User talk:Calton/Archive27

Archives

Archive01 12:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Archive02 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Archive03 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Archive04 12:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Archive05 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Archive06 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Archive07 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Archive08 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Archive09 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Archive10 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Archive11 00:20, 4 December 2006 Archive12 23:59, 31 December 2006 Archive13 07:20, 12 February 2007 Archive14 14:46, 4 April 2007 Archive15 23:59, 31 May 2007 Archive16 23:59, 30 June 2007 Archive17 22:59, 14 September 2007 Archive18 23:59, 31 December 2007 Archive19 21:26, 8 February 2008 Archive20 09:50, 25 February 2009 Archive21 15:03, 4 July 2009 Archive22 08:13, 19 April 2010 Archive23 09:20, 17 November 2012 Archive24 00:00, 6 July 2015 Archive25 00:25, 3 November 2016 Archive26 16:00, 13 June 2017 Archive27 07:54, 28 June 2018‎ Archive28 01:34, 16 March 2019‎ Archive29 01:20, 18 May 2021 Archive30 07:02, 15 February 2022 Archive31 00:00, DAY MONTH YEAR

Hello I was wanting to know exactly what is needed to be corrected in order to save my article please helpFootballKingz92 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I'm sure this sounds naive, but how does posting some random stuff on a userpage, like IOption500 did, get them "Google Juice"? I come across it sometimes, and generally delete those pages per U5, but I wish I could see the point of them. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

PS, do you realize how unmanageable your userpage is from those templates..? See me posting, in despair, in two places? Bishonen | talk 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen SEO is always evolving but a long standing way to get better search engine rankings is manipulating PageRank (and to the extent that is now depreciated, other measures that measure website authority, quantity and quality of the links). Wikipedia throws off massive PageRank because so much of the web links here and it is seen as having huge authority. A link from a high traffic WP mainspace page with lots of inbound links is absolute GOLD for another website's authority and Google Ranking. I believe (and lots of SEO experts agree because they keep building these links) even a link buried in a "no index" user subpage of Wikipedia gives some valuable PageRank aka "Google Juice". All those pages with links to youtubers or non-notable companies are not just vanity, they have SEO value. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Legacypac, that sounds very convincing. [Plaintively.] It's not exactly getting simpler, though! Bishonen | talk 22:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I forget this is not well known. When I see a stub with 17 links to the posters web assets it screams Advertising Link Building Spam far more then the page that uses a little advertising speak in the text. We need a CSD for link spam or modify the SPAM one to explicitly call out link spam. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. The wonders of wikipedia. Deb (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors on WP drive us to drink, this one's on me :-) Darknipples (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton. I'm not a particularly active participant at Murder of Seth Rich but I was really alarmed by your conduct with respect to your current dispute with Terrorist96. I understand that at first their edit read like the promotion of a conspiracy theory, but if you had bothered to read the sources you would have seen it's more reasonable than that. All you needed to do from the beginning was read the sources, then respond substantively. Instead you repeatedly avoided discussing the content while baselessly and needlessly belittling them. Whatever your intent, this reads like blatant stonewalling and disruption and could cause you to face discretionary sanctions. You are an experienced and capable editor and you know better. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Re this, you're right. I looked quickly, saw a blurb about the birth of somebody (no wikilinked name to indicate notability), and having seen so many cases of IP editors inserting nonsense about their friends and family's purported birthdates on DOTY pages that I just overlooked it. I have heard of Louise Brown, the "test-tube baby", and I should have caught it, with or without wikilinks. Thanks. Quis separabit? 06:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for removing that bit of fluff at Talk:Black supremacy, though I must admit that being referred to as “far-left”, “Marxist” “anti-Semitic,” and “anti-white” comes at an odd time for me in that I am currently reading Glenn Frankel’s “High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist and the Making of an American Classic,” and it all seems to fit together somehow. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me exactly what needs to be changed to stop the deletion process FootballKingz92 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if that's true than athletes who are now free agents shall be removed to wouldn't you agree. FootballKingz92 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I completely agree, but JFG has disagreed and thinks there needs to be a discussion on it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: 1. Per the ArbCom restrictions shown near the top of the talk page, all disputed edits at that article require prior talk page consensus. 2. Per the discretionary sanctions provision shown there, any admin may block on sight for a violation of the ArbCom restrictions. 3. I see you were alerted to this situation by user Dervorguilla on 7 August 2016. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at James O'Keefe. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clown town (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, based on the above, I see why you were inspired to make a snarky comment to Clown town. It was beneath you, but you made it. But restoring it twice, after calmer heads deleted it? Not good. You've been here forever, you've got tens of thousands of edits; grave-dancing over a new user doesn't become you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue why you decided blank the page and restore a block message at User talk:Mamasanju given that the blocking admin and checkuser specifically told you not to. The account is correctly tagged on the user page, there is no reason for you to add a sockpuupet block notice when you are not the blocking admin or SPI clerk, especially when the block was nearly two months ago.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

Note: I had nothing to do with declining the speedy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton. Why did you remove the {{pov-inline}} tag at Carter Page? Neutrality concerns have been raised on the talk page, an RfC is pending, and there's an ANI about about this very issue as well. I don't understand why you're adding fuel to the fire. I have always been willing to further explain my content concerns. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you reverted and said Because that's -- very explicitly -- not how it's done here?. How is that very explicitly not what is done here? The article that is used as the reference explicitly calls it The Texas Church Shooting not the Sutherland Springs church shooting. As per WP:DONOTFIXIT we should not fix redirects that are not broken. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means point out how you think I'm wrong on RS or libel. I don't appreciate character attacks though, especially substance-free attacks. I went to school for journalism, and as such had classes on defamation. I'm guessing you're probably thinking of the opinion exception, but that generally requires that a statement can't be said to be true or false.

As for reliable sources, as my edit summary said, there isn't even a source for the statement. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calton. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you done this? The image does not exist on Commons, so {{keep local}} does not apply. As pointed out by MarnetteD (talk · contribs), if you "just (literally) copied the description from the File:Example.jpg page" you picked up inapplicable templates - not just {{Pp-template}} - whilst doing so. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in case you're wondering, your "friend" Chernobog95 has been reported on WP:AN3, he or she has already violated the 3RR. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I just wanted to inform you that User:Diak4 has opened an RfC on the lede for Alternative for Germany [here that goes as follows: "I am concerned of the partisan nature of this sentence and it disrupting the neutrality of the page since it is making an allegation that many supporters of this party are racists, neo-nazi's, etc. I am even more particularly concerned with the sources being so biased against this party as well as being partisan, left-wing sites. I understand that this is not against WP:RS however it brings the opinion of these sites and states them as facts on the Alternative for Germany page." This is based on a previous discussion here:[1] which you were involved with. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last reversion you made to Andrew McCabe violates the current page restrictions authorized by the Arbitration Committee under discretionary sanctions, as it reinstates a previously challenged edit (via reversion) without any consensus being obtained. The current page restrictions currently in effect are: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. These sanctions outweigh any other policy on the site, unless there are blatant BLP/OTRS issues (such as defamation, which is not present in what you removed). Please revert your edit as soon as you receive/read this notification, or you will have to face sanctions. Thank you in advance! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I see you have a seemingly good rapport with this user. Any chance you could assist here? I'd rather not levy sanctions here if we can prevent it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, @GoldenRing:, @Black Kite:, @TonyBallioni: could you all take this over from here? It would be highly appreciated to have more eyes here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the claimed BLP violation here? I'm pretty strict on those, and I'm not seeing an obvious one that would be an exemption. I could be missing something, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP violation is explained on talk. The edit war on the article continues [2] (so much good did Coffee's sanction do). I also object to Coffee's characterization to either mine, or User:Sro23 or Calton's undoing of the BLP violation as "reinstating a previously challenged edit". But even if, continuing to edit war on the article, like Anythingyouwant is currently doing AFTER all this drama is obviously disruptive. Volunteer Marek 07:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of the 1RR restriction currently in place on the page Andrew McCabe, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Horseshit, out-of-policy block. WP:BLP is POLICY, and edits enforcing it are exempt from one admin's unilaterally applied discretionary sanctions, Coffee's Wikilawyering about how other admins aren't allowed to override it notwithstanding. This has gone from "admin error" to "sanctionable behavior" Calton Talk 11:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not copying that to AE or AN in its current form. Please reword it civilly if you would like it copied. SQL^{Query me!} 13:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, I see you reverted my changes to the Lio Rush article. I would encourage you to read the discussion here, also review the content that you removed and consider re-reverting. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Crlogo2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uji (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton, and thanks for your message.
I'm looking into Special:Contributions/Hollis Blake and Special:Contributions/Suga Tenina accounts. As I wrote on the the talkpage of the user I blocked for username problems, I don't think this particular corporate entity would pass the WP:CORPDEPTH test.
Thanks again, Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Arabian Gulf Oil Company which is the one that really isn't related in anyway to the Persian gulf naming dispute. You can make a case for the others belonging in the category, , that one is a an oil company in Libya and it's inclusion is completely tendentious.

I've implemented a makeshift compromise on the E.T. the Extra Terrestrial article that preserves your request for US-dollars being specified, while also avoiding the somewhat redundant "$792 USD" look. It's also slightly more in line with the MOS:CURRENCY guideline that on non-country specific articles, US dollars should be used as a "default" currency. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could refrain from insulting my intelligence on my talk page and talking down to me in cases where you are, you know, wrong? Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an outsider here. WP:BLPPROD states "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." later on "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography." soon followed by "Before nomination: Make sure the article contains no sources in any form which support any statements made about the person." The emphasis is not mine.

At the time that the notice was first added, there was one source, so Newimpartial (talk · contribs) was quite correct to remove the BLPPROD tag, even if their edit summary was unclear. Your subsequent three reverts to reinstate it were not just incorrect, they were clearly WP:EW as pointed out by Chrissymad (talk · contribs) below; it could have led to a report at WP:ANEW with a consequential block. Merely making those three reverts might not have been grounds for a block under WP:3RR, but the third revert being preceded by this post, itself preceded three hours earlier by this message, could well have tipped the scales against you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Monica Valentinelli shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about reading the citations before declaring them "passing mentions"? Because several of them aren't. Have you even read the current version of the article you're so inclined towards edit-warring? Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain with what authority you hid the alert at WikiProject Catholicism and where the policy or guideline is expressed. Thanks, @Calton: Jzsj (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in your answer on my talk page that explains why you hid this alert. It wasn't a "content issue" but reopening of an improperly closed discussion (as the one who closed it acknowledged) that I was directing editors to. @Calton: Jzsj (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calton, Thanks for the information about speedy deletion. We were trying to set up stub pages for an editaton and I gave the class the wrong info about making the pages live. We will correct these and work in the sandboxes.

Thanks, R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebedwards (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been editing the article for Golden Lotus (musical) and there has been a discussion about reposting it as it was deleted in a bundle along with George Chiang and The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing. The discussion suggests that the original deletion of the Golden Lotus (musical) page was not called for. While working on the article for Golden Lotus i found many more sources to use as references that justify general notoriety and in so doing I also found more sources for the articles for George Chiang himself and his book The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing. I propose to edit the text on the articles using only information from credible sources. Thus, I am further requesting the opportunity to work on the articles for George Chiang and The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing. John99Wick (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The revision history for https://gist.github.com/RobertBarrow/52a78130cf0e2bee2044619524708a9e indicates that it was created 24 days ago, or March 1 (ish). Draft:BRAINSTEAM predates it. Mackensen (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ryan Hurst. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Not 3RR, but definitely pointy and disruptive. Warning is in regard to this and this edit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this statement [3] at AN/I, I believe you got the names backwards. Would you mind striking? I posted the RfC, RexxS deleted it. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through some old page edits, and I noticed earlier this year, you re-added strikethrough to an IP's comment. WP:SOCKSTRIKE is an essay (meaning it's not a policy or guideline), and it specifically says: "This is NOT done to spite or punish them. It is done to alleviate the disruption/deception caused by abusing multiple accounts. In WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussions, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods." Note the text I've bolded. An IP user's comment shouldn't be striked just because they were blocked, but specifically for voting malfeasance or abusive commentary. In this case, the strikethrough was inappropriate, since the IP editor was continuing a productive conversation about the verifiability of a source. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Teetering on the edge. Edmonton is one of the six Canadian cities that are in the global city range (alongside Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal) where we do generally accept city councillors as notable, but the article's sourcing needs to be a lot better than it is — a lot more reliable source coverage in media and a lot less primary source documents — before it's actually standing on solid ground. And also, as far as I know the timing of her election basically makes her the first lesbian woman to hold any prominent political office in all of Canada — the only lesbian officeholder I know of prior to her anywhere in Canada served on a city parks and recreation board, not in a notable or referenceable office. So I'd say there are potentially valid notability claims, though they need to be referenced better — basically I'd give it three to six months to see if the sourcing can be improved, and then revisit it if not. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain your actions and insulting Edit summary at the above article? My Edit summary explained what I was doing and why. Yours seemed just a personal attack. I have no axe to grind. I am open to corrections when I make mistakes. I see none there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reorganization of this article; it looks so much better now. It appears you inadvertently removed the rows for Tenryū-ji and Jishō-ji, and it would be great if you would add a summary for them too. This could definitely be a candidate for GA if you wanted to write a section on the history of the monuments' selection as a WHS. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 08:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was reported by the NY Times. Wesley Craig (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree ... the NY Times can oroduce insinuating crap. However, in the case of Alexander Downer, these are well known facts. Wesley Craig (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Carlton!

I was working on the article, Lisle Park District, and it seems you have deleted it for some reason. Can you give me some guidance in what to do to make it acceptable?

And where is it?

Please help!

Andrianajohnson (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrianajohnson: Calton didn't delete it (they don't have the ability to delete pages) - they moved it back to User:Andrianajohnson/sandbox which is where you first created it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi there, i was just wondering why you want to delete the Twin Coconuts wiki article, as they are successful YouTuber's? They make YouTube content for a living and have almost hit 1million subscribers, making them worthy of an article. CHRISandSHAN (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've been around for much longer than me, and you obviously must know what you're doing, but looking at that I get the impression that there are better ways to handle the situation. Yes, newbie student editors can be a pain in the neck, and yes, your first step in asking them to make the merge was a good idea. But if they don't seem to be willing or able to do that properly themselves, I think it's much simpler to proceed and do it for them: after all, this operation has rather more to do with intricacies of page layout (the territory of experienced wikipedians) rather than anything else. And on a side note, if the new user is repeatedly reverted, shouted at, and called names, chances are they aren't going to want to stay on and clean up the article, so the job will likely fall on us anyway. Cheers. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your notice on this editor's talk page seems to be in error - I cannot find any refactoring of other editors' comments by IreneVictor on User talk:Jimfbleak... Shearonink (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A while back you templated a user about their copying of an about-to-be deleted page to their sandbox. I agree with your interpretation, and note that this looks like similar behavior. Just for fun you can compare them here! Before this I had never even heard of Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations, but these editors seem to know it well. Purely academic comparison of course. Anyway, just a note of something curious.104.163.137.171 (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty much a textbook case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING I guess [4]. What next? Gustav Naan? Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes? Miacek (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of UpSet Press, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: publishing works of notable people indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 07:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calton. Please provide your justification for removing edits on the basis of "whitewashing". If there is a content disagreement, I would advise you use more clear terms in accordance with wikipedia policy to define the basis of your disagreement. Thank you.Barbarossa139 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting enforcement due to your repeated personal attacks in American Politics articles. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement D.Creish (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page on Lana Lokteff's wiki. I've edited the talk page for the same reason Greyfell did. Quote: "Revert. This is not a forum for discussing white supremacy, this is for discussing the article on Lana Lokteff based on reliable sources"

Thus, he deleted my comment for the same reason I deleted the comment of Benjamin5152414. Furthermore, on said talk page, I've provided multiple sources stating that Lana Lokteff defines herself as a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Benjamin5152414's comment said that all white nationalists are white supremacists, which is a false statement. You've provided exactly ONE article by Vox, a leftist publication (as defined by http://mediabiasfactcheck.com) and in said article it's not explicitly stated that Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist. The article talks vaguely about women who are white supremacists and implies also vaguely that Lana is one of them - which is something she never said nor did she ever say anything that would imply that she's a white supremacist. If you want to declare her a white supremacist - such as SmokerOfCinnamon who is biased himself, as you can see in his original reason for changing "nationalist" to "supremacist" - then you need to provide more sources for that, not just a biased leftist source. His quote states: "Her birthday is on March 14, and Radio 3Fourteen is named after her birthday. Her views are probably more dangerous/radical than Henrik's, which is why she should be labeled as a white supremacist."

Saying that her views are "dangerous" or "radical" implies that he has an agenda and is not objective. I'm beginning to think that you, too, have an agenda. Just checked, I was not logged in at the time so I accidentally edited the page without logging in. Hansnarf (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating a 1RR restriction on the page Richard B. Spencer, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Calton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Talk 01:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. clpo13_(talk) 04:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is baloney. Not only is Dr Fleischman edit-warring in violation of multiple reliable sources AND talk page consensus, I wasn't even given a chance to respond. Calton | Talk 01:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would someone mind having a look at at this in-no-way-suspicious conversation? --Calton | Talk 01:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

repeatedly restored content calling the subject a neo-Nazi based in part on an opinion piece in a student newspaper.

Multiple sources -- what? half-a-dozen? -- were provided, either as refs in the edit or on the talk page, of which that was only ONE. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Calton, I looked at the AE thread real quick, and at some of the edits. I believe your opponent cried BLP and this was accepted, though I've asked for clarification (clpo13, thanks). If someone reverts and says "BLP violation", it's just not a good idea to revert if you disagree. Here's the thing, I think: if your edit was a BLP violation, you're wrong. If your edit was NOT a BLP violation, undoing it is also not a BLP violation, and that makes the contest at best a tie for you. Ergo, best not to revert. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanks for the response. And while this is going to sound like the oldest unblock excuse in modern history: I didn't realize it was under 1RR. If I was notified, I forgot. I also realize that as excuses go, it also NEVER works, but I thought I'd mention it. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe Clpo13 has gained new insight after looking at that talk page discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not commenting on the merit of this AE decision, but Carlton if you are editing while logged out especially during an active block, it is not a good idea. Alex Shih (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alex Shih:: It's "Calton", and what the hell are you talking about? --Calton | Talk 05:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Calton. And my apologies, looks like I was fooled by impersonation. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: I suspected as much, but I still don't know what you're talking about. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. Alex Shih (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for the love of God... --Calton | Talk 05:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty obvious joe job, considering that Calton is an experienced editor who would be unlikely on the face of it to squander his reputation in such a way. Alex Shih, as an arbitrator, you have the CheckUser tool. It would surely have been better to deploy that before making an accusation, however hypothetical. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Alex, I assume you have found no evidence that Calton was editing while logged out, right? Please confirm--it is not a good thing for a longtime editor to have an unfinished conversation on their talk page which may be used against them in the future, given that Bishonen's term "joe job" seems accurate. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, if "my apologies, looks like I was fooled by impersonation" above is not enough for a confirmation on my error due to the silly timing/slip of mind (not in the habit of CU checking IP addresses), I don't know what else I should say. I don't intend to elaborate any further on this, and if a "if" question is going to be construed as "accusation" because I was genuinely confused, I am just going to hold my hands up; if Calton wants me to say something, I am open to accept. Alex Shih (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I'm sorry--I should have read more carefully. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: and @Drmies:: I'm perfectly fine: I was just wondering what the hell was going on. And yeah, I'm in no position to be criticizing someone for a mistake, am I? --Calton | Talk 13:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I’m very sorry if I gave the impression I was applying sanctions in a biased manner. I didn’t do my due diligence in evaluating the case against you and acted too rashly. I’ve lifted the block in agreement with other administrators at the discussion here. clpo13_(talk) 04:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• clpo13, thank you. Calton, I know it's rough to be blocked even if justified, haha. I hope you feel better today. I'd buy you a beer but I got some classwork to prepare. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. --Calton | Talk 13:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I did not notice your earlier edit summary about the copyvio, which was careless of ne. It's exactly what the troll wants, of course :-( Thanks for being alert and reverting my error. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]