User talk:Calton/Archive16

; 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;

Thank you

I noticed that you fix up random pages to fix random mistakes . But i think of it a random way to learn also . And your help are thankfully helpful . A random thanks from me as me myself help out as well even if its only a few edits here and here and there .Richardson j 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Away

I don't need nor want your input, thanks. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is my call. My userpage, my talk page, my account. I don't want your help, I am not asking for your help, I don't need your help. I am asking you to leave me alone and don't post on my talk page again. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have asked nicely....so let's do this. Post again with your rude, berating little comments, and I report you for WikiStalking. OK? Leave...me...alone. Thank you...NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought I made this really really clear...."Leave...me...alone." and "Post again with your rude, berating little comments, and I report you for WikiStalking." You just demonstrated you are doing a little WikiStalking. Now...don't post again, don't bother me again. Got it? Thank you....NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and continuing to bother me after I have said "don't post again, don't bother me again", is stalking. No matter what you say, no matter how you defend yourself. In the real world, you go to jail for stalking, on Wikipedia, you get a nice 24hour block. You might want to reevaluate your stance on stalking in general. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they do say that stalkers do try to defend their actions, saying they are doing nothing wrong. I have reported you, cause you are obviously not getting "GO AWAY"....you don't get it. You are a cyber-stalker on Wikipedia and probably one in real-life with your continued actions on here. Now, leave...me...alone. Admins are watching. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent)Could you please stop trolling and harassing users on their talk pages, Calton?--T. Wiki 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Years of premeditated disruption"

Calton, again I must commend you for taking the brunt of this week's Honesty 64 - Telogen - Nervous Mermaid - Marie Spaccuzzi -- Guy Hoffman -- Anon User -- Seasons & Muse clusterf*ck. (I especially liked Honesty 64's "Years of premeditated disruption" comment -- it sounds like the title of a B movie). If you ever need help fending off this multiple personality disorder, don't hestitate to ask. Griot 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a dialogue

To TTN, Matthew and Calton, I request all of you to not edit the S60 episode articles without first establishing a constructive dialogue. I see that per WP:EPISODE, the articles may be redirected but as Matthew states, this is a non-consensual edit and hence not in the spirit of wikipedia.

I personally put in a lot of effort into those articles and the information present there is certainly a lot more than that available for most other shows (see West Wing, How I Met Your Mother, Friends and many others).

If the argument is based on the fact that there are only three articles for three episodes, then I would be more than willing to create articles for the rest (this time I will follow the WP:Episode guidelines). Do note that when I first created the articles that are currently available, the show was on hiatus and hence I was not certain if it was going to be finished and hence unsure of continuing to create articles for a defunct series.

At the very least, please comment on the talk pages of the aforementioned articles before needlessly starting an edit war.

Do get back to me and leave me a message on my talk page. Zuracech lordum 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, you're breaking your own "rule 1". You neither suggested or urged anywhere (as far as I know) that the articles should be redirected, which basically amounts to deletion. Zuracech lordum 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I broke rule 3 but I did not violate rule 5. I did not assume you to be stupid. I agree to what you state but nevertheless, an amateur as I am, I can't help but feel that it's not right. I won't quote any policy to back me up but still I will work to do what's right to ensure that the articles meet wikipedia's standards.

I did not follow the guidelines from the start because I was not aware that they existed. And this may not be the accepted way or whatever, but I personally believe that at the very least there should be a discussion on the talk page or some comments to the effect before any hasty deletion. Each article does rise and fall on its own but it should at least be given a chance for correction or improvement.

Also, next time, if you'd be kind enough, try to sound a little amicable please. All I'm trying to do is to negotiate and compromise but if that's too much to ask then never mind, I'll go work on something else. The reason that wikipedia interests me is the ability to work with other people rather than against them. Zuracech lordum 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that from what I have read around, [{WP:REDIRECT]] is not currently entirely approved of. I would direct you to the discussions that state it as thus but I'm just too darn tired and annoyed and going away from wikipedia for a while. Please, please, do not redirect without leaving a comment on the talk page for the benefit of editors that have a vested interest in those articles as you will seriously put off many wikipedians. No matter what opinions you may have, you definitely do not want that, I hope as that is just against wikipedia's absolute fundamental values. Zuracech lordum 01:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KDKA-TV

Well, I suggest you get cracking and work your magic on the other hundreds of TV station pages here on Wiki. If you're going to be irrational and stridently resist any attempts for dialogue, you may as well do it on as many pages as you can. Burghboy80 02:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I spoke proper English and caused confusion. I don't completely disagree with WP:NOT#DIR, but I disagree with the way you opt to run roughshod through implementing the change. Burghboy80 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the epitome of what's wrong with a site like Wikipedia. Rather than adhering to the community concept in which we collaboratively tweak and refine the system, you seek to bend the rules to conform to your agenda. I have a leg to stand on, thank you very much, and I urge you to point out where I disagreed with the spirit of the issue here. Burghboy80 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Well, I hope you don't forget the first three words either. Have a nice day. Zuracech lordum 14:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen USA afds

I would strongly recommend you STOP afd-ing and prod-ing these articles... wait for ONE case to go through then act on the rest accordingly. You are creating a great deal of repetitive work for myself and other editors. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Look, I'm sorry about my reaction to you nominating all those articles. I'm stressed, tired and having all those articles prodded really hit a nerve. I fully appreciate that I do not "own" the article and that I was being overly protective of them. I knew I needed a breather but I plunged on regardless. Apologies. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Why do you engage in attacking me, rather then dicussing the issue like an adult on the Peter Roskam Biography?

Snarky little quips like "It appears that you have confused "hobby" with "self-centered obsession" - a good dictionary ought to help with that." is not constuctive and is considered a personal attack.Jakeleglarry 08:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should read this Antisocial personality disorder . This may help your lack of respect for others. Jakeleglarry 08:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting those changes on the Baton Rouge stations. I appericate your help. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eComXpo 3RR

The edit summary is not a place to debate. I addressed your vague statements in detail at the place where such things are supposed to be discussed, the articles talk page. See Talk:EComXpo. Please provide specific arguments that they can be addressed ,rather than personal opinions and feelings. I will revert your change the 3rd and last time. Use the proper channels for communication and let us try to come to a consensus. Thank you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn W. Smith

It appears you edited the page of Glenn W. Smith and gave it the designation of Conflict of Interest. I have added some comments on the page (Talk:Glenn_W._Smith) regarding this designation and I must defer to your expertise in interpretation of the specifics of COI and NPOV. I realize the article should not be deleted and slithered back in, but I would like to know what can be done to create a neutral point of view and remove the appearance of impropriety. --User:Chrisjx

Userpage

Hi, is there any reason why you reverted my edit on your sandbox and userpage? Of course those two pages are completely yours to rule/dictate but since you are crediting me, wouldn't it be better to credit my real userpage? :) -- Cat ^chi? 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, is there any reason why you reverted my edit on your sandbox and userpage?

Yes. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind being more specific? -- Cat ^chi? 02:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reason for your attitude. -- Cat ^chi? 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So? --Calton | Talk 02:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you want to properly credit me - yet still credit me? I mean, you are more than welcome to use anything you got from my userpage and crediting me is the ethical thing that you are doing... It doesn't really make any sense that you aren't even showing the basic courtesy of a detailed straight answer. -- Cat ^chi? 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've answered your questions as much as I care to. You don't like my answers? Not my problem. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No. So?

You are awfully insincere. Best wishes, whatever your problem is.

-- Cat ^chi? 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of "I've answered your questions as much as I care to" was unclear? Do I need to diagram that sentence for you or explain the difficult words? To recap and expand my answers:

"Yes, I do."

"So what?"

You don't like my answers? Not my problem. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind not crediting me at all if you are not going to link to User:White Cat/ref please? Do not worry, I won't be "copyright-lawyering" GFDL -- Cat ^chi? 02:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's most strange. Why do you mind? Please provide a reasonable rationale. Your short answers are only increasing my curiosity... -- Cat ^chi? 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Merkey

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:Visorstuff

Thanks -Visorstuff 02:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag

You have just placed a tag about speedy deletion on a userpage. I don't know if you know that a userpage is not an encyclopedic article, and that there are no speedy deletion rules on those as far as there are created by the maker? Arienh4^(Talk) 14:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

You can either talk to me on a normal way, or you just don't talk to me. Please see This page, since you seem to like to refer to Wikipedia: pages. Arienh4^(Talk) 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the comment above by PMAnderson, that's a normal way. Your way is just rude. Arienh4^(Talk) 16:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been here on Wikipedia quite a while, and this is the first time someone reacts like this. Should prove something, doesn't it?

Err, I don't know? That I have been on the English Wikipedia for about 2 months, after being active under several usernames on other Wikipedias maybe? However, when I scroll up, I see that you have quite a history of reacting in such a rude manner against others. I don't see something like it. And I mean under the same heading, by the way, which proves that it can be told in a normal manner. Please refer to: this page too. Arienh4^(Talk) 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, nor White Cat nor Neutralhomer (just to call some) "insulted your intelligence". But let's just stop this discussion, as I seem to be unable to reason with you. Arienh4^(Talk) 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, let's just stop the discussion, since it is impossible to reason with you. Arienh4^(Talk) 08:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use my talk page to revive old discussions. Thank you. Arienh4^(Talk) 11:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty

Why are you so nasty? Everywhere I go your name keeps popping up, and you are always being condescending and rude. What's that all about? Aren't people on Wikipedia supposed to be helpful to others and refrain from personal attacks?

I don't care for the dishonest, incompetent, or fanatical: which in particular do you have a problem with, oh brand-new editor? --Calton | Talk 12:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit, I just read. I need something to do while I'm putting off my homework! I guess I've come across people you would tag as dishonest and/or fanatical, I don't think I've seen any comments directed towards you from anyone incompetent. Does it matter, though? Wouldn't toning your bad attitude down a bit solve more problems than constantly trying to put everyone else down? You have good arguments and seem quite intelligent in how you present them, but you're so off-putting. I just don't understand how that can work in your favor. (Obviously I'm not an editor, I couldn't even figure out how to indent your comment!)

As for my methods, given that the dishonest, fanatical, and yes, incompetent types I've tangled with have cleaned up their acts, abandoned their campaigns, or (all too frequently) been permanently blocked from editing by their own actions, I'm not overly concerned. I'm certainly not overly concerned about random advice by a complete unknown. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't advice, it was a question. I've been reading some of the endless policy stuff regarding treatment of other users and I was just wondering why you go about it the way you do. It's fairly obvious that you're not concerned about other people, I just wanted to know why. Truly, I wouldn't presume to give you advice. As you stated, and as I've seen, your way works. (FYI-yes, I've mastered the ability to highlight and delete text. I have to do a lot of writing for school, and I'm usually so annoyed by my own crap that I highlight and delete.)

If you live in Japan, why does your time stamp show London time? Shouldn't it show Tokyo time? Or can you change it at will?

-

I bet you must be thrilled. Congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.37.206 (talk • contribs)

Just an FYI

I make like 2 bucks a week off of internet ads. That's not where the real money is - increasing traffic increases the amount of potential clients because the other couple of hundred comes from making businesses their own listings and optimizing them to pop up at the top of a google search.

And I stand by calling you an asshole - here's my justification

Wikipedia defines asshole as one 'whose behavior is hurtful, self-centered or particularly abrasive'.

To bring in a third party urban dictionary defines asshole as 'someone being arrogant, rude, obnoxious, or just a total dickhead....'

I along with several other users feel you fall into these two definitions. Disbar me, call me names, report me to the wikipedia police, generally just do what you will. It has taken me 8 minutes so far to write this and I feel I've spent about an hour total of my life dealing with you. I would not like give you any more of me to you. I figure It will take at least 2 hours of your life to complain about me, actively talk in the discussions to block my account, and of course find and cite all my instances of bad wiki behavior - have fun! Andman8 04:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page spam (and its blessed demise)

You sold me! Basically being a deletionist, I'm more than happy to have a reason to get rid of spam in all forms. I've just given user pages a lot more leeway, in the few times I've actually dealt with them. Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age. :-) Realkyhick 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that, but I know how to deal with user page spam. You seem to have missed the reason I declined it. It was not run-of-the-mill product advertisement. As it seemed a valid biographical stub (barring the notability problem of course), I was inclined to give the user some time to clarify the usage - whether they were using it to get Ghits or whether they kept it in userspace with a view to developing it conform to our standards before moving to mainspace.

Anyways, thanks again for the refresher course. :) --soum ^talk 12:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, point noted. --soum ^talk 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of User:Chainsofhell

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Chainsofhell. I do not think that User:Chainsofhell fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because IMO this is not exactly blatent advertising -- it states that a particualr band exists, it doesn't even include a link. If this user is a member, or even a fan, of the band why not allow this one-line mention? If this user is trying to use wikipedia as an advertising platform, s/he is dooing a pretty poor job. DES ^(talk) 15:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't insist that all spammers be "compentant", but the degree of harm and offensiveness is part of "blatent" IMO. I really don't think this is "blatent advertising" it simply says that a particualr band exixts, it uses no adjectives of praise, it does not urge anyone to see them, buy their music, or visit their website, it doesn't even link to a myspwce or youtube page. In short I don't think this qualifies, particualrly on a user page, where people are typically given a bit more leeway. I grant that this user has made no substantive contributios to date, but s/he might. Note that I do delete user pages that are clearly ads -- i just deleted User:Stinkies for example. But I try to use some judgement on the matter. If you really think i am wrong here, get another admin to overrule me, or take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI. DES ^(talk) 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of User:Vinko Tsui

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Vinko Tsui. I do not think that User:Vinko Tsui fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because This seems to be a redir, of the sort endorsed by Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Signatures, and intended to clarify his signature, since he uses Vinko Tsui to refer to himself consistantly, but his actual user name is Vinko. Yes it would be better if he actually registered User:Vinko Tsui, and so technically this is a valid speedy, but it doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and may do some good. I see no reason to delete it. Perhaps there is a reaosn i don't see. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Templating the regulars"

I do read the templates I use when i use them, and in this case I specifically edited after substing to remove parts that I didn't intened. In this case, I also wrote the template in question. i don't see the point in objections to "Templating the regulars" -- if a template msg says what I want to say, i will use it. If I sign it, i stand behind it just as if I typed it directly rather than using a template. If another person has a problem with it -- fine, i'll discuss it. If it was mastaken in a particular case, I'll say so. If I think i was wrong to have said it, I'll apoloigise -- just as I would with any msg I send. It is true that the template-derived wording caused, in this case, what could be seen as a contradiction. But my point remains that in this particular case i do not think speedy deletion is warrented. You may well disagree. You are, of course, not bound by my view. i am simply explaining, as clearly as i can, why I chose remove the tag you had placed. If you don't find my view persuasive, so be it. I think that it is a basic courtesy to notify and explain in such cases. As a bonus, sometimes I inform people of something they didn't know about speedy deletion, or persaude thsm that I am correct. Sometimes I don't. That's wikipedia for you. DES ^(talk) 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so you specifically intended to say that the page doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria AND that it does fits the speedy deletion criteria? Neat trick there.

"if a template msg says what I want to say, i will use it" - Which apparently it didn't (see above), or else we wouldn't be having this conversation

What i intended to communicate (and I think the meaning was in fact clear enough) was that the deletion was not warrented by any of the speedy deletion criterion, even though the page technically fell within one of them. Perhaps i should have phrased this more carefully, but can you honestly say that you didn't understand that to be my meaning, whether you agree with it or not? As for the contradiction: "I contradict myself? very well, i contradict myself. I am large, i contain multitudes" as Whitman put it, or "a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds" to quote Emerson.

Do you have any susbstantive point to make here? I think you know that I disagreed with the speedy deleltion proposed, and why. I gather that you disagree. I also gather that you dislike my style of communication. I find yours excessivly scarcastic, but we all have our own styles. Is there anything you actually want me to do about this, or any informaton that I don't have that you want to convey? DES ^(talk) 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some editors consider "Templating the regulars" to be insulting. I don't agree. I didn't intend any insult, but if you feel insulted, so be it. I don't see that I have said or done anything in this matter that requires an apology, though i do regret that you were upset, and that you seem far more interested in how I expressed things than in what I had to say. DES ^(talk) 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people consider all sorts of absurd things insulting. As long as I act reasonably I see no obligation to abide by any and every prejudice someone else may have. But since you have been so clear that you dislike templated messages, when i do something that I would normally notify you about via a template, I will simply not notify you. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep digging there. So considering that "templating the regulars" is insulting is an absurd notion? And no, that's not an attempt at a gotcha, it's the only reasonable interpretation of your statement just above.'

Correct, i do consider that notion absurd. Congratulations on understanding something I implied but did not state explicitly. Note that the template in question (which you repeatedly implied or stated that I did not read, although a look at the history would confirm my statement that I actually wrote it) does not "remind [editors] of very basic policies" -- it is a way to express a common concern without needing to reformulate or retype the frequently repeated aspects. That is what templates are for. Some templates, such as the test/vandalism warnings, for example would be insulting if used toward an experienced user, because those messages assume inexperience. Other templates do not. IMO {{Speedy-Warn}} does not. Indeed, since inexperienced users rarely tag pages for speedy delete, this template would rarely be targeted at inexperienced users, and it was designed with experienced editors as its intended audience. I suspect that the original meaning of "templating the regulars" was that using templates designed for newcomers was insulting when the recipient was known to be an experienced editor. That I would agree with. The expanded sense, that using any templated msg to an established editor, i consider absurd. Think about how many routine notifications to experienced users are frequently or invariably done via templates: notifications of AfDs with {{AFDWarning}}; notifications of pages tagged for speedy deletion; notifications of arbcom cases to involved parties; RFC notifications; Block notices; and various others. It is true that too many editors use templates blindly. I recall one instance where an editor was accused of having been overly harsh in a particular message, and the response was "It's not my fault, I just used the standard template. It's the fault of the person who designed the template." That i consider foolish and insulting -- if an editor leaves a message, whether using a template or not, that editor ought to take responsibility for that message, just as if every character had been typed personally. That is what I try to do. If I think a message would be insulting or improper if typed, then so would that same message if left via a template. Contrawise, if the message would have been fine if typed, then it is just as fine if left via a template. Not also that the template involved here requires the user to write out the actual reason for concern, not just pick a stock phrase which might not fit. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn of keep for Kari Schull

I don't know if you are the nominator for deletion review for this article, but I do appreciate that you bothered to protest the keep. The subject simply has no place in Wikipedia today. KP Botany 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the prod on Joanna Candelaria, I hope it goes. (I edit articles nominated for deletion during the AfD whether or not I think the article should be kept, as every Wikipedia article, even one nominated for deletion, should be readable.) KP Botany 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty pageants

Just because you have no interest in beauty pageants or their contestants doesn't mean that they are not notable - and please don't go trying to delete stuff when you are ignorant about the topic you are dealing with. I happen to think there are tons of articles on here that do not meet Wikipedia's standards and that do not have individual merit... particularly those about comics etc, but I am wise enough to know that I do not truly understand their significance and so I leave it alone. A much more prudent avenue would have been to bring your issues to the appropriate WikiProject (WikiProject Beauty Pageants and to address yoru concerns there in the first instance. One example, the continual use of the term "model" to describe them as has been used by yourself and one other editor, is both incorrect and somewhat demeaning. PageantUpdater 05:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it calm, please

Don't fan the flames, please, whatever your feelings on pagaents and their contestants.[1] It will be hot enough with me in there, already. But I'll stay away. KP Botany 05:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty pageants

Looking at it objectively, I agree that the WP:BIO claim for the Teen state titleholders is fairly tenuous, so I will be endorsing all the deletions from now on and am attempting to change the prods to Db-author to get it over and done with.

That said, I just want to try and get it across to you how flippant you are being about the contextual importance of the state titles to the Miss Teen USA system. Many of the girls competed against more than 50 other contestants to win their state titles, and in some cases against hundreds of other girls. Others had to win local pageants before even competing for the state title. Some competed for years before they won their title. The state pageants are extremely important because only one girl is crowned each year and it is the only way you can go on to compete in the national pageant, which itself is a major achievement. There are some girls who compete for years at the state level without winning the title. Winning is a major deal, not just some small local event.

Clearly it has been decided that winning the state title doesn't meet notability criteria, but I would like you to understand how demeaning of the pageant you have been and how much ignorance you have shown on this matter. I wish you'd put the effort in to find out a little more about it befoer embarking on your deletion campaign. I think that I would probably not have reacted so strongly and angrily had you shown a little more tact, particularly as it appears to be your style to make your intrinsic opinions on the subject matter clearly known despite how irrelevant that may be to the weighing of an article's notability. PageantUpdater 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so inclined

I'm being told I'm a bad man for trying to get decent sources/removing unsourced material from this article. So I've randomly selected you from editors I've interacted with at some stage to ask for a 2nd view (if you have the time and are so inclined - no problem if you don't want to/are busy). Am I a bad man or is that a page in need of a) a serious slash and b) some decent sources. --Fredrick day 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you delete it?

I added the release of the Nintendo Wii on the 2006 list of major events, but you deleted it within a couple minutes. Millions of Wiis have been sold, so I figured it was a major event. Miles Blues 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Huztlazgreed

Hello. I saw your post on my talk page regarding this article which I declined to delete when I was clearing the PROD backlog yesterday. To start, please note that "6. Do not assume I'm stupid, .... I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted." also applies to persons other than yourself. Please note that clearing these articles take a bit of time. I have seen many articles which people put prod tags on which clearly do not meet the criteria, such as already having been PRODed twice in the past several weeks or having followed XFD discussions. I obviously don't do this without reading the logs. I delete far more than I remove the tags from and I know that I delete many of the pages which you tag. I do not always have as much time as other users would like when I perform these tasks. As far as this particular article, the admin who userfied in the first place had the opportunity to delete it outright rather than performing the userfy. They obviously chose not to do so. Also, with 6 entries in the log, this was not your standard "simple page move", which indicates that there may have been something else going on. I think it is reasonable to ask that admin "why" before I would delete it now as a courtesy that we admins have towards each other. I'll await your reply on my talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notify the admin because I am not the one seeking deletion; as the nominator that would be your responsibility. I did notify you, through the use of my edit summary. Please not that it is not incumbent upon the admin (or any user) to notify the nominator when a PROD tag is removed. It is your responsibility to keep track of your nominations, which you obviously do through the use of watchlist and/or tracking pages. Obviously, you were able to keep track of this as you were able to promptly respond to me on my talk page and MFD the user page. I'm glad that all worked out. Have a nice day and feel free to stop by again, but I would appreciate it if you might use a bit less rhetoric in our future dealings. I find it is easier to collaborate when we try to not escalate matters. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image gallery

By the way, I came across your image gallery here: User:Calton/Pictures. It looks like you took all those pictures, loaded them into commons and are using them in articles. That is truly an admirable contribution to the project. I spend enough time going through images tagging and deleting that I have seen some really bad examples of people copying images and trying to pass them off as not being copyvios. It would be nice if more editors took the time to do what you have with your images, rather than causing copyvio problems for others to cleanup. Good job. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime

Since you're the guy who (it seems) was largely responsible for busting Primetime, I thought I'd bounce this off you. If it hasn't been done already, we need to seriously look at getting him banned Wikimedia-wide. When you harass users off-wiki, you're a danger to the whole setup. Blueboy 96 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]