Archives |
---|
|
PLEASE ASSIST US Sir we seem to be getting a lot of problems in trying to lodge our school data on Wikipedia. - Praht Thai School - We have attempted to follow guidelines and made changes where they have been requested but all to no avail. Our school seems to be ill fated on Wikipedia and we simply cant see why. I have reposted the school and ask that you intervene and assist us to ensure its survival. We have checked it against other schools on the Wikipedia such as Sarasas Ektra School and in fact we have provided a far more neutral data set that it appears they have,,,,yet they seem fine h= on wWikipedia. Please help us. It is clear we need help. Thank you PTSch ( talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This is your only warning.
The next time you make a
personal attack as you did at
User talk:66.35.127.0, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I've already reported the troller to the admins and thought you might be a candidate too 'cause you're feeding him/her so much, but it wouldn't be fair to report you just because someone made you angry w/o warning you —
Ignatzmice
talk
contribs 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What? I'm just trying to help, and as for not being able to carry out my "threat", of course I can report you to the admins and I thought I was being nice by not doing it immediately! Okay, I'm starting to see 66.35.127.0's point of view... — Ignatzmice talk contribs 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been standardised per WP:TS. All of the template messages used on articles are going to be (or have been) updated. -- MZMcBride 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Calton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the trolling war with me, you and 66.35.27.0. The discussion can be found under the topic User:Calton. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you.
—
Ignatzmice
talk
contribs 03:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Calton, in response to this, I have absolutely no intention of ever defending any of my edits to you. But I'd like to give you some feedback. Your post breaks your own "Rule 9" - you know, the one about hostility being unwelcome. (Unless the rule applies only to others, and not to you. Hmmm. ...) My earlier experience of you was one of hostility writ large; and apparently nothing's changed in the past 18 months or so. When hostility emanates out of a person's every pore, it's a bit rich when they demand that others not act likewise. But then, defensiveness is your thing, apparently - so much so that it's your Wikipedia motto ("It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that"). Negativity begets negativity. Think about it. And maybe have a think about why you're so angry. Have a nice day. Oh, and further communication with me, on any topic whatsoever, will be unwelcome unless it's done in a reasonably courteous manner. Otherwise it will receive short shrift. Bye now. -- JackofOz 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments like;
...and many others in your recent contributions are completely unacceptable. Wikipedia's no personal attacks, civility, and harassment standards apply to ALL contributors. The deliberate taunting and belittling of others, which you seem to engage in frequently, violates all of these principles. You need to radically adjust your behaviour and learn to interact politely with others here. Any certainty you might have that they are 'trolls', 'spammers', 'liars', 'vandals', or whatever else is irrelevant - you aren't allowed to abuse anyone here, and further actions of this kind will be stopped. -- CBD 11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. In this edit you replaced content that has been labelled as needing verification since February. As you know, everything here needs to be verifiable. In taking it out I was proceeding on the basis that if something cannot be verified in that kind of timescale it has no place here. What do you think? -- John 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
When a user, on their second edit ever, posts a screed like that on WP:AN/I, with an edit summary "don't censor me", it's 99.999% likely to be a sock puppet of a banned user. He's trolling. I hope this helps. - Jehochman Talk 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This user has been trolling us with the sexual humiliation/terrorism nonsense for days. It isn't acceptable to compare others to rapists, and I will therefore be removing his comment again. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for tagging the Wouter Hamel article with {{ articleissues}}. It got my attention and I have put some effort into improving the article. I do believe that some of the issues are resolved, but I do not like to remove the note of those issues myself, being the only significant contributor to the article. Therefore I ask you to take a look at the new version, and possibly comment on it. -- Pepve 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I know your lengthy introduction is meant to be funny, but please also remember that not everyone who is forced to visit your talk page is a “criminal”.
I am a (very) new Wikipedia (wannabee) “editor”. I created a new Wikipedia entry for a candidate in the upcoming Ontario elections. I am not here to “spam”, and I do not have a “conflict of interest”. What I am though, is very confused about how one is actually supposed to enter material and who calls the shots here. You are the third official looking editor who has commented on the material I created. The first Wikipedia official (JodyB) deleted my original entry, but after some discussion and advice back and forth decided to re-instate the improved version. Someone else (I forget who) also want(s/ed) to delete this entry and now you.
Here is what I saw before I entered my article (and decided to be bold):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction
How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!
Ottawahitech 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your comments on User:Just James: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.-- Just James T/ C 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing due to persistent incivility and taunting of other users. Subsequent to the warning about this above you have continued this activity with comments such as;
These comments are clearly intended to mock and annoy those they are directed to. This deliberately inflammatory behaviour is extremely disruptive and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. Please reconsider your communications and strive to continue your work, which seems otherwise very positive, without belittling your fellow contributors. -- CBD 12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mcmcmill2 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the info. I had a discussion with one of the other moderators and have pulled the plans for the time being. We can actually host this material in our own wiki but I wanted to assure people that the resulting efforts would be 'open-source' which is conveniently provided by your reputation and technology.
Let me know if you reconsider or want more info in order to make a decision. Probably best over the phone.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solutioneering ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Calton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is absurd and unwarranted. Did CBDunkerson actually bother to read the exchange -- and note the bad faith of User:RedSpruce or was he simply on a fishing expedition for something to whack me with? Or -- let me guess -- did my comments to him about him being more protective of obvious trolls than of actual contributors lead him to look for any excuse in retaliation? Maybe -- just maybe -- he could have asked for a second opinion or bothered to notify me so I would have an obvious avenue of appeal instead of trying to figure out the proper template? -- Calton 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It seems clear that you were adequately warned about your incivility, and I see from your prior blocks and discussions and warnings above that this was far from an isolated incident, suggesting this block was indeed warranted. — krimpet ⟲ 09:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
"candidate for speedy deletion"? i don't post here for months and suddenly i'm spamming wikipedia left, right, and center? as far as that article i posted goes, i'm pretty sure that if it was removed, if i didn't do it already. since then, i haven't attempted to re-insert the offending article. in fact, i haven't added anything to wikipedia since then. what the hell is going on?
yours, 6-4-6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by X6-4-6x ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You have smacked four different cleanup tags onto this article. I found this is somewhat overkilling issues which have already been raised on the talk page. Could you go over the article and perhaps supply some comments on the talk page? Some proposals for what can be done to improve the text would be helpful, as I have done some work to improve it, but more is obviously needed. __ meco 13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this an article that should be on your watch list? I am working on some clean up and ran into the above and Fifty Foot Penguin Theater, both of which appear non notable to me. I could prod them but I suspect that it would not fly. Any thoughts? -- Stormbay 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Your good friend Guy has come back. Will you be getting over your tantrum and returning soon too? 66.35.123.205 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Your spiteful edit remark here [3] has been reported. Also, please stay off of my talk page with your wild accusations. I had forgotten you even existed until you posted that hateful remark on my talk page. TruthCrusader 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. If you are talking about the one above, where's the problem with you comment? I cannot find any. -- Rjd0060 16:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you and TruthCrusader are edit warring over at Will Geer. There's nastiness in edit summaries, ugly talk page messages, and insinuations of off-wiki harrassment. I have laid out the situation on AN/I as best I can and asked for review, but it would be helpful if you could offer some sort of context or explanation in the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Calton and TruthCrusader dispute. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to like put a youtube vid on there it didnt work so i just quit i didnt take it off! GEEZE. Nothing better to do then to delete people's userpages —Preceding unsigned comment added by UWLpro ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
If you look at our talk page, you will see that we have already cleared up our copyright issues.
Thanks,
Institute for Higher Education Policy 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me say again that I don't put you anywhere on the same level, or the same category, as that user. The point is that the reason things like WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals exist is because speaking to a user like that in a tone they probably deserve generally causes them to escalate their behavior. I'm sure you already know this. I'm sure you also know the number of blocks you have received and the number of disagreements you've been in on the talk pages. Let's take a random remark from your history like this "12:55, September 14, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:66.35.127.0 (What part of "enough of your trolling" was unclear, Troll Boy?)". Do you think that person is going to say "okay, he's got me, I give in" or do you think he's going to change his I.P. any do something else to get back at you? The point of civility is not for the person in the wrong, but for the person in the right. If you continue reprimand trolls the way you have been doing, I wouldn't be shocked if you end being the one quitting Wikipedia eventually. CitiCat ♫ 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For cleaning up the spam stank. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
Calton, thank you for pointing out what I kinda figured when I began the process of editing (I am noob at this). I am writing to you to find out how I can reinstate my page. The reason for my absence and subsequent dereliction of my page(s) was because the use of my satellite connection would not allow me to go past the present page after signing in, (screwy proxies). I had other means by which I could have pursued it, but had too many other responsibilities to make it worth pursuing. I had all intentions of trying to make the article for USASA (United States of America Snowboard Association). I would appreciate any guidance/further discussion regarding editing if you have the time. I now have a DSL connection so have the ability to edit in my spare time.
The time stamp of your post = 21:15, 24 May 2007.
Thanks, Pawblo 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Pawblo
Hi there - just a quick note to say that I've removed a couple of your flags for speedy deletion. On User:Celebrusia, I don't think it's fair to say the article is spam, as it's not advertising the book in question - it looks more like a sandbox-type article prior to its being migrated over to the mainspace. There's certainly no indication of any WP:COI, so I'm assuming good faith.
On User:OfficeDesigns I've reverted your edit - the user in question had blanked the page themself, thus removing the spam, and it was your reversal of that (when posting your tag) that reinserted the spam back onto the userpage.
Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 13:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What am I arguing in favour of? As I said in my original post - I think you were wrong in flagging it for speedy on the grounds of spam, and as I said in my second post relating to this page, I think it's more likely to fail WP:NN. That you take such umbrage at my doing so is unfortunate, as is the fact that you take such a wide view of what constitutes WP:Spam at the same time as taking such a narrow view of WP:Civil.
I don't think that this discussion has anywhere further to go - if you remain so convinced that User:Celebrusia is spam then doubtless you'll be flagging it again in due course. If you do, I'm happy to leave the flag in place (but I will add a hangon tag, and put my justifications and link to our respective talk pages on the user talk page concerned) to see what the outcome is. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
NVM Gunnerdevil4 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I can warn you now for not assuming good faith. Gunnerdevil4 05:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I got plenty of evidence starting where you attacked me on my talk page!! I don't give a freak!! And for your info, I know how to warn people starting from vandalising to not assuming good faith!! Gunnerdevil4 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You should be happy now, youve pissed me off so much im gonna bring this up to the Arbitration Commitee. Unless you object of course, because Im not inserting it until 10:00 PST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerdevil4 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Gunnerdevil4. Thank you. Gunnerdevil4 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you wanna "talk this over", I see no point in me reading the top. This is not about content in an article. So why don't you save yourself embaressment and read it over yourself. Gunnerdevil4 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I got two choices for you. Arbitration Commitee or talk over it. Your choice. Gunnerdevil4 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Im not tryin to be a friggin principal, im trying to be civil. So what choice? Gunnerdevil4 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok Gunnerdevil4 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please consider ending your debate with user Gunnerdevil4. As I said to him, it would be best to prevent this from going any further. I would be a good idea to consider giving an apology to this user. It would help to ease the tension between both of you, and it's a great start for progress towards settling any problems. Just remember to be civil, so no name calling, rude or snide comments, etc. Treat those as you would like to be treated. Hostility only brews more hostility. I really hope that you two will be able to make amends. Happy editing! Icestorm815 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just here to get something clarified, I'm actually not pissed off or anything like that, I'm just curious what "unsourced promotion of vanity-press book" means? If I came across vain in my article, I am incredibly sorry and had no intention of doing so, but any sort of pointers to fix/avoid this in the future please do tell. I'm pretty good at taking suggestions, as long as they're reasonable and I'm able to reasonably carry them out!
Thanks for the help, btw, there are many things I miss myself that other people do a good job checking out :) Irishlad6 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry bout that, but is there any way I can get the stuff that was on that page back?
Guy, the naming format you're using for your userboxes is all wrong. The correct naming format for personal userboxes is to make them subpages of your userspace, is of the form:
NOT
The latter creates a user page for an entirely fictitious user called "ScoutKnot HonorPalms" -- and user pages for non-existent users are speedily deleted (using the {{ db-nouser}} tag).
You're going to have to move all the incorrectly named tags to their proper titles (using the "move" tab at the top of the page) and tag the resulting redirects for deletion (using the {{ db-nouser}} tag). I've done several already, but the rest you'll have to do. For the ones I've done, see here. Thanks for your attention in this matter. -- Calton | Talk 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why just those? There are a bunch more in Category:Barney & Friends that are no better. It would probably be a good idea to do them all or revert the others. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please help me rewrite this page to better standards.
In terms of notability, ptk is listed by the Independent Games Developers Association 2006 casual whitepaper ( http://www.igda.org/casual/IGDA_CasualGames_Whitepaper_2006.pdf), page 92 under point 13, as well as Apple ( http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2005/08/gamebuildingtools/) as a major game building tool. You may contact casual game development experts such as James C. Smith (author of Big Kahuna Reef, Wik and the fable of souls, Richochet, etc.) on the Reflexive forum at http://www.reflexive.com/forums/ for confirmation of ptk's status as one of the most used casual game engines together with the Popcap Framework and Playfirst's playground.
I have no financial interest in ptk. I do have great interest in casual games (as well as politics, computer systems architecture and other topics). Developers who use an existing engine have had much more success than ones trying to build an engine and a game, I just want to document their existence and their role in the casual games ecosystem. Casual gaming is becoming a mainstream phenomenon and a very interesting one at that. Imagine that the movie industry only had made horror movies for 15 year olds so far, and just discovered that they could make romance and politically charged movies as well. I plan to create articles about the popcap framework, playground, and less known engines such as Unity as well.
I would appreciate your help in rewriting the parts you think use 'peacock terms' to be more factual. I tried to do that the first time around but I guess I didn't do a very good job.
-- Orichalque ( talk) 12:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, Kalb never said that, someone else did - some reporter from another newspaper, not a Harvard professor on journalism - and that's one of the reasons I reverted it twice. The article is currently incorrectly attributing a quote to Kalb that he never made. ATren ( talk) 13:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's take a step back please.
What I am asking you to do is correct the attribution of the quote, which is incorrect. From the cited source (emphasis mine):
Do you see the problem? Kalb said the latter, but Jim Newton said the former. That's all I'm saying here. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to tell you that the quote is misattributed to Kalb when it's actually from Newton. I'd make the change myself, but I don't want to give the impression of 3RR.
ATren ( talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Calton, reread the above: I was not badgering. I was just trying to point out the error, and you misunderstood me. Can we move on now? :-) ATren ( talk) 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Calton, I assumed you understood: "The article is currently incorrectly attributing a quote to Kalb that he never made", and I assumed your reply "Dot's nice" was your acknowledgement of it. Then I assumed you understood "Calton, follow the Time link. Kalb didn't say that. You are attributing a quote to Kalb that he didn't make." I repeatedly tried to clarify, but you thought I was being argumentative when I was not. It was a pure misunderstanding, you misread my intentions. I was not trying to badger you, I was just asking you to correct the misattribution. Please AGF, OK? :-) ATren ( talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Calton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You claim, "ATren's "rhetorical questions" that you're complaining about appear to have been attempts at resolving a revert war civilly" - That "appearance" would be, you know, wrong, as the slightest glance at ATren's long and contentious history would tell you -- or don't you bother with reading WP:AN/I? In any case, this is a ludicrously petty and overlong block, not warranted by circumstance or actions, but by personal spite. --Calton
Decline reason:
Since you don't seem to realize what you've done wrong, haven't apologized and don't seem to be willing to improve — John Reaves 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
My profile has been deleted because you or someone else consider it a personal webpage. The purpose of the page was to introduce myself to the readers of Wikipedia who want to know a little about me. It was not at all a way to post my webpage which, by the way, already exists of the Internet at the address www.ice77.net. I do not agree with the deletion. Lots of people present themselves in a similar manner using lists of spoken languages or hobbies.
ICE77 -- 84.223.77.68 ( talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I declined your prod on Monica Smith as her collection has received independent reviews which might possibly meet WP:BIO; I agree there are notability & COI problems so have taken the article to AfD; refer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Smith. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am guessing it's probably you....not me. - NeutralHomer T: C 17:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You and Neutralhomer have both been on Wikipedia for a substantial length of time and for thousands of edits. You both ought to know by now that your conduct isn't in any way helpful; you also ought to know that you don't have to go bare-knuckles mano a mano to resolve disputes. There are mechanisms in place to seek outside assistance.
I have filed a report at Wikiquette alerts to get some neutral eyes on your dispute. (See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Calton and Neutralhomer.) Both of you need to cool it, or this will end on AN/I—with blocks. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if the person who removed the tag is wrong. Please utilize the XfD processes instead. JERRY talk contribs 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(examples removed) If you want, I can easily come up with several hundred more examples that I've tagged over the last year or so alone. -- Calton | Talk 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I just tagged and blocked Gnfgb2 ( talk · contribs) as a sock of Primetime. Reviewing his contribution list it was so obvious that I'm surprised nobody noticed before. Any tendency towards mercy and forgiveness on my part was tempered by the copyright violation notices on his talk page. I expect he'll create one or more new accounts to fill the gap. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Archives |
---|
|
PLEASE ASSIST US Sir we seem to be getting a lot of problems in trying to lodge our school data on Wikipedia. - Praht Thai School - We have attempted to follow guidelines and made changes where they have been requested but all to no avail. Our school seems to be ill fated on Wikipedia and we simply cant see why. I have reposted the school and ask that you intervene and assist us to ensure its survival. We have checked it against other schools on the Wikipedia such as Sarasas Ektra School and in fact we have provided a far more neutral data set that it appears they have,,,,yet they seem fine h= on wWikipedia. Please help us. It is clear we need help. Thank you PTSch ( talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This is your only warning.
The next time you make a
personal attack as you did at
User talk:66.35.127.0, you will be
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I've already reported the troller to the admins and thought you might be a candidate too 'cause you're feeding him/her so much, but it wouldn't be fair to report you just because someone made you angry w/o warning you —
Ignatzmice
talk
contribs 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What? I'm just trying to help, and as for not being able to carry out my "threat", of course I can report you to the admins and I thought I was being nice by not doing it immediately! Okay, I'm starting to see 66.35.127.0's point of view... — Ignatzmice talk contribs 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been standardised per WP:TS. All of the template messages used on articles are going to be (or have been) updated. -- MZMcBride 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Calton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the trolling war with me, you and 66.35.27.0. The discussion can be found under the topic User:Calton. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you.
—
Ignatzmice
talk
contribs 03:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Calton, in response to this, I have absolutely no intention of ever defending any of my edits to you. But I'd like to give you some feedback. Your post breaks your own "Rule 9" - you know, the one about hostility being unwelcome. (Unless the rule applies only to others, and not to you. Hmmm. ...) My earlier experience of you was one of hostility writ large; and apparently nothing's changed in the past 18 months or so. When hostility emanates out of a person's every pore, it's a bit rich when they demand that others not act likewise. But then, defensiveness is your thing, apparently - so much so that it's your Wikipedia motto ("It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that"). Negativity begets negativity. Think about it. And maybe have a think about why you're so angry. Have a nice day. Oh, and further communication with me, on any topic whatsoever, will be unwelcome unless it's done in a reasonably courteous manner. Otherwise it will receive short shrift. Bye now. -- JackofOz 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments like;
...and many others in your recent contributions are completely unacceptable. Wikipedia's no personal attacks, civility, and harassment standards apply to ALL contributors. The deliberate taunting and belittling of others, which you seem to engage in frequently, violates all of these principles. You need to radically adjust your behaviour and learn to interact politely with others here. Any certainty you might have that they are 'trolls', 'spammers', 'liars', 'vandals', or whatever else is irrelevant - you aren't allowed to abuse anyone here, and further actions of this kind will be stopped. -- CBD 11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. In this edit you replaced content that has been labelled as needing verification since February. As you know, everything here needs to be verifiable. In taking it out I was proceeding on the basis that if something cannot be verified in that kind of timescale it has no place here. What do you think? -- John 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
When a user, on their second edit ever, posts a screed like that on WP:AN/I, with an edit summary "don't censor me", it's 99.999% likely to be a sock puppet of a banned user. He's trolling. I hope this helps. - Jehochman Talk 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This user has been trolling us with the sexual humiliation/terrorism nonsense for days. It isn't acceptable to compare others to rapists, and I will therefore be removing his comment again. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for tagging the Wouter Hamel article with {{ articleissues}}. It got my attention and I have put some effort into improving the article. I do believe that some of the issues are resolved, but I do not like to remove the note of those issues myself, being the only significant contributor to the article. Therefore I ask you to take a look at the new version, and possibly comment on it. -- Pepve 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I know your lengthy introduction is meant to be funny, but please also remember that not everyone who is forced to visit your talk page is a “criminal”.
I am a (very) new Wikipedia (wannabee) “editor”. I created a new Wikipedia entry for a candidate in the upcoming Ontario elections. I am not here to “spam”, and I do not have a “conflict of interest”. What I am though, is very confused about how one is actually supposed to enter material and who calls the shots here. You are the third official looking editor who has commented on the material I created. The first Wikipedia official (JodyB) deleted my original entry, but after some discussion and advice back and forth decided to re-instate the improved version. Someone else (I forget who) also want(s/ed) to delete this entry and now you.
Here is what I saw before I entered my article (and decided to be bold):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction
How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!
Ottawahitech 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your comments on User:Just James: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.-- Just James T/ C 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing due to persistent incivility and taunting of other users. Subsequent to the warning about this above you have continued this activity with comments such as;
These comments are clearly intended to mock and annoy those they are directed to. This deliberately inflammatory behaviour is extremely disruptive and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. Please reconsider your communications and strive to continue your work, which seems otherwise very positive, without belittling your fellow contributors. -- CBD 12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mcmcmill2 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the info. I had a discussion with one of the other moderators and have pulled the plans for the time being. We can actually host this material in our own wiki but I wanted to assure people that the resulting efforts would be 'open-source' which is conveniently provided by your reputation and technology.
Let me know if you reconsider or want more info in order to make a decision. Probably best over the phone.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solutioneering ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Calton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is absurd and unwarranted. Did CBDunkerson actually bother to read the exchange -- and note the bad faith of User:RedSpruce or was he simply on a fishing expedition for something to whack me with? Or -- let me guess -- did my comments to him about him being more protective of obvious trolls than of actual contributors lead him to look for any excuse in retaliation? Maybe -- just maybe -- he could have asked for a second opinion or bothered to notify me so I would have an obvious avenue of appeal instead of trying to figure out the proper template? -- Calton 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It seems clear that you were adequately warned about your incivility, and I see from your prior blocks and discussions and warnings above that this was far from an isolated incident, suggesting this block was indeed warranted. — krimpet ⟲ 09:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
"candidate for speedy deletion"? i don't post here for months and suddenly i'm spamming wikipedia left, right, and center? as far as that article i posted goes, i'm pretty sure that if it was removed, if i didn't do it already. since then, i haven't attempted to re-insert the offending article. in fact, i haven't added anything to wikipedia since then. what the hell is going on?
yours, 6-4-6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by X6-4-6x ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You have smacked four different cleanup tags onto this article. I found this is somewhat overkilling issues which have already been raised on the talk page. Could you go over the article and perhaps supply some comments on the talk page? Some proposals for what can be done to improve the text would be helpful, as I have done some work to improve it, but more is obviously needed. __ meco 13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this an article that should be on your watch list? I am working on some clean up and ran into the above and Fifty Foot Penguin Theater, both of which appear non notable to me. I could prod them but I suspect that it would not fly. Any thoughts? -- Stormbay 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Your good friend Guy has come back. Will you be getting over your tantrum and returning soon too? 66.35.123.205 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Your spiteful edit remark here [3] has been reported. Also, please stay off of my talk page with your wild accusations. I had forgotten you even existed until you posted that hateful remark on my talk page. TruthCrusader 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. If you are talking about the one above, where's the problem with you comment? I cannot find any. -- Rjd0060 16:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you and TruthCrusader are edit warring over at Will Geer. There's nastiness in edit summaries, ugly talk page messages, and insinuations of off-wiki harrassment. I have laid out the situation on AN/I as best I can and asked for review, but it would be helpful if you could offer some sort of context or explanation in the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Calton and TruthCrusader dispute. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to like put a youtube vid on there it didnt work so i just quit i didnt take it off! GEEZE. Nothing better to do then to delete people's userpages —Preceding unsigned comment added by UWLpro ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
If you look at our talk page, you will see that we have already cleared up our copyright issues.
Thanks,
Institute for Higher Education Policy 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me say again that I don't put you anywhere on the same level, or the same category, as that user. The point is that the reason things like WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals exist is because speaking to a user like that in a tone they probably deserve generally causes them to escalate their behavior. I'm sure you already know this. I'm sure you also know the number of blocks you have received and the number of disagreements you've been in on the talk pages. Let's take a random remark from your history like this "12:55, September 14, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:66.35.127.0 (What part of "enough of your trolling" was unclear, Troll Boy?)". Do you think that person is going to say "okay, he's got me, I give in" or do you think he's going to change his I.P. any do something else to get back at you? The point of civility is not for the person in the wrong, but for the person in the right. If you continue reprimand trolls the way you have been doing, I wouldn't be shocked if you end being the one quitting Wikipedia eventually. CitiCat ♫ 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For cleaning up the spam stank. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC) |
Calton, thank you for pointing out what I kinda figured when I began the process of editing (I am noob at this). I am writing to you to find out how I can reinstate my page. The reason for my absence and subsequent dereliction of my page(s) was because the use of my satellite connection would not allow me to go past the present page after signing in, (screwy proxies). I had other means by which I could have pursued it, but had too many other responsibilities to make it worth pursuing. I had all intentions of trying to make the article for USASA (United States of America Snowboard Association). I would appreciate any guidance/further discussion regarding editing if you have the time. I now have a DSL connection so have the ability to edit in my spare time.
The time stamp of your post = 21:15, 24 May 2007.
Thanks, Pawblo 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Pawblo
Hi there - just a quick note to say that I've removed a couple of your flags for speedy deletion. On User:Celebrusia, I don't think it's fair to say the article is spam, as it's not advertising the book in question - it looks more like a sandbox-type article prior to its being migrated over to the mainspace. There's certainly no indication of any WP:COI, so I'm assuming good faith.
On User:OfficeDesigns I've reverted your edit - the user in question had blanked the page themself, thus removing the spam, and it was your reversal of that (when posting your tag) that reinserted the spam back onto the userpage.
Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 13:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What am I arguing in favour of? As I said in my original post - I think you were wrong in flagging it for speedy on the grounds of spam, and as I said in my second post relating to this page, I think it's more likely to fail WP:NN. That you take such umbrage at my doing so is unfortunate, as is the fact that you take such a wide view of what constitutes WP:Spam at the same time as taking such a narrow view of WP:Civil.
I don't think that this discussion has anywhere further to go - if you remain so convinced that User:Celebrusia is spam then doubtless you'll be flagging it again in due course. If you do, I'm happy to leave the flag in place (but I will add a hangon tag, and put my justifications and link to our respective talk pages on the user talk page concerned) to see what the outcome is. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
NVM Gunnerdevil4 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I can warn you now for not assuming good faith. Gunnerdevil4 05:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I got plenty of evidence starting where you attacked me on my talk page!! I don't give a freak!! And for your info, I know how to warn people starting from vandalising to not assuming good faith!! Gunnerdevil4 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You should be happy now, youve pissed me off so much im gonna bring this up to the Arbitration Commitee. Unless you object of course, because Im not inserting it until 10:00 PST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerdevil4 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Gunnerdevil4. Thank you. Gunnerdevil4 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you wanna "talk this over", I see no point in me reading the top. This is not about content in an article. So why don't you save yourself embaressment and read it over yourself. Gunnerdevil4 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I got two choices for you. Arbitration Commitee or talk over it. Your choice. Gunnerdevil4 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Im not tryin to be a friggin principal, im trying to be civil. So what choice? Gunnerdevil4 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok Gunnerdevil4 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please consider ending your debate with user Gunnerdevil4. As I said to him, it would be best to prevent this from going any further. I would be a good idea to consider giving an apology to this user. It would help to ease the tension between both of you, and it's a great start for progress towards settling any problems. Just remember to be civil, so no name calling, rude or snide comments, etc. Treat those as you would like to be treated. Hostility only brews more hostility. I really hope that you two will be able to make amends. Happy editing! Icestorm815 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just here to get something clarified, I'm actually not pissed off or anything like that, I'm just curious what "unsourced promotion of vanity-press book" means? If I came across vain in my article, I am incredibly sorry and had no intention of doing so, but any sort of pointers to fix/avoid this in the future please do tell. I'm pretty good at taking suggestions, as long as they're reasonable and I'm able to reasonably carry them out!
Thanks for the help, btw, there are many things I miss myself that other people do a good job checking out :) Irishlad6 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry bout that, but is there any way I can get the stuff that was on that page back?
Guy, the naming format you're using for your userboxes is all wrong. The correct naming format for personal userboxes is to make them subpages of your userspace, is of the form:
NOT
The latter creates a user page for an entirely fictitious user called "ScoutKnot HonorPalms" -- and user pages for non-existent users are speedily deleted (using the {{ db-nouser}} tag).
You're going to have to move all the incorrectly named tags to their proper titles (using the "move" tab at the top of the page) and tag the resulting redirects for deletion (using the {{ db-nouser}} tag). I've done several already, but the rest you'll have to do. For the ones I've done, see here. Thanks for your attention in this matter. -- Calton | Talk 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why just those? There are a bunch more in Category:Barney & Friends that are no better. It would probably be a good idea to do them all or revert the others. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please help me rewrite this page to better standards.
In terms of notability, ptk is listed by the Independent Games Developers Association 2006 casual whitepaper ( http://www.igda.org/casual/IGDA_CasualGames_Whitepaper_2006.pdf), page 92 under point 13, as well as Apple ( http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2005/08/gamebuildingtools/) as a major game building tool. You may contact casual game development experts such as James C. Smith (author of Big Kahuna Reef, Wik and the fable of souls, Richochet, etc.) on the Reflexive forum at http://www.reflexive.com/forums/ for confirmation of ptk's status as one of the most used casual game engines together with the Popcap Framework and Playfirst's playground.
I have no financial interest in ptk. I do have great interest in casual games (as well as politics, computer systems architecture and other topics). Developers who use an existing engine have had much more success than ones trying to build an engine and a game, I just want to document their existence and their role in the casual games ecosystem. Casual gaming is becoming a mainstream phenomenon and a very interesting one at that. Imagine that the movie industry only had made horror movies for 15 year olds so far, and just discovered that they could make romance and politically charged movies as well. I plan to create articles about the popcap framework, playground, and less known engines such as Unity as well.
I would appreciate your help in rewriting the parts you think use 'peacock terms' to be more factual. I tried to do that the first time around but I guess I didn't do a very good job.
-- Orichalque ( talk) 12:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, Kalb never said that, someone else did - some reporter from another newspaper, not a Harvard professor on journalism - and that's one of the reasons I reverted it twice. The article is currently incorrectly attributing a quote to Kalb that he never made. ATren ( talk) 13:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's take a step back please.
What I am asking you to do is correct the attribution of the quote, which is incorrect. From the cited source (emphasis mine):
Do you see the problem? Kalb said the latter, but Jim Newton said the former. That's all I'm saying here. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to tell you that the quote is misattributed to Kalb when it's actually from Newton. I'd make the change myself, but I don't want to give the impression of 3RR.
ATren ( talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Calton, reread the above: I was not badgering. I was just trying to point out the error, and you misunderstood me. Can we move on now? :-) ATren ( talk) 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Calton, I assumed you understood: "The article is currently incorrectly attributing a quote to Kalb that he never made", and I assumed your reply "Dot's nice" was your acknowledgement of it. Then I assumed you understood "Calton, follow the Time link. Kalb didn't say that. You are attributing a quote to Kalb that he didn't make." I repeatedly tried to clarify, but you thought I was being argumentative when I was not. It was a pure misunderstanding, you misread my intentions. I was not trying to badger you, I was just asking you to correct the misattribution. Please AGF, OK? :-) ATren ( talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Calton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You claim, "ATren's "rhetorical questions" that you're complaining about appear to have been attempts at resolving a revert war civilly" - That "appearance" would be, you know, wrong, as the slightest glance at ATren's long and contentious history would tell you -- or don't you bother with reading WP:AN/I? In any case, this is a ludicrously petty and overlong block, not warranted by circumstance or actions, but by personal spite. --Calton
Decline reason:
Since you don't seem to realize what you've done wrong, haven't apologized and don't seem to be willing to improve — John Reaves 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
My profile has been deleted because you or someone else consider it a personal webpage. The purpose of the page was to introduce myself to the readers of Wikipedia who want to know a little about me. It was not at all a way to post my webpage which, by the way, already exists of the Internet at the address www.ice77.net. I do not agree with the deletion. Lots of people present themselves in a similar manner using lists of spoken languages or hobbies.
ICE77 -- 84.223.77.68 ( talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I declined your prod on Monica Smith as her collection has received independent reviews which might possibly meet WP:BIO; I agree there are notability & COI problems so have taken the article to AfD; refer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Smith. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am guessing it's probably you....not me. - NeutralHomer T: C 17:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You and Neutralhomer have both been on Wikipedia for a substantial length of time and for thousands of edits. You both ought to know by now that your conduct isn't in any way helpful; you also ought to know that you don't have to go bare-knuckles mano a mano to resolve disputes. There are mechanisms in place to seek outside assistance.
I have filed a report at Wikiquette alerts to get some neutral eyes on your dispute. (See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Calton and Neutralhomer.) Both of you need to cool it, or this will end on AN/I—with blocks. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if the person who removed the tag is wrong. Please utilize the XfD processes instead. JERRY talk contribs 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(examples removed) If you want, I can easily come up with several hundred more examples that I've tagged over the last year or so alone. -- Calton | Talk 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I just tagged and blocked Gnfgb2 ( talk · contribs) as a sock of Primetime. Reviewing his contribution list it was so obvious that I'm surprised nobody noticed before. Any tendency towards mercy and forgiveness on my part was tempered by the copyright violation notices on his talk page. I expect he'll create one or more new accounts to fill the gap. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)