if the article is in mainspace because someone moved it there from userspace/draftspace, then the history is also moved, so that's what the bot(?) looks for.
And what, pray tell, was "the right thing to do"? NOT notify you? --Calton | Talk 07:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory noticeboard discussion notification

When you mention an editor at COIN, you must notify them. See the red box at the top of the page WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. - Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work in proposing spam articles for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

New to Posting, please forgive errors. the page for louišP Ltd. received a request to delete from Calton. I feel your first review was correct due to the notable aspects of the referenced stories not being included. However, even though I did not create the article, I edited it just now to include the aspects of the articles which are notable in that 1. These people from over 20 countries teaming up to create and launch a website is a business development which has never been done 2. the interface coding allows a user to get to and from any city of the world faster and in fewer steps than any other website and without the need to type, this benefits everyone especially the handicap who need reduced steps on their interaction steps on line, 3. the interface coding allows the user to explore every single genre of entertainment within every city of the world without the need of typing and this is unlike any website 4. therefore this business development design as well as the interface coding are both unique and notable. Eliminating steps to a user's discovery of information is a notable creation of a design

<"iconoLand: Entertainment Events Around The Corner and The World!". qcostarica.com. 27 October 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"iconoLand.com ready to launch". thebftonline.com. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> < Danny, Diazion (7 September 2016). "The Spotlight on Ghana is About to Launch". patriarc.com. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"louisP Limited". hkgbusiness.com. Retrieved 27 January 2017.> <"Lanzan sitio web IconoLand con eventos y actividades de entretenimiento en todo el mundo". elfinancierocr.com. 26 October 2016. Retrieved 28 January 2017.> Briscoma (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do Hope my request for Review is proper

Please review my request, regarding your proper analysis of the page, which did not include the notable aspects of the articles which were sited. I do hope my edits to the article enable you to see the merit of this page's notability. Thanks you Briscoma (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on Frederick Achom

Hello dear, I stumbled upon this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Achom (2nd nomination). I don't really understand the process going on there. could you review it? Should the article be deleted or kept? Could you let other editors review it as well? It seems there are several issues with the article. I really don't know which side to take being new on this platform. Thanks Donchimee (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&oldid=764557690"