User talk:Calton/Archive13

Maximum Freud
I thoght about tossing The DaVinci Institute and Thomas Frey in with this, but both assert notability and have print references. I think what he seems to be doing is a rehash of The Peter Principle, but I really don't understand this futurist stuff well enough to say. Tubezone 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Question About Wiki Page
I'm new to Wiki and just did my first article University of Michigan Solar Car Team and a couple of related pages. I believe you recommended this page for deletion. Something about this being a "one year college project." I'm not sure what's considered appropriate for Wiki, but there are scores of pages on solar powered vehicles. In fact, there has been a page on the UofM solar car team for some time now. The team was founded in 1989 and has been in continuous existence since. My article (referenced above) is about the 1993 solar car, Maize & Blue, which won a national championship, placed 11th in the world, included Larry Page (co-founder of Google) and the car is now part of the permanent display in the Chicago Museum of Science. Over 100,000 man-hours of labor and more than $2 million were invested in building the car.

I'm fine if it's deleted, but is it the format or just the general topic? I could use some advice in case I ever decide to post again.

Thanks in advance.

fnazeeri 03:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your critics awards speedies
Feel free to AfD the lot of them, but they don't meet any speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, referring to my edits as nonsense and claiming reading isn't my "strong suit"  isn't all that civil, and I suggest ceasing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association
To Calton and Badlydrawnjeff

Reverting over tags is considered breaking the three revert rule as much as reverting over content. Both of your comments were, at worst, goading the other user e.g. "Nominating user would prefer an edit war to an AfD" and "And where would that assertion about the club be? Are you hiding it under your hat? Did you accidetally delete it". Both are uncivil comments and both dissapoint me from established users.

As a reminder, I'm givign you both short bans (8 hours) for breaking the three revert rule (with incivility a factor in the decision too). Play nicely --Robdurbar 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As Badlydrawnjeff has been unblocked I've removed this block as well. The article appears to be on AfD now anyway. Mackensen (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Maize & Blue Solar Car
The two articles referenced (solar car history and solar car specifications) have been edited so that they describe the Maize & Blue solar car which is part of the permanent collection at the Museum of Science & Industry. I would presume that if the curators deem the vehicle worthy of permanent display in their museum it would be worthy of mention on Wikipedia, but that is not my decision to make. The car won the North American Solar Challenge and placed 11th in the World Solar Challenge each of which has extensive postings on Wikipedia. Also, perhaps you may want to also review the GM Sunraycer, Nuna and University of Michigan Solar Car Team postings on Wikipedia which would also seem to not meet your criteria for acceptance. Do let me know if that addresses the concerns you raised.

FN 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)fnazeeri

Coving
I'm well aware that you enjoy conflict, Calton, and you think you can stir one up with me here. Frankly, I don't. I like interesting articles. I want this one to stay. It's entirely inoffensive. It does not perpetuate a point of view. I explained on Will's talkpage that there is no issue with WP:OWN here. Please indulge yourself elsewhere. I recognise we have a history but this is nothing to you except a stick to beat me with and I think that is not helpful for the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/List_of_mad_scientists
Would you explain why the numerous arguments for keeping the list brought up on Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors don't apply to List_of_mad_scientists. If you ignore it just because it's on another page, would this be .. - how do you call it? - .. "wikilawyering"? -- User:Docu


 * Read this for a start. And Apples and oranges for another. And the idea that someone required to address an argument from an entirely different discussion -- one in which that someone has been heretofore uninvolved -- comes from where exactly? I wouldn't call that "wikilawyering", I'd call that "grasping at straws". --Calton | Talk 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have missed that the argument for deletion of List_of_mad_scientists on Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors was discussed at Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors and was just about to end with "keep" until, two days later, the discussion was re-started on Articles for deletion/List_of_mad_scientists with the same explanation. Obviously, nothing prevents 10 nominations of the same page, but that may be "grasping at straws". -- User:Docu


 * I'd say badgering an editor over an argument he's made -- especially an argument made on a different page -- counts as "grasping at straws". If you had an actual argument to make then, why didn't you make it instead of falling back on bureaucratic irrelevancies? No, wait, don't answer, because I'm not really interested. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. If you are not really interested, I understand. The whole discussions just seems to be an error by a newcomer anyways (User:Iamunknown/afd). -- User:Docu

Re: Julia's Gravity Laws
Yes, it did warrent deletion, and sometime last night it was deleted. Sorry about the mixup! Viperphantom 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
There has been significant discussion on the Talk page, on topics such as the clearly false information that his books have been banned in Israel, the removal of well sourced information about the picketing of his book signing, and the POV nature of the comments describing his critics. Why not participate in that discussion, instead of re-adding all that false and POV info to the article?
 * I see little point in discussing anything with you, personally, given your "I don't trust you" comment. Its a shame that having edited WP as long as you have, you have not bothered yet to familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. The article is now protected - you're invited to participate in the Talk page if you want to argue for the inclusion of any of the recently added material. Isarig 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who, unlike me, has already been rebuked by arbComm for baiting other editors and making unproductive and inflammatory commentary, you really should not be casting stones out of your glass house. As I wrote, there is a debate going on in the relevant Talk page, you are welcome to join it. Isarig 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be the one to know, wouldn't you? With a block record nearly identical to mine (2 blocks vs. 3, you could use some help counting, too), one of them for "repeated personal attacks"? I'm not interested in a pissing match with you (though I assure you I can piss as far and as strong as you, should you wish to carry on like this) - if you have anything further to say, on topic, please say it at Talk:Gilad Atzmon.  Isarig 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

We have a situation where extremely interesting¸ relevant and up to date info from the poster Nihipri has been vandalised repeatedly b Isarig and RolanR¸ and now the page is protected with their version¸ all the new info deleted again. They have an agenda to make sure the info on GA remains very superficial¸ without any meat¸ and portrays him in a bad light. I do not think leaving the entry protected with their information as is in the interests of anyone and would like to call for some mediation here.

Just comparing the two versions – the one which Isarig and Riland R have been insisting remains as it for ages¸ and the new info¸ it becomes clear which is more relevant¸ interesting and NEUTRAL.

I am relatively new to Wiki¸ but would like to know what can be done about this now?

It seems to me that wiki is not an encclopedia at all¸ but a disinformation site¸ controlled and protected by Zionist moles. That’s is how it is looking from where I stand.

Ednas 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would welcome mediation on the page. This would prevent  Ednas and suspected sockpuppet  Nihipri from constantly inserting into the article the untrue statement that GA's books are banned in Israel. It would prevent them from constantly deleting a reference to a protest against GA, with the false claim that the URL is broken. It would prevent them from deleting from the article reference to GA's antisemitic writings, and to criticism of him by Jews Against Zionism and Michael Rosen. And it would prevent them from turning the article into one bloated puff for GA's alleged brilliance and wisdom.


 * Ednas hints above that Isarig and I are "Zionist moles", and on Talk:Gilad Atzmon he refers to "stalking by members of the sanhedrin". These offensive antisemitic remarks have no place in Wikipedia. They are reminiscent of Atzmon's own dismiisal of anti-Zionist Jewish critics as "the elders of London"  and "modern day Christ killers" . If, as it seems, Gilad Atzmon is editing his own entry on Wikipedia, he should do so transparently. And he should refrain from using Wikipedia as a platfiorm to continue his campaign of racist abuse against his critics. RolandR 11:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)
You contributed to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (second nomination). This was closed as speedy keep under criterion for speedy deletion G5 as a page created by a banned user, and its content deleted. You may or may not want to contribute to the new discussion, at Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). This message is being given to all users - except proven sockpuppets and those who have already appeared at the new Afd- who contributed in the original discussion. --Robdurbar 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHILD
I won't clutter up that WP:AN topic anymore...anything I post now would be just an opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what other people think about your question, though. I did go to WP:AN/I once and request that a child's userpage be deleted, as the kid was only 11, and he included enough information for someone who lived in his city to take a pretty good stab at finding him. (He listed his city and neighbourhood, described his house, described himself, and included the names of several of his friends.) On the subject of User:Colt0222, I can tell you, without going into detail, that the kid provided entirely too much personal information. If you're interested, I can elaborate in email. If this kid was 11, I'd be requesting that the page be deleted immediately. It's unwise for a person of any age to post that level of personally identifiable detail, but I honestly don't know where a 14-year-old fits in terms of our actual policies. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  07:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See email. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  07:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The looks like the easiest way to deal with it...put that way, his age is irrelevant. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry to bother you
I am sorry for all of the bother I have caused you. Thank you for staying on my case, instead of just patrolling the encyclopedia like a robot.

You are right--my article is not notable. The only justification I had for it was the succession box, and you easily refuted that. I will therefore merge it into Baker, California, though probably not today--this is only a very short respite from a refreshing wikibreak.

Thanks again, and I hope to see you around! --MrFishGo Fish 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Faashion IQ
We understand your point. For now, it would be great if we could have all this logged somewhere. The problem is, once a page is deleted, all it's history gets out too. We wanted to retain some activity history of the page and we keep losing it. Ensparc 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Destroying America

 * If you really don't like Destroying America then try AfDing it? Replacing removed notability tags with an snippy edit summary doesn't really get us anywhere. We tend to agree on most things, it's no doubt a big pile of wank, but features at least two notable stars which guided my removing the tag. As edit summaries go, "Not good enough. Try again." isn't bursting with valid rationale. Deizio talk 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Was my reason for removing the tag unclear? I've stated it twice now. As for addressing the concern, I can't figure out exactly what your concern is. I see a tag placed with no rationale, it being removed with a rationale and it being replaced with no rationale. If asked why you placed a notability tag you should be able to support your edit, ideally with something based on policy, guideline or precedent. Failing that, send it to AfD. Deizio talk 15:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas_R_Bennett
Hello! I wonder if you could suggest if there is a way to create this page without it being flagged, or if I ought to just delete it. Tom 01:03, 14 January 2007 (GMT)

Update: No need. I've reccomended it for deletion.

Sentence that mentions Tony Terran on page 56 chapter 6 (Phil Spector & The Wrecking Crew) in Hal Blaine's book
"Steve Douglas was usually on sax along with Nino Tempo (April Stevens and Nono had the big hit Deep Purple), Jay Migliori and Roy Caton on trumpet along with Ollie Mitchell and Tony Terran." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daveterran (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: Harassment socks
No problem at all. Tonight I feel like hunting sockpuppets ;-) Just one little thing: whenever you think someone is a sockpuppet of Primetime, tag his user page with sockpuppet so that any admin (and not only DVD and I who are dealing with them right now) will block on sight. -- ReyBrujo 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCU, which led on to userpages
Lets just drop the RFCU thing, please? It'd be much more productive for both of us if you stuck to doing what you do best - getting rid of "bad", for want of a better word, userpages - whilst I find something to do with my time :)

On that note, I personally am indebted to you for, given I know how much of a thankless task it is (I did it for a week, and I know how boring it can be). By the way, how do you find said userpages easily? Special:Random/user?

Oh, and I went through and tagged a bunch of your redirect-blanks from the vanity-userfications with. Hope you don't mind :) In future, you could probably tag the redirects after deuserfying (which you normally blank) with . Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonnyng9
I removed the prod from this user's page. It is not entirely true that the user's only edits were those two, those are actually the user's only edits to non-deleted pages. That's not to say that the user has made any positive contributions. Anyways, I don't think there is a problem with letting this user have a one-sentence bio on his userpage; for all we know he's still lurking and using the account to save view preferences. The one-line bio isn't hurting anything and certainly isn't a myspace entry or weblog. If you disagree, I suppose you could take it to MfD.  Big Nate 37 (T) 04:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it to MfD, my talk page isn't the place to argue for the page's deletion. Because I had the courtesy to explain myself instead of just removing the prod, you gave me a snide explanation for why I'm wrong. Please don't edit my talk page again unless you intend to show some respect for other editors.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When you stop being a jackass I'll allow your comments to remain on my talk page. I hope I don't have to explain why snide remarks, sarcasm, and thinly veiled insults aren't sitting well with me—I will revert you every time if you insist on doing that. If it makes you feel better, you can remove my original note about the prod removal—appearantly I can be insulted for explaining a courtesy notice, so next time you prod something I disagree with I'll just revert you without comment.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology from Sheenfanficker
Sorry about that argument, Calton. But can't you blame me? I AM TEN YEARS OLD!!! That is my true blue confession, I swear. I'm just a good writer. Sheesh. Anyway, do you know how to put videos on your userpage?

Deleted article
Hello! I wonder if you could suggest if there is a way to create this page without it being flagged, or if I ought to just delete it.

I'm fine if it's deleted, but is it the format or just the general topic? I could use some advice in case I ever decide to post again.--Lgmn7 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been busy
I noticed you've been tagging a whole bunch of User pages for people who created a vanity user page and nothing else. If you're interested, I can probably give you a few hundred more. I tend to leave new users on my watchlist when I leave them the standard welcome and nn-warn or vanity or userfied. (That's how I saw your Prods.) I could go through them and look for the ones that have no other edits. (Usually a clue is if no one has ever left them a message on the User Talk page since me.) Fan-1967 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Daled IV
Since Memory Alpha is a wiki, wouldn't their articles be free for use under the GFDL, just like ours? NawlinWiki 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What..?
Calton, if you don't mind my asking, what on earth is going on? [Staring at the page history in bewilderment] Bishonen | talk 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Prod on User:Steve.hagy
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I am ok with the prod on the Steve Hagy page. Steve Hagy is a friend of mine, so thats why I added the pics. However, I am glad there are people like you who prevent wikipedia from becoming a myspace.

What I am not ok with is your suspicion that I use sockpuppets, which I do not. If you look at those suspected "sockpuppets" you will see that they are silly cases where I accidentally posted on a user's main page instead of their talk page. The only 'sockpuppet' I ever used was that anon IP, of which I am very sorry (when I woke up the next morning I realized how stupid I had been; I won't be fooling around any more). Danski14 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And just so everything is clear, the other page on your list, User:Laniesarticle was a user page I found to use with the anon IP edits to make it look like a legitimate edit (a pretty bad strategy, I know).Danski14 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Panaca, Nevada
I went ahead and restored the last version of the original nomination by you and moved the new nom to Articles for deletion/Panaca, Nevada (2nd nomination). Obviously, should be dealt with as seen fit? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspacery
Hey there, I'm in the middle of going through the prods you put on the myspacish user pages last week. Just wanted to say thanks for the efforts in that. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Brad Goddard
I appreciate your short comments on the Brad Goddard entry, however there are some inaccuracies/assumptions in your statements.

To your University of Waterloo remark: the reference was placed there to reference that UW has a theatre programme--a 'if one is so inclined to read further about UW's department--hence the placement of the reference. It does not claim to say anything but. I suppose we agree on this point--but your tone seems to imply that the reference was placed to prove something entirely different.

All other references: are not my own. Studio 180 is a theatre group I have participated in; but I have no sway over content or programming. The website is maintained by--who knows--likely whomever is appointed for PR for the group. The Worldfest press release referencing our win was made by the production company's PR agency--I have no connection with Peace Point (aside from having performed for them), their PR agency, or Houston's Worldfest (an independent body which DID award us with a Bronze--which I'm unclear whether you dispute or not). So, no--they are not "[MY] OWN REFERENCES". They are references that involve me, which is usually the case in references about a subject.

As a guy new to wiki, it would be a helpful learning opportunity for me to get a more formalised detail of your specific problems with the entry. Clearly you have an excellent understanding of the process and the desired content; and you've taken a special interest (perhaps not by choice) on this entry. I am confused as to what makes content viable, particularly when compared with, say, fellow castmates on the pending release of Decoys 2. If you have time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey_Sevier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Poirier discuss hobbies and pet names, which seem to be similar to content you consider a pet peeve. Is it simply that I was upfront about autobiography that taints the material? And insofar as notability, I would be interested in your adamance that I do not qualify. Of the countless entries for actors, Canadian or otherwise, there's little consistency. What can be shown is that my experience, and the number of things I have 'in the can' is not so insignificant when compared with others within the site. Ego aside, I receive a lot of fanmail from Undressed--an award winning show for MTV produced by Academy Award winning director Roland Joffe--and our home improvement show aired in two countries (which doesn't sound like much, but syndication is a tough gig).

I assume, considering that you went to the trouble of CAPITALISING your comment in the history, that you have a strong opinion about this issue. It would be great to have a dialogue about it, rather than simply a he said/he said. If only for me to get a better understanding of the process.

I appreciate your time and consideration, in advance.

--BradGoddard 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you have been active--any spare moment you have to respond to my comment would be appreciated. BradGoddard 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful
I am asking that you please be careful with what you are doing here. You reverted back to an older version of the article, which had unilaterally deleted huge chunks of properly-cited content that was relevant to the article. Any further reverting should be executed only AFTER a fair discusssion has been held on the article's Talk page. Thank you for your adherence to Wikipedia policy on this matter. --JossBuckle Swami 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarity
OK, so you took me by surprise (again). No, you don't require any special paraphernalia in order to be clear, I could understand it fine the way it was. Bishonen | talk 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

readding db
I'm relatively new here, but I thought that once some other than the author had taken off the db tag one was not supposed to put it back. (Algonkin Writers C). What I think you are supposed to do if you still think it should be deleted is to take it to Afd. Am I right? DGG 06:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * dB says it is for ones likely to be uncontroversial, and once someone has contested it it is controversial. But as the rule does not say it in so many words, I will propose the change. (And I have seen some dbs, and I cannot think of anyone else ever doing that). I decided not to revert you because the hangon should do as well.BTW, I have no special interest in the subject of the article.  DGG 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of sockpuppetry
I removed your accusation of sockpuppetry from Articles for deletion/Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison again. I can't see any evidence for it, so I assume it's just the usual incorrect assumption that all newbies are sockpuppets of each other. I don't support that kind of casual newbie-biting.

I may be mistaken, of course -- if you have evidence that the newbies there are sockpuppets of each other (like a CheckUser), please point me to it.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  09:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was completely unnecessary.
What makes you so passionate about a single AfD that's going to close as delete anyway? I'm not trying to change the outcome, I'm trying to fight a pervasive form of newbie-biting, which (regardless of whether you put it there in the first place) you are supporting by restoring and vehemently defending it.

Responding with a message entitled "Dopiness" on my talk page was real smooth. No personal attacks, please.

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, Calton. It was me who added the comment about sockpuppets, and it was out of order - it could very easily have been simply a ring around of people invited to comment to prop up a vote, rather than the voting of one peron under several names. I made the comment when i was tired and it was unwarranted, and as such Rspeer was right to remove it (although he should have checked who made the comment initially). The spa templates remain, though, and will mean as much to a closing admin as any comment about sockpuppets. Grutness...wha?  04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

IFD
Hi, this is just a question. On the Images for deletion when you put Images up for deletion what does OR mean, I figure out that LQ meant low quality and UE meant underexposed but I just cant figure that one out. Could you please tell me what it means because even though I'm an experienced user I just cant figure it out! Thanks for your help and please reply on my talk page - Cheers!!!! Telly <font color="#66ff33">addict  19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help
Hi there, thanks for your help with telling me what some things mean on WP:IFD it really helped as some of them I just could not figure out! Thanks again. <font color="#0066FF">Telly <font color="#66ff33">addict  12:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hey -- could you be a little more conservative with your speedy deletion requests please? I'm aware of your ground rule #3, but some of your speedy requests lately have pushed the boundaries way too far, and may even be requesting deletion of articles worth keeping. Specific ones I found questionable:
 * Ballerium -- an abandoned Interplay project, that got through to beta testing. Somewhat vaporware, yes, but Interplay is a significant player, and this may be worth keeping.  But definitely, significance claimed by being an Interplay project.
 * Cinenacional.com -- a film website sponsored by the government of Argentina.
 * Bus Route 12 -- band with *5* (or maybe 6) albums listed. That would meet WP:MUSIC if verified.
 * Tom Fischbach -- creator of a very popular webcomic. Ok, a merge may be a good idea, but deletion?  Comic claimed to get 2 *million* hits a week, and #6 all time.

Remember that CSD A7 (which these all fell under) is for articles that don't even claim importance or significance for their subjects, and if done right should be cases that would always be uncontroversial. I know you aren't one caring about process, but denying speedies is extra work for the admins. Some admins don't mind stretching the criteria (I'm not one of them, but I don't mind changing speedy to prod, as I did for Kalasol), but requests like the above are well beyond a stretch. Mango juice talk 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking nicely, and I'm not complaining about ordinary stretches. Please, when an article contains a very clear claim of importance, don't request speedy deletion -- it's not appropriate.  Cases like those four should have gone straight to PROD if not AfD.  We're all on the same team here, trying to clean out the crap... it's just easier if we can work together.  Mango juice talk 04:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF. As to you caring about process, that's what I took your ground rule #3 to mean -- that it's the spirit of the rules that matters, et cetera.  I don't mean you don't care that there are processes to be followed, just that it's silly to bother with them so much (and it is, kinda -- see the recent discussion on WT:CSD, and all badlydrawnjeff's complaints about process, regardless of the purpose).  And I'm trying to reason with you, not lecture you, you're an established member of the community and you know the rules.  It's just, I started on CSD duty and had to deny about 10 speedies in a row, you know?  Mango juice talk 04:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Like I said, it was a major software project planned for release by a major company.  Not even true vaporware as it made it to beta testing.  That's enough to make me suspect that there are sources out there.  Sure enough, a google search returns about 85K hits including plenty from gaming 'zines, such as these (3 in one link) from GameSpot: .  Okay, if you're not familiar with the importance of Interplay, that may not look like a claim.  But it's kind of like with bands -- they can be notable for being on a reputable label, so if they claim to have a label, and it's bluelinked, it's worth checking to at least see if there's an established article.  Mango juice talk 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, Ballerium isn't even any of "website, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast", nor is it similar web-based content in any way. This would have been an actual software product, something that would have been sold in real stores.  Yes, the game works online, but that doesn't make the game merely a website or blog.  But even if you want to stretch it that hard (which is REALLY a push, considering that "product" was specifically rejected as a type of thing A7 could cover), it's still something produced by a major company, so it needs at least a debate.  Mango juice talk 05:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But anyway, there's no point here. Even if Ballerium is a difference of opinion (although I think it's totally clear), there can be no mistaking that Bus Route 12 and Tom Fischbach claimed significance.  Mango juice talk 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus Route 12, when deleted, had as its full text, "Bus Route 12 is an alternative/indie rock band." Mango juice talk 10:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For Hijiri zaka
Tsuki no Misaki will become an article with enormous quantity. Therefore, I seek readers each of contents to refer to the end of the link. Could you please understand it.Tokyo Watcher 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC

The French Laundry
Hi Calton, I added some links to some restaurant pages with video for relevant articles on Wikipedia which you deleted. I'm familiar with the external links policy and I am confused as to your logic. The policy states that external links can go to "other media" (video) and include "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The links I provided for the most part, including the one to The French Laundry, include an interview with the chef, which appears very relevant and hopefully helpful to the community. Can you explain your reasoning for deletion?

Hi Calton (ありがとう)
Thanks you. I have the high ability to translate English into Japanese, but am not English native speaker, the ability to translate Japan into English isn't high. I am wished to continue pointing-out about the English grammar to you. I think for the American, Japan is the strange world,and want to create the article to introduce Japan to the American, too. I want for you to advise me in the future, too.Tokyo Watcher

DOGME ELT
I have no idea why you have left a message on my talk page. Since you are not an administrator, you can not have deleted the article in question. Unless you have access to information regarding the precipitous deletion of the article, I have no idea as to why you would want to contact me. Did you request the deletion? Malangthon 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Writing Workshop Promoter Guy
Dear Calton,

I've naturally noticed the speedy deletions of workshop/conference posts and notes of warning on my personal page. I understand the Wiki arguments that led to these conditions, however, I don't understand the non-universal application. Yes, the same old, howz come the other guys get away with it? I actually hesitated with the posts in the past till I saw Bread Loaf and many other for-profit conferences "advertising" their product here. Technically, how can any commercial enterprise be deemed noncommercial or neutral or nonpromoting enough for any Wiki reference? Rock bands, hotels, etc. They're all promoting on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be a difficult jerk, just don't get it. Anyone who lists a writer conference here is promoting it, plain and simple. They're not listing to add to the sum knowledge of the human race. I know, they tell me so. Anyway, the personal page is different with me. I consider it an honor to have my page on Wiki. I've added more references and links. Please let me know if you think this is sufficient. As I point out in my talk page, I know of many other writers/poets/website people listed on Wiki and they're not being singled out ...

Thanks for your time. Since you are an English major, you should enjoy webdelsol.com.

Cheers,

Michael

--

ADDENDUM:

I have answered you. Have the page deleted or I will delete myself.

--Solneffmike 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk page deletion
''I notice that you deleted a user talk page -- one that was chockful of warnings at that. Was there a reason? --Calton | Talk 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)''
 * my bad! I deleted it thinking it an article in main space, not user space, my apologies. It was helpfully speedy delete tagged, and I deleted it, but should have realised it wasn't a userpage first. Presumably I then deleted the accompannying talk page. I would revert my actions, but since the user has been blocked it's right that their talk page remain deleted. Thanks for picking me up on this! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WAD Studios
I'm declining to speedy delete this as a G11 or A7 since another admin deleted a previous version then decided to let this one stand. If you want to lead the lamb to the slaughter as failing WP:CORP though, feel free.--Isotope23 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Music Emissions
I'm not sure what you mean by "Spam about the distinctly non-notable". Can you elaborate? Are you in agreement that the site is Non-notable?

Dscanland 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

James Gandolfini
Sorry - I did a swathe of history deletions at that point and it looks like I slipped up on restoring one. The problems of tabbed browsing... Restored. Shimgray | talk | 11:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CSD's
Firstly, thanks for tagging all those G8's - much appreciated (I killed them all). Secondly, I removed the CSD tag from Melanie Craft because somehow this article was kept at AfD (Articles for deletion/Melanie Craft). Personally, I'd be inclined to !vote delete, but unfortunately it is not a CSD candidate given that it has survived an AfD. I'd be inclined to go with a second AfD, and see if WP:CCC (which I'm presuming it has), and I thought I'd leave this note just so you knew about my actions. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo
Enough with your attempts to sneak in a "North Country Gazette" link. Apparently you feel being dishonest in a cause you believe is okay: it's not. After all, how good a cause can it be if it requires dishonesty on your part? Stop it. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not put that link in; It was someone else under an anonymous IP address. Are you now accusing me of using a sock-puppet? That is a pretty heavy accusation, Cal, and I don't think you've lost all your sense, so go and find it before it loses you.


 * Please provide a diff to clarify your accusation. This will fall into one of three categories:


 * 1: An OLD diff -like a week or 2 ago -that is old, and I have not gone against the consensus to leave the Gazette link out, and my voting on it is permissible etiquette. So, don't bring up "old news."


 * 2: If you think I'm using a sock-puppet, than you have logic problems with your brain, and you need to visit your priest or rabbi or church elder and straighten them out, for it emanates from spiritual darkness. (And, if #2 applies, that is, you think I'm using a sock-puppet, but you don't have a church connection, then get one, because you have real problems.)


 * 3: If you accuse me of having friends put in the link (the meat-puppet method), then take it up with them; I don't speak for others nor do I tell them what to do.


 * Awaiting a speedy answer.--GordonWatts 15:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not put that link in; It was someone else under an anonymous IP address. Are you now accusing me of using a sock-puppet? That is a pretty heavy accusation, Cal, and I don't think you've lost all your sense, so go and find it before it loses you.


 * Here. Don't waste my time, either with your content-free arguments or false sincerity. And the name is "Calton": only my friends get to call me "Cal", Gordy-boy. --Calton | Talk 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying, but you are making a false accusation regarding that link : Someone else put it in, as evidenced by THIS diff, which shows it in there before I arrived on the scene. Therefore, I accordingly chastise you for a false accusation and make this the last warning. If you had better manners, people would be more apt to overlook what might have been a human mistake on your part, but we all must abide by standards, even you.


 * If you look at the edit in question (you can read, right?), you would see that I did not "insert" any link: I reverted what appeared to be clear vandalism -but I told the person making massive changes without an edit summary that she needed to make an edit summary, and -if she did -then I would not revert her. In case you don't know, Calton, use of an edit summary is considered appropriate -if not required -for editing here at Wikipedia, so me reverting this editor was appropriate. I did not say that I supported or opposed any particular edit -only that I would not let some newbie just come right in and make sweeping changes without following Wikipedia policy and common sense manners.--GordonWatts 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

re: World Freedom Day
Did you read List of observances in the United States by presidential proclamation per my suggestion? If not, please do. Is there a reason you are adamant that this cannot be referred to as a holiday? Not every holiday is a federal holiday. I can definitely find sources that refer to this day as a holiday. If holiday is not the correct terminology, then the List of observances in the United States by presidential proclamation article needs to be changed. What term would you suggest? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Public holidays of the United States (to which you linked) includes Federal observances within it's scope. In addition, holiday (which you also linked to) will get you to Federal holiday which includes a section on "Public holidays due to Presidential Proclamation." That section also calls these observances public holidays (vs. federal holidays). While you have a point that none of these articles are sourced, your change suffers from the same problem. I provided a source above that calls this day a holiday, but you have provided no source for your claim. As far as I can tell, your "Again, NOT a holiday, period/full stop" is simply your opinion. However, as a compromise, I will change the World Freedom Day article to use the term observance. I believe your current wording of calling it simply "a day" is a poor choice of words. I will note that the current Wikipedia category system includes observances within the holiday category so I'm going to leave the holiday category in place. An argument could be made to separate them out, but that hasn't happened yet.
 * I also think that your attitude is counter productive. The use of all caps & phrases like "period/full stop" convey (though perhaps only unintended) an unwillingness to discuss topics which is not in keeping with Wikipedia ideals. I specifically came here to understand your reasoning vs. engage in a revert war. Holiday vs. observance does not rise to the level of a POV fight over politics, nationalism, etc. and does not deserve such abruptness.
 * If you feel strongly about holiday vs. observance, I would recommend that you consider visiting Public holidays of the United States, Federal holiday, & List of observances in the United States by presidential proclamation and seeking consensus with the editors of those pages. If the use of holiday is incorrect, then those three pages need correction much more significantly then this stub.
 * Thanks & have a good day. -- JLaTondre 13:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:SPADE and the irony of you referring me to it is not lost on me. That essay concentrates more on the negative affects of "calling a spade a spade" then the positive. It is also an essay and not policy. Anyhow, it is clear that I have upset you (which was not my intent) and I apologize for that. I was trying to engage in actual discussion of the topic & provide feedback on how I perceived your comments. It is clear that you do not see a need for the former and that I mishandled the later. I'll leave you be as there is no sense in us aggravating each other more. -- JLaTondre 14:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:
Please put new discussion at Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RSD (you know what this stands for by now....)
Thank you for your opinion, which very clearly cuts through all the nonsense. But I digress -- the point is that your recent post duplicated your previous one, which you should probably mention in one of them. --N Shar 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

KXGN-TV
Just trying to show that KXGN is a dual-affiliated station that airs NBC programming, but actually show what NBC programming they air. They air shows off-schedule (My Name is Earl and The Office are aired on Saturdays). Having to add all these references is just annoying. - SVRTVDude 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do a Google search, you will see KXGN is something of a legend, if you will, on radio and TV sites. Even having it's own page on TVNewsTalk.net for a short time...even though it was started as a joke, it expanded.  They dropped it when TVNT went down for a couple weeks. - SVRTVDude 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just making a point....no need to be rude. If you want to help, find a reference that says KXGN is the only station that is affiliated with more than one Big-3 network. - SVRTVDude 05:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Just trying to show that KXGN is a dual-affiliated station that airs NBC programming, but actually show what NBC programming they air. They air shows off-schedule (My Name is Earl and The Office are aired on Saturdays)."  KXGN is the only station in the nation to have affiliation (sp) of 2 of the "Big 3" Networks.  Saying that they air "select" NBC programs tells the reader nothing, saying they air only the 10pmEST/9pmMST programs would be false, saying that they only broadcast programs from NBC aired that day would also be false as stated above.


 * A schedule shows the reader the very unique situation that is KXGN's prime-time programming. Something that is best described with a schedule.  Most readers that don't leave in Glendive will probably never come across a station like this, so explaining it this way is, I feel, best and easier than a long-winded paragraph.


 * By the way, I am working with A Man in Black on this one, so that all the references are up to Wiki's standards. He has requested a reference that says that KXGN is the only station that airs both CBS and NBC programming or is the only station that airs any programming from any of the "Big 3" networks...if you would like to help out, I would appericate a little help looking that information up.  Thanks. - SVRTVDude 06:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you PM me just to argue? You are giving me nothing other than your opinion.  If you only want to argue and give me your own opinion, which means nothing to Wiki of a whole, than I will see ya later....if actually have something to offer, then I await you next PM. - SVRTVDude 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, I never said I "owned" the KXGN article, but am working to add references to it so that the schedule may remain....am one reference away from putting that schedule right back up....as I have noted, I am looking for "a reference that says that KXGN is the only station that airs both CBS and NBC programming or is the only station that airs any programming from any of the "Big 3" networks". If you would like to help out, I would appericate a little help looking that information up. - SVRTVDude 07:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look, I am giving him links, he tells me "no", I keep looking....I asked AMIB if a different reference would be acceptable. Since he is an admin and you (and I) are editors, he outrules you on whether something stays or goes.  So, when I find that reference, it goes back up.  No period, no full stop...what AMIB tells me, goes.  Sorry. - SVRTVDude 07:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Now we need a reference for the claim that this is unusual; once we've done so, it may be worth devoting a section to that unusual fact, depending on those references. Until then, all we have is the supported claim in passing that the station carries programming from two networks, so we shouldn't be embroidering it with original research."....a direct quote from AMIB. We have been discussing this on his talk page...and yes, I am doing what he tells me since he is the admin and you are an editor...an angry one at that. - SVRTVDude 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He said "That reference is a good start."...while, yes, he didn't say anything "about the inclusion of the schedule itself", he said it was a "good start" and didn't say that it wouldn't be included even if I had 100 references. So, if it is a "good start" and he then gives me instructions on what to find next...what's that tell you?  That I am one reference away from the schedule being added.


 * Do yourself (and me) a favor...read the freakin' talk page next time and don't include yourself in something that is being taken care of. This beings me back to a question I asked earlier: "Did you PM me just to argue?". - SVRTVDude 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A Man in Black/WP:AIV
I have ended that thread on WP:AIV as it was obviously not going anywhere. - SVRTVDude 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I started it, so...um...yeah it is mine to end. - SVRTVDude 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility
I can't help but notice the many other users objecting to your caustic style of conversation. You really, really need to be more civil.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN
I wasn't intimidating you in the least, but thank you for proving my point. I quoted exactly what you said on WP:AN...and when you become an admin, get back to me....til then, don't tell me (or admins) what you will or won't be deleting from a page. Also, have a freakin' Prozac on me. - SVRTVDude 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, go back and read what you wrote....then read what I wrote...and you will see I was MORE than civil and have been with you. You PM me, inject yourself into something that was being taken care of, tell me that no matter what an admin says you are going to do what you want to do, be about as uncivil as you can get, try you damnedest and pick a fight, and then YOU get pissed off when someone asks you to be a little civil.  Dude, I am being more than civil with you.


 * Also, I have read WP:OWN, but since you are telling me that no matter what AMIB says, you are going to delete the schedule (even if an admin says it's OK for it to be in the article) you are in violation of that very rule. Also, Admins may be editors with "extra buttons" but one of those "buttons" is a ban button.  Keep pissing off the wrong people, keep doing what you are doing right now, and you will be on the wrong side of that button.


 * Now, here is what ya need to do....stand up, turn off the computer, watch some TV, go to bed, tomorrow....go outside. Come back to Wiki with a clear head and a little more relaxed, you and I will get along a-helluva-lot better than.  Again, I am not being rude nor uncivil, I am actually being quote polite considering.  Take my advice before you wind up on the wrong end of one of those buttons, OK? - SVRTVDude 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you do the same? You are the one who PM'd me first.  Any further PM's from you will be going to the closest board I can find as harrassment.  Now, piss off. - SVRTVDude &lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User talk:Orangemonster2k1&#124;Yell&lt;/sup&gt;]] 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Calton,
 * Just a brief note. I respect all the work you've done for Wikipedia, and certainly don't want to upset you. At the same time, I feel like some of your comments on Orangemonster2k1's talk page come close to violating WP:BITE. I've left a note on his talk page asking him not to add that schedule back in, and I hope you both will just stop the talk page incivility. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, Calton. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you; I took yesterday off the 'pedia, and it appears from the RFC and my talk page that things have deteriorated since then. I did indeed tell Orangemonster tonight not to remove Ifd templates; assuming good faith, I don't know why he did it, but he has agreed not to do that anymore. Thanks for the heads-up. As for the RFC, it is unfortunate that this was filed, as I feel it was premature. I cannot agree with user:Elaragirl that civility for its own sake is a waste (it is a pillar of Wikipedia, after all), but I feel this has been blown out of proportion. I note my comment above has been cited as an example in the case. I certainly wish my name had not been used there, as it then appears I agree with the RFC, but what's done is done. More to the point, I regret that this will take up valuable editing time for those involved in what actually amounts to (or began as) a very minor content dispute. I hope you will take this all in stride and just go back to doing what you've been doing for a long time: editing the encyclopedia. Too often, these disagreements wind up as permanant grudges; something we just don't need on Wikipedia. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dude

 * It's a bad day when I take up for Calton, but filing an RfC wasn't the course to take. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 10:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Update on your 25 January comment
You left a comment on a user subpage of mine. I just responded with an update. You and others may find the comments on the forum I cited to be "Mastercard priceless". --A. B. (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)