User talk:Calton/Archive07

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

Hey, we butted heads a bit ago over Peet's Coffee & Tea. Just wanted to apologize for not conforming better to wikipedia verifiabilityness at first, and/or maybe being a bit rude. I've recently read up on all the introduction/tutorial stuff and in hindsight I see that I shouldn't have been editting the page in the manner in which I was. Just thought it'd be the right thing to do to let you know (not that you personally seemed to have had much doubt about it) from me, that I was in the wrong. BTW-If you really do drink Peet's 101 (as you mentioned in the talk page), I'd recommend you try the new Peaberry Blend, as it would be right up your alley. See you around (maybe), and if I do, I promise to comport myself in a better manner next time. --Roosto 06:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could I gently suggest that you and Calton call it a day on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Carmichael? The debate has descended into bickering and no longer adds anything to the discussion about whether or not the article should be deleted. You've made your points and neither of you needs to give in to the other - just stop posting. Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it okay to leave the fictious Harry Potter birthday there, but take the Usagi Tsukino one away completely? I think that fictious birthdays should be added to the month & date pages when necessary because that's information, too... -User: MoogleFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoogleFan (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 February 2006

A fictious birthday is not as essential to a date page as a real historical birth, death, event, or holiday, of course. However, I think that some people might be interested to know what a certain date is associated with or maybe even if they have the same birthday as a fictious character. I understand that the years are obviously up to speculation. I don't see why this information can't be added to any of the date pages, especially when it's from a well-known franchise or anime/manga/video game series. User: MoogleFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoogleFan (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 February 2006

This page was made so that various articles would not keep showing they wanted an article by this name. Thanks for putting links to the notable churches with this name in there. As long as eight billion redlinks don't show up in it I am fine. ;) pschemp | talk 07:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My planned "hobby" was parenthood. I have a 12-year-old daughter that my mother has never seen. I married a highly-educated woman. She got what she want out of me, a child, and then blew me off. Lying females really bug me. Especially the well-educated ones. They have far too much authority. You want more info? My email: amorrow@earthlink.net . But do not expect any more infomration without being prepared to most thoroughly identifying yourself. -- 68.122.117.175 14:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You kids are always looking for a label for me. If was as if you do not thing of me as a person with a Soul. You spend so much time defining your rules and special vocabulary so that you can whip out your label and thereby avoid a better understanding of me as a person. At leat we all understand this guy a lot better: Michael Bilirakis . That "trivia" is no label. Factual and terse. That sentence changes votes. That is what counts. -- 68.122.117.175 14:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton, how are things? I have changed my user page now so you can see exactly what I look like and who I am. So much better than being anonymous, don't you think? --Historian 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting all those user accounts that were created in the same minute. I may ask for a user check, but I'll keep an eye on them anyway. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your heads up on the welcome message. I'm trying to keep the faith with him; he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart but I don't agree with his actions and I find the contents of his manifesto to be somewhat prejudicial to good faith editing. I know one or two people are trying to bring him down from his current apparently hostile attitude towards Jimbo and the Wikipedia culture, so I'm not going to be doing too much myself as it would likely provoke him. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permabanned or not, jack is back, and reverting some of my edits. You might know that I foolishly made the mistake of trying to reason with him back in September of last year (particularly foolish since I was already all too well acquainted with his habit of phoning employers, threatening to do bodily harm, etc.) I really don't want to talk to him given his past history, so any help in trying to fend him off (trying to calm him down seems sissyphean) would be appreciated! TIA---CH 09:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know what's up with Slavich. I'm just taking the boringly literal and friendly tone with him because it's a much better way of dealing with antagonists than getting all riled up. --User At Work 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wikipediaphile 01

38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Please use the Sandbox! El_C 01:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new here, I suppose it shows. I'm developing a lawsuit which needs to be filed in court by about tomorrow and need a collaborative tool. If it goes nowhere, I'll delete it myself by the end of the week (the lawsuit regards an event taking place this Monday). If it goes somewhere., It'll be big news. Please wait till you see how much content I'll be adding in the next few hours.

Admit it, you are the one creating those Amazing Race articles just so they can get sent to AfD and you can make that awfully clever "Detour" line. :) Well done. Turnstep 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calton - I'm answering you here so I don't get into a revert situation. My delete was in favor of Rhobite because I was deleting a bunch of material I added (intending to edit) that he left alone. When I didn't get around to editing it, I deleted it. By making your reversion, your putting a lot of unedited crap back. --Pansophia 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I realized you're reverting to a version without the baggage. That's fine. --Pansophia 06:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of the reason behind the change of the summary of the race riots in Cronulla. I changed it back anyhow. If you have problems, please leave them on the discussion page of the date. All the best

09:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

P.s. Good work cleaning up the small errors.

Your editorial summary was unclear to me. Thousands of people did not riot on the day, only aout 19, and they were all arrested after they were all caught on the media. The Lebanese gangs than (on that night and also the following nights) launched a series of racist raids on Cronulla and adjoining suburbs involving gangs of up to 30 youths beating anybody European and numerous stabbings. I suggest you better familiarise yourself with the events. All the best

10:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

I never said it was acceptable as a source - I'm fully aware it's not.

However, as an link, the standards are different.

Check What Should Be Linked to, #4 and #6. Michael Ralston 03:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response back on my page. Michael Ralston 04:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, given that the "nominator is out to get me!" rationale is among the most commonly employed on these pages, I'm surprised it's not numbered, for convenience. Someone ought to make a list of unconvincing/red flag arguments that includes this, and you can throw in the "knows the rules better than you" and "liberal use of hand-waving adjectives/adverbs like 'clear(ly)' and 'obvious(ly)'" . In any case, on its merits, Delete as non-notable. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha... it's funny 'cause it's true. Good one.  ·  rodii  ·  23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping in on Objectivism and homosexuality. Wikipedia has way too many zealots. Alienus 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then I went to bed to wake up and find the page vandalized again. Would you be willing to come in and help me keep the page unbiased? Alienus 13:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domo arigato, Calton-san. Alienus 03:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, new flash: the page has been Protected, so it won't need to be patrolled against vandalism for now. However, if you're interested, you could join us on the talk page to discuss what the page should look like. Only after some consensus is reached will we be able to unprotect the page. Alienus 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd give you this excerpt from StangerInParadise' talk page regarding vote stacking, as you mentioned on ANI you didn't understand the logic:

Spamming user pages is severely frowned upon - users have been penalised by the AC for spamming ten user pages - and I stopped counting yours after thirty. That it was a personal attack message is not tolerable on Wikipedia, hence the block. I've noted it on WP:ANI for the review of other admins - David Gerard 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use a bot. I contacted one-by-one a list of people who were affected by a recent wrongful action. I did not attack anyone personally, except to characterize their actions as rogue, which they were. Finally, I am entitled to speak with as many people as I like on a matter of common interest. Please lift this block immediately. StrangerInParadise 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am entitled to speak with as many people as I like on a matter of common interest" — It turns out this is not the case. I strongly advise you to read and understand the reasoning in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK. He was banned for ten days for talk page spamming; 31 hours is a much shorter time, possibly to an out-of-process degree - David Gerard 00:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, out of curiosity (and please take this is no more than abject curiosity, I'm not trying to sway either side of this), do you think that the ruling applies to non-article discussions? It seems counterintuitive that it is not okay to ask people to discuss an issue. I can see it being very important to not do this when it comes to editing an article. However, when we are talking about a policy issue, "pov" is absolutely essential. We are being asked, in effect, to share our points of view. This is common practice "in the real world," with many organizations (be they PETA, the NRA, or your local congressman) snail-mailing or phone-calling their constituents asking them to act en masse to sway some body (be it the public or their respective politicians). That having been said, I find SIP's actions to be, at the very least, tacky. ... aa:talk 05:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "discussion" in question is a straw poll, where the purpose of the straw poll is primarily to determine whether the policy has consensus. In such a case, where the policy is not only in discussion but is gathering consensus, ballot-stuffing really can mask a possible consensus. (In any case, trying to sway discussions through numbers is not cool.) --AySz88^-^ 06:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... aa:talk 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meck - Thunder In My Heart controversy - SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!! --Dewliner 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE AFD IS WRONG, THIS IS GENUINE, A NOTABLE CONTROVERSY. --Dewliner 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great edit summary! Rklawton 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from scratch. I quite pointedly did not rely on any of the previous content, so that there is no reason whatsoever to restore the deleted history. --Michael Snow 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this list for deletion in the same spirit as List of ...For Dummies books. I thought that since you were strongly in favor of the ...For Dummies nomination, you may like to vote for the O'Reilly list as well? - Rynne 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to stop posting over and over on the AFD discussion for "List of ...for Dummies books" the remark: "...a list is notable?? news to me." We understand that the list is up for deletion and not the series article. Your posts are nearing troll-level. Please stop. Thank you. --Frenchman113 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your profile, it sounds like you'd be a good member of the Recent Changes Patrol, a high-traffic IRC channel that lists edits that might be vandalism. The relevant info for joining (from User:Essjay/CVU/IRC/Verifications) is:

1. Register a nickname with Freenode, the IRC server hosting the channels. You can do this by typing /nick username to switch to that name, then /msg nickserv register password to register it.
2. While logged in to your Wikipedia account, edit this page and add your name to the list below. Please use the form # I am IRC nickname // ~~~~.
3. Join #cvu-request and ask to be confirmed. A channel staffer (identified in the channel by being voiced) will check that you have performed the steps above and add you to the channels "autovoice" list.
4. After this, you will be have free access to the channel as long as you're logged in to your Freenode account. Some clients have options to log you in automatically; to do so manually, please type /msg nickserv identify password.

That is all that is required, and should take no more than five minutes. No real user with a valid Wikipedia username, a valid, registered, identified nickname and and at least 100 'good' edits will be denied admission.

Antonrojo 16:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with the admin responsible for the self referencing date articles. It's actually the new template standard for date articles. There's a bunch of reasons for this. The best one is that it allows users to see the month/day combination according to their preferences. At any rate, check with the project page. They're going to change all the leading dates on date articles to be self-referencing. I post this here since I noticed your efforts to revert them back, and I wanted to give you a heads up. Rklawton 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember me fondly from such wikipedia pages as: Samuel Dickstein (congressman).

Out of respect, I wanted to let you know that I am having a long and heated converstation with your evil/good alter ego/twin, were I dropped your name several times, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Business_Plot#Rjensen:_why.3F

I am trying to show him his inconsistency, using your arguments with him.

With love, Travb 12:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" 17:37, 26 March 2006 Calton m (rv - your latest excuse is even less sensible than previous ones) " says that you apparently are directing that to me? Without addressing any portion of what you are attempting to communicate, without speaking of what you are speaking about, you judge something and dismiss it? That's the whole story, you can not communicate any more clearly than that? For example, why don't you list the vast and various uses of the word "Dianetics" which might confuse a reader and require disambiguation? Terryeo 06:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said something in reply which refused, again, to address the issue which I raised by communicating with you. Surprise me sometime and communicate about what people communicate to you about. Terryeo 06:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo, you're entitled to an explanation maybe the first dozen times you deface an article and have it reverted, but there comes a time when everyone gets tired of playing your game. The disambiguation had nothing to do with "other uses" and you know it. Your posts have little to do with real communication, which is why you're up for an RfC right now. wikipediatrix 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also refuse to reply to the issue I raised, WIkipediatrix. You see two issues. Carlton edited and left that edit summary. Perhaps he directed it to me and I give him the opportunity to say so by asking him, here on his user page (an appropriate place don't you think?) but he doesn't reply. Nor do you. Secondly, I raise the issue that the word "Dianetics" need not be differentiated from the phrase, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health yet neither Carlton nor you reply to either issue. Have a nice day. Terryeo 17:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To which Carton replied "...form of dyslexia or you're a very bad liar" both of which are evaluations. Neither of which replies to the issue I raised. Terryeo 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, you're at risk of breaking 3RR.

Just a friendly warning. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a little lazy, I'm just using the red links from previous route articles to create them... --Geopgeop 07:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Requests for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 19:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment: Jewell is one of the tiny historic communities on Sir Francis Drake out in West Marin near Lagunitas. There's a sign for it by the side of the road as you go by and there are a few houses around there. May have been a stop on the old West Marin train line. (Yes, there was one.) So it's a place and has been for a long time... but it sure is a tiny one! Coll7 02:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out, you are close to violating wikipedia 3RR and civility policies. Justforasecond 03:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calton,

Please refrain from name-calling (such as describing users as male genitalia). It isn't nice.

Thanks! Justforasecond 06:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're not watching it, I removed DB from Secondhand obesity, see explanation there, and made changes. If you still want it deleted, feel free to take it to AfD. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel kinda bad now about the stuff I said about MPerel. We had some revert warring at Jack Sarfatti, immediately after which she blanked her userpage saying she's going on "wikibreak". Oh well. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I corrected the Dubai Studio City page, as best as I could. Not sure how to reply to these things.

Later... RadicalSatDude 01:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that the article's creator had previously blanked the page and for reverting the content and tagging for bio instead of empty; even as I might take the blanking of the page as a request that it should be deleted (consistent with the proviso of WP:SPEEDY that an article's creator, in such cases as he/she is the sole editor for an article, may request that the article be deleted), I suppose your method is procedurally superior. Joe 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

today my excuse is: "Clean, easily understood - by - the - reader articles. And your excuse for dispersing the reader's attention by inserting a completely useless, redundant top - of - page template? Terryeo 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith Calton. Could be wrong, but your tone generally seems accusative and aggressive. If wiki's getting to ya, maybe it's time to cool off...

Justforasecond 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this edit? He was blunt but not abusive. J.J.Sagnella 07:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Carlton, I appreciate your concern about notability regarding Bernard Ramsey. However, I disagree with your premise. Ramsey is a reasonably notable figure, and though he's not world-famous, I maintain he is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia (which is, after all, not paper).

The guideline for deceased persons (Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?) is impossibly vague, though I believe Ramsey meets the qualification. Half of UGA is named for this guy!

Additionally, the article has been verified and is not autobio/vanity or anything like that. So long as WP continues to be an online project, virtually free of space limitations, there is no good reason why this article shouldn't stand.

Although I realize it has not been adopted as policy or guideline, you might want to check out some of the Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability.

I hope this clarifies my point, and I hope you will consider removing the Prod tag. Let me know if you want to discuss this further. Thanks! --SuperNova |T|C| 06:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is just wikipedia. Settle down a bit, it will be a much more enoyable place.

Justforasecond 18:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That mess at Antony Beevor is Nixer's 12th 3RR violation. I imagine you've dealt with him a bit more than I - have you considered further action such as an RfC or RfAr? (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the help on the IHHF article, I've been trying to make them understand for days now that the so called "references" are simply Wiki Mirrors. Hopefully they'll listen to you. pm_shef 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd note that I moved this onto AfD since it's been prodded twice. People have paid me a similar courtesy of telling me when articles I prod come up for deletion, so I thought I'd do the same here. -- Mithent 11:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Calton,

Could you please be a little more civil? I'm sure you can appreciate that saying things like Smarmy and disingenuous claims of special knowledge. What exactly are YOUR special qualifications? Do you even live in Oakland or even the Bay Area? Hint: self-righteousness doesn't count. doesn't lead wiki in a good direction.

Thanks, Justforasecond 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying thing slike

if you start being honest, then your words might start having some meaning, but until then, your track record of phoniness means I'll treat everything you say as a lie, including "and" and "the".

is not helpful, Calton. Please be more civil. Justforasecond 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "what part of that is unclear? What part of the directions in the notice is unclear?" I removed the speedy notice since the author has already asked, on the article's talk page, to be given some time to fix the notability issues. If the article isn't fixed shortly, then it can be speedily deleted (or nominated for same) at that time. Until then however, the page should not have the speedy notice. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try running a google search on Dana Goldfine, Calton, you will find that the director of a very critically acclaimed documentary about the Ballets Russes, which created enormous buzz and a lot of anger when it wasnt nominated for the oscars this year only gets a few mentions.

So I dont mean to tell you that your faith in your ability to monitor the US via google is a little misplaced, but the facts kind of make that self evident. Maybe in between inedible bites of raw fish, you should consider that before you misdirect your bitter little tone to people who know more about their subject than you do.

Your arch tone is unpleasant and unnecessary in the wikipedia environment.

And by the way, given the shoddy and intellectually dishonest way in which you try and demogogue your point, you shouldnt presume to tell ANYONE how best to make thier own points. I truly do wish you well. I never have contact with people who show your aggressive tone without feeling sorry for them. There is usually a very sad reason for the nastiness, and I really feel for you. I know that you wouldnt strike out at strangers unless you were in a lot of personal pain.

maybe you should take some of the advice on this page and get some rest. Take a break, catch your breath. No one should be as angry as you are.

Wishing you sincerely the best. Carsten BoswellCarstenboswell 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.[reply]

"A guy so widely published that he gets all of 5 Google hits -- which includes the Wikipedia article itself. Delete. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC"Italic text---if that jogs your memory....

You are really laughable and sad in the same kind of way.... Since I can barely believe you when you say that such an obvious point was not made, I will assume that you are joking and just thank you for getting my point that unfamiliarity with the subject or not properly entering the name of the subject (as you obviously did) can lead to inaccurate results. So, I take it that you agree with my point that if you know nothing about a subject, then your vote should be weighted commensurately with your knowledge.

Carstenboswell 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell[reply]

I dont mean to be rude, but how old are you? I would hate to think that Ive been arguing with a child. But seriously never mind. You really just need to have the last word, I think. That empowers you in some way, i would hazard a guess. So in the interests of adulthood and maintaining civility, let me bid you good night with the promise that I will no longer argue with you in any way---which was never my intention in the first place.

Good night and good luck. With all well wishes. Carstenboswell 06:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell[reply]

I see you've stepped into the ongoing dispute with Nixer on the Anthony_Beevor article. I am not terribly well-versed in how one generally handles a situation like this, where an editor seems so determined to insert POV information that keeping the disputed section out of the article causes a 3RR violation. I don't think Nixer's content belongs in the article, at least in its current form and not unrebutted in any event. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have about how to resolve this dispute in accordance with normal WP procedures. SS451 06:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly a control freak, trying to stick delete tags on all sorts of peoples' valid entries. You are one of the vandals you claim to dislike so much. I will report you if this continues. Voltan 06:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Voltan Comment actually by 63.228.101.196 (talk · contribs)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. I'm telling you this as it's better to be safe than sorry... --Edwy ^(talk) 11:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion of David Cross being an Atheist. He has identified himself as being one countless times in his stand-up comedy (here is a citation if you require one). I also believe it is notable (see List of atheists, Category:Atheists). -- MicahMN | μ 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, please discontinue personal attacks. I am concerned about the harsh and sarcastic tone you take when communicating with other editors [4]. I see from your talk page that some other editors given some feedback to you regarding this. Please take this into consideration when writing to other contibutors to make sure the tone you intend is the tone that comes across when the text is read. Thanks EdwinHJ | Talk 06:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]