User talk:Calton

It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.

Archives:

In another fit of housecleaning, I've moved a bunch of stuff to archives (I hate having to scroll down a long distance):

• User talk:Calton/Archive01 --Calton | Talk 12:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:Calton/Archive02 --Calton | Talk 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:Calton/Archive03 --Calton | Talk 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:Calton/Archive04 --Calton | Talk 12:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:Calton/Archive05 --Calton | Talk 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Post at the bottom

So fuck off

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

Whoops!

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

afd helper

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

St Michael's Grammar School

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

Zephram

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

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

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

Please participate in the discussion on talk pages.

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

Xbox 360 Lounge

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

Winter Soldier Investigation arbitration

Calton wrote; ...his initial from scratch version was blanked 31 minutes later by User:Duk on grounds of being a "copyvio"...

You are flat out wrong here. This diff shows that Ed did not, by any streach of the imagination, re-write the article from scratch. The version I tagged had copyvios that were intially identified at Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation/Archive3#Copyvio_and_derivatives.2C_again, with more and more being noted on the talk page as they were uncovered. Many of these copyvios orriginated more than a year earlier and kept sneaking into the article over and over again. They included copied text and deravitive work. --Duk 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, if you don't have a political agenda, maybe it's just that you're not very good at what you're trying to do.

Other way around, I'm very good at resolving copyvios. This page is, for the most part, copyvio free for the first time in over a year :-) --Duk 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

This page is, for the most part, copyvio free for the first time in over a year :-)

Oops, I might have to retact the above statement. Is this another one? --Duk 00:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

thought you might enjoy this :-)

Duck test --Duk 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year

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

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case [1] Davidpdx

Aetherometry

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

Quoting --

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

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

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

Quoting:

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odle Middle School aka Special Olympics

Carlton,
Don't suppose I could get you to tone that down a little, could I? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hee. I really just meant to "special olympics" bit. Kurt's statements usually require no editorialising, they stand on their own. Hee, Arthur.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's too bad. If you'd have been calling me "Uncle Arthur" it would have been funnier. I don't want to sound like I've got my knickers in a twist over it, and while I understand what you're saying about Kurt, use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive, but it just seemed a bit callous.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

...use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive... Yes, you are. If you don't understand a sentence, don't criticize it. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• That reply was uncalled for. If I've misinterpreted that remark, than others might do the same. The phrase "Special Olympics of Data where every factoid is on equal footing with every other factoid, where my fountain pen is on par with, say, New York City" implies pretty strongly that the Special Olympics are in some way deficient. If I don't understand a remark, and try to engage you in some dialog about it, snapping that I "shouldn't criticize" means that the error could only be mine. I won't comment on this any further that to say that openness to input is generally considered a positive trait. Feel free to tell me how you feel on my talk page, but I'm moving on. I really didn't mean to offend you.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know I said I was moving on, but that last reply was just hilarious. I didn't get your name wrong despite it being in giant flashing letters at the top of your user page. I simply mashed an extra key when I typed it. And your complaint that I was obtuse I find tempered by the fact that rather than simply saying "and there is no R in my name" you choose to make an oblique comment that it took another 75 words for me to understand.
    I have in fact gone and read and re-read your comment several times since we started this strange little dance. I still think that it was poorly worded. I'm not sure how you would have liked me to phrase that, however I did not intend to "scold" you. If you could tell me what I should have said, that would be great.
    I do seem to have gotten you on the wrong side of the bed, and I hope that no lasting damage has been done. You have been pretty abrupt with me, though, and I'd hope that even if you disagree with everything else I've been saying you'll consider that.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 04:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

English units in Japanese units of measurement article

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

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

Fred Bauder thread

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

Your sig...

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

short words

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration accepted

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

Arbitration accepted

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

Arbitration Talk Page

I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here:[2] Davidpdx 07:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

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

July 20

You've got it backwards on July 20: it looks like 131.107.0.73 was cutting back on the extreme bloat added by User:PedanticallySpeaking. Looks like he should have tackled the excess images (29 of them) and overcategorization PedanticallySpeaking added, too, though. See this link for the awful details. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Calton. Well, the issue wasn't the edits. My notes made it pretty clear that the problem was a large edit without any discussion or edit summaries. This conversation is an exact example of why those things are important. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee^{(Leave msg.)} 01:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

My notes made it pretty clear that the problem was a large edit without any discussion or edit summaries. And that would be PedanticallySpeaking's unilateral addition of images (29 images) and dozens of minor events and births, not to mention his unilateral (and disputed) addition of numerous subheadings to break up his bloat. Since 131.107.0.73 was to some degree trying to restore the status quo, then yes, I stand by my statement that you got it backwards when you reverted him. I've done further restoration, and will go after the more obviously ridiculous of the new entries when I get the chance (such as 1998 - United States: The U.S. House of Representatives votes 390-0 to express the sense of the House that it is a national priority to provide affordable housing for all This is a notable event? This wouldn't even be a notable event in the Congressional Quarterly.). --Calton | Talk 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I should apologize for the tone of my inital reply... no need for me to be so short. :) I'm not going to argue with you about the content of July 20 (although at least PedanticallySpeaking said what s/he was doing) - I only came across this on RC Patrol. 131.107.0.73 had made over 250 edits in the span of 6 hours without a single comment. The edits to July 20, if made all at one time would have flagged anyone using CryotpDerk's VF, and when I looked at a sample of the edits I saw a complexity that worried me. That was why I tried to engage the editor with my first comment to the User talk:131.107.0.73 page, and then followed it up 15 minutes later with the revert. Was I wrong? That's entirely possible, and I'll try to be careful, but we all have different levels of trust I guess. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee^{(Leave msg.)} 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you've been doing RC Patrol, you might have noticed that 131.107.0.73 has been doing this for MONTHS now (Kate's Tool says 1437 edits), and going by your we all have different levels of trust I guess, it means that for you, "large edits by anon IPs: bad!" and "large edits by named editors: okay!" with no further examination necessary, even after I had provided you with a diff to show you what the latter was doing before you came up with the "large edits are a problem" rationale. Were you wrong? It's more than just "possible". --Calton | Talk 03:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies. I will try to be more careful in the future. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee^{(Leave msg.)} 03:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for User:TDC

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

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[3] or the Requests for comment/TDC[4]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [5]

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

Arbitration re-opened

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

Halibutt's RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.

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

Exicornt

Hi. Why did you revert my addition of the {{deleteagain}} tag? Did I add it incorrectly? I'll revert back. --Viriditas 12:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Either the database is acting up or the edit history shows that you mistakenly reverted my addition of the tag. See for yourself: [6]. I assume that was just a mistake. Plus, we have another problem now, this time with Exicornts (the plural version). In any case, thanks for keeping an eye on this. --Viriditas 12:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

We need a protected delete for both Exicornt and Exicornts. --Viriditas 13:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Caucasian Americans

Please remember WP:FAITH before accusing people of violating WP:POINT. I've already explained this article was not made to prove a point but per the conclusions of the AFD on List of African Americans.Gateman1997 20:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for being WP:CIVIL too. *please note my dripping sarcasm* Gateman1997 21:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to see you take WP:CIVIL to heart... specifically the first 4 "petty" examples they use. And as for my list being a collection of indiscriminate information... consensus is on my side when you consider we keep lists of African Americans, Native Americans, etc... Keeping a list of white Americans is only fair.Gateman1997 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

See there's where you're wrong. I would never make such lists as they ARE lists of indiscriminate information. However preceedent has established that we keep racial lists. I don't see how whites can be kept out if blacks, latinos, native americans, etc... DO get their own lists. Unless someone is racist of course which I'm trusting you and the majority of wikipedians are not.Gateman1997 02:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Then you're not paying attention." To what, the fact you're accusing me of eventually creating lists like List of Humans when I'm not going too? I 've paid close attention to that... regardless of how off base it is. Gateman1997 17:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

aetherometry and the pseudoscience tag

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

Cfd

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

Arbitration

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

The talk page that I created for just those filling the complaint is here:[7]

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

AfD comment

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

Last Call

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

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

Matthew 7:3

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

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Beats the hell out of me. -- CatWoman 13:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Comment actually by 84.69.21.169 (talk · contribs)

Oklahoma Christian University and anonymous editor

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

Sock check request

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

Image galleries

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

Nick Rose Day

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

perhaps some relaxation is in order

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

Stari0 Radi0n

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

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

Arbitration Proposed Decision

Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:[8].

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here: [9].

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

Censorship

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

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

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

Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan 01:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

International travels

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

Re: Samuel Dickstein

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

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

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

Here is the relevant discussion between Rjensen and myself[10]:

Rjensen had written:

...The Congressman who promoted the story was a Soviet spy....

I responded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Calton,

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

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

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

Who would you believe?

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

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

=straw man

Mr. Calton,

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

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

Straw Man:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weinstein did in fact:

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

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

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

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

Would this suit you?

Heteropride.com Chooserr 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Neufeld

I posted a more detailed explanation at the above afd as to why I think it is a bad faith nomination. If you still do not genuinely understand where I coming from please tell me what parts do not connect (do not compute, if you will) to the conclusion. I'm not saying that I am absolutely right, but I am one of thousands of different users with one of thousands of different points of view. I don't expect you to suscribe to it but if you are going to challenge it I expect you to try to understand it. Blind statements of not understanding are not useful counter-arguments. --maclean25 06:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• It truly does appear we are having a communication problem. What you see as "unearned snark" I see a plead for more detailed explanation of what is not being understood. What you see as a "bad writer" I see someone providing a detailed explanation of their point-of-view. What you see as "shift[ing] the blame" I see as a request for the challenger to acknowledge an opposing point-of-view. "let me know and I'll use smaller words."...ouch, that hurts. And the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat." argument really came out of nowhere, eh? Perhaps re-read the chronological list of points I made that lead to the nomination and stop the circle at "The fact that he's nominating it for a fourth time." Though I think we agree that "appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations." (emphasis mine). Anyways, I'm satisfied to leave this as is. I think I made my point (painfully) clear, and you made your counter-arguments. Also, you requested a list of other candidate articles: Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons, and don't forget the provincial ones. But please do not solely nominate the "No-Hope Party" as it is not a Wikipedian's job to be a crystal ball - no matter how right you think you are. --maclean25 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Godmode light

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

Merry Christmas

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