User talk:Walton One

'''Please note: I am no longer regularly active on Wikipedia and do not check my talk page on a regular basis. Please email me if you have urgent concerns.''' WaltonOne 11:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Old discussions archived at User talk:Walton One/Old.

Glad to see you back
Been a long break...hope you'll be here to stay for a while.  bibliomaniac 1  5  17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Glad to see that your status has changed from undergrad to postgrad during your absence! BencherliteTalk 21:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. And yes, I'll be around for a while, albeit sporadically. WaltonOne 16:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Walton, I am looking for someone with the legal background, and wiki experience that your profile states....to help me with editing some wiki content. I am a bit internet and computer challenged and dont really have the time to learn all of it. Can you email me back at global.future@yahoo.com ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.33.161 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Local government in New Zealand
Hi there, your stub article Local government in New Zealand had us stumped. Here's the relevant discussion. Turns out that it was truly missing and nobody had ever noticed. Thanks for filling in that gap!  Schwede 66  20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. :-) WaltonOne 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your close the AfD for Extra Mile Education Foundation
I was a bit surprised that you closed this as a no-consensus for the primary reason that the provision of the two non-trival sources by the last Keep essentially negated the nom's argument for deletion as well as the only other delete vote. Those sources clearly demonstrated notability beyond the more trival nature of the other sources. I cleaned up the article and added the sources, so I am confident it won't make it to AfD again, but again I must say I was surprised at the No Consensus close in light of the sources. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Restoring the Lost Constitution
Another Randy Barnett-related article, Restoring the Lost Constitution, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you Rillian (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance list
A problem has been identified at Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship anniversary!
Wishing Walton One a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV
Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

David Scott Milton problem
I’m contacting you because after navigating various sites I came upon “posting a request for assistance”, then “Getting help”, then “Editors willing to provide assistance.” You were listed as “Walton One” and it said that “you were willing to help with anything.” I am a computer dolt. It’s taken me over a week to figure out how to get this far—and I’m not sure I’m even in the general area of what I need….Please bear with me. This is probably quixotic and even a bit paranoid. I’m concerned about the Wikipedia entry on me. I have never been a great follower of Wikipedia, have very little idea how it works. I would look at my entry from time to time, surprised, even bemused by it. Had no idea how it came into being or how the information in it was known. I was mildly proud of it and assumed that my accomplishments, while not earth-shattering, were sufficient to have someone want to write about me. I also assumed, without really giving it much thought, that the information in the article about me came from interviews I had given, article on me in other publications, reviews over a career in theater, television, and film that’s gone on now more than sixty years; and writings in the biographies and autobiographies of various theater and film people. The stuff was generally accurate if occasionally embarrassing. From time to time I would check on the entry to see if what was said was reasonably accurate and it always was. Some time after the entry had been up, oh, I don’t know, a couple of years, I read in it that my grandparents were from Romania, a town called Botosani. This astounded me. How did Wikipedia know this? Much, much later, when problems occurred, and I discovered that one could go through the history of a site, I found that an interview I had done for a Texas literary magazine, Amarillo Bay, had been used as the source for the material about my grandparents. I have no idea who put the material into my bio; I was surprised that the material was in the Amarillo Bay article. I was obviously making some point to the author of the article, though I don’t remember what it could have been. The article was, I don’t know, nine or ten years old. I seem to be babbling here. I apologize. The recent contretemps occurred a few weeks ago when I visited my entry and discovered it had been deleted. It was flagged with a notice that said that the article was autobiographical and had been extensively edited by me! Astounding, since I hadn’t the vaguest idea how one edits a Wikipedia article and had no desire to do any such thing, nor was there anyone close to me who had any interest in messing with Wikipedia. My daughter has set up my web site and my face book entry, and twitter site, but, again, I barely know how to access any of those entities and I assure you that while my daughter loves me, my career bores her and she certainly is not eager to deal with it or promote it. I was shocked and humiliated that someone connected to Wikipedia found me a fraud. I tried to find out what was going on and ultimately, after days of missteps, discovered, at least I think I discovered, the editor who had removed my entry. Qworty he is called. I contacted him. He reacted in what I can only characterize as a rude way and I was dumbfounded. I really just wanted to know what was going on and his final advice to me was this: “Other editors are not going to take kindly to you. So my advice to you is to stop talking on Wikipedia about your article in any way, not to edit your article, and to go away.” He may be right that other editors are not going to take kindly to me and that I should stop talking on Wikipedia, not to edit my article, which I have no desire to do, nor do I know how to edit it, and to go away, but when you’re treated shabbily, your hackles get up; you’re humiliated; you’re angry. And you’re attacked by paranoia. Is Qworty someone who knows and resents me? Is it someone whom I’ve offended? Is there some political agenda here? I know this all sounds unreasonable and foolish, but the rudeness and injustice does stick in my craw. I have to say that after the first few days of characterizing my entry as autobiographical and essentially fraudulent and self-serving, that characterization was removed. Fine. All that remains now is that I am a writer and that I was born on September 15, 1934. When all this began and I figured out how to trace the history of my entry I learned a few things: the entry was first put on Wikipedia by Chris Meeks. Meeks had been a feature writer and critic for the Los Angeles Daily News and in 1983 or so had done an article on me for that paper. It was the cover article of the arts section. I have very little memory of the article. I do remember it went on about my career primarily as a playwright and screenwriter and my picture was featured on the cover of the arts section with the heading: “Milton’s Paradise is in Playwriting.” It must have formed the basis for the entry Meeks made in Wikipedia. Why he chose me, why he put in the entry, I have no idea other than he was familiar with my work. In trying to determine where the material in my entry came from, other than the Meeks and Amarillo Bay articles, I did a cursory search of writings about me. I have been mentioned in more than a dozen biographies and autobiographies and books about theater and film, as well as numerous critical articles and articles in general. A few: “Stages” autobiography by the producer, director, actor Norman Lloyd. I am mentioned on pages 168 and 218; “Final Dress”, autobiography by producer, director, and Mercury Theater founder, John Houseman, page 52; “Deeper into Movies”, Pauline Kael; “In the Moment”, Ben Gazzara, autobiography, pages 164, 165; “Picture Shows: the Life and Films of Peter Bogdanovich”, pages 9, 15, 52-53, 82, 84-115, 150, 169, 223-5, 227, 229; “De Niro: a Biography” (throughout), by John Baxter; “Who the Hell’s In It?” by Peter Bogdanovich, pages 413, 426, “Mother California: a Story of Redemption Behind Bars” autobiography by Kenneth E. Hartman, (throughout),  “One of a Kind”, Jack Micheline, page 146. Incidentally, all of the above people have extensive and authoritative entries in Wikipedia. A few of the many articles about me: Chronicles of Culture Magazine, where I am compared to Saul Bellow; Alabama Journal, compared to John Steinbeck and James Jones; West Coast Review of Books, compared to Graham Greene; Present Tense Magazine, compared to Nelson Algren and John Updike. Southern California Anthology, 1984; “Woman with Guns”, Six New American Plays”; “On David Scott Milton”, Amarillo Bay Literary Magazine, 2003; “Suite 101 Magazine”, Dec. 4, 2001; “Mostly Fiction Book Reviews”, Dec. 4, 2002; “The Compulsive Reader Magazine”; Clive Barnes, The New York Times; Walter Kerr, The New York Times; Harold Clurman, The Nation Magazine; Pauline Kael in The New Yorker; Paul Zimmerman in Newsweek; Molly Haskell, The Village Voice; John Simon, New York Magazine; “The Southern Anthology” Lafayette, Louisiana, 1997/1998 pages 120, 188; “The Pearl River Review”, fall 1996, pages 38, 63; Los Angeles Times, February 21, 2010; Los Angeles Times, Nelson Algren on Milton, April 14, 1974. Sorry to have gone on so long. Below is my interaction with Qworty. What do you suggest I do? Thank you. DSM David Scott Milton Wikipedia Entry Dear Qworty: I just visited my Wikipedia page (David Scott Milton), which has been in existence for I don't know how long, a couple of years I suspect. (Just checked. It's four years) I found that the page has been essentially deleted. It now says this: "This article is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." In looking at the history of what was left of the article I found your edit of the article. I'm not sure if you designated the article as autobiography or not-- I am essentially illiterate in these computer matters. Perhaps you can help me. The article is certainly not an autobiography. I have no idea how one even enters a Wikipedia article or writes a Wikipedia article. It says that the article has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Again, I have never edited anything concerning me & have no idea how one even does that. As far as an "institution related to the subject"... again, I am not a member of any institution that would have a reason for writing about me. I've always assumed that I was in Wikipedia because of my accomplishments as a writer and actor, six novels, play on Broadway, awards, etc. It's embarrassing to think that people are looking me up on Wikipedia and being told that I have written my own entry! Who on earth came to this conclusion? How can I demonstrate that this is not so? I don't want to appear paranoid but it seems as though someone with an axe to grind with me has purposely set about to embarrass me. I hope I'm not jumping to loopy conclusions, but this is all very unsettling. Can you tell me how I can resolve this? Again, I am virtually illiterate when it comes to technology and computers. Please explain to me in the clearest, simplest language what I must do and how this came about. Were you the editor who designated my article as "autobiography" or was it someone else? Who should I contact? What should I do? Sincerely, David Scott Milton 75.105.58.150 (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I don't want to get into an extensive dispute with you, but the entry included tons of unreferenced material that only you yourself could have known or possibly cared about, including items such as "Milton lives on the 230 acre Hawk Mountain Ranch in the Southern Sierra Mountains of California. At present he is at work on a new novel, Iron City, and a film version of his last novel, The Fat Lady Sings." But whether you did or didn't post that is now moot, since by expressing such a strong interest in making changes to your own article, you have already violated the spirit of WP:AUTO. Other editors are not going to take kindly to you. So my advice to you is to stop talking on Wikipedia about your article in any way, not to edit your article, and to go away. Qworty (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I have no idea how that information got into my Wikipedia page. I can understand why you feel that I had had a hand in its inclusion. I can only say with the utmost honesty that it had nothing to do with me. I have never, never done anything to add, amend, even bother myself at all with the entry. It's possible that someone picked up the material from an interview I had given or from e-mails to people. I do not know. You tell me that in making changes to my own article I violated the spirit of Wikipedia, that editors are not going to take kindly to me. Again, I never, never, never have had anything to do with my entry. Nothing. I can't help it if the editors are not going to take kindly to me. The truth is again I have never had anything to do with my entry. This is unbelievably frustrating and demeaning. You can be as harsh and condemning as you will. I won't take it because it isn't true. I'm asking here for simple justice. I'm imploring you and any others involved with this to believe me. I'm sure there are frauds that degrade Wikipedia. I am not one of them. I am stunned, saddened, troubled by all of this.75.105.58.150 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 75.105.58.253 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * David,
 * I noticed your post on this page. Walton One is not here much anymore (a shame); I'm not sure how often he checks this talk page, but his last edit was in April (see here), so it may not be very often.  Would you like me to look into this for you, or would you prefer to wait a bit to see if Walton One replies? You can reply on this page, User talk:Floquenbeam (my talk page), or User talk:75.105.58.253 (the talk page for the IP address you used, which may or may not change frequently).  I'll keep an eye on all three. p.s. Walton, hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi... sorry for not responding to this. I don't edit much any more, since real life has taken over (and I really should delist myself from the editor assistance page). Hope you got help with the issues. WaltonOne 11:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't been around much. I'll try to return. WaltonOne 07:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Xavier Ruffin
I was a little confused by your comment here - could you please clarify what you meant at the discussion? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EM listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect EM. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:EM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barrayaran Imperial Military Service


The article Barrayaran Imperial Military Service has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dendarii Mercenaries


The article Dendarii Mercenaries has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cordelia Naismith


The article Cordelia Naismith has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Barrayaran Imperial Military Service for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrayaran Imperial Military Service is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Barrayaran Imperial Military Service until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Dendarii Mercenaries for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dendarii Mercenaries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dendarii Mercenaries until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Cordelia Naismith for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cordelia Naismith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cordelia Naismith until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)