Talk:Paxus Calta/Archive 1

Polyamory link
Why doesn't the polyamory link at the bottom work. It shows as red, yet the article does exist ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxuscalta (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 September 2006
 * It's a link to a category which doesn't exist, corresponding to in the text. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist
To check the pages on your watchlist, simply click "my watchlist" in the row of destinations in the top right corner of your page. You can also visit Special:Watchlist. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
I note that in several of Calta's writings, he uses unusual forms of spelling such as "grafic" for "graphic", etc. Does anyone know if these atypical spelling forms are used to make another of his political points, or if they're just regular everyday bad spelling? Kasreyn 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just regular bad spelling
With the exception of lower case "i"s and and occassional lower case america, the vast majority of Calta's spelling mistakes are just his everyday bad spelling and laziness. Paxuscalta 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this an article???
I've been really analyzing this article, reading it over and over again. Can someone tell me why this exists? #1 - Other than the fact that he is an author, what else about him makes it encyclopedia worthy? #2 - This article has been heavily edited by someone with his username....isn't that against the rules? --Duke33 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will tag per your concern. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
 * He has testified before congress, been published in multiple languages, done jail time for crimes of conscience and been through the "not good enough for Wikipedia" process already and found worthy of inclusion. Not sure what it takes to be in Wikipedia. Saratansey (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)