User talk:Calton/Archive22

I have set up the page entitled Voice FM - this is a legitimate community project for the communities of the caerphilly county brough in the UK, and will accurately reflect its origins and history, etc. It is not intended for any advertising.

NAFOURA Magazine
I would debate your message regarding whether NAFOURA Magazine on WIKI is being used as a form of advertising for the benefit of a company. NAFOURA Magazine is an important resource for many belly dancers worldwide. Deleting this page from WIKI ultimately is stopping belly dancers from being aware of its existence and the amount of positive useful knowledge that the magazine adds to the belly dancing art worldwide. Please be aware that there aren't any other magazines that focus on belly dancing and in context to the world market. Deleting this page from WIKI is a big shame, especially for all belly dancers and for the belly dancing art, which lacks enough credible publications that promote it. Please reconsider your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafoura (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not spamming
NAFOURA Magazine isn't a profit making business thank you very much. No one takes earnings for the amount of hard work that goes into it. The magazine is genuinely dedicated to furthering knowledge and awareness of belly dance. Your response is typical of someone who clearly has no idea about Belly Dancing. I will keep this remark and publish it in the next issue of our magazine. Let's see what our readers think of your inaccurate comment and whether in fact the page is spamming.

What do you call this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogue_(magazine) Spammming??


 * Ahem, it was me that deleted it. I would love an honourable mention in your magazine – big B, small h. Thanks. – B.hotep •talk• 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD
I noticed you tagged quite a few db-spam user and user talk pages, and many of them were quite old. I believe I deleted most of them. How were you able to find them so quickly? Thanks for the hard work! Plastikspork (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Peeball
'''Help? What did I do wrong? I must admit I find Wikipedia very confusing (clearly as I don't even understand how to sign correctly) but, as a new user, I'm only trying to create good content about useful and positive topics. Obviously my style isn't right but please help me correct it? At the moment I'm feeling rather attacked which I'm sure wasn't your intention? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herculous (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WooMe, speedy deletion
You commented on my talk page suggesting that it be speedily deleted. I had information on there requesting feedback, which I incorporated before posting my article. I would like to contest that as well as contest my talk page being deleted. I used the advice given to me on the WooMe article when writing the Mingle2 article, which was not deleted. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/mingle2. The pages I created are not blatent advertising. I did use a twitter post as a reference, which is not a reliable source I understand. There are many sources on the article that I wrote, especially since WooMe is listed as the top 10 most popular dating sites according to TechCrunch which is a very reliable source for the industry. Appreciate your feedback as I'm interested in keeping my wiki account in good standing, thanks! Vlectronica (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Actragroup
As always, thanks for your hard work. One request: add the tag when the G11 page is not in English, so that everyone is looking at the same thing. I can muddle through German, French and Spanish (at least, enough to make a G11 call, usually), but Dutch leaves me clueless. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking to a Tweet
Hey, saw your post on ANI about how to link to a specific Tweet. Here's what I found on a google search: "First, make sure you’re logged in and on the “Home” page of Twitter. On the right, click on “updates”. Locate the tweet you’d like to link to, and find where it shows how long ago the tweet was tweeted (ex: “about 2 hours ago”). Click that and you should be taken to a page that displays only that specific tweet. Copy the url in the address bar, and paste it where ever you want to link directly to that tweet."

Hope that helps! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:WalktoEndMS
Hello, Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I am just learning to navigate my way through Wikipedia. My intention was to post the article under the Charity/finance/fundraising section like the other charity fundraisers. I thought I might be able to do that through the personal page. Would you happen to know how I can post my article in that section? Do you have any other advice for me so I don't get flagged like this in the future? Thank you for your help--WalktoendMS (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brandishing the Speedy Delete on my user page
That just sucks. Sorry, someone had to say it. Obviously I hadn't edited the page in some time, and yes, it was about my company. But I'm trying to follow the guidelines to the best of my ability. Once I had completed the article (and I was a long way off - I tend to be a heavy editor/rewriter) I was going to submit the article to an editor and ask for neutral feedback on the piece. I had no intention of publishing the content as-was.

If you could assist me in creating a neutral article regarding my company (because we're noteworthy IMO) then I welcome your sharpest editorial red pen, so to speak. First, however, I'll need my goddamn user page content replaced.

Very truly yours, Motobasura (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Calton didn't delete your user page, Dank did. So, why don't you go over to them and ask them. – B.hotep •talk• 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I read the needlessly flippant instructions - this was the only starting point I could find. How did you uncover who deleted my user page? I found nothing in the history. (You know, for the next time I have something deleted...) Motobasura (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the top of the history there is a link which says "view the logs for this page" that will tell you. Viridae Talk 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovely, thanks for the assistance. Motobasura (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete on My Page
Hey. My post is somewhat similar to the previous one. I am not going to publish my article as it is. It is about my company but will modify it before actually posting it. Will also be asking for formal feedback once i am done. Instead of putting the speedy deletion tag, what will be be helpful is if you can give tips on how to improve it, and not make it sound like blatant advertising!

Cheers, Shruti

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrutikedia (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Plusein, Re: Ctreatures of the Wind speedy deletion
Hi, thanks for watching over Wikipedia. I researched other wiki pages about similar fashion entities, and based my entry on those and my own thoughts on an acceptable entry. I have read the related wikipedia guidelines and edited the article in what I think is a reasonable way, and said they same on the page's talk page. Thanks! Plusein (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lexington Principles on the Rights of Detainees
In this instance, on a second look, I realized you're absolutely correct and this is a blatant candidate for deletion, and I added a delete comment accordingly.

Since I've only recently started getting involved in AfD's for law, I'm wondering if you could gather together some hyperlinks that would inform me of the AfD principles and put them on my talk page. I would appreciate that.

Agradman talk/contribs 14:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Calton, please don't make this difficult -- I'm attempting to extend an olive branch here and demonstrate to you that I'm not an adversary. I made this comment here since you were unhappy with my contributions to the AfD; I think you are right in requesting deletion, and I sought to revise my comments there to reflect this; if you think I've interfered with your purpose there I'm willing to make further changes to make this clear.  In requesting information on the AfD procedures, I'm trying to indicate that I'm ignorant and willing to learn.  There's no reason to turn this into a fight.  Agradman talk/contribs 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, that's a fair critique of Limited global quota for upland cotton. I've made several changes to the page, including:
 * created a page for the redlink, Food and Agriculture Act of 1977
 * added content from the federal government webpage on the program, and included the hyperlink
 * included a hyperlink to the previously-existing text on Wikisource, consisting of President Carter's proclamation creating the program.
 * Of course, you're welcome to put an AfD on the article at any time, but I hope this answers your concerns.
 * On a related note, are you suggesting that a prerequisite for creating Wikipedia articles is a knowledge of each of the AfD criteria? In addition to requesting info on the AfD criteria, I now need to ask for a citation to that claim.  Thanks.  Agradman talk/contribs 15:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

other questionable pages on your watchlist?
You probably noticed that I created a lot of agricultural pages from the same source recently. Some of these easily satisfy notability and are stub class -- but a large number appear either non-notable, or else are too brief to qualify as stubs, or both.

I'm embarrassed to have created this situation, since you're not the only person who's questioned the content. This situation arose because I have been incorporating content from a government-written glossary on U.S. agricultural policy (it was written as a primer for U.S. Congressional staffers who supervise agricultural legislation), and some of the entries in that volume were very brief.

My motive is that, when this project is complete, I will write a letter to the Congressional Research Service informing them that I've incorporated their public-domain work into Wikipedia. I'm a member of the movement to lobby that organization to change its distribution policies (since they have 700 government employees writing public-domain encyclopedic reports which, however, are only rarely released to the public). My hope is to inspire a change at the agency, once they recognize that they can do their mission better by distributing their content publicly.

All of this is preface. I'm writing this note to request that you inform me of any other articles I've created that you think are questionable. I would be more than happy to improve them, and if I cannot, I would not protest an AfD. However, it will be easier for me to improve AfD candidates now rather than several months from now when the school semester has begun, so that's why I'm writing now rather than waiting for you to nominate them.

Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, a super-efficient way to do this: convert the CRS document from a PDF into an MSWord.doc (it's here ). Using the "highlight" tool, highlight any entries that you think would fail an AfD on Wikipedia.  This would take possibly a half hour.  Let me know when you've done this, and I'll send you my private email address to which you can send the MSWord.doc attachment.  I'll go back and improve that all the entries you highlighted satisfy "notability" (though it could take a while).  Then I will show you the changes, and also inform you which ones were impossible to improve, and then you can nominate the ones you don't like for AfD. Agradman talk/contribs 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy
See particularly this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to add a footnote to my message at WP:UAA, "If promotional edits continue, please warn first, then report to WP:WPSPAM". I need to give the standard answer since it's UAA and people are looking for standard answers there ... but of course there's no rule that you have to watch for and report spam. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA
Have you considered adminship so that you can clear them out yourself? --Stephen 02:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just letting you and other editors who do a lot of listings at UAA know that the username policy has underwent some changes as of yesterday. You may wish to look it over at your convenience. Cheers, Nja 247 09:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Angieyuneve
In regard to this edit, I tend to think that if someone is using their user talk page for advertising, speedy deletion of the page is not the best way to deal with it, because any warnings to the editor (such as warning them not to use the page for advertising) will get deleted as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at Met's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Btw Calton ... as you can see, I never did escape from G11 work, I'm still on the job. Maybe I'll get a vacation some day ... - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on living persons
I removed your attack per WP:BLP. Please do not restore it; thank you. --NE2 05:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
I have been looking through the archives of user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and noticed that he has harassed you in the past. I have noticed he has a history of editing harassing other users as well. This editor attacked me in an AfD for "axe grinding" and then started reverting unrelated edits of mine calling me a "disruptive IP anon" etc. I admit I was a bit short when the AfD was new because the living person that was its subject started canvasing before I had added the article to the AfD log. However, he refuses to discuss anything with me on his talk page which makes me think this isn't a fluke. I don't know what to do in a situation like this so I have opened a Wikiquette alert about this subject and seek your advice. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urllee52
Hello. Thank you for filing Sockpuppet investigations/Urllee52. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Username reports
Hey, I saw your reports at improper usernames and wondered if you were using an automated script to do the reporting? Thanks. Netalarm 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm wondering if it is one person behind the recent ones today. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: User:Calton/Watchlist
"Watchlists" of that sort aren't exactly encouraged. Keeping tabs on pages is fine, but that's what we have Special:Watchlist for. Keeping tabs on people is a different story; people, unlike pages, can get quite offended by somebody tracking their every move. If you'd like, I can restore the page, but you'd have to consent to removing all information about editors and anything that could stir drama. Thanks, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't quite call it paranoia. There are a lot of people who would call this 'stalking'. In a form, it is. I appreciate your good intentions, but, unfortunately, in this scenario they don't outweigh the potential consequences. Bring pages you think are troublesome to attention at WP:MFD if you feel it is prudent, just don't stalk anyone. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Use common sense here. Bring up the issue with the users in question, or approach an admin about the topic. Don't file it away and season it with snide comments. Again, you've got to use common sense here; you don't have the right to track people just because you see them as a detriment. I need not wave policy around, nor do I need to IAR. A good way to deal with this, if you wanted to deal with it appropriately, would be to talk to the users, warn them with kind words (not templates), and walk them through what Wikipedia is and isn't. If the accounts are dead, put the pages up for MfD. Do it all in a neutral sort of way and you should be okay. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  06:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anywho, I'm going to bed, then I work in the morning, so I apologize for my absence in that time. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Calton,

Please can you tell me which is the supposed spam link in my article on Experiential Travel?

Experiential travel is a new and booming sector in the travel industry and I feel a wikipedia article on this sector is highly relevant and necessary.

Please find below some news reports and articles on Experiential Travel that may help prove it's relevance for wikipedia:

[]

[]

[]

If you could explain where you feel my proposed entry is a breach of wikipedia's regulation then I will make it my priority to adjust the article accordingly so that wikipedia has a suitable article for Experiential Travel.

Many Thanks,

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Falconer (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:User talk:Garyeric3
Ok Thankyou --Notedgrant (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Bingelton7
Agreed that this represents a sock farm. In fact, as you know, we've had a lot more SPA user talk pages recently that use Search engine optimization, and I'm going to propose broader use of uw-soablock at WT:U to adjust to the influx. (watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else (other than the blocked user) could in theory come back and revert the page to its original state. I did a similar one to this today and deleted the page to be safe. – B.hotep •talk• 15:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Question on Globcal Block
I am associated as a regular member of an organization called Globcal, there were attacks against the organization and spam emitted using this name. You were involved with the removal of something having to do with Globcal, GREAT WORK, I applaud your watching, they were the competition and they have committed crimes including hazing, slander, defamation, libel, fraud, and dilution against individuals and the organization.

It would be very helpful if we could still find the IP addresses of the people who were spamming using Globcal when you encountered them and find out if they are from Denmark, Romania, or Venezuela, contact me directly at ingeniosa@gmail.com (different from my user name-click) If you cannot help me personally please make a referral.

I will now be writing about the Globcal Cooperative article called Globcal International. If you know of anything you can do to help us protect the integrity of "Globcal" please help, I don't know if your block or deletion request resulted in anything negative for Globcal International.

Ingenosa (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, as a regular member there are no conflicts of interest in my writing, as a matter of fact I joined yesterday just to know all there is to know about the group my only interest is the (scandal) you called petty-bickering, I am doing the article because D. Jeffrey Wright founded it and he is a neighbor and I am concerned that a good humanitarian project is being harmed. It would be like saying that a citizen of the US cannot write the article about the USA because he/she would have a tendency to be subjective. I was only concerned with the blocks or deletions affecting the article I am writing. All searches seem to come up null currently, in any case thank you very much for your time. Ingenosa (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am so sorry I contacted you, I came to Wikipedia to write and follow-up my articles as part of a course, in case your insensitivity clouds your eyes I was a female psychology student I wrote the article about Col. Wright because I met him here (maybe my referral to him as a neighbor annoyed you but I consider anyone in the same city to be my neighbor) and the importance of his work here here in Caracas as an outsider or expatriate is considerable. I reviewed and found 230 articles about him written in major newspapers in the US using Lexus and Google News Archive. Simply the fact that he served as an Ambassador for our city government being an American is notable enough outside of him distributing 10 million trees to people. Since he only gave me one interview and I do not have contact with him directly I believe there is no COI,

I thought appreciating your good work and asking you for some advice may have resulted in me becoming a better editor, thanks for pointing out the rules clearly. I am not here to bicker and it is very clear that illegitimate wiki IP special contributors from Indonesia have improperly edited the article to cause harm, it is HUMANLY NATURAL for me to want to know why, I guarantee if you had written the article YOU would want the same insight I seek as to who and why? But according to you I should leave it alone and I will, if I violated a rule I sincerely apologize and I am more sorry to have bothered you. Since you have pointed out my errors I will see what I can do about finding a Mentor Editor to help me in the future. Sorry again. Ingenosa (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sock ring


All these users created a spammy user page and then blanked it. This appears to be an attempt to escape initial review so that they can recreate their SEO spam without being put in the new pages log to escape scrutiny. Do you think this is worth investigating?  Triplestop  x3  03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Standard operating procedure on any page that looks spammy and is then blanked is to delete per G7 for just this reason; would this approach not work here? - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey
I have been monitoring some edits with User:Philip Leirsund. Is it fair to report him to AIV or somewhere as a vandal-only account? You can see his messages on his talkpage & and mainspace edits. BrianY (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

dorf
dorf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crudmik31 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop
In the past week you have followed me to two pages, and attacked me directly.
 * 00:57, 10 August 2009
 * A talk page you have not edited since 2005-11-24 05:08.
 * Last Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not edit was 2007-09-16 14:38
 * 15:22, 15 August 2009
 * First and only edit to this page.

So, you now have my full attention, which it appears you wanted, how can I help you Calton? Ikip (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the page was just a test page?
Hi Calton -- I created this page awhile back and thought it was just a "test page" and did not post it live because I knew it may be questionable. I've been waiting to learn more about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and since then, someone else posted a page about Bourns. How do I go about deleting this page? Also, are there simple instructions anywhere about adding to a current Wikipedia page? This site is not very user friendly. Or, do you know of an expert who can teach someone like maybe yourself? Thanks! K KellerComm (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting page!
but you didn't answer my other questions...? Thanks, K KellerComm (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP
Thanks for letting me know, Calton. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

alan roger currie afd
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29. it was recently deleted, and you voted either delete or keep, and it has since been recreated. i am messaging all previous voters to see if they wish to vote again. please do not take this as canvassing, as i have attempted to contact all voters Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

csd
There's a discussion about speedy-deleting promotional user pages at WP:CSD that might interest you. (I made a (favorable) comment about your work there at ).  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: User:Thegreatestjihad/Imperanon
Hi Calton! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on User:Thegreatestjihad/Imperanon- because: A7 only applies to articles (see WP:What is an article?), which does not include userpages, or user-subpages. If you have any questions or other messages, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin13 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then let's debate it.
First of all, what study? Done by who? The daily show, as Stewart says himself, is not "objective". He says that openly. So I would love to see your study of mainly 17-23 year olds (that's his main club) who are better informed, and what exactly they are "informed" about. Secondly, a living conservative? There are a million, me for example! Also, you should read Jonah Goldberg's liberal fascism, I wrote my honors thesis (Commonwealth College at Umass Amherst) about Mussolini's Socialism and many of the fellows at the Heritage Foundation (Those neocons,right??). Do you know how many more people watch Fox News then other Cable News??? I watch C-Span but that's another story.

Why don't you defend the progressive presidents (and heros of the left) Woodrow Wilson and FDR locking up hundreds of thousands of political prisoners, and militarism and then we can talk about Buckley and segregation.

Stewart is a comedian and he even edits things to mislead, and his response when rarely pressed on it is that "This is my show, I'm not objective." But his core audience is??? Nope! Anyway, liberals (hardcore ones at that) are more obsessed with Fox then I ever will be. Real studies have shown that Fox, like it or not, has more independents that watch it then any other channel. They also completely rout NBC and CNN in ratings. The audience is much more diverse then you think and after the election there was an audience withdrawal from NBC and CNN to Fox. All those crazies, right? But, again, I rarely watch Fox myself, or any cable news for that matter. Too many egos.

Seriously. JohnHistory (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Part of this was the other editor, not you I was addressing. Thought you guys were one and the same. But you are not? JohnHistory (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Also, so you would sign that 9/11 petition too? You think those are all valid questions, inquiry here we go?? Okay, so you are on the fringe. I think that says a lot. Would you sign it, or not?? JohnHistory (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Carlton, you never answered my simple question. Would you have signed said 9/11 petition, or not? cat got your tongue?JohnHistory (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory Again, stewart openly says that he is not objective. He says that, not me. Did you even read your own study (which is two years old with many new Fox viewers since). Before I could even find what "informed" meant I saw this:

"There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events)."

-Oreilly Factor is the most watched Cable News Show on TV. Thus the most highly watched Fox News Show has, according to your study, the most well-informed percentage of all cable news shows! You just countered your own point! Secondly, when Fox is the most watch cable news, so when they are going through a list of generic terms for what they are talking about like Broadcast televsion = morning news they give no networks (curious?) but when they mention cable news their generic suddenly becomes "Fox" either because it is the most watched, or for some prejudice. Also, note how they say the less informed audiences also frequent "A MIX OF FORMATS' thus not being strictly Fox viewers but more akin to Channel Surfers. So, you are wrong on several levels, not to mention the giant shift to fox since just the election, yet alone 2007 when this "study" came out. JohnHistory (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Also, note your evil villain Rush Limbaugh is listed as having some of the most "informed" viewers. Can you say Checkmate? JohnHistory (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

John Stewart is on Comedy Central. He is a comedian, and has been for a long time. He says openly, "This show is not objective." "This is my show", etc. You brought him up as this great informer and yet you then say, "What does that have to do with anything". You see, you can't even have an honest discussion, and I'm sure that really made it impossible to then realize that your own study contradicted yourself about news viewers, which was the height of ridiculousness that you would cite a study that contradicts you in its very opening. Why would you mention Obama being black? What does that have to do with anything, but a pathetic attempt to stifle debate?

Yeah, because showing your own study contradicts, is not worth reading because I quoted Stewart beforehand saying that he is not objective and the well known fact that he is a comedian on comedy central. Yeah, you lost this one big time. Again, your own study showed that you were dead wrong! And, I have yet to hear a defense of FDR, and Wilson's militarism and arrests of 100,000 of political prisoners. Why does the left always make straw man arguments, and obfuscate, and cite things that contradict themselves? It's quite astonishing, and dare i say pathetic!

Anyway, I'm done if you are. JohnHistory (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

You know, I think it is truly pathetic that instead of addressing the factual data and issues raised you run away into the tiny arches of your mind and reference this. Why not just point out my errors, instead of impugning my integrity? My little legs (I'm 6'3) have carried very far, and apparently you have been left in the dust with only random insults and cliches left as the harbingers of your inability to honestly debate someone else. By the way, I have not simply not "seen enough clips" I wrote my honors thesis at Umass Amherst on Mussolini's socialism so I think you are really showing your true colors here. I don't think you are worthy of my standards of debate so why don't you go bark up the tree you dropped out of.

Listen, I will take his word for it. He said 'This is my show, I'm not objective". That's good enough evidence for me. I mean could he have made it any clearer?   Anyone who get their news from stewart, as clearly you do, is just sad.  I mean, that is like watching Sesame Street, grow up already! It all over the top satirical ideology and (you got love that audience he has) partisan crap, and guess what, comedy central should have been enough of a giveaway for you.  Alas, here you are.  Stewart has also said approximately, when pushed on said issue, ~ What do you expect from a show where sock puppets come on afterwards. I also saw a CNN thing on how he edited an Oreilly show to make it look different then it was. Anyway, that link is completely in line with your though process that simply demeans and ignores as opposed to addresses the issues. By the way, your own study, as I pointed out, say O'reilly (This is 2007 many more have switched to his show since) who has had the largest Cable News audience forever, along with Rush Limbaugh have some of the most informed viewers, and I pointed out that you were just wrong in how you presented Fox News in the study. So, keep changing the channel, keep throwing insults around. They just make you sink deeper into your own malaise, your own abyss.JohnHistory (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Avoiding the issue, having to come back and draw lines on through your own comments on my page, and name calling just make you look twice the fool. Why do I bother with someone whose own touted study contradicted themselves??? So far all you have you done is throw names around, that's it. Seriously pathetic. I think you should let this one go, because you clearly are out of your weight class on this one. JohnHistory (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

And, if you do decide to continue this (your comments are so convoluted) please answer my first question to you which is would you have signed the 9/11 petition Jones did, or not? Through all of this dialogue you have still failed to answer that. You are the one who brought it up in the first place. It would seem that despite Jones doing nothing wrong, and those just being valid questions in your opinion, your spine has gone missing?

Again, you keep mentioning Obama being black and "get over it", etc. Then when I raised this reference with you, you make a totally incoherent argument about it. I'm starting to wonder about your mental cohesiveness. JohnHistory (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
 * I think you are one of the most silly people on here. You brought up a study that contradicted you, you think saying that Jon Stewart, who has been a comedian his entire adult life and who makes countless jokes and punch lines with a laughing audience, is a comedian = flat earth when it really shows the flatness of your intellect. I just watched him complement the kids who busted acorn, and call himself a "fake journalist" who was bummed out that these kids scooped even him.  You know what you have failed at the most basic tests, and yet you still come back to swing names around. I didn't get a Masters in History from Umass Amherst to try to educate people with as little intellectual capability and honesty as you.  This all started because you said Van Jones signed something with "good questions" and then, after all this time, because you have no spine you have refused to say wether you would have signed it or not.  I think that is cowardly of you.  I also think that you refusing to address any of the myriad of historical issues I brought up, yet again still coming back to throw meaningless names around, shows that you are philosophy bankrupt, or perhaps never left your moms basement in the first place. Good day kid, you really take the cake for being an ignoramus, a blowhard, and a fool with little or no true knowledge.  Again, anyone who cites  a study that directly contradicts them is so foolish and ignorant that it is comical on many levels. My advice, stop watching comedy central and NBC for all your news and get a life instead of spending in on here with a clock to mark the waste of time you yourself have become.  JohnHistory (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
 * P.S. Race baiting is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I never once mentioned ethnicity, you have many times! I brought up concrete historical issues, and questions raised directly by you and the best you could do was fall back on race. What utter profound weakness you display in your conduct with me.  It's pathetic of you.  What a joke you are. JohnHistory (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
 * Wow, you are clearly losing it big time, kid. If you want it to end then just stop you don't need to throw meaningless names around it just makes you look incredibly immature. I mean, you even resort to "your momma" stuff. Are you for real? Kid, you are hilarious and just totally ignorant on these subjects. Whose the obsessive one, if you don't come back flinging random insults it ends. Get it, or is that too complicated for you?  BTW, I never said be a comedian disqualifies everything you say, I just said being a comedian and self proclaimed "not objective" "fake journalist" (wow looks like I do listen to what he says) is just that.  So, learn how to read and stop acting so flamboyant and illogical, kid. You started this and now you look strange coming back and time again to say nothing meaninles insults. JohnHistory (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * Calton, stop it before you make a bigger fool of yourself. You cited a study that contradicted you, and you have failed to back anything up. That is the mark of someone who has no business talking with me. All you can do is slander, which is the last refuge of someone totally out of their comfort zone. Please, since you couldn't debate or back things up, and in fact hilariously contradicted your own allegations, just stop. The fact that you call me obsessive and a troll while you just come back and say the same meaningless insults around is beyond pathetic and hypocritical. I have said nothing "dishonest" you have.  I simply said, and this was minor in the grand scheme of the ridiculous things you came out with, was that John Stewart is and has been a comedian on comedy central.  That was it, Calton.  That was it.  That's a fact.  I then quoted him about his own bias.  You really need to grow up.  When people lose an argument and are immature they lash out and obfuscate like you have done. Your strange emotionalism and ridiculous obsession with just screaming while not addressing any real thing, such as your study totally contradicting you, and being unwilling to say if you would or would not have signed the Truther Petition, but saying they were good valid questions bely the sort of ignorant juvenile (comedy central) antic that I have no time for as an thinking adult.   So just stop it, kid.  JohnHistory (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The Falcon (novel)
Calton, I received the notice of pending deletion and read the links you left for me concerning the author's publisher. While it appears her selection may have been rather poor, I'm not certain that I understand what bearing it has on a book that was actually published. Also, I was under the impression that books fell within the scope of WP:NOTE. I apologise if this is not the case. Could you please clarify what would constitute a "shred of evidence for notability" so that I could improve the article? Thank you. Argonel42 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BW
Please no "buckwheat", we just went through that. :) Dreadstar ☥  01:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And there's no need for this. Dreadstar ☥  08:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Back in the saddle
I've been tied up with policy pages and other stuff for a couple of weeks, but I'm back in the saddle (the G11 queue) tonight and I see you're still hard at work. I want to revisit the issue of uw-softerblock vs. uw-ublock. My personal experience was that uw-softerblock was completely effective at stopping the guys we want to stop ... probably because it didn't make a bit of difference what we said after we deleted their promotional userspace page and blocked their account; see this comment. But I got the impression you didn't care for that template much, and many admins prefer uw-ublock. I'm a little bit between a rock and a hard place, because there are a lot of Wikipedians that I have to work with and want to work with who live and breathe AGF, and if it's not necessary to make an accusation to get the result we want to get, I'd rather not. Still, you're doing a lot of the heavy lifting on these tags, and if you're not comfortable with uw-softerblock on some of these, uw-ublock will work for many of them. What's your opinion? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. In cases like User talk:Rohanvij86, I'm perfectly happy to indef them as spammers; they had a long history of adding promotional links to their website, and did it again in August. The ones where I like uw-softerblock are when we have only one or a few edits on their userpage as evidence that they're being promotional, and I don't see SEO techniques or other evidence that they're a hard-core spammer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. OTOH, see my comments about User:Revenuehunter at WP:UAA. Although "Revenue Hunter" will sound like advertising to some Wikipedians, it won't sound irredeemable to others, and I think that means the votes would be in favor of not using a username block on this one, but let me know if you disagree.  They had only 2 edits to their userpage, now deleted, so it's too early for a spam block. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another place you might want to weigh in ... WT:U. People are willing to be responsive to what the frequent taggers are looking for, but for some reason I haven't seen any participation from you guys on the principles I know you believe in, and there's not a lot I can do alone.  (Not watching.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer
I agree that his obsessive behaviour is an issue. I went away for a couple of months and he's on the admin boards still, he never seems to be out of trouble, and Wikipedia is not therapy. What do you think can be done about obsessive personalities like his (I am also thinking of Abd here). Guy (Help!) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Block notice
Calton, I am blocking you for 72 hours not only for your continued uncivil Harassment, but for your outright violation of WP:NPA and personal attacks directed toward another editor. Comments such as this are unacceptable, and when followed by this it should not be tolerated. Given your block log history, it is apparent that you are familiar with our policies on these matters, and I also note that you have been warned again recently for your tone here. Under normal circumstances and escalation practices I would block for a week; however, I do note that you have been a dedicated editor of some tenure, and you have managed to work within the community for the past year without a block. Since I believe it only fair to note these things, and I will also not escalate the block time beyond your previous restriction of 72 hours. Calton, we are here to work in collaboration with other editors, please take this time reflect on the positive aspects of our project, and return in a refreshed temperament that is more congenial to your fellow Wikipedians. I suspect that you are familiar with the procedure, but the link to information about requesting an un-block can be found at: Appealing a block. — Ched : ?  10:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made note of this block at ANI here so that others may review the situation, and monitor any unblock request you my wish to put forward. — Ched : ?  11:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, flying by on the way out for the weekend, that I don't agree with this block. No offence, Ched, but this was nearly 12 hours ago. And there has been plenty to'ing and fro'ing between these two editors (see long thread above), so unless you are going to bring the blocks into equilibrium, I think this won't serve any useful purpose other than to inflame the situation. Maybe a bit of mediation wouldn't have gone amiss first. Sorry if I've missed something, but now I have to go. – B.hotep •talk• 11:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense taken, and after input from a couple well respected editors here, I will unblock so that Calton can address the situation on the ANI board. I've also notified JohnHistory of the thread.  I have no wish to be unfair to any editor, but this type of disruptive editing and the personal attacks simply must be put to rest.  Thank you for your input Bubba. — Ched :  ?  11:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ched. There is a lot to work on here, maybe. Unfortunately, neither of us appear to have the time to sort it right now! Have a good weekend. – B.hotep •talk• 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks to you too B.hotep for your input. You have a good weekend as well.
 * Calton, I've unblocked both your account, and your IP so that you may participate in this discussion. Please constrain your edits to the ANI thread, and do not further escalate the situation on JohnHistory's page. — Ched :  ?  11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:
This was an unnacceptable attack on User:JohnHistory. I will give you the same warning I gave him. Do that again, and you can be blocked. Now disengage, just as I told him to do. Regards, MuZemike 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Calton, I'm going to have to agree with MuZemike here - please just don't post to John's talk page anymore (and I'll tell him the same). Stick to the content, and do not comment about the editor.  If you can't agree on what should or should not be in an article, then seek the steps of dispute resolution - WP:3O if it's only the two of you.  If it's a group of people, then WP:RFC to establish consensus.  This has gone well beyond the "he started it phase", so to be honest, fair or not, the next administrative steps would be to block both editors - I'd rather not see it come to that.  Please. — Ched :  ?  04:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion regarding your civility can be found [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do also apoligize for templating a regular, I feel the templates are good for all but in this case it was possibly excessive in nature. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Fall From Grace & Total Obsession
Calton, I thought we were done with this? We had two people tell us to stop, and yet you continue to come back and post on my paged like someone who is obsessed with me. You are making even more of a name for yourself, and a bad reputation. I suggest you stop. Since you clearly wanted my input and came to my page, I will give you one last little cookie, and then you go, okay?

Obama getting the Nobel prize is about as meaningless as anything. Nobody has given one thing he has accomplished so your antics about it are without merit. Don't forget Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize, and Wilson but at least they had been perceived to have accomplished real things. Honestly, I hope Obama all the best, but this is the last thing he needs right now in terms of perception meeting reality, and the pressure there within. When you have a roundtable at MSNBC in the morning that can't come up with a reason for getting the prize, you got problems especially when your dropping in the polls like a meteor because of the boy wonder illusion. What this is really about, and the Norwegians said as much themselves, is to pressure obama, and just like with the Al Gore and Carter awards, to give a final kick in the pants to Bush. The Norwegians think that they can have some power by adding pressure to Obama, and maybe they are right. They think he is malleable like that. Anyway, I hope he brings peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Israel and Palestine. Let's wait and see if he does, before celebrating though, okay? Nobel said the prize should be given for that shall have been done, not for political purposes, or dream like aspirations. This, from a political vantage point, is not good for Obama. He needed less pressure, less superfluous spotlights, and more concrete achievements. This just tips the scales against reality one more time. Watch when he deploys all the troops to Afghanistan for war what the peace lovers will say, especially with this new prize for "peace". I find it hard to believe that you don't get what these awards are about? Your fan club status of Jon Stewart is hilarious. You mean the guy who said he is a "fake journalist" and "not objective" and shouldn't be taken to seriously because sock puppets come on right after his show??? Why not mention Sean Penn's recent Emmy while you are at it? Stop making this more hilarious then you intend. I agree with Obama that he "doesn't deserver it", but then again these things are so meaningless now whose to say how low the standard is. It's just politics. The person who deserves it is the person who it is given to. Don't you get it that? You don't win it, you are awarded it, and the end for nominations came just two weeks after Obama became president. Two weeks. It's a joke, but I hope he does win the war in Afghanistan, and end the Israeli Palestinian Conflict. That's what his "peace" will be judged on. I will be the first one cheering then, not now as the the pistol shot still rings in the air. I think that is childish and absurd.

Anyway, I'm not as great as you think, and it was me, not you Calton. It's me, your great, this is about me, baby. I just need a little time, to you know, figure things out. I need to explore new... possibilities. You understand right? Don't bother explaining I'm already gone. Bon Voyage my Dandy Wonder! JohnHistory (talk)JohnHistory

Discussion at WP:AN
It's my obligation to inform you that I have started a discussion to keep you away from User:JohnHistory's user talk page in a last effort to try to avoid any administrative actions. You may comment at Administrators' noticeboard if you wish. Let's try to keep all communication on that page, as well. Thank you, MuZemike 06:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

YHBT
Had to say it, in case you haven't figured it out already. Best to ignore it from now on. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, speaking as one who rises to the bait far too often, I agree with the above. Also, [] does not help and I'd encourage you to go and remove it. Then just sit back and see how long it takes our neocon friend to get banninated for WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Community restriction: talk page ban
Per this discussion, you have been placed under indefinite editing restriction, at logged at Editing restrictions. Neither you nor JohnHistory may comment on each others' talk pages, or any subpages thereof. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Baty
I restored the prod on that article, since you didn't say any reason in the edit summary or on the talk page as to why you disagreed or how the article's subject meets any kind of notability guidelines, nor did you offer any way to improve the article, which is requested when removing a prod. I have also added a proposal to merge the contents of the article into the NaNoWriMo article since I believe that is the best way to handle it. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy from User:DynasetTF
Hi User:Calton. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete User:DynasetTF, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G7 because of the following concern: blankings in userspace should not be taken as deletion requests. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards Kingpin13 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Stale WP:UAA reports
Please do not report accounts which have not edited for over a month. WP:UAA is for very current (within the last week or possibly two) reports on usernames which blatantly violate the username policy. If an account hasn't edited for over a month, it is likely they aren't going to be editing again. You are welcome to keep an eye on them, if you wish, and possibly leave a conflict of interest notice on their talk page, but beyond that, there's not any reason to do anything else. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you take heed of this message again and limit your UAA reporting to accounts that have recently been created or edited? One of your last batch hadn't edited since before you were left the message above. If someone makes some spammy edits that then get deleted and never edits again, we don't need to block the account several weeks later. If you must, list the user pages and/or talk pages at MfD. That would be the better cleanup. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, you are flooding WP:UAA with stale reports. Please, please, please stop. If they haven't edited in several weeks, do not report them at WP:UAA. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So ">2" means "several"? Interesting definition, there. Also, the notion of "stale" -- pretty much meaningless except as an out from doing the necessary.


 * It's a volunteer job, so if you don't want to be bothered, just don't do it. Leave it for those willing to do so: there are plenty of those already. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see above, this is not the first time you've been asked to not make stale reports. I'm not the only one who has mentioned this to you, either. This is an ongoing issue with you, specifically. Unless they have edited within the last 3 weeks or so, please do not report them at WP:UAA. As it states at the top of that page, only recently editing accounts should be reported. Thank you for your cooperation. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

All those spammy userpages and user talkpages
Thanks for catching all of these spammy pages; I keep trying to empty CAT:CSD, but there are always more spammy userpages and talkpages to delete :-) How do you find them?  Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Happycoffee
Hello Calton, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Happycoffee - a page you tagged - because: '''Was only created today in userspace. AGF that they are preparing the article before moving to mainspace. Give it a chance.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Bhutantour
Hello Calton, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Bhutantour - a page you tagged - because: G11: Without the last few paragraphs, the article is not promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back-ish
Not that you ever left, but I see you're hard at work. The messages admins are leaving are in line with current consensus, I think ... I haven't done a lot with G11 lately, in part because I'm doing other stuff, but in part because it's hard to keep up. It's true that G7 has changed to disallow deletion for blanking user pages. It's also my sense that, since user-talk-space isn't indexed (unless they changed it in the last few months without notice), admins are going easier on promotional stuff in user-talk-space than before ... but I don't know exactly where the dividing line is. With User_talk:Bhutantour, I think it's an accurate reflection of current standards that deleting just the promotional bits is preferred to removing all the history and culture info. A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you that the odds were pretty much zero that someone that posted that advertisement would ever work with us to create encyclopedic content, but times have changed ... Wikipedia is now the 500-pound gorilla, and sometimes people have to work with us whether they want to or not ... and whether that's true or not, the "community" (whoever that is) is generally acting like it's true, and giving everyone second chances these days. So ... please don't get discouraged from all the canned messages from admins, your work is quite valuable, but there are some limitations on what can be done quickly about some promotional material that didn't exist a year ago. I'll be happy to help if you get into trouble, just give me a holler. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Regarding Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention, that's an accurate reflection of current consensus ... this past summer, some admins (like me) were blocking stale promotional usernames and some weren't; now, we seem to have an agreement that they're not blocked. O tempora o mores. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

re User:Thekohser
Is there any new consensus for the edit you have performed on the above page that you can point me to? The page previously had the indef block template displayed, amongst other information that Greg Kohs wanted displayed, and seemed to have an existing consensus for some time. If there is no new consensus I should be grateful if you would self revert. Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, "the way things are done and have always been done on Wikipedia" runs against the ethos of WP:WIP, which is why consensus is almost always needed in controversial areas and policu anyway is descriptive not prescriptive. So, existing consensus for the page as it existed until your edit; User talk:Thekohser should suffice. Since that discussion the page existed as agreed until your action. Now if we are really going to go for policy justified actions I could have just reverted as part of the WP:BRD cycle, but I followed my admin responsibilities by engaging in discussion with you. I would appreciate it if you would now revert your actions on the account userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. It was reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You think you suspect? Are you not sure about whether you have suspicions..? Wow.
 * For your information Kohs is not banned, but reblocked by ArbCom - Risker acted in that capacity when re-instating the block. Since ArbCom do not issue bans - except in exceptional circumstances, which this case is not - for periods longer than 1 year and there is no existing Community Ban then Kohs remains simply indef blocked. For that indef block to be noted as a ban, there has to be no admin who would be willing to unblock the account. If Greg Kohs were to undertake to abide by conditions similar to that under which he was unblocked earlier this year, I - and perhaps others? - would support an unblock. Thus there is no ban.
 * Nevertheless, your actions - seemingly not in response to any on-Wiki activity, and thus changing the previous stable version - have been undone by a third party; this again indicates that you do not have consensus. You may continue to stamp your foot, but your interpretation of policy is not supported. As for WP:RBI, this specifically refers to not giving recognition to vandals . Kohs is disruptive, certainly, but he is also a contributor of content; not a vandal.
 * I had already pointed above to the previous discussion where it was agreed his userpage should contain records of his past work. No one objected then, and the page remained stable for a period sufficient to indicate consensus for it, until you acted without consultation.
 * Lastly, no, I had no idea who the ip was - all I did was advise them the matter had been dealt with and, per AGF, thanked them from commenting (without indicating my position on their comments). Since you seem to be perplexed on whether you know the account and their motivations or not I cannot understand why you should think I would be able to discern them, even if I were to have checked their history.
 * In conclusion, I hope, you made an action that was against existing consensus, and have been reverted by a third party. You may initiate any proceeding you wish in respect of me contacting you in an effort to resolve this matter. I welcome it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Boo-yah
WT:U. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Calton! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) William Leonard Marshall -

Quarterly self-checkup
I ask around about once a quarter to see if people have any problems with my speedy work; consensus can change, after all. Before I dive into your tagging work this morning (thanks for all your work), do you have any requests? As you know, I usually go with "G11. Please see WP:WHYNOT" for my deletion summaries, and uw-softerblock as my username block of choice (except when there's a reason to use some other block). (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Zip!

 * Heh, although, I'm not sure if you're using Twinkle or Huggle, but the creator of the article does not seem to be notified of your CSD's ... I'm having to welcome THEN notify them of the deletion before I actually delete them. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan
With your interest in Japanese topics, you may want to review the Japan-related AfDs at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan and comment on any that are of interest to you. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ImageDeletionWarning
Template:ImageDeletionWarning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Herryhuang
I noticed that you tagged both this user's user page and their user talk page for speedy deletion because both pages are devoted to advertising. Please note that if a user talk page is deleted, than any warnings that have been given to the user will also be deleted. In a situation like this one, I would recommend blanking the user talk page and putting a warning there that the user page has been suggested for speedy deletion due to spam. If both pages were deleted, the user would not have had a chance to see the speedy deletion warnings since the user talk page would have been deleted too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate
Please note that |an attempt is being made to redirect / delete Tannhauser Gate without reopening the AfD which closed with a consensus to keep...... --Michael C. Price talk 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)