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.

This user is one of the 47,430,730 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Nomination of Luke Edwards for deletion

I tried looking for the Articles for deletion page where the relevant discussion would take place. There was no such page until less than 30 minutes ago. I wasn't wrong to delete that template since there was no such page. Kingjeff (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been here for a while. But the point I was making is that this page was created about 12 hours after this edit. The "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" page wasn't created when I deleted the template from the article. Kingjeff (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue is you didn't complete the process immediately. I took down the template after around eight hours without any deletion discussion page being created. This could have been avoided if everything was done immediately. I don't mean that you had bad intentions or anything like that. But preferably, creating the article's deletion discussion page should be done immediately after adding the template to the article. Kingjeff (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You did not use the template for speedy deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful?

In this edit your edit summary "Reverted to revision 847728393 by 2605:8D80:62C:7EEE:DF30:7C4A:D338:A99A: A NEWPAPER article is being used to psychoanalyze someone? Not MEDRS compliant," echoes the concerns of CommotioCerebri. In my reply I wrote "If you think WP:MEDRS is relevant here, is there a reason you didn't cite a specific passage you think is relevant?"

The best thing we can all do to avoid edit wars is to avoid leaving triggers for edit warring.

Do you think you could explain your concern more fully, on Talk:crane climbing? Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not helpful

Hey Calton, please don't provide suggestions on my Talk page as to articles that may or may not meet the criteria for notability *especially* when there's a shitstorm in a teacup going on in relation to that specific topic. It isn't helpful. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Why not? If you're confident of your standards regarding the other articled, why would you be suddenly reticent to apply them here? Pretty much the opposite of "helpful", here. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, for one, people would most likely say "Oh look, he's only nominating that to show he doesn't have a bias against UK companies so clearly he must have, otherwise he wouldn't have taken that suggestion". For another, it would be seen as antagonistic until editors satisfy themselves that the allegations in the newspaper are without foundation and most likely the result of a disgruntled VC. For another, I don't do commissions. If you want to nominate it yourself then go ahead. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, in relation to this edit, I posted a full account on my Talk page. Eileen, in turn, thanks a "Jason Trost" for giving her the "heads up". Jason says his page was deleted a month ago which was probably the article on his company. The article was created by User:Chopz who wrote to the AfD closer on July 13th (just after the article was published in the Telegraph) still arguing that the company was notable. To date though they haven't brought it back for a Deletion Review. Also, I also note that the Telegraph says "One person who works at a UK technology company which had its Wikipedia article deleted accused Wikipedia users of being biased against UK technology companies. “The political bias of the editors is astounding and especially the anti-UK sentiment” they said. “They want only delete UK firms while leaving any US firm with a page.” They wished to remain anonymous for fear of further action from Wikipedia users against them." Might be a coincidence, might not, but Jason Trost was checked as having given Eileen the heads-up and he works in a UK technology firm and probably felt aggrieved. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

editing

You are edit warring. Take it to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4023:D900:E187:794D:3126:2B87 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Excuse me. Why are you deleting my proposed edits on a talk page without giving a reason and then telling me to go educate myself? Not sure that is how Wikipedia works.Wesley Craig (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Impossible Interpretation

How could you interpret this: " "Because I said so" is insufficient." ->, therefore, makes a revision. from this: "Misleading wording and false source, as previously explained." and this: "Last post and source was misleading; Trump did not call, command or demand to end the Russia Investigation. Please read actual tweet. He said J.S. "should". Trump is J.S.'s boss, if Trump called for an end J.S. would be forced to comply because Trump is J.S.'s boss<source is Ben Shapiro>." 184.101.195.188 (talk) 8:14 PM Wednesday, August 8, 2018 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_in_the_United_States&diff=854006801&oldid=853980786

Main article for Category:Advocates of the Fourteen Words

I don't think this category is long for this earth based on your CFD nomination but I did want to touch base on your reversal of adding Fourteen Words as the main article. It's permissible for biography categories to have a non-biography main article per WP:SEPARATE. Although the main article is still in the category header, there's no direct navigation path from the main article to the category.

Just food for thought for next time. Thanks for the nomination.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Everwin Pneumatic Corp.

Hello Calton, I am one of the main editors of the article under the name "Everwin Pneumatic". I noticed that you proposed the deletion of this very article a few days ago as it seemed like an advert in your point of view. Due to this, I have revised the article and changed many of the wording and contents in the article that seemed not "neutral" enough. For instance, I removed all external links that focused solely on products of this very company. Furthermore, I completely removed the category under the name "Product line". In short, I believe that these recent revisions of mine have made the article as objective as possible and that my article no longer deserves to be under the proposal of deletion.

W22593889 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Management"

I suggest you remove "--The Management." from your talk page. It confuses new editors if you are a manager at Wikipedia or not. I was confused, so it could mislead others. Computer40 «»(talk) 06:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

False accusation of rape

You are kindly invited to read the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Percents_in_lead

The discussion was started by another user who, quite rightly imo, objected that only mentioning the lowest rates in the lead was biased, I agreed (consensus, YOU do know what it means, right?) and acted on it.

Why don’t you explicitly state where iyo my edit does not comply with WP:NEUTRAL in the talk page instead of hiding behind a convenient revert button accusing me of not having a consensus I gave given to orhers instead thus making it at least 2 against 1 in favor of neutrally mentioning both extremes of the spectrum? Isananni (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Miquel Reina

Hi, I just read your message about conflict of interests with the page I created but I don't understand. I created this page because I read a book from this author last year and I realized that he hasn´t a Wikipedia page. This is my first article published and I have so many troubles having it published. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josanva (talk • contribs) 02:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Your offensive behavior

While you were so keen to report me for edit warring, I have added an comment about how belligerent you have been during this process. My hope is that any administrator with eyes will be able to see that, and that you too will face consequences.

Since you went through my Talk Page to look for dirt, it seems to me than upon examination of YOUR talk page, you do this sort of thing fairly regularly. There are a LOT of complaints about your behavior on here. Don't bring up my skeletons in the closet when yours paint a much more damning picture...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Just poking my nose in...

If I were you, I'd let that editor remove the ANI report. You have the diff of where they removed it if you need to cite it in the future. Note that I actually advised them to erase the section, so that it might be a sign that they're realizing that they're wrong.

Of course, if you plan to ask for a boomerang, you'll want to do it in the restored section. But I doubt the admins would come down too hard on someone who is clearly as lost as this editor. They're more likely to recommend they get a mentor or something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't plan to ask for a boomerang -- arguably he could use one now -- unless he escalates, but I do want it on the record and archived. Yeah, if he'd taken your advice immediately, sure, but doubling down? Not exactly the Streisand Effect, but he opened that door. --Calton | Talk 13:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Calton

Calton reporting for no reason can someone report him i do not know how and he's arsey on his user article Pugland (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Emotional outbursts

It is unfortunate that you did not use an argument to refute the edit, but merely an emotional outburst.

You should be ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogCast (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

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 Sci-Hub, you may be blocked from editing. See talk page consensus at Talk:Sci-Hub#Website_and_IP_in_infobox_for_Sci-Hub. Result of properly advertised RfC Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The following message at [1] is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I advise you to refrain from such action. You flaunted consensus at Sci-Hub and misinterpret policy by engaging in WP:CENSORSHIP of well-sourced content. Content that mind you: has been subject to an RfC about whether it should be included or not. The warning is entirely apt. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sci-Hub shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Calton, apologies for being short with you yesterday. It's not an excuse, but I was a little—horrified is a good word!—at the idea that I was defending W...an embarrassing position to be in, to say the least. Sorry about that. I hope, otherwise, all is well with you. Take care, ——SerialNumber54129 10:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"policy evolves from practice"

I'm still not getting this. We apply editing restrictions to specific editors when their behaviour is disruptive, not because policy mandates that all editors be subject to those restrictions. The two are completely unrelated, and I find it honestly very disturbing that so many admins, including those who I thought were among our best, don't seem to get that. Your rebuttal seems to miss the sheer ridiculousness of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of AE process

Due to your lack of engagement at Talk:Steve Bannon#"See also" section, I have opened an AE process about your two violations of the "consensus required" restriction. — JFG ^talk 00:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)