User talk:Clayton Forrester

Hard Day's Night edits
Hi, I've had to revert a couple of your edits concerning the movie, both on it's article page and on the list of films considered the best. You claim it is only number 7 on Rotten Tomatoes' list of best reviewed movies, but the source clearly says it's number one. Not sure what that was all about, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

United States
US and U.S. are equally acceptable as abbreviations. Please do not change one to the other. --John (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, is "U.S." not the preferred notation? That's what I see on most professionally written Wikipedia articles. Why are you telling me what I can and cannot do? Please don't do this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Forrester (talk • contribs)


 * No, it is not. See WP:NOTUSA. I am a Wikipedia administrator and it is my role to keep people from making edits which are unhelpful. Yours are, as they are taking other editors' time to revert. No Wikipedia articles should be "professionally written", by the way, as we are all volunteers. --John (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods [full stops] and without a space) is the dominant abbreviation for United States" A quote from the page you provided... Nothing I'm doing is unhelpful or damaging to this site. I'm going to let this go, though, because you're likely a basement dweller with very little to live for. I'm going to be nice to you, because I actually have a life with meaning and you clearly don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Forrester (talk • contribs)


 * I was thinking of "...though at least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without full stops [periods])." which immediately follows the part you excerpted. Both forms are acceptable in American English, and only the US form is acceptable on articles written in British English, which applies to several of the articles you edited. See WP:ENGVAR for how this works. I will ignore your assessment of my likely living situation, but I warn you that if you continue to make disruptive edits it is likely you will incur an enforced break from editing Wikipedia, which I am sure both of us would rather avoid. --John (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, well, you really showed me! I'll never touch your personal website again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Forrester (talk • contribs)


 * Well, you're welcome to edit, but edits like this one aren't helpful. --John (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but I disagree that my edits aren't helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Forrester (talk • contribs)


 * No problem, it's a steep learning curve. Let me know if I can be any help to you. You should sign comments in talk pages like this one by typing --~ after them. --John (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Clayton -

Sort of related to this topic, we usually don't add wikilinks for major geographic locations (particularly common countries like the US or Canada). You can read more at WP:OVERLINK if you like. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Clayton. Again, please do not make edits like this one. "US" is considered an acceptable style on Wikipedia. Thank you. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Shaun King edit
Hi there. I reverted your edit to Shaun King because it wasn't in conformance with Wikipedia style and writing guidelines. According to WP:CLAIM, the word "claim" is to be avoided in writing Wikipedia articles because it may be perceived to have a non-neutral connotation. The word "argued" correctly states that it is King's argument, without making any statement or implying anything about the veracity of that argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. However, I do see a lot of edits on Wikipedia that seem to use partisan and non-neutral language, and I don't see much of an effort to create more of a fairness and objectivity on this site. A lot of my edits get reverted or changed when I'm only adding information or trying to add a greater balance to what is presented on this site. Am I wrong that there is a political bias in many of the people who edit here? Just my opinion. Thanks for reading.

October 2017
Hi, Clayton. I see on User talk:Vsmith that the purpose of your addition of negative material to biographies of (what you perceive as) liberal people is to try to balance Wikipedia as a whole, "considering the site contains many unflattering claims directed towards conservatives". You can't do that. Each article has to be considered by itself and as a whole, especially biographies of living people. For instance, look at your addition to Lea DeLaria here. It gives undue weight to the incident in question. Surely you don't think that the Instagram post, together with DeLaria's engagement + separation, are the two central things in her "Personal life", do you? Tendentiously adding otherwise undue clickbait to biographies in order to "create more of a fairness and objectivity on this site" (as you call it) as a whole is totally inappropriate. Instead, you need to consider each of these individuals and the balance of their biographies. Also the reliability of the sources you use. If you should see unmotivated "dirt" in biographies of conservatives, please try to do something about that, such as trying to start a discussion on the talkpages of those articles. Don't try to balance it by flinging dirt at other, unconnected, people. Tendentious editing isn't welcome here, and our policy on Biographies of living persons is taken extremely seriously. Please read it. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC).


 * I don't understand... a woman threatens to brutally kill people who don't share her political views, and you're chastising me for addressing it? I'm not trying at all to be disruptive on this site. Not at all. I'm just trying to add what I see as relevant information. Wikipedia has MANY negative edits and borderline slander for various people, so I feel I should be allowed to contribute the negatives of people on the other side (people that Wikipedia editors like and support), as long as I'm being factual and professional. Just my opinion anyways.
 * Sorry, but your feelings aren't really relevant. I just removed your BLP-violating additions on Montel Williams and Lea DeLaria--what you're doing is not "bringing balance" or something like that; what you're doing is adding defamatory material based on the flimsiest of sourcing using weaselish phrasing such as "appeared to". VSmith and Bishonen are seasoned editors and it would behoove you to listen to them. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding "U.S."
It is not necessary to add the nation's names when the city or state is obvious. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It just makes more work for other editors to revert your additions. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)