Jump to content

User talk:Calton/Archive04

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

Yet another archive

I didn't

[edit]

A troll (already banned a number of times) have been changing dates on European topics from dd/mm/yy to mm/dd/yy in articles I edit. (He is a user who has been stalking me and some others in a campaign of harrassment. He only edits articles I write!) I simply reverted his edits. Any errors that were there weren't, AFAIK, my doing. They were in the version that was reverted to. BTW I am all in favour of the links and endorsed them the moment the idea was first mooted. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking drinking game

[edit]

Hi Calton. I know that Everyking's attitude is not the sweetest or most diplomatic on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I also admit that I got a bit of a guilty laugh out of your 'Drink!' comments the first couple of times. Nevertheless, he is generally a good, productive editor and contributor to the wiki. Rather than derisive remarks, could you make an effort to limit yourself to constructive criticism? Lead by example, if you will. I still hang on to a faint hope that his ability to speak civilly on WP:AN can be rehabilitated. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop screwing around with dates

[edit]

Stop screwing around with dates. It has been Wikipedia policy for well over a year to use the appropriate form of dates for an article, ie, the preferred American format mm/dd/yy for articles on American topics, and the international preferred standard of dd/mm/yy for not US, or specifically European topics, following the example of how Wikipedia uses American English for American article topics and international English for European topics. The preferences are set up to covert all wikified dates to the format chosen by a user, but not all users know how to do it. If you persist in adding in American dating to non-American topics they will simply be reverted on sight and will your edits of dates will reported as vandalism. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl, you might not want to come down so hard on Calton here. The Manual of Style specifies
"It is generally preferable to use the format used by local English speakers at the location of the event." (emphasis added)
For the sake of consistency and clarity for users who have not set date preferences, it is a good idea for dates to remain consistent within any given article. In the interest of avoiding conflict (and really silly edit wars) it is often preferable to retain the same date format used by the original author (similar to the way we handle American/British English issues). In the article George VI of the United Kingdom, I note that the early versions of the article contain dates of the form December 14 (not 14 December). Heck, Jtdirl, you even made several edits to the article over the course of the last two or three years that left the dates in the 'wrong' format. It's only been in the last few days that you've been edit warring over the date format...why now, and why is it so important?
Incidentally, could you be more careful about how you're entering the dates? By leaving the trailing space inside the wikilink ([[14 December ]], instead of the correct [[14 December]]), the date format customization for users who have set their preferences doesn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The policy as has been implemented since the original vote has been to use the format relevant to the location — so all US topics should have US spelling and dating; UK and European topics should have British English spelling and dating, and those in between should remain in the format chosen by their original author. British monarchs by definition should have the British/international dating system; most do in any case. Any that don't have, as is normal in series of articles, are being converted to following the one convention (just as any US presidents written in British English and British dating are being converted to use the style normal for local English speakers in the US.

BTW I did not leave the trailing space inside the wikilink. From what I have been able to work out, another user did so. When the Americanised dates were being returned to the required British dates for British articles they were inadvertently returned to a form that had that error. But because my preferences are set the error was not showing up. I've corrected the error and left a message with person I think made the original mistake pointing out that problem leaving such a space causes.

re why the sudden interest? A sockpuppet for a banned user in the last few days targeted a lot of royal articles and deliberately put American dating, spelling, etc into British articles. I and others ended up repeatedly having to impose indefinite bans on the asshole (he is notorious!), sometimes imposing bans on different sockpuppets of his in the space of an hour. His action drew the attention of a couple of users to the fact that not every article in the series actually following the same dating and spelling. Some had either been originally written in American-English and American dates or had been Americanised over the months. As is the norm, all the parts of the series are being checked to make sure they all confirm to the one format. (Some US topics are also being checked, and where they are in BE or using British dating, they are being converted over to what is the type of english and dating used by local English speakers, in those cases AE and American dating. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not deliberately set out to ensure the date preferences would not work, contrary to your assertion. If you had checked out your facts, you would see that it was [[1]] that an anonymous user made the edit that mucked up the preferences. By a fluke he happened to have been followed onto the page as editor by a sockpuppet of a banned user who had been targeting that and other pages. Like the others who had to deal with that idiot as well as blocking him I had to revert his changes. I hit the revert button.

That is what happened. So keep your paranoid dillusions to yourself in future. And BTW you have twice accused me of deliberately adding in the space after the month to stop the wikilink working. If you had bothered to do 2 minutes checking before making wild allegations you would have seen that it was not true. Next time get off your butt and actually check the facts first before making stupid allegations. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your ability to misunderstand and misrepresent knows no limits. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

[edit]

I have no idea why you left this on my talk page?

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Calton | Talk 02:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

What's it all about? SeanMack 12:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Bygones. SeanMack 13:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS conspiracy theories

[edit]

Since you cared to revert AIDS conspiracy theories, I expect to see your replies to my comments on the talk page. Strange that you enter this while not having made a single comment on the talk page, so I would really like you to discuss on the talk page since you apparently advocate doing so. Cburnett 02:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so you have no intention of participating...just reverting? Cburnett 03:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

RfA for Germen

[edit]

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Global View of Neurofeedback

[edit]

Hi Calton

Your reversions to the neurofeedback article seem a little overzealous. I for one, am no scientologist. Neurofeedback is used in many ways. Your labeling of my postings as propaganda for scientology may even betray your bias as a feedback cultist. Also, the insistence on the purely technical perspectives of neurofeedback researchers and promoters will lead to a view that is far too narrow for wikipedia. Your opinion about this matter is welcome on the discussion section. Otherwise, you are a long way from consensus. Regards D.Right 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Province of the Carolanas

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you participated in the VfD for John Lilburne Research Institute. I am nominating another article created by the same user: Province of the Carolanas, which is another massive hoax/vanity/original research article. --JW1805 19:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Sam Spade on sight

[edit]

You may have been sure you were right. But you were in fact wrong :-( [2] whoops! Everything is a learning experience. Assume good faith and all that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists of Silicon Valley sockpuppets

[edit]

Nice work flagging all those sockpuppet votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley. I would have done that myself when I posted the comment, but was busy at the time. Have you dealt with these people before? - ulayiti (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through the history of the page, from the first vote to the last, and moved all of the anonymous votes together under a subheader, noting them individually. Took a bit of time. and lost some of your specific comments relating to their sock/meatpuppet activities in the process, however - sorry. Still, it should appear to be a bit more manageable now. It's just craziness with all the puppet"masters" on this VFD, and the related on on The God Who Wasn't There. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. Um, sorry. I didn't mean for my comments in the GWWT VfD to be taken as an attack on you; my apologies. I'm polishing up the movie's article a bit more - I think it manages notability and is salvageable; have a look now - and totally agree with you on the AofSV article. Again, my apologies. DS 12:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Care to show some consensus again

[edit]

[3] *sigh* SchmuckyTheCat 21:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

[edit]

Thanks for your assistance at that page. Stevertigo is determined to get his way with that article and as you noticed has broken many rules to that end. An Rfc has been started, if you care to contribute. Also keep an eye out on the Vietnam War page as well. Thanks again. --TJive 03:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello, i've noticed that you've removed my links to freesites on the Dune (computer game). Although i disagree with what you are going to say (i already know that... q;-) ), but please check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Beta_m_and_his_freenet_spamming. Waiting to read what you actually have to say. Beta m (talk)

August 16

[edit]

If nothing else, this exposes other sites that blatantly rip off wikipedia. Check out the August 16th births on this site before they update it. Both of those bogus birthdates are on it: [4] Wahkeenah 13:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hillary Duff's new album is a major event. For some, anyway. Like her mother, maybe. Wahkeenah 19:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Dear Calton,

First let me say, I do agree with you that many of user:aesculapius' (whom I will refer to as Asclape, for ease of typing) recent activities on Wiki have been slightly misdirected. He has seemed to be promoting his father and himself in ways that I don't think he may have realized were not in line with Wiki policy. I appreciate your efforts, and also user Zoe's, efforts to inform Asclape of Wiki policy regarding this. Still, I am sure you were not intending to drive Asclape totally out of Wiki, which has nearly been the case. I am sure that you and Zoe were both entirely correct in your interpretations of Wiki policy, but sometimes policy can end up becoming more important than the people it is meant to help, and sometimes it can be used more as a 'stick', than as the helpful tool it was meant to be.

You must admit, the link to Parodi's son's site on Parodi Sr.'s page's External Links section is no great affront to Wiki policy, if at all. I have written to Asclape, suggesting to him that in the future he might do well to refrain from editing anything to do with himself or his father. Please, I hope you might relent in your insistence on this one small thing. You and I both have more important issues to deal with at Wiki. I have put Asclape's talk page on my watch list and if there is a single further concern posted there regarding any more of this type of activity, I will join whomever has posted any such alerts and try to work with Asclape more dilligently to convince him why these policies are in place, before such a drastic action as a ban might become necessary.

Thanks for reading this,

-Scott P. 23:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

removal of 1983 date for May 5 - Thomas Lasswell

[edit]

Why did you remove that? I was definatly born on May 5 1983, yes, I have not done anything significant as of yet, but in the future you never know. The whole idea of information is the fact it can be there and this is a wiki. Removing my name is inapproporate.

--Lasswellt 02:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part those people are actors, and of course actors are going to have Wiki pages about them. However there are others of us that have made contrubutions in other ways to society, and won't be recongized because we do other things. Editing out people's names that were legitmately born (or died) on May 5 is silly because what's the point of having the page in the first place? Why not just let it become a compiled list of people's names that were born on that date? People can then go and fill in and make new pages for those without a wiki page of their own.

Oh, and I do agree with your addition to the Zorica Pantic-Tanner page, which needs to be cleaned up. I added it as a quick entry and forgot to go back to it...

--Lasswellt 03:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zorica Pantic-Tanner page is much better, do you agree?

--Lasswellt 04:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[edit]

Please show some restraint in your responses to User:Everyking and to those who ask you to lay off him. I suggest you read WP:NPA, and take some time out before responding. I understand that you find Everyking's behaviour frustrating, but you are not helping anything with your constant taunts.-gadfium 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

Calton is a recovering alcoholic, and I'm trying to steer him away from temptation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

And you're a slanderous, interfering, tone-deaf busybody who should stick his nose elsewhere. Everyking is a big boy -- or is supposed to be -- and he should damn well be willing to taste his own medicine. Save your mindless application of "evenhandness" for the encounter group meetings at your local coffee bar. --Calton | Talk 06:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Calton, I didn't mean to suggest that you were actually an alcoholic. The remark was meant as a gentle rebuke for the drinking game reference, which you should know was unnecessary.
I apologise for my remark. No offense was intended. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone an alcoholic is a "gentle rebuke"? "Tone-deaf" applies, in spades. --Calton | Talk 06:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
You're quite right; it does–hence my apology for my ill-considered remark. I carried the drinking game metaphor too far. I have stricken the comment at WP:AN/I; if you prefer I can delete the line entirely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coqsportif

[edit]

Take a chill pill Calton, I like a drink too every now and then. Coqsportif 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry you're upset, I agree alcoholism is no laughing matter. I didn't want to get you upset or anything. Best of luck with your illness.Coqsportif 06:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you stop throwing your weight around Calton, it's not a good look. Personal abuse isn't welcome here. Coqsportif 23:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Information You Know Little About

[edit]

Carlton, it is a bad idea to edit articles you know little about: i.e. Whittier College's William Penn Society. Your knowledge of the Contra Costa Community College district leads one to believe that you most likely live in the Bay Area and do not have any first hand knowledge of the goings on of Whittier College nor The William Penn Society. Please refrain from vandalizing the page.

Thank You.

Owning an Article

[edit]

Again slick, let go of the subject. Please DO NOT edit information you are ignorant about, it is harmful to the Wikipedia process. The William Penn Society unanimously passed a resolution naming certain alumni as members of note, it is not YOUR decision to claim who are the official notable alumni. As a matter of fact, what the hell is your expertise on this subject? If you refuse to tell me I shall demand a discussion on the topic before further editing.

Dear Mr. Minor League Internet Nerd In Japan

[edit]

What the fuck do you care about the article, why must you insist on harassing its existence? It is a fact that those alumni have made significant contributions to the life of the Society. Wikipedia is a source of facts. The Society is a significant part of life at Whittier College, another fact. These are not mere "frat boy" opinions, but if they were they would still weigh in much more than the opinion of some ex-patriate Japophile who knows nothing about The William Penn Society or its impact on the Whittier College community. As a matter of fact all nine societies have a major impact on Whittier College life. Plenty of social fraternities have listings on the Wikipedia and rightly so. Wikipedia is an encylopedia of the miscellanous as well as important facts.

For the last time I ask that you desist from vandalizing this article. I cannot fathom your interest in it. I implore you to tell me why oh why must you bother with it? If I am a minor-league fratboy then what are you, the person who bothers to wreck a minor-league fratboy's creation?

Please please please stick to articles you KNOW about! Ignorance is the Wikipedia's greatest enemy. You don't see me screwing around with entries on advanced physics! I only contribute to poltiical information that I know, historical information I know, and musical information that I know! Stick to what you know.

VfD

[edit]

Hi Calton. I saw you comment on the David Nelson vfd, but there does not seem to be a keep or delete vote in it. If you intended to vote but forgot, you may wish to consider adding it. Thanks.—Encephalon | ζ  12:42:48, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

[edit]

As I said on the talk page, I have no interest in Kennedy, but if these things are verifiable then they may have some place in the article. --nixie 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have had a chance to read the talk page and so on I have reverted to an old version and I'm going to leave the page protected.--nixie 02:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and now at Talk:Elvis Presley and its archived Talk pages surrounding the exact same issue as was discussed and voted upon already on the Abraham Lincoln matter. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable Wikipedia sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it. If the policy consensus arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think the existing determination of what constitutes a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Double Standard

[edit]

Why are Mexicans from Texas their own ethnic group but Irish from Chicago or the Bronx not their own ethnic group. 66.73.198.159 15:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Problem

[edit]

My problem is that the majority of wikipedia members are bigots. 66.73.198.159

If you don't want fake ethnic groups on the list, I will remove all the American Indian tribes, because they are only TRIBES, not ethnic groups. Native American only needs to be on the list once. 66.73.198.159 15:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes of Ireland

[edit]

Should I remove all Native American tribes or should I add all Ireland tribes? 66.73.198.159 15:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Descrimination

[edit]

Irish-Americans the the second most descriminated against group in America after African-Americans. 66.73.198.159 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standard

[edit]

Why are tribes of America accepted but not tribes of Ireland? Just try to give a real answer this time. 66.73.198.159 15:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tejano

[edit]

You never answered why Mexican immigrant in Texas are there own ethnic group. That's been on the list for a while and no one ever had a problem with it, put up something similiar with the Irish, and it is not allowed. 66.73.198.159 15:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True Statement

[edit]

It's a true statement and that's all that matters. 66.73.198.159 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

[edit]

I'm not sure why you reverted yourself; you hadn't violated 3RR, and could still revert to the consensus version. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have miscounted the versions. These IP sockpuppets are annoying. Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your English, wow!

[edit]

Hey there! I saw your revert on Shintaro Ishihara, and being a busybody with not much to do (I argue with that guy, Flowerofchivalry, when I'm bored) I decided to take a look at your userpage and talkpage. My my, your mastery of the English language is superb! I've read a few of your "discussions" with less-than-savoury types, and you are definitely well versed in the (subtle) art of insults! :D And of course, your general command of English is superior as well. I fathom it's not that surprising considering you're an English literature major... care to share what period/author was the focus for your major? Anyway, just saying hi! -Hmib 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excurse me??

[edit]

You know I just made that stub and worked on the Lisa Kushell article a long time with my friend so please i ask of you what you are thinking. I am Jewish and don't appreciate you jumping all over me like that. I am just trying to add some spice into this stuff is all.Wiki brah 07:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete Links?

[edit]

Calton, why did you delete the EB links from "On This Day" pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_17&diff=prev&oldid=21788710, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_24&diff=prev&oldid=21788699, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_25&diff=prev&oldid=21784002, but keep the BBC ones? What makes the BBC links OK, and the EB links not OK? 216.146.93.139 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coq-bloody-Sportif, and his sockpuppet legions.

[edit]

Wikipedia:ANI#Coq-bloody-Sportif and his sockpuppet legions. Figured you'd be interested. :) Shem(talk)

Excuse?

[edit]

Are you something of stalking me or somethig? The comment about the sewer I dont know if its true but everyone who follows football in S.Am. talks about that story its like your Georg Washingont and the Oak tree i mean you dont know if its true but if you phrase it as a legend you know... the second point is that Maradona started his own show recently i dont know if you have it in N.Am. but I saw him say that myself I can provide more details later but please dont follow me around and stalk me this is the second time i've run into you in the last 2 days. ObrigadoWiki brah 04:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now it obvious that you are stalking me and that is quite creepy I doubt if you know much more about football than people in Brasil so please stop bothering me. Of course you cant seem to have the decency to respond and just make fun of others in your edit summaries which is very low and terrible and impolite ObrigadoWiki brah 04:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merda!

[edit]

I see now you are making sarcastic and demeaning comments on my talk page and skimmed your talk page and see all these other users you've upset by making edits to articles you know nothing about like South American Football. Why cant you just be nice and work together with us I'm saying you also seem to put down the entire continent of South America as if our info isn't relevant to people in North America should I remind you that there are more Japanese people in South America than in Japan? Esp. in Brasil.Wiki brah 05:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix sum quam "Altavista Babelfish" facis -- you might be able to fake portuges but i know that you cant translate Latin on there so have fun with that one !!

You should really try to tone down the attitude a bit I'm autistic and you did break my balls on the japanese thing i mean I know that there are more japanese people in brasil than anywhere outside of japan but i guess i was stretching things a bit sorry about that.

I am sorry that you cannot relate to our culture in a way that does not require every little thing to be explained to you i mean i've only been to america a few times but i know a lot about it if you want to learn more about brasil or south america you can check out my articles at Anal Sex in Brasil and Cocaine use in Brasil I wouldn't mind doing a bit of both tonigth actually thank you, Obrigaaooo....Wiki brah 06:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes like I said before I might be autistic but i'm not retarded i mean if you were going for the 'obviously subliterate' message then why did you take pain to make such a subtle change in replacing "todos" to "cada" they are the just about same thing after all that is very interesting!! Wiki brah 06:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

simple or convoluted headings?

[edit]

Are you familiar with the Kingdom of Hawaii's monarchy? There's been a huge fuss lately over whether articles on Hawaii's monarchs are in the right location and there are some people who'd like to change the format used in naming the articles (e.g. one user wants to move the article Kamehameha I to Kamehameha I, King of Hawaii. We're having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style#Names of monarchs. Arrigo 12:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Scarborough

[edit]

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. Mirror Vax 16:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Lambert the insightful chronicler of Hollywood

[edit]

Query: What is wrong with the passage that Lambert was an insightful chronicler of Hollywood? I do not understand why you have removed this sentence from the Gavin Lambert article. In a review of Lambert's Cukor biography, Joseph McBride writes,

The novelist, screenwriter, and biographer Gavin Lambert, a British expatriate who has lived in Los Angeles since the 1950s, is a keenly observant, wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements. His fiction -- such as The Slide Area: Scenes of Hollywood Life, Inside Daisy Clover, and The Goodby People -- and his biographies of the actresses Norma Shearer and Alla Nazimova are marked by a compassion toward his dreamstruck characters and an unsentimental shrewdness in examining the processes through which they court or surmount self-destruction. As an interviewer, Lambert is subtle and discreet. See [5]

Hong Kong and Macao

[edit]

Hello Calton perhaps you'd be interested to join the discussion at talk:lists of office-holders#Hong Kong and Macao on how Hong Kong and Macao should be presented. I was basically restoring the list [6] to the way they are presented prior to user:Huaiwei's first attempt to edit according to her/his point of view [7]. She/he has edited some other articles according to this point of view too. — Instantnood 06:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC) (modified 07:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC))

I think it would be greatly appreciated if you may avoid dropping messages like this in the talkpages of anyone disagreeing with your views, while at the same time making sinister remarks on your opponents. This underhand tactic is nothing short of unethical.--Huaiwei 07:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder Calton. I was in fact making a response at his talk page, and is now hit by the edit conflict warning. :-D — Instantnood 07:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise, Calton.--Huaiwei 07:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton/Archive04&oldid=1140720029"