User talk:Calton/Archive06

So fuck off
You have no right to remove historical Co-op information, In large part, it is Casa-Z's history that defines what the usca co-op CZ is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.168.244.22 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 November 2005

Whoops!
Thanks for fixing my form-filling bludner on the I/3RR page. Typical mistake of the over-tired to carefully get the fiddly little diffs right... and then totally fail to notice the great big template pointing to the wrong page. And so to bed! Alai 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

afd helper
I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman talk 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

St Michael's Grammar School
Thanks for your input to the discussion with the juvenile vandals, it's nice to have some support. And I like your little travel section on your user page - I just might copy that some time. Harro5 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram
Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision, where it is currently being voted on. It says:


 * "The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6 and Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion on talk pages.
Hi Calton, from your edits to the Jack Sarfatti article it is clear that you have very strong views on this, and that your position is different to the one held by most of the other editors. Instead of just reverting the edits that you make that go against the established consensus, I think that I should ask you to work more on the discussion page to establish a position that everyone is happy with. Thanks, --Apyule 06:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Xbox 360 Lounge
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for taking photos of the Lounge, they will prove most helpful in illustrating the article. --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation arbitration
Calton wrote; ...his initial  from scratch  version was blanked 31 minutes later by User:Duk on grounds of being a "copyvio"...
 * You are flat out wrong here. This diff shows that Ed did not, by any streach of the imagination, re-write the article from scratch. The version I tagged had copyvios that were intially identified at Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive3, with more and more being noted on the talk page as they were uncovered. Many of these copyvios orriginated more than a year earlier and kept sneaking into the article over and over again. They included copied text and deravitive work. --Duk 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Carlton, I'm sorry you left such an angry note on my talk page. I hope we can talk this through.


 * First, can you show me where Ed claims I tagged as a copyvio an article he re-wrote from scratch. If he really said this I'd like to talk to him about it, because it's not true.


 * All right, I misremembered the "from scratch" part, for which I apologize. On the other hand, you blanked the ENTIRE page, despite, as Ed Poor put it in his very next edit, The first 4 paragraphs, having been written largely by me, can not posibly be considered a copyright violation. So I stand by my "knee-jerk" characterization.* 


 * The page languished for over a year with huge amounts of copyvio material because nobody would do anything about it. The copyvios weren't removed until I stepped in and got serious. When a copyvio showed up I tagged the damn page until someone fixed it. It's that simple. --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Second, I gave an example of the copyvio that you said didn't exist on requests for arbitration. The example I gave is one of many you can find if you take a good look at the article's talk page and archived talk pages.


 * No, you gave a link to a diff on my Talk page and made the sweeping claim that this diff was a priori evidence of a copyvio. To be ACTUAL evidence of a copyvio, there should be, at minimum, some text to compare or reference to the thing being copied, so one can see if it's so. You did no such thing, merely presenting a diff and waving your hands wildly, crying "See? See?"


 * please re-read my response above, the example I gave was on requests for arbitration. Also, if you carefully read through the talk pages and archive you will find many, many more. --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally, you've all but accused me of a political agenda here. Carlton, I've resolved thousands of copyvios, but have almost no politically oriented edits (if you'd care to look). Politics aren't my thing, they don't interest me. I assure you that I have no political agenda whatsoever regarding this article.--Duk 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Walks like duck, etc. Your unflagging nitpicking of copyright issues on this particular article -- and your out-of-policy complete blankings for many, at worst, minor violations, makes me think otherwise.


 * That's right, thousands of resolved copyvios and pretty much no political edits, that's the kind of duck I am. As far as nitpicking and page blanking with a copyviotag, this page was an exceptional problem for over a year because nobody would do anything about it until I stepped in. The unpleasant characters and name calling probably had something to do with scaring away anyone interested in cleaning up the mess.


 * As far as out-of-policy actions; read the instructions on WP:CP for resolving copyvios. Pages are supposed to be reverted to the pre-copyvio version (this eliminates the possibility of derivative work copyvios). I did not enforce this during the last few times a copyvio was found, instead letting people just edit the copyvio out. This was lax on my part, the opposite of nitpicking and kneejerking. However, none of the editors on this page would do _even that_ until they realized that the alternative was a copyvio tag. Again, this page was a copyvio disaster for over a year, and nobody would do anything about it until I started enforcing the copyvio tagging. --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you don't have a political agenda, maybe it's just that you're not very good at what you're trying to do.
 * Other way around, I'm very good at resolving copyvios. This page is, for the most part, copyvio free for the first time in over a year :-) --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Calton, read my comments about him here: and here, and here

Dont waste your breath. As mentioned before, I think the guy gets a rise out of being a voluntary policeman for wikipedia, we should make a badge for him. Travb 04:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is, for the most part, copyvio free for the first time in over a year :-)
Oops, I might have to retact the above statement. Is this another one? --Duk 00:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

thought you might enjoy this :-)
Duck test --Duk 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year
In an effort to have this vote go as swimmingly as Articles for deletion/List of music videos by name, I'm pointing it out to all the people who voted on the previous one, as it's basically the same information, differently arranged. Had I known it existed at the time, I would have included it in the AfD. Too late now. Thanks. -R. fiend 01:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case Davidpdx

Aetherometry
Calton, why don't you participate in the article's Talk page? WMC changed the category because he felt insulted by FrankZappo. There's no way that's appropriate and that's what I was referring to. Diving in with a catty remark isn't really constructive, is it?Pgio 00:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Quoting --
 * William M. Connolley added the Category:Pseudoscience tag because it's pseudoscience. Salsb added the tag because it's pseudoscience. Theresa knott added the tag because it's pseudoscience. I added the tag because it's pseudoscience. Period. Full stop.


 * This requires some long and convoluted explanation on a talk page WHY, exactly? Are edit summaries too difficult to parse? --Calton | Talk 01:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, Calton, thanks for the crass and unyielding reply. You didn't even take part in the scientific debatem (see talk), and you've read none of the papers. It's quite impossible that you should be so sure Aetherometry is pseudoscience. It is not. Even if it's wrong, it would only be mistaken science, because it's eminently falsifiable. If you believe you're striking a blow for the purity of knowledge by defending a category that is most certainly a slur, I'd say you're mistaken. Pgio 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Quoting:


 * ...and you've read none of the papers. So, how are those mind-reading classes working out for you? Still practicing, I see.


 * In any case, here's a math problem for you: count the number of people adding the cat and the number of those removing it, then add them together. Divide the the number of people adding the cat by this sum, and compare the resulting ratio to the ratio of those removing it. What does this tell you? --Calton | Talk 06:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Haven't read the papers...mind reading skills...insulting math questions. But you haven't read any of them, Calton, or you'd have something to say about Aetherometry instead of your intended zingers. You employ the rhetorical device called the 'raspberry'. I don't think it's very elegant.Pgio 07:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Odle Middle School aka Special Olympics
Carlton, Don't suppose I could get you to tone that down a little, could I? - brenneman (t) (c) 00:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hee. I really just meant to "special olympics" bit. Kurt's statements usually require no editorialising, they stand on their own.  Hee, Arthur.  brenneman (t) (c)  01:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's too bad. If you'd have been calling me "Uncle Arthur" it would have been funnier.  I don't want to sound like I've got my knickers in a twist over it, and while I understand what you're saying about Kurt, use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale.  Perhaps I'm being over sensitive, but it just seemed a bit callous. brenneman (t) (c)  01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ...use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive... Yes, you are. If you don't understand a sentence, don't criticize it. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That reply was uncalled for. If I've misinterpreted that remark, than others might do the same.  The phrase "Special Olympics of Data where every factoid is on equal footing with every other factoid, where my fountain pen is on par with, say, New York City" implies pretty strongly that the Special Olympics are in some way deficient.  If I don't understand a remark, and try to engage you in some dialog about it, snapping that I "shouldn't criticize" means that the error could only be mine.  I won't comment on this any further that to say that openness to input is generally considered a positive trait.  Feel free to tell me how you feel on my talk page, but I'm moving on.  I really didn't mean to offend you. brenneman (t) (c)  01:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I know I said I was moving on, but that last reply was just hilarious. I didn't get your name wrong despite it being in giant flashing letters at the top of your user page.  I simply mashed an extra key when I typed it.  And your complaint that I was obtuse I find tempered by the fact that rather than simply saying "and there is no R in my name" you choose to make an oblique comment that it took another 75 words for me to understand. I have in fact gone and read and re-read your comment several times since we started this strange little dance.  I still think that it was poorly worded.  I'm not sure how you would have liked me to phrase that, however I did not intend to "scold" you.  If you could tell me what I should have said, that would be great. I do seem to have gotten you on the wrong side of the bed, and I hope that no lasting damage has been done.  You have been pretty abrupt with me, though, and I'd hope that even if you disagree with everything else I've been saying you'll consider that. brenneman (t) (c)  04:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

English units in Japanese units of measurement article
I've noticed that you've added an "English units" column to the table of Japanese units of area. I wonder whether you're intending to do the same for the other tables. It would be nice to have consistancy. If so, please remember to add two columns for volumes: Imperial units and US customary units. Jimp 16Nov05


 * I've got nothing against having English units there. Some people think in English units rather than in metric, as you point out.  I don't but that's just me.  I think, though, that there are those who do use Imperial (as opposed to US) gallons &c. even though the UK & Ireland have officially gone metric.  Tell you what, if you add U.S. gallons &c., I'll add the Imperial ones.  How about U.S. dry verses wet gallons, do you think we should include both? Jimp 17Nov05

Fred Bauder thread
The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Requests_for_arbitration has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sig...
...is pointing at Calton, not User:Calton. This isn't intentional, is it? &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

short words
"I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place." What dispute exactly are you attempting to resolve, and how do you see this as bringing it closer to resolution? FuelWagon 05:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"forgive me for" You are forgiven for bringing up my unrelated dispute with SlimVirgin and for discounting my advice because of that. And it remains that your "short words" post could do nothing but make matters worse. I just held up a mirror for you to see what you are doing. You can look or not, whichever you choose, it matters not to me. FuelWagon 05:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Were you asking for my mailing address, or being sarcastic? If the former, why would you need it? If the latter, how do you think sarcasm could possibly be helpful on the RfA talk page? I have cited your note in my own RfA statement and would like to politely suggest that you take a look at my contribution history. If you've made a sincere mistake (for example, you may be acutely concerned about privacy issues and believe that, public record or not, citing Mr Bauer's past legal problems was grossly unfair, to the point of attacking anyone who disagrees with you), that's ok, we can let it drop now. Wyss 06:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Calton, I'm qualified because I am uninvolved. Your "short words" post clearly shows you are hot under the collar and that you're involved. Whether you want to look at yourself or not is your choice, but don't kid yourself by saying I'm not qualified so what I'm telling you isn't true. Tell me your "short words" post was an expression of anger or an attempt to resolve something, but don't try to shift the blame to me so you don't have to look at yourself. FuelWagon 06:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your "short word" post was simple sarcasm and an expression of your uncontrolled anger. I can see it clear as day. I have no involvement here otherwise, and I'm not hot under the collar. Whether or not you will look at yourself is up to you, but I'm clear that I have no emotional involvement here. Take it as you will, or ignore it. Just don't kid yourself or me by saying I'm attached to anything here. Look or don't look. But don't shift the blame because you don't want to look. FuelWagon 07:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Talk Page
I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here: Davidpdx 07:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have begun to post evidence. Hopefully some of you can help me a bit with this. It's turning out to be a lot of work. Davidpdx 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

July 20
''You've got it backwards on July 20: it looks like 131.107.0.73 was cutting back on the extreme bloat added by User:PedanticallySpeaking. Looks like he should have tackled the excess images (29 of them) and overcategorization PedanticallySpeaking added, too, though. See this link for the awful details. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)''
 * Hi Calton. Well, the issue wasn't the edits. My notes made it pretty clear that the problem was a large edit without any discussion or edit summaries. This conversation is an exact example of why those things are important. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 01:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My notes made it pretty clear that the problem was a large edit without any discussion or edit summaries. And that would be PedanticallySpeaking's unilateral addition of images (29 images) and dozens of minor events and births, not to mention his unilateral (and disputed) addition of numerous subheadings to break up his bloat. Since 131.107.0.73 was to some degree trying to restore the status quo, then yes, I stand by my statement that you got it backwards when you reverted him. I've done further restoration, and will go after the more obviously ridiculous of the new entries when I get the chance (such as 1998 - United States: The U.S. House of Representatives votes 390-0 to express the sense of the House that it is a national priority to provide affordable housing for all This is a notable event? This wouldn't even be a notable event in the Congressional Quarterly.). --Calton | Talk 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 
 * First, I should apologize for the tone of my inital reply... no need for me to be so short. :) I'm not going to argue with you about the content of July 20 (although at least PedanticallySpeaking said what s/he was doing) - I only came across this on RC Patrol. 131.107.0.73 had made over 250 edits in the span of 6 hours without a single comment. The edits to July 20, if made all at one time would have flagged anyone using CryotpDerk's VF, and when I looked at a sample of the edits I saw a complexity that worried me. That was why I tried to engage the editor with my first comment to the User talk:131.107.0.73 page, and then followed it up 15 minutes later with the revert. Was I wrong? That's entirely possible, and I'll try to be careful, but we all have different levels of trust I guess. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you've been doing RC Patrol, you might have noticed that 131.107.0.73 has been doing this for MONTHS now (Kate's Tool says 1437 edits), and going by your we all have different levels of trust I guess, it means that for you, "large edits by anon IPs: bad!" and "large edits by named editors: okay!" with no further examination necessary, even after I had provided you with a diff to show you what the latter was doing before you came up with the "large edits are a problem" rationale. Were you wrong? It's more than just "possible". --Calton | Talk 03:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right. My apologies. I will try to be more careful in the future. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 03:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for User:TDC
Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2 or the Requests for comment/TDC

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. 

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration re-opened
Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been reopened. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's RfA
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Exicornt
Hi. Why did you revert my addition of the tag? Did I add it incorrectly? I'll revert back. --Viriditas 12:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Either the database is acting up or the edit history shows that you mistakenly reverted my addition of the tag. See for yourself: .  I assume that was just a mistake.  Plus, we have another problem now, this time with Exicornts (the plural version).  In any case, thanks for keeping an eye on this. --Viriditas 12:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We need a protected delete for both Exicornt and Exicornts. --Viriditas 13:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Caucasian Americans
Please remember WP:FAITH before accusing people of violating WP:POINT. I've already explained this article was not made to prove a point but per the conclusions of the AFD on List of African Americans.Gateman1997 20:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for being WP:CIVIL too. *please note my dripping sarcasm* Gateman1997 21:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see you take WP:CIVIL to heart... specifically the first 4 "petty" examples they use. And as for my list being a collection of indiscriminate information... consensus is on my side when you consider we keep lists of African Americans, Native Americans, etc... Keeping a list of white Americans is only fair.Gateman1997 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See there's where you're wrong. I would never make such lists as they ARE lists of indiscriminate information. However preceedent has established that we keep racial lists. I don't see how whites can be kept out if blacks, latinos, native americans, etc... DO get their own lists. Unless someone is racist of course which I'm trusting you and the majority of wikipedians are not.Gateman1997 02:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Then you're not paying attention." To what, the fact you're accusing me of eventually creating lists like List of Humans when I'm not going too? I 've paid close attention to that... regardless of how off base it is. Gateman1997 17:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

aetherometry and the pseudoscience tag
Why does it have to be reinstated? Without it, we have peace in the article, the anons are not incited to anything worse, that I was the original person who had included it - and with it, the anons have excuse to change it to something worse, like "Natural Science". Before it was reinstated again, the article saw no stupid changes during its course. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cfd
I noticed that you commented on the Category:African American basketball players deletion, but as you may have noticed I accidentally nominated it as an "article" for deletion when it should've been nominated as a "category" for deletion. I've since corrected it and you may want to re-vote now. --YHoshua 05:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
Here is the info: Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop.

The talk page that I created for just those filling the complaint is here:

There is quite a bit posted so far. If you could look at the areas I talked about on the talk page and hit some of the ones that I haven't yet touched, I'd appreciate it. Davidpdx 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD comment
I hope you'll be able to respond to my reply to your comment on Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 678. I was interested in the Borges quote you mentioned. Please remember that AfD is a discussion to find consensus; I'm somewhat disturbed that you asked for "Deletion" without providing a rationale. I'm rather borderline on this road article, and could quite possibly be convinced. -- Creidieki 02:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Last Call
Ok guys, this is a last call for evidence. No one has posted evidence besides myself. At the end of this week, I'm going to let the Arbitration Committee know that we are done.

When recommendations are made, I will need you guys to check in and sign on that you agree with them. Otherwise this will be all for not. I intend on asking for a six month ban for Johnski from Wikipedia as well as 1 year probation from editing DOM related articles. Davidpdx 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Matthew 7:3
Just curious, what does Matt. 7:3 say? Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
 * Beats the hell out of me. -- CatWoman 13:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Comment actually by

Oklahoma Christian University and anonymous editor
Calton, I could really use your advice for how I should deal with this situation. I think I should be able to add comments to the Talk page without a torrent of personal attacks. I don't know what the next step is. Can you advise me? Danlovejoy 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sock check request
I can't confirm or deny that the editor you inquired about is a sock of Iasson as I don't have any information on Iasson's old IPs. If you have a list of IPs he is known or suspected to have used, or a list of more recently banned sockpuppets, that would help me. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Image galleries
You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nick Rose Day
I don't know why you are so bent on deleting this, but you are mistaken. Nick had nothing to do with the entry. We invited you to email and talk to us. If you care enough, you can find out the truth. Otherwise, just leave the page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.231 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 December 2005

perhaps some relaxation is in order
Can't help but notice the tense tone in all comments directed at you. May I respectfully suggest you adopt a less confrontational tone in your work? -Naif 05:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Stari0 Radi0n
Thanks for following up on my WP:VIP post, you might want to also keep an eye on User:StatioRadion, created a few minutes ago. --BadSeed 00:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Ruy Lopez for 24 hours. He has clearly broken the spirit, if not technical letter, of the 3RR rule and is simply gaming the system. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Proposed Decision
Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:.

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here:.

I know this is a busy season for everyone, but this will only take a few minutes. We need to deal with this now. If not, this problem will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Censorship
I'm only following wikipedia policy...we aren't a how to guide book. Also it's not censorship to get rid of the unnecessary word "unwanted", or to add accurate information to wikipedia. You are to one censoring this site. Chooserr 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to side step any policy and I made the section about health as neutral as possible. Chooserr 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Calton, you restored his "talc causes cancer" with your last revert.--SarekOfVulcan 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan 01:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

International travels
Hi. I just wanted to report a theft... namely, that of your cool International Travels box by me! Do you mind if copy that code, altering only the countries visited, and giving you (and the others) credit? If you do mind, I could delete it, but it looks so pretty on my user page now, and reminds me of the old days in... various places. You and I've been to some of the same, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Samuel Dickstein
Hi, I will leave your edits as is on Business Plot in regards to erasing:

Dickstein was paid $1250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD, the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information of anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces.

Business_Plot was actually a kind of compromise with Rjensen. Rjensen continued to bring up Samuel Dickstein being a Soviet spy, and ignored the rest of the committee.

Here is the relevant discussion between Rjensen and myself:


 * Rjensen had written:
 * ...The Congressman who promoted the story was a Soviet spy....


 * I responded:
 * I will go ahead and add this information, but I will also add the information of the other 7 committee members, listing the career of McCormack first, then Dickstein, then the other committee members. Why this order?: Because it is called the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, and Mccormack was the chairman, dickstien the vice-chairman.

I went ahead and checked his facts and sources Rjensen mentioned on the Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman) page. It is true. He was a Soviet spy. While I reasearched it, I added the very long single footnote on the Samuel Dickstein (congressman) page.

I will leave your edits simply because I need allies on this page. More than any other page I work on (and I work on many controversial pages) this is the one that gets attacked most.

I personally think you should return the mention of Samuel Dickstein (congressman) being a spy. If Rjensen adds it back, I will silently support this, simply because this compromise defuses Rjensen questionable edits. (see Talk:Business Plot)

Just a heads up on what is going on. Travb 09:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travb#Samuel_Dickstein


 * Mr Calton,
 * If you were presented by two conflicting facts, presented by two different people, who would you believe?


 * First author:Weinstein, whose research was so convincing that several books (between a half dozen to a dozen) of all political persuations picked up.


 * Second author: An anonymous wikipedian who offers not a single shred of documentary evidence why Weinsteins research should not be believed. Has this wikipedian ever been to the Soviet archives? What credentials does he have to offer other than his annonymous assurances that what he says is true and what Weinstien says is incorrect?  This anonymous wikipedian simply states that Weinstein's research should not be believed because he is the only source of the information.


 * Who would you believe?


 * Please prove me wrong. I welcome it.  I don't like Rjensen, but I must admit his facts stack up much better than your so far non-existent accusations.


 * What other newbs has done on other wikipedia sites is irrelevant to this case at hand. I agree with you that many sites are poorly researched and foolish, List of people described as Stalinists comes to mind, but wikipeidans conduct is irrelevant to the issue of whether Dickstein was a spy.  Travb 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

straw man

 * Mr. Calton,


 * I appreciate your continued comments. First and foremost, I really don't care one way or another whether Dickstien is a spy. I have questioned Rjensen's edits continually and ruthlessly on Talk:Business Plot, and don't care much for him either.


 * That said, I don't believe my argument is a straw man:


 * Straw Man:
 * This fallacy is a type of red herring in which a writer creates an oversimplified, easy-to-refute argument, places it in the mouth of his opponent, and then tries to "win" the debate by knocking down that empty or trivial argument. For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare.


 * The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong. . ."


 * In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement into an oversimplified form so he can more easily "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.


 * All of the logical fallacies can be found on my web blog:


 * http://www.livejournal.com/users/bailey83221/12903.html


 * I am quite familar with this list, and I believe that my statment does not fall in any of these categories.


 * My question to you was a simple one: if Weinstein's research is so shabby, why are most researchers/historians (to my knowledge) accepting his information as fact? Why is the only person who argues that Weinstein a fraud and his research is shabby an anonymous wikipedian?  I think this is not a "dummy-argument"/straw man argument, but a legitamate question.


 * I am troubled that, as you say, Weinstein's research can not be verified. If Weinstein was a scientist, and his work could not be verified, his research would be dismissed. In science, work needs to be able to be replicated.  But I think that history has more leneint rules.


 * Weinstein did in fact:


 * have access to the Soviet archives.
 * Scholars/Historians have in fact relied on his findings.


 * You can try to "weasel out" of, or downplay these facts, but so far, this is all the evidence I have been provided.


 * Again, you have not provided a single historian which questions Weinstein's research. I told Rjensen on his talk page that I know little about Weinstein, nor am I am much interested in the subject.  As a layman not much interested in this subject,  Rjensen argument wins by default, because you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence backing up your claim.


 * Anyway, I am not much interested in this subject. I was hoping you could provide evidence of your claim, but I really don't care one way or the other.  Dickstien being a spy or not being spy doesn't matter to me. Travb 19:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Would this suit you?
Heteropride.com Chooserr 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So will you kindly restore the previous version for your version is lacking, and besides that it seems to repeate itsself if you read carefully. Chooserr 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not my second language that's why I clearly stated "that while heterosexuals are by no means a minority" and "[who] are dedicated to protecting certain traditional family values such as straight marriage." I must say you do portray your ignorance in the fact that you can't even read the paragraphy you condemn as "bollocks". Chooserr 01:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz
There are 3 "keep"'s; I think you missed Academic Challenger's vote at the end. That makes the count 7 delete (including the nominator), 4 keep (including 1 merge), which is no consensus, and therefore keep. I should perhaps have said "keep (no consensus)" instead of just "keep", but there is no practical difference. Eugene van der Pijll 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Grant Neufeld
I posted a more detailed explanation at the above afd as to why I think it is a bad faith nomination. If you still do not genuinely understand where I coming from please tell me what parts do not connect (do not compute, if you will) to the conclusion. I'm not saying that I am absolutely right, but I am one of thousands of different users with one of thousands of different points of view. I don't expect you to suscribe to it but if you are going to challenge it I expect you to try to understand it. Blind statements of not understanding are not useful counter-arguments. --maclean25 06:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It truly does appear we are having a communication problem. What you see as "unearned snark" I see a plead for more detailed explanation of what is not being understood. What you see as a "bad writer" I see someone providing a detailed explanation of their point-of-view. What you see as "shift[ing] the blame" I see as a request for the challenger to acknowledge an opposing point-of-view. "let me know and I'll use smaller words."...ouch, that hurts. And the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat." argument really came out of nowhere, eh? Perhaps re-read the chronological list of points I made that lead to the nomination and stop the circle at "The fact that he's nominating it for a fourth time." Though I think we agree that "appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations." (emphasis mine). Anyways, I'm satisfied to leave this as is. I think I made my point (painfully) clear, and you made your counter-arguments. Also, you requested a list of other candidate articles: Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons, and don't forget the provincial ones. But please do not solely nominate the "No-Hope Party" as it is not a Wikipedian's job to be a crystal ball - no matter how right you think you are. --maclean25 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Godmode light
(Well, apparently I chose the wrong spelling anyway. I'm positive it used to spelt that way. Anyway.) It's a script written by Sam Hocevar that adds a rollback button to the non-admin interface when looking at diffs and 'revert' links when viewing a user's contribs list. This gives you one-click rollback, although it actually automates the normal manual process rather than doing it the admin way. It's quite good, though. You can get it either by adding the line  to your monobook.js, or by copy-pasting the script at that location. I'm not sure if it is restricted only to the monobook skin or not. -Splash talk 10:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't edit others' user pages
Please stop editing Jack Sarfatti's user page for him. User pages aren't required to be neutral–or even particularly honest–as long as they aren't offensive or insulting.

Jack Sarfatti is easy enough to upset without having other people changing his user page on him. Given the lengthy and acrimonious discussions about his notability and 'encyclopedicity' when Jack Sarfatti was being considered for deletion, he's probably going to be particularly sensitive about the removal of the claim of notability. (Indeed, I'm almost certain that's why the word is on his user page in the first place.)

Please leave his page alone. It does no one any harm. There's even a fair argument to be made that Jack Sarfatti is notable, at least in his capacity as a widely-recognized Internet crank. By all means, scour our articles for neutrality&mdash;but leave other users' space. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Zordrac/Poetlister
Please review the evidence located above before accusing people of "making something up". There is ample evidence that there was ZERO COLLUSION and that they COULD NOT BE the same person. Go and have a look. Maybe you feel obligated to automatically support admins, but in this case, I think its a bad idea. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: AN
Control your tone if you don't want people to think you are infact at fault, seperate from the evidence at hand. In fact, just pay attention to WP:Civility and WP:DICK--Tznkai 01:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Schiavelli
Hi. I've put up an argument on his talk page about why his Sicilian heritage is not the point and why his Italian background is what we should be talking about. Looking forward to your response there. Cheers JackofOz 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome
I've asked the ArbCom to perform a sockpuppet check on Peter/Zephram. Please add any comments you may have here. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 13:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Aloha 243
Sorry, I found your message just now. I guess I should be flattered in a way that my highly-edited paragraph found its way into a Star-Bulletin article. In any case, it looks like things came to a resolution. Thanks for letting me know. --KeithH 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Broadway WikiProjects
Hi. You have listed yourself as a participant in one or more of the following wikiprojects: WikiProject New York Theatre WikiProject Broadway WikiProject Off/Off-Off Broadway

I wanted to send out this bulletin to re-spark interest in these projects and hopefully advance their progress. Please contribute in any spare time you may have, in order to make this section of wikipedia even better.

If you know anyone who may be interested in working on this project, please say something to them.

Clarkefreak &#8734; 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Winter-een-mas
I noticed you've been reverting this article to a redirect. I admit that I am a fan of the comic, so I don't know if I can be an objective judge about the notability of the holiday. I would like to note though, that the deletion policy states: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article."

An alternate solution would be to copy material from the historic Winter-een-mas article into a full section in Ctrl-Alt-Del, and make the winter-een-mas redirect to that section specifically. There used to be a whole sectionon it in the webcomic article, before it was moved into it's own article.

One thing I know for sure though: It's not very constructive to be repeatedly recreating and reverting the article. What's your take on this situation?--TexasDex 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dream and Ehrenfels
I'm not sure you can get much more out of arguing with User:172.134.11.168 on Talk:Dream; I think we should just be thankful that he doesn't try to force that stuff in. Would you mind if I archived the page there? I can leave in your thread with him (or the current parts of it) if you like, but Wikipedia seems like an inappropriate place for your conversation. --Mgreenbe 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's hilarious! I've got to see if I can get a hold of that somewhere here in Israel.  The only Australian film I've ever seen was Muriel's Wedding, which I thoroughly enjoyed.  As for "felafel" (the horror, the horror!), they do the same thing in South Africa (also seen "felaffel").  It's closer to the Arabic pronunciation "fəlæfəl", I guess.  Thanks for archiving the page, I've been murdered by work.  --Mgreenbe 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did a cleanup of all of the Dream links. This included deleting the fireflysun.com links. I've proposed removing all of the New Age links on the talk page. Just so you're on the lookout :). --Mgreenbe 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stubs
Hi Calton, I got my stub locations mixed up with cleanup tags, it's my bad, I'll fix them. Wnissen 15:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

About "Paying Attention"
Calton, asking people to "pay attention" is not what this ought to be about. That sort of language assumes that whatever you have to say is the final truth. Well, I'm sorry to disillusion you on that score. For the record, I have "paid attention". I have read your arguments, I have understood them, and I respect them - but I continue to disagree with them, for the simple reason that they not the way things are done here. Our rules and policies are there for a purpose, and if you disagree with them it's open to you to institute change, but it's not open to you to simply flout them. Three days ago, I went to the trouble of explaining, yet again, on Schiavelli's talk page why I believe it's not OK to do what you insist on doing. After three days with no response from you, I made the change I foreshadowed. Now, you've just reverted me because I haven't been "paying attention" to your argument - yet you have given my argument no consideration whatsoever. At the very least, courtesy would demand that you engage me in discussion about this, not just ignore me and revert me time and time again. This is a collaborative effort, not the work of any individual. JackofOz 01:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, despite your claim, I certainly didn't receive any response to the above. (If you can show me where a response was posted, I will retract that.  Otherwise, your claim remains on the record as an untruthful statement).  I already told you that I gave your previous argument serious consideration, and found myself in disagreement with it.  So any suggestion that I "ignored" it is completely untrue.  The only arguments that have been ignored here are mine.  You continue to hold that "Schiavelli's own books" are sufficient reason to describe him as "Sicilian-American" - despite me having told you twice now that whatever way he describes himself in his books has no bearing on Wikipedia.  You cannot continue to argue that line, it is of no merit.  I don't expect to agree with me, just as I have disagreed with you, but I do expect you not to resort to childish and inappropiate language such as "blithered", and "hand waiving" (that makes 3 times now; it seems to be a favourite phrase of yours, I've noticed you've used it against other editors you disagree with).  And I do expect that any editor worth his/her salt would be prepared to debate their contributions, not just damn any others who hold a different point of view.  If your arguments have any merit, they will withstand the queries and objections of others, so just what is it you are afraid of, Calton?  I'm posting this on Schiavelli's talk page so others can have their say on the matter.  I've displayed more than sufficient courtesy by keeping this between ourselves up till now.  I regret that my courtesy has not been reciprocated, but I live in hope.  JackofOz 03:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience
Uh, just to inform you - Aetherometry => Aether theories => Pseudophysics => Pseudoscience in categorisation. Aetherometry => Pseudoscience is therefore redundant. ;-) Elle vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Theodore7
A number of editors started an RfC against User:Theodore7 here. I though you might wanted to know. Cheers, R.Koot 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mexico flag large.png
That image is being replaced by Image:Flag of Mexico.svg. That was why I (and my bot Zbot370) have been removing it. It needs to be orphaned to be deleted. 06:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry about the mess. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 06:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, can you change it to Image:Flag of Mexico.png, the SVG image was declared as a copyvio. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 05:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote
Great quote from Borges on the "Genius school" deletion page. I haven't heard that in a long time and it hit the nail right on the head. Kafziel 13:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Winter-Een-Mas
Winter-Een-Mas IS a holiday contrary to your belief. Search it on wikipedia, you'll find Ctrl+Alt+Del. Scroll down. It is a holiday celebrated by gamers in the united states. Simply because you do not know something exists doesn't mean you should delete it.

Winter-een-mas
For all who are interested this message was the reply to my statement that winter-een-mas IS a holiday:

"Short answer: bullshit. Longer answer: complete bullshit.

Mind telling me which states celebrate it? Are post offices and banks closed during it? Does Macy's or Wal-Mart have "Winter-Een-Mas Sales"? Any actual proof for this so-called holiday, other than something someone made up on a webpage? -Calton"

On November 19 (found this on wikipedia the other day) is "World Toilet Day". No state celebrates it, no post office OR bank in the world is closed for it. There are NO "World Toilet Sales" for World Toilet Day anywhere. But it is up on wikipedia just the same as are MANY other holidays that (with Calton's criteria) are not, in fact, holidays. Winter-Een-Mas is celebrated by thousands of gamers. Here is a partial list of other holidays listed on wikipedia that do not meet your criteria: World Day of the Sick, Darwin Day, Shrove Tuesday, Paul Mazza Day, Kyoto Protocol Day, Language Martyrs’ Day, Family Day, International Polar Bear Day, World Day of Prayer, St. Piran’s Day, Feast of St. Kieran, Mothering Sunday, Red Nose Day, Youth Day, Pi Day (listed as an unofficial holiday, but it is still up on wikipedia and has its own entry on wikipedia), Steak and Blowjob Day (also listed as an unofficial holiday, but it is still up on wikipedia AND has its own entry on wikipedia), Meat Out Day, World Day of Sleep, World Water Day, World Tuberculosis Day, International Railway Workers Day, Land Day, International Day of the Birds. Those are between Febuary 1 and April 1. My picking "World Toilet Day" was a reference to limited knowledge of holidays and missing several things you should delete because they aren't what you concider a holiday.

Winter-een-mas was created on a website- big deal. It is celebrated over the web and is the first day of a week of days which gamers celebrate their enjoyment of something... Kinda like most other holidays- a celebration.

I find it disturbing you seem to have some problem with Winter-een-mas because it would appear others have complaints with you (found one when I posted my first post supporting winter-een-mas here). Several holidays are obscure. Winter-een-mas is new, but that does NOT exclude it from being a holiday.

I must end this with an appology. I am very sorry you are offended by something you do not belive in but still exists.

EDIT: Also, you failed to research winter-een-mas. It is an anti commercialism holiday aka against "winter-een-mas" sales. Also: Winter-een-mas is recognized by EB Games (a subsidary of GameStop Corp) which has 2,280 stores in the US thus fulfilling one of your criteria for a Holiday (it is recognized by a store). Also Also: Forum I found listing Winter-Een-Mas events where people have CELEBRATED it.

Further on Winter-Een-Mas
Again, for the record I need to show Calton's way of dealing with a situation, though I think most of you probably already know:

"World Toilet Day is not a holiday -- nor are the others you cite -- it is a day of observance, recognition, or proclamation. Congress, state legislatures, city councils, and random organizations issue these all the time, and anybody can proclaim anything they want -- Black History Month, Take Your Daughter to Work Day, National Brotherhood Week -- but they are NOT holidays. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it Miss America, and a bunch of self-important game geeks slapping a "holiday" label on something they made up doesn't make things so. Your failure to understand this is not my problem. -Calton"

Yes, they are observances, and as such are listed on wikipedia. As such (and as I have proven it is celebrated and recognized by AT LEAST one store) Winter-Een-Mas should also be on wikipedia since at the very least it is an observance. Through your own logic you have proven Winter-Een-Mas should be on wikipedia.

Why change png's to svg's?
The reason that png's are changed to svg's is that there ought to be only one copy of a given flag. Due to its vector-based form the SVG format is inherently better to the PNG format. Most png flags are deprecated and redundant to their svg counterparts. Therefore most of the "Image: flag large.png" are slated for deletion. If the links aren't changed to "Flag of .svg", you might very well see a lot of dead links on your userpage in a couple of months... What I and others wanted to do is to spare you of the trouble, not to "mess with your userpage". Several of the flags you have on your userpage are also inexact, whereas the SVG versions are alot more accurate. &mdash;Gabbe 09:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE
Since you reverted Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health article, reinserting text which is counter to WP:CITE, I have chose to communicate with you here. It is perfectly all right with me to talk about the accuracy, motivation or anything else about the cover of that book. What I wish to inform you of now is the citation which you reverted. The citation is contrary and counter to wiki's guidelines. The citation is not available to wiki editors nor to wiki readers. WP:CITE, not far into the page, states that citations are there so people can look them up and read them. ChrisO put that citation in there. It references a confidential to the Church of Scientology document. That means that editors and public who read here, can not look it up and read it. It is not a good citation. Not only that, but it skirts the edge of legality. The Church of Scientology is well known for its defence of trade secrets. Not that ChrisO, nor you, nor myself would become involved, but I really don't want our beloved Wikipedia to have to dance a court battle just because ChrisO wants to cite a source which is completely off WP:CITE anyway. Besides which, who cares? Its a picture, it sells books. Terryeo 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE (again)
Regarding the citation about the Navy link, which you pasted a lot of information about on my talk page, thus supporting User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle iniation of dialoge, My reason for posting that link becomes obvious when a person reads the talk page. Someone commented about how difficult it is to find a source of information about Scientology which is not biased. In reply I posted that link. You somehow missed the point. I post the link toward neutral information about Scientology. Whatever your POV about Scientology and the link, you are as free to provide neutral links within the article and within the talk page as I am. You somehow imply that the link can not possibly be neutrally biased. You further get into "no matter how smarmily or passive-aggressively you phrase it" which doesn't contribute to what was being talked about but is, like many of your posts, emotionally inflamatory. The discussion page invites a neutral link. Feel free to contribute. Terryeo 02:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * to which Carton replied on my talk page: "Missing the point

The Navy disclaimer means that the Navy -- as a matter of policy -- provides links, it doesn't endorse them, something you were apparently trying to obscure in your flurry of hand-waving rhetorical questions. Looks like you -- what's that term? Oh yeah, missed the point. And the less said about your phony-sympathy veiled legal threat -- I got that point, thank you -- the better, or else I might bring it to the attention of an admin and let them consider it. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * to which I reply. Whew, lucky for us you are around to make sure no one misunderstood that the Navy creates Webpages which do not have their endorsement. Terryeo 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Witchcraft
Fascinating. So you revert my edits twice because the reasons in summary aren't good enough for you, and then you tell me to go to the talk page... when my reasons were explained in the talk page all along. Would you care to READ the talk page, sir/madam? -- SwissCelt 05:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I reverted the first time because your stated reason was so breathtakingly and obviously bogus that it defied reason (see chutzpah)


 * Hmmm, maybe you'd also like to note that my stated reasons were stated on the talk page all along (look here, please!), and that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. There was no reason for that link to be in the article, as the website author prohibits its contents from being republished on Wikipedia (see Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson), and several people have been aiming to rid the article of miscellaneous linkspam.


 * Considering that you were numbering your reverts in the edit summaries, it seemed clear to me that you were counting on using the Three-Revert Rule as tactical cover for your actions.


 * In that case, I would also refer you to WP:AGF. I was numbering my reverts so that the person who  called me a "dumbass" would have no reason to mistakenly accuse me of violating 3RR.  My actions were not a "tactical cover"; on the contrary, I was operating as openly as I possibly could.


 * Make a coherent, non-bogus argument on the Talk page, one that at least passes the giggle test.


 * Perhaps now you'll see I've done so. It frankly flabbergasts me that you've apparently not seen it yet, but perhaps now you will, as I'm reprinting this comment on that page.  Salve! -- SwissCelt 06:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hoookaaaay... we're obviously done here. I rest my case, and leave it to the proverbial jury of my Wikipedia peers to decide if my revert should stand.  Giggle if you will, but it's you who are violating Wikipedia policy by forcing the linkspam in, not me.  On a personal note, I'll repeat my suggestion that you review Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith.  You're obviously a valued contributor to this website, but it's never too late to review.  Cheers. -- SwissCelt 06:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I won't engage with you about that latest "contribution", Calton. Whenever you wish to resume debating issues on principles, without resorting to personal abuse, I will be available. I regret you haven't managed to pick up some Japanese manners in your time there. JackofOz 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical import
Hi, JFK's death clearly had historical import. But Ricky Valens? Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, see what you're saying and it's a fair point. Just seems incongrous to have someone making a vaudeville appearance in the event list, while removing the death of a fairly well-known author.  But it's no big deal.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  00:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My good friend
Ah, what would I do without you, Calton? I don't think I could manage. Everyking 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do what you want, Calton. I don't feel I've ever violated the ruling. Everyking 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Everking
As you may know, I recently accepted Everking's request for assistance from the AMA. I am asking this question to help me further understand the issues at hand. Regarding your recent back-and-forth on EK's talk page. If he were not under current arbcom sanction, would you have found his contributions to the MSK page helpful, irrelevent or hurtful to the goal of writing an encyclopedia? (I personally would argue irrelevent, but I'm trying to understand all perspectives.) Thanks! Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnski Arbitration Case
Just a quick update on the arbitration case, two new arbitrators voted and there now might be enough votes to close the case finally. We need to keep an eye on this and make sure whatever solution that passes is fully implemented.

I'm pushing for a little bit tougher outcome, but realistically it's probably not going to happen. If you have time, please make some comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Proposed decision. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough. Davidpdx 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DC streets
An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image
Thanks, Calton. Free Will Productions had uploaded three identical images, so I deleted two and left one, and I've left him a note asking whether he intends to use it. The article it was destined for has been deleted as a vanity piece. I can see one deleted edit for him: it was a template for penis-related stub (as it were), and it said: "00:23, February 1, 2006 RexNL deleted "User:Free Will Productions" (content was: ' {| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:lightblue"|Image:Penis_.jpg|&nbs... (and the only contributor was 'Coofjdf'))"

As for the other thing, no worries. Long time ago, water under the bridge. But thank you very much; I appreciate it. ;-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Johnski
This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)