User talk:Calton/Archive29

; 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;

User talk:AndreyVorobyov

Posting further gibes at him is disruptive. The dispute had been dealt with and is over, and you need to move on too. So stop it and leave him alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits, refusal to drop the stick, and escalating a dispute that has already been closed. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say you weren't warned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the comment (the "trolling") that was left over from the dispute was fine, but the dispute had already been closed after that, he had been warned about his behaviour, and he had moved on (and possibly left Wikipedia altogether). Heading over to his talk page two days later, trying to start the fight up again, and escalating the aggression with personal insults was absolutely not acceptable. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not fighting petty schoolboy battles, remember? Anyway, you know how to request unblock if you wish, but I would oppose unblocking you until you have regained a sense of perspective and agree to stop with your escalating anger and aggression. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have also been grossly uncivil with another editor recently...

No matter what the content dispute, those are are all examples of unacceptable incivility and personal attacks. I don't know why you are acting so aggressively these days, but it has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, you may want to keep an eye on this page. One wonders how this guy is only being blocked for 31 hours for that sort of language. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ILoveTheVoice

Why did you remove all of the contest from his page? ILoveTheVoice II (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia user pages are not free web space for you to host your own fictitious material, and I have now deleted your new user page per WP:U5. Please see WP:User pages to learn what user pages are for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google LLC

Hello, I wanted to let you know that it is common practice to state the legal company name in the article, despite it being a common name or not. Common name is used for titles, not the start of a heading. You can refer to other company articles such as Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon (company). Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for a repeat of the aggressive interpersonal behaviour that led to your previous block. Further similar behaviour will lead to further sanctions, and if I'm the one who deals with it your next similar offence will result in at least a one-month block. To echo what I said last time, no matter what the content dispute, the edit summary "Again: no one left you in charge of ANYTHING, so no one is taking any orders from you. Suck it up, buttercup" is absolutely unacceptable. You must (in fact will, one way or another) stop the aggression and insults.

You know how to appeal this block if you wish to do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on some more of your recent edit summaries, I see escalating aggression, including sarcasm, "WTF", general snark, before reaching the level of outright personal insult. You really need to learn when to stop and step back. If you're in a bad mood, feeling frustrated, or whatever, the best thing to do is stop editing Wikipedia for a while. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: And you need to grow up, Sheriff Respect-Mah-Authoritah. A bad block, of course, but that's a typical overreaction from you. Maybe you should try paying occasional attention to things that are actually happening instead of running interference for bad editors. --Calton | Talk 09:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know how to request an unblock if you disagree with my reason for the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. Revan646 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting edits

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. - I wont hestitate to request for an administrator's attention if you decide to continue, you seem to have a colourful history in reverting edits and being disruptive. I suggest you stop being aggressive. The talk page exists for a reason. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism copyvio

Can you explain it to me how is that copyvio when there is proper attribution?Sourcerery (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(passer-by) @Sourcerery It's because the copyright rules are tightened in wake of Articles 11 and 13 of the European new copyright legislation. Also since there is an ongoing "constitutional crisis" caused by a WMF ban you have to be extra careful these days. 202.126.216.142 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

When discretionary sanctions are in place (WP:ARBAPDS), and there's no consensus for a change, the status quo is to be retained until a consensus is met. You should self-revert. Loganmac (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your undelete at the Ty Cobb page

Dear User:Calton. Thank you for sparing me one more maddening escalation toward an edit war with not only one but two different editors, applying common sense both to the congruence of the image and caption as currently mated and the context the latter provides.

That photo in particular shouts for context. Initially I thought it was a pre-game or Spring Training picture, given how empty the stands were behind the players. It's arresting - even moreso in the un-cropped version of the photo here:[1]. The fact is, it screams for a whole lot more than can reasonably be provided. The Senators only averaged 7,500 fans a game in 1924, yet they were 4th in AL attendance (with just 584,000 total). And were by no means the "Florida Marlins" of their day. In fact, they were en route to their first and only World Series championship.

I don't know the specific team standings on Saturday, August 16, but it would not have been a "throwaway" game, as the pennant race ended up tight (with the NY Yankees just two back) and the Sentaors' opponent Detroit Tigers finished 3rd, just 6 games behind (back when winning the pennant meant everything, before endless rounds of dilutionary play-offs and play-ins).

It's hard to imagine such empty outfield seats, but the image captured them for perpetuity. I've dug quite a bit to find game day attendance, but can't turn it up. Just how empty was the rest of the ballpark, considering all games back then were day games, and weekend games, particularly Sundays, and once highly popular double-headers, drew much larger crowds than weekdays? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Ember. I had originally created this article and in this case made an error in considering the weight of the sources. It seems right to delete it, and I would not support its reestablishment until and unless this person were the subject of 2+ additional reliable sources. Thanks for the the fun exchange in this and good call. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange and Diplomatic Asylum

Why did you remove

Matthew Happold, Julian Assange and Diplomatic Asylum, EJIL:Talk (Blog of the European Journal of International Law), 24 June 2012

from the page on Julian Assange?----Bancki (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lsparrish

Hello, Calton,

I have moved your comments from the "uninvolved admin section" to the general section involving this Arbitration enforcement case. I haven't altered their content but you might want to check to make sure they are worded as you choose them to be. You are a very experienced editor and I hope you won't comment in the admin section in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP on at Donald Trump talk page

I am enforcing BLP. You can bring that up for review, but you cannot revert to restore what I deem to be a BLP violation. That is prohibited. El_C 21:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

goat

Clown town (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi. I would really appreciate it if your Edit summaries explained why you made the edits. A couple of your recent ones didn't do that. I think you know which ones I'm talking about. Heh. Check out Help:Edit summary. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly closed NPOV dispute section on Jack Posibiec talk page; mischacterized comment from mine

Earlier today, you edited the talk page for Jack Posobiec and in so doing, you marked an open dispute over NPOV (still open on BLP noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard) as closed and labeled my statement of disengagement from discussion (due to contention with a specific user) on my talk page as "dropping" the matter (disputed NPOV for the page). This is an incorrect assertion regarding the still-open NPOV dispute, and I do not feel that either the label of having dropped the issue nor the premature closure of the topic on the talk page while the discussion is still open and in dispute over source accuracy and NPOV on the aforementioned BLP and NPOV noticeboards. I would ask that you reopen the NPOV dispute section on the Jack Posobiec talk page and clarify that my comment does not mean that the NPOV dispute has been "dropped." Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- The section has been reopened and the noticeboard discussions have had a procedural close, all by Ad Orientem. The above-stated issues have been resolved by a third-party. Thank you for your time. Ihuntrocks (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please understand.

Hello, I should probably explain the situation better, since you're coming into the middle of it and there's been a lot of lies and deceit in a particular user's harassment of me. I won't address your comments in the ANI thread, but the edit you made on the "Nocturnes (Debussy)" talk page.

AnUnnamedUser had been harassing me. I didn't report it, I just dealt with it myself. At one point he tried to divert a thread where people including me were having a perfectly reasonable peaceful conversation. AUU's diversion was intentional, designed to deplatform. He posted something and signed it with my user name, making it look like I was saying or responding to something I wasn't because I didn't write it. He actually took a previous post of mine in another thread, modified the words, and presented it in this new diversion thread. This of course is a complete violation of WP rules. I had the right to delete it and I did.

He then engaged in an edit-war, constantly reposting it and changing the post each time. Finally he stopped and went away. But the next day he was back and restoring it again and even added a "reply" to this fake post of "mine". The reply was insulting and more harassment.

A lot of other things happened which I won't go into here, but suffice to say:

1. I have the right to delete damaging, slanderous (libelous), and harassing posts about me,

2. I have the right to delete fake posts that make me say something I didn't,

3. I have the right to delete my own posts (which this at least "appears" to be),

4. I have the right to edit my own posts, and

5. I have the right to not have the same person "replying" to something I don't want to say, for everyone to read and think God-knows-what about my character.

Chuckstreet (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

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 Roppongi Hills, you may be blocked from editing. "Lifestyle" isn't advertising, it is a descriptor, in this case for a multi-use development that goes beyond shopping and business, which clearly is Ropponggi Hills. There are spas, salons, and other leisure amenities in said complex, that's why it qualifies as a shopping, LIFESTYLE, and business complex. Do not revert without valid reason. This is your first warning. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COIN

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um

User:Colin hasn't made a single edit to any medicine-related article since he started the discussions about the way drug prices are being mishandled in them several weeks ago. You need to go to ANI and strike your accusation that he's been edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Front

I changed the descriptor of Tacoma Against Nazis from "anti-white supremacist" to "anti-fascist." To be clear, nazis are BOTH white supremacists AND fascists (just look at the PF logo, which literally features a fascio). However, I found that "anti-white supremacist" does not read well. This minor lack of clarity is more major in this case because the far-right so often accuses groups like that of being "anti-white," which is simply not true. I obviously know what is meant by "anti-white supremacist," but at first glance, I thought it was describing them as anti-white. I had to do a little double-take. The wording "anti-fascist" definitely still fits the bill, has much better clarity, and is therefore less problematic in political context, which must always be carefully considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMbo (talk • contribs) 19:32, December 13, 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well C. MarnetteD|Talk 04:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very misleading edit

You reverted my edit on Abby Martin here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abby_Martin&diff=next&oldid=932907355

In the edit summary you implied you had only edited back in a claim that she promoted conspiracy theories based on the dubious Daily Beast (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-beast/). Not only did you do this, but you also removed the parts of my edit that updated the status on her documentary release and covered some of the guests on the show. Why did you do this? Why are you being so disruptive? If you don't like something in an article, then ONLY edit out that part you don't like. Please stop this or I will start reporting you for such disruptive edits Apeholder (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Research Center

Any idea why the lead calls it a watchdog group? No sources. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert

Calton, please self revert your Andy Ngo edit here [[2]]. Per NOCON the material should remain out of the article until supported by consensus. Currently 2 editors oppose and 2 support. Springee (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Calton, this is the second time you have failed to follow NOCON. You are trying to add new material that has been rejected with cause by myself and Loksmythe. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute regarding translation of Saris

  Apologies for not contacting you before through the talk page, I am not an expert editor. Thanks for your correcting me on the issues, but i think we have now reached a reasonable compromise. The original sentence remains save for a factual difference, and my reasoning was noted. KiE'manuKel (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate editing

Hello, I'm Xenagoras. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Calton, you "justified" your revert [3] of my edit [4] by saying, make your argument for each piece. "media bias" and "campaign sign defacement" really don't belong here. I already had adressed [5] all objections against every part of my edit in detail before you reverted me. You did not explain your revert via engaging in the discussion that I had started on the talk page, and your edit summary did not refer to any policy or guideline problem. You did not try to fix the problem. I quote policy describing how not to edit: You reverted a change simply because you find it "doesn't belong" / "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental, and you reverted a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Xenagoras (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign (second request)

Hello, Calton. You have new messages at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign#Unwarranted_deletions_of_content_by_MrX_and_WMSR.
Message added 08:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Xenagoras (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Xenagoras (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

This is a notification that an ARE has been opened here [[6]]. Springee (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1rr in Bernie Sander

Hi, you have made two reverts, the article is under 1rr sanction. This is also a possible BLP violation. The best thing to do is to self-revert right now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Calton reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: ). Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heston Blumenthal

There is a discussion about the article here. Bookscale (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I am so sorry, I was told once that talk pages of sanctioned articles are also under restrictions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results of AE thread

I closed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Calton with no direct action. However, please remember that slow-motion edit wars are still edit wars and that you are required to engage civilly with others. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated edits to Claudia Sahm

Claudia has written multiple times on her own blog and on twitter about her divorce. See

WP:BLPSELFPUB clearly states that self-published sources are considered reliable for material of this kind in a biography of a living person. In a case like this, I believe that continuing to edit her page to say that she is still married to her ex-husband is bordering on vandalism.--EAWH (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trader Joe's wine

I waited six months to make that edit because I figured it would be controversial. I don't want to just leave the claim sitting up there on the article, based on a now archived sixteen-year-old source, when I can see with my eyes that the wine is sold in other stores .... but some people these days are not happy when I take pictures of things in their store, so I don't want to intrude on them just to get a photo. And even with a photo, someone could just claim it was an unauthorized reseller which would lead to a wholly unneeded hassle. So I won't take the photo. Is there at least, though, some other publication we can use, from any source, that is newer than January 2004? Thank you, —Soap— 17:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions at Julian Assange

This revert is a violation of the "Consensus Required" DS at Julian Assange:

All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).

Please self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

Calton, I've initiated a request at WP:AE#Calton regarding your edit at Julian Assange, which I believe violated the "consensus required" arbitration remedy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the consensus is required to restore challenged content rule on the page Julian Assange, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Motion to Intervene

Mike Cernovich is, in fact, an independent journalist^[1]^[2]. Regardless, that has no bearing on the motion that he did, in fact, file. Eternal Father (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nuzzi, Olivia (2017-08-08). "Mike Cernovich Pivots From Pizzagate to Not-So-Fake News". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
^ Weinberger, Sharon. "The Object of McMaster's Obsession". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2020-04-18.

Edit summaries

Hi. Just a note to remind you to leave valid WP:Edit summaries. "(Not this crap again.)" on the Mike Cernovich page is not a valid summary. I'm sure you know that, but just let it slip. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very rude.

You are very rude. We have these community standards. I hope that you understand this, and expect that you can edit in a more cooperative and civil manner from now on. Your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Carlton is a nuisance. Revan646 (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure at NPOVN

...of the disagreement at Democratic Socialists of America indicates you read only the last sentence of the dispute before closing it. The entire discussion centers on an alleged "NPOV violation" for inclusion of material, while I asserted that another editors justifications for removing that material are in fact what violated NPOV. You shouldn't close a discussion if you're not willing to delve into what the disagreement is actually over, and I'd request that you withdraw your close because the summary you provided is of zero help to resolving the issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a few hours to reconsider, and then I will open a thread on ANI. You should not be involved in closing any discussions if you are not willing to do the lifting involved to figure out what the disagreement is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've opened a thread at ANI requesting your closure be undone and the thread be re-opened. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Been where? Done what?

Your reason for this edit is not constructive. If no legitimate reason for the edit is provided or it is not self-reverted in 24 hours, it shall be reverted as a bad faith edit. See also the discussion about it on the talk page of Planet of the Humans. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Dellums

Hey! Just posted a question on the talk page for Ron Dellums. Please take a look when you have a moment! --47.144.151.55 (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hiya. Just alerting you to the DS in place for CC. My experience with fringe editing is that it's best to stay as polite as possible. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link

Sorry about the misunderstanding on Planet of the Humans. That link didn't work for me until I adjusted the citation, but once I did, I found what you did: the page it linked to didn't support the text.

I appreciate that you deleted it, but I thought it would be better to replace it with a more accurate version that leaned heavily on quoting the site so that it could explain its own reasoning. I hope this is a mutually satisfactory result. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video game franchise disestablishments

Hey there, strictly speaking, the CFD was only for Category:Video game franchises by year of disestablishment. However, I notice now that there's a whole slew of "Video game franchises disestablished in YEAR" from 1999 all the way to 2018 that probably should have been listed with the original nomination. They're going to have to be listed in a new CFD, but I can go ahead and do it. Should be a pretty uncontroversial case. Thanks for the tip! bibliomaniac 1 5 18:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted the CFD here. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 18:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Clarke (sheriff)

Hi Calton. Regarding this. Though it may not seem logical, there was an RfC in April which decided to identify Clarke as a democrat in the infobox Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that for many long and painful years, in spite of everything we could do, the a**hole would win the Democratic primary, to the anger and disgust of almost every active Democrat in Milwaukee County. For one thing, since Republicans have almost no chance of taking any office in Milwaukee County any more, Republicans feel free to vote in the Democratic primary instead to keep Clarke in place. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a sock.

[7]. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kasdan

Please stop removing content and ruining pages on Wikipedia, as you did to the Lawrence Kasdan Wikipedia page. I did give a valid reason for my edit while you haven't. If you keep vandalising the Lawrence Kasdan page I'll be forced to report you. Learn your place. Thank you. Revan646 (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit message on Black Lives Matter

Hi there Calton! I want to thank you for your contribution to Black Lives Matter. I do want to bring up your edit message though, directed at me, in that edit. While I understand that the charging of that women is important and was heavily reported on in US media, the original incident barely made news in Australia, where I am, and the charging was not heavily discussed, shared or reported on Australian news media - I had to purposefully seek out a story covering that to find one. Wikipedia's policy remains that the burden of providing evidence lies with them who make the claim, and my reversion was in line with that. While I understand that editing Wikipedia ~~can~~ is stressful, your edit message didn't come across as constructive or civil, but as a personal attack against me. Please, in the future, keep the over side in mind and try to remain civil and focused on the edit, not the editor. ItsPugle (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have...

... something in the vein of an actual justification of for the revert? You're kind of obligated to provide one, not just reverting willy nilly.

Re [8] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is on the talk page as well as the administrators' noticeboard. Maybe do a cursory check of the issue you're wading into before acting. To repeat: do you have a justification for the revert? Did you even review the content of the edit? Do you know what year this is? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris

This is to inform you that I have opened a dispute resolution concerning the Kamala Harris Talk page "Attendance" item. I believe that the "2019" section of the article should reflect the well-documented fact that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris Jab73 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your revert on Mike Godwin. I would have, but I have a conflict of interest and I'm not sure I could even ask anyone else to.--Jorm (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Market District, Louisville

East Market District, Louisville "Your attempt to crowbar in a "Black Lives Matter is bad" angle into East Market District, Louisville fails, in addition to the undue weight or importance" issue, also fails in its sourcing: the WSJ reference is an Opinion column, not a news article; The Daily Wire is a terrible and unreliable cousin of Breitbart News; "Law Enforcement Today" looks like somebody's blog rewriting a Courier-Journal story with extra added snide comments; and the Courier-Journal story you cite is a rewritten press release. from the restauranteur."

Did I post anything that either A:Did not occur or B:Did not occur in the manner described. I actually tried to not be scathing in my description of the BLM demands of the NuLu business community. This was a result of a friend of mine in Louisville telling me how concerned he was over his city's future, especially as the demands were not drawing much response from the city's government.

If these sources did not meet Wikipedia's expecations, please let me know what would be a more appropriate level of sourcing — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaBanker (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and LOL

That was indeed a bizarre assertion, eh? Paraphrasing... Testing for reliability only cares whether there is a system in place to check for accuracy, not that said system finds and/or corrects any found inaccuracies. Do wut?!?!?! (brain creak) I came here to say thanks for not letting that fallacy slide, but then had a right royal laugh at your talk page funnies at the top of this page. Thanks for that. I needed a good belly laugh. Normal Op (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unprofessionalism and bullying by "Calton" and refusal to help me instead of bully me. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Hirohito shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by "Consensus required" rule at Julian Assange

This edit was a violation of the "Consensus required" rule in place at Julian Assange, because you reinstated an edit that had been challenged by another editor. I've reverted and will not be reporting the violation, but please follow the rules in place at the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ngo

1. You have previously been warned about accusing me of white washing. 2. This material is the subject of an ongoing RFC and thus per policy should stay out as not having consensus. If you don't self revert I will take this to ANI. Springee (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

topic ban from Andy Ngo

You have been sanctioned the reasons outlined below

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I asked you to be more civil and reminded you about slow motion edit wars (the AE thread that spawned the warning was about Andy Ngo). Today you have accused people of whitewashing the article again and jumped into a slow motion edit war. Your comment on Springee's talk page was unhelpful and inflammatory. Because of this, I am topic banning you from Andy Ngo. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war of Baked Alaska

You are currently engaging in an edit war on the baked Alaska page, as you have reverted it three times. I have reverted it as I have an exemption due to your edits being a clear violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. If you beach this rule for a fourth time I will be forced to report your violations to the Administrator's noticeboard. 220.253.68.29 (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You broke 1RR on Julian Assange

Whatever your feelings are about the article, it doesn't entitle you to break the rules. Undo your edit, and stop acting like such a child. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calton. You've been reported at the edit warring noticeboard. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page is littered with edit warring notices. I'm shocked! ♟♙ (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

request for civility

There was no need to refer to me as "Perry Mason" and accuse me of "weasel wording" here, especially as I was simply and politely expressing concern that the article in question falsely imputed criminality to innocent people—a patently good-faith concern. Snide and completely unwarranted nastiness directed at new editors is precisely why Wikipedia has a hard time retaining them and remains so homogenous—a well-documented phenomenon. I'd really appreciate if, in the future, you could make your opinions known in a civil fashion. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response here was as rude, unwarranted, and unhelpful as your original comment. And you would likely benefit from looking up the definition of "weasel words", as you're misusing it. Far from using "weasel words", I was doing precisely what is recommended by MOS:WEASEL: "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." The relevant issue is rather one of MOS:ACCUSED, which makes clear that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined"—precisely how I employed "alleged". Instead of receiving more puerile snark from you, I'd genuinely appreciate a constructive, good-faith explanation as to why you reverted my edit, which simply attributed the obviously loaded term "police brutality" to those who employed it, and clarified that their use of the term is an allegation (unsupported, to date, by any finding of wrongdoing). As it stands, the article maligns living persons, without evidence or attribution, in Wikipedia's ostensibly NPOV voice. I certainly don't object to a neutral term like "use of force", but "police brutality", per Wikipedia, is "legally defined as a civil rights violation" and there is a serious BLP issue with ascribing it to LEO who have not been investigated or charged with any crime. There's nothing "legalistic" behind my edit; it's a simple application of some of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked politely for a good-faith explanation of your first reversion—but rather than supplying one, you've again reverted my edit without any substantive explanation. For a third time you've incorrectly accusing me of using "weasel words", despite my polite request to stop doing so. I've repeatedly asked that you discuss any substantive issue you may have with either/both reversions on the appropriate Talk page—but you have still failed to do so. You are frustrating my good-faith effort to help build this encyclopedia, and I again request that you either discuss the issues appropriately—or undo your reversions of my good-faith edits and refrain from this behavior in the future. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to second this request for civility. Upon simple suggestion on the talk page of rewording something in an already controversial article (much debate by others about specific wording) user:Calton immediately rudely accused me of "weasel-wording" and then condescendingly attempted to prove his case by dumping an inordinate amount of article headlines and excerpts into the response, rudely charging that "he could do this all day" as if he was attempting to engage in some sort of competition. Rather than engage in meaningful debate/conversation about the talk page topic, he resorted to accusations and condescending behavior. Here is the talk page where this incident occurred: [9]--Brboyle (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can we modify a closed discussion on ANI?

If no, then you need to see that @EEng: managed to slide in a funny one post closure which I only undid and which you subsequently redid. Please check page history and revert my edit to ensure closed ANI discussions are not contaminated even if in humour. Best! Vikram Vincent 06:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image wasn't humerus. It was femurous. E Eng 08:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violating you topic ban with this edit on the page Andy Ngo, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. I didn't think this petty ideological game-playing nonsense was worth dealing with, but given this ludicrous over-reaction to REVERTING OBVIOUS VANDALISM, it's time. or administrators' noticeboard. I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it. Calton, 05:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block expired while waiting for a reply from Calton at WP:AE. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Done. SQL ^{Query me!} 17:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Janine Beichman

Hello, Calton. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Janine Beichman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Janine Beichman

Hello, Calton. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Janine Beichman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

...and glad you made it through in what sounds like good spirits. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had better months, that's for sure. But I'm on the road to recovery, and the whole "not dying" part I consider pretty important.--Calton | [[User talk:Calton|Talk] ] 10:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your userpage note until I noticed your post on Josh's page, but very welcome back from me also. I'm glad you're not dead. (That's Bishzillaspeak for what Josh said.) Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I was open-heart surgery (aortic-valve replacement) that went sideways on the table, so my two weeks in the hospital wound up being six. For the near future, I'm taking a boatload of drugs, including warfarin, which came with a very Japanese warning: I'm not allowed to eat nattō, because its very high amount vitamin K would counter-act the warfarin. The cartoon-filled warfarin information book even has an illustration of a package of nattō with an "X" over it. Sounds like something that would show up on House --Calton | Talk 10:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not by any means eat nattō, then. I've seen a video of nattō being stirred. I don't want to be parochial about food cultures, but I wish I could get that visual out of my head. Bishonen | tålk 13:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, it looks weird, even to some Japanese -- people from the Osaka region famously don't like the stuff, with one Osakan telling me, "Nattō is NOT a food" -- but it's pretty tasty, in my opinion. If you ever get to Japan, give it a try. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and explanation

Hi Calton, sorry if I sounded harsh at AN; I left a message similar to this on Mo Billings page after I commented originally. There are lots of reasons to have a prior account and not disclose it WP:CLEANSTART. Asking puts someone doing a legit cleanstart in an uncomfortable position, so unless there is an actual reason to suspect wrong doing, its not appropriate to ask. Even if there were a problem in the past, as long as they have notified ArbCom and are acting under their guidance, there isn't a problem. It appears Mike has explained his situation.

Hope you're well, best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 08:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of I/Gear for deletion

Hi, Carlton. Regarding the note about the I/Gear page, I am no longer associated with that business. I don't know that the associated business even needs a Wikipedia presence any more, so that page can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwatwe01 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:COI

Template:COI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LTA question

Am I allowed to revert this LTA comment,[10] or am I banned from the page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Stephanopoulos

@Calton: Hello. I saw your recent involvement in the article about George Stephanopoulos and thought of asking you since you have more experience. Can you please assess if any of the new additions by @Pleaseandthankyou1 violate the guidelines pertaining to WP:BLP? The user has been adding a lot of defamatory information. He appears to be the same individual as @Therazzors, who was also involved in the article adding similar information and is currently blocked for one month (since the 18th of April). Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Zones

Hello happy to leave edit on page if you have evidence that the seventh day eventist's have anything to do with longevity in the blue zones. Provide the citation please. Green light3 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Zone

Please stop your abusive manner, please show evidence or direct me to where the evidence is for seventh day eventist's being attributed to blue zones. Green light3 (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry for that, looks like I overlooked the citation, accept my apologies for wasting your time. Green light3 (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of AN3 discussion

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Nuzzi, Olivia (2017-08-08). "Mike Cernovich Pivots From Pizzagate to Not-So-Fake News". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2020-04-18.

[2] Weinberger, Sharon. "The Object of McMaster's Obsession". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2020-04-18.

[1]

[2]