- 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
- 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.
- This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.
- 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.
- There is no Rule 4.
- Don't post when drunk. Seriously.
- 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.
- Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
- 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.
- Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
- Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
- Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.
- Thank you. -- The Management.
- 1 January 2019
- 2 December 2018
- 3 Nomination of Luke Edwards for deletion
- 4 Could you please be more careful?
- 5 Not helpful
- 6 July 2018
- 7 editing
- 8 Are you serious?
- 9 Impossible Interpretation
- 10 Main article for Category:Advocates of the Fourteen Words
- 11 Proposed deletion of Everwin Pneumatic Corp.
- 12 "Management"
- 13 False accusation of rape
- 14 Miquel Reina
- 15 Your offensive behavior
- 16 Just poking my nose in...
- 17 Calton
- 18 Emotional outbursts
- 19 October 2018
- 20 Apology
- 21 "policy evolves from practice"
- 22 Notice of AE process
- 23 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 24 Alert
- 25 Carpatho / Perspex03
- 26 Personal attacks
- 27 Merry Merry
- 28 Leave me alone.
- 29 Emperor Norton
- 30 Happy Holidays
- 31 Reported for Personal Attack
- 32 ReverendSpecialK
- 33 Alternative vaccination schedule
- 34 Richard B. Spencer
- 35 January 2019
- 36 pearl-clutching
My recent changes to the Thiessen article were deleted. As far as I can tell though there is nothing defamatory about Thiessen there. I simply noted that he had been criticized in a dozen newspapers across America, which is true and easily verifiable (I also included 4 references proving this). Please re-visit the libel/defamatory page and explain specifically what you think is defamatory so that I will know better in the future and so we can craft this addition in a way that meets with Wikipedia's standards. Here is what I added:
After writing a column that attacked the John Birch Society using false information and then refusing to issue a full correction, Thiessen was criticized for dishonesty and his ties to white supremacists by members and Jewish leaders of the Society in letters and op-eds published in almost a dozen major newspapers across the country. 
Please help me craft it so that it can stay and not run afoul of Wikipedia's standards. Thank you!
comment added by JimSmith12345 14:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Secure Fence Act of 2006 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7rexkrilla (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 . 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.
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)
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. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not in an edit war. I am pursuing a resolution, however "editor" Melencron is repeatedly removing content while an open review is in process. Indeed Melencron is in direct violation of Wikipedia criteria. 1. Notability for listing a person - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). While the section on Politicians and Judges have specific requirements, no where does it say that one must be on the ballot to be listed, in fact, if one follows the requirements as stated, then several of the candidates listed who were not even on the ballot must be removed. Nevertheless, as I am part of an article, I fall under Due WrightI meet the standards of General Notability wherein I am eligible to be discussed as part of a larger article. In addition, I fall under the umbrella of Scientist as a published researcher - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7358593?reload=true&arnumber=7358593, Inventor - http://techfinder.rutgers.edu/tech?title=VSTEP%3A_Balance%2C_Mobility%2C_and_Fitness_Rehabilitation_Game, https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2017040658&recNum=127&docAn=US2016049695&queryString=augmented%20reality&maxRec=37325 and I have had multiple instances of media coverage: https://cannagather.com/october2017, https://www.spreaker.com/user/netrootsradio/robbgosinefinalall, https://issuu.com/cityandstate/docs/csny_08072017_version (page 23)
Even Wikipedia has me listed in a different language - https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elei%C3%A7%C3%A3o_municipal_de_Nova_Iorque_em_2017 So how is it that two editors on Wikipedia have taken it upon themselves to attack me personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2019 (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)
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>." 18.104.22.168 (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.
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.
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)
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)
It is unfortunate that you did not use an argument to refute the edit, but merely an emotional outburst.
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  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)
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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Carpatho / Perspex03
This is a smear made by Beyond My Ken without any evidence. How do I go about reporting him in the proper way? I just checked and those two other users have a long history of editing on topics related to white supremacists. I just joined Wikipedia last month and all of my edits so far have nothing to do with alt-right or white supremacist figures except the Gavin McInnes page (who isn't even a white nationalist, he seems to identify as more of a libertarian or "new right"). All of a sudden two editors Calton and Beyond My Ken jump all over me accusing me of being a sock based on zero evidence. I believe what is going on is these two users have political agendas and are trying to smear me as a "sock" to prevent me from contributing and editing on Wikipedia. IAFIS (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right, no evidence whatsoever, other than the obvious sockpuppet behavior -- oh, and the checkuser evidence that saw you and your many many socks blocked. I guess the aggressive approach doesn't help when you've got something to hide, does it? --Calton | Talk 16:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I tried to offer constructive comments on the ANI about sizes of nazi images, JzG seems to have misinterpreted my comment and assumed bad faith, when called out on this by other editors, JzG tried to justify his bad faith assumption by misrepresenting completely unrelated disputes to attack my character as an editor. I removed the attacks, and now you are edit warring to restore them. Do you realize what a bad idea it is to edit war to restore personal attacks on ANI? And why do you feel the need to restore PAs on an ANI thread that has nothing to do with you? Neither you nor JzG have any involvement in that ANI other than personally attacking me, so why not just stop?
I have warned JzG, but I think he needs slightly more WP:ROPE before being reported to ANI, I am not convinced that I have a good case that sanctions would be preventative at this point, and I am hoping that he will just not do this again, making an ANI over it a complete waste of time, but this doesn't mean that I can't remove the PAs he already made. However, if you keep restoring the PAs, I will have to report YOU to ANI to make you stop, I CAN make a case that you need to be blocked to stop you from edit-warring to reastore PAs. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- You haven't "warned" me, you have merely stated an opinion. As have I, based on my long observation of your editing. You don't get to be arbiter of whether an admin's comment on your edits is a personal attack or a valid comment on problematic editing. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 18:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Leave me alone.
Regarding , it's about developing a credible encyclopedia. It's not about "fun". Feel free to justify the use of the word "imperial" in an authorial voice on the talk page of the article. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
|Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!
Reported for Personal Attack
If anything I said offended you, I certainly didn't intend it to. It's my experience that editors doing that usually have an agenda of some kind, and that coupled with the deletion of text mentioning Jews seemed to show what that agenda was. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Alternative vaccination schedule
I reverted you edit at Alternative vaccination schedule because your response on the talk page was essentially saying "I disagree" without explanation. I am trying to follow WP:BRD, and if you want to revert me again(or ask me to self revert) that is fine, as long as you are willing to discuss the issue. If you wish to ignore this message that is fine too, I am only leaving this message in case you didn't see my ping on the article talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Richard B. Spencer
Since you don't seem to think I'm allowed to edit my own comments on your talk page, I'll make this may last effort to withdraw from any further discussion with you on this or any other topic. I notice from this talk page that many take umbrage at your approach, and I would count myself amongst those numbers, but let it suffice to say that I have no interest in further dialogue with or interaction with you. Continued updates to my commentary in a way that does not accurately reflect my sentiments (e.g. by deleting these comments and reverting solely to the original message) will be seen as deliberately antagonistic. It seems that you're not open to someone trying to take a softer tone or to better explain their actions. I'm guessing that's because it doesn't create the foil you need to satisfy some seeming penchant for riposte. Your comments have been deleted from my talk page, and shall remain so. To quote a message you sent me, "My talk page, genius". Should anyone be interested in reading them (though I can't imagine why they would), they're available in the history.
I am not going to start a revert battle with you. As a Change Reviewer, I evaluated the submission and declined the edits of an IP contributor who deleted content that is supported by the citations. I'm not sure if you actually read the sources noted in the article about the MLK date, but I did notice you reverted within 2 minutes of me making the revision. Vertium When all is said and done 03:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Vertium When all is said and done 16:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. It isn't necessary to compare a discussion of where an RFC should be to animal waste. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)