User talk:Calton: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:12, 4 July 2005 edit172.157.33.19 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:33, 5 July 2005 edit undoRangerdude (talk \| contribs)3,171 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 81:		Line 81:
	He's been playing numerous articles for months with little to add but what is already known. I got tired of the tit for tat with this imbecile on that page due to the fact that the argument was continuing and going nowhere. All he and I were doing was throwing insults at each other so it would be better to do it in my user page, don't you think? It's nice to see you have a user page. Aside from that anon, I rarely respond to anyone that is too lazy to open one. Check his edit history on those numerous IP's he has and yuou'll see that he has zero to add to this endeavour. I think Noel"s comments in that section pretty much sized him up.--] 4 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)		He's been playing numerous articles for months with little to add but what is already known. I got tired of the tit for tat with this imbecile on that page due to the fact that the argument was continuing and going nowhere. All he and I were doing was throwing insults at each other so it would be better to do it in my user page, don't you think? It's nice to see you have a user page. Aside from that anon, I rarely respond to anyone that is too lazy to open one. Check his edit history on those numerous IP's he has and yuou'll see that he has zero to add to this endeavour. I think Noel"s comments in that section pretty much sized him up.--] 4 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)
	:I'd appreciate it if you could remove his personal attacks from the above, Calton. Thanks. -bro ] 4 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)		:I'd appreciate it if you could remove his personal attacks from the above, Calton. Thanks. -bro ] 4 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

			==Border States==
			Calton - greetings. I noticed you recently reverted an edit I made in response to another revert at this article. While I believe your stated reason of avoiding a revert war was a good faith effort to prevent one from emerging, I would ask you to consider the circumstances of the piece of information at issue here. The edits at issue, and accompanying reverts, concern a simple matter of documented historical fact. The problem emerged when another editor, ], was evidently researching the subject online and found two personal websites containing historically incorrect information about the Civil War in New Mexico. JimWae subsequently transposed this information into the article, which I reverted to the previous and added appropriate sources to correct the erro. The personal websites erroniously asserted that the Confederate Army had invaded and captured the town of Mesilla in July of 1861 - a reference to a battle fought there at that date, but also a factually inaccurate claim. As I documented on the talk page, at the time of the July battle the town of Mesilla (along with Tuscon, Arizona) had already aligned itself with the Confederacy and organized a pro-Confederate territorial government the previous March.

			As you can see on the article's history page, a subsequent revert was then made to JimWae's version containing the erronious material by ]. This revert is of note because it is an atypical incident with little genuine interest in the article itself. As I noted in my attempt to restore the fixed version, Willmcw has a lengthy history of stalking me on Misplaced Pages dating back over 6 months and covering over 50 different articles. Unfortunately the two of us have a long history of poor relations on wikipedia due to this behavior, and I am certain that his involvement and reverts on this particular article were simply more of the same. I am currently pursuing outside intervention to rectify the problem between myself and willmcw over his stalking of me and general harassment of my edits, however the wikipedia dispute resolution process takes time and at the moment we are only in the earliest stages of mediation. An equally unfortunate consequence of this slow process is that Willmcw's harassing behavior towards me and virtually all of my edits, on which grounds I have sought intervention, has continued unabated even while mediation is being initiated, and this article is simply the latest case. Given these unusual and unfortunate circumstances, I would ask you to review your reversion of my edit on this article and discuss any pertinent information with myself or on the article's talk page as the material it concerns is truly a matter of simple documented historical fact that never should've been the subject of a revert war to begin with. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. ] 5 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:33, 5 July 2005

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) and Pedant 17:01, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Reckless revert

I told Mustafaa what I would do. I removed the long quotes and reinserted them into the talk page where users can work on them with other users to find a consensus solution. Until someone makes a version in talk, the unacceptable version shouldn't be there. I do not appreciate it when people who have no background on the dispute come in and start throwing their weight around. You have no idea what the dispute is, you don't know where the contention lies, so ask before contributing to a revert war.

Guy Montag 06:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy is right in that the insertion of these lengthy quotes a couple of days ago was terrible style at best, and pretty obvious POV pushing. The person who inserted them should be responsible for putting in something reasonable in the first place; I don't see why it's incumbent on Guy to do so, or why obviously sub-standard insertions should remain until those who disapprove of them can come up with better alternatives. Jayjg 15:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glengarry Glen Ross

I'm holding a copy of Glengarry Glen Ross in my hand. The information that I inserted into the article appears on page 9, as I clearly cited in the edit summary. Please use the talk page to explain or cite the source for your information.

Copying from Wikitravel

Some of your additions to Expo 2005 were copied from my edits to the article of the same name on Wikitravel, as discussed on Talk:Expo 2005. The licenses are incompatible and thus technically this is a copyvio... but I've hereby retroactively granted you the license to do so, so no worries, just please be more careful in the future. As penance you are hereby sentenced to enter 5 of your favorite restaurants or watering holes into Wikitravel's Tokyo page. =) Jpatokal 05:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my page

Kindly stop vandalizing my user page with nonsense.Enviroknot 01:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out my errors regarding Enviroknot. The reason I didn't add the sockpuppet tag was because I want to see some solution other than a revert war take place. In my opinion, the evidence against Enviroknot isn't strong enough to justify tagging him as a sockpuppet, though a suspected sock tag is justified. Again, the reason I didn't include either is because this revert war is getting ridiculous.

Sorry for the trouble. Cheers, Ingoolemo 17:25, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

I see that David Gerard did an IP check, concluding that Enviroknot and KaintheScion are the same person. I'm convinced now. Cheers, Ingoolemo 20:34, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

GAP Project

Hi Calton. I'm glad to see you're interested in clearing up the copyright issue at GAP Project. Could I encourage you to be as diplomatic as possible in dealing with Coolcat on the talk page there? English probably isn't his first language, and he might find it easier not to " indignantly" if he doesn't feel attacked.

For what it's worth, I too am quite frustrated by the responses he has provided thus far. On occasion I admit to finding it difficult to assume good faith as much as I should. But...I don't see the harm in being patient on the talk page as long as the material isn't added back to the main article. I assure you it won't go back in until the questions surrounding it are resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Cantors

I'm unsure how I missed those. Both are now deleted. —Xezbeth 07:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Policy enforcement

Can I ask why you reverted this page, removing an edit by me, amongst others? Filiocht | Talk 11:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sound's like the kind of mistake I'd make! Thanks for responding do quickly. Filiocht | Talk 11:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Paperback Writer / I Feel Fine Single infoboxes

Thanks for helping to deal with this anon reverting the infobox updates. Cbing01 03:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Economy of mainland China

Hello Calton. I noticed you have cast a "delete" vote at CFD, with the remarks "Political POV category". I am not sure if you're familiar with the term "mainland China", but I have to let you know that this is a neutral terminology to refer to PRC-administered territories excluding Hong Kong and Macao. You may be interested to take a look at the discussion at talk:Mainland China. I am not requesting anybody to change her/his vote, but it is always a responsible act to be familiar with the subject matter before casting a vote. Sorry if you find this message offensive. Feel free to discuss with me if you wish to. :-) — Insta ntnood 07:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is never a POV crusade, but rather, an NPOV drive. Would you mind telling why you consider the term propaganda-loaded? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 11:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes "People's Republic of China" is the official, formal, legal name, but "mainland China" is also official, formal and legal that the People's Republic of China government also uses it when it is necessary to distinguish the territories it administered subracting Hong Kong and Macao, as well as ROC-administered territories. The term is used in laws, for instance, in Hong Kong. It is also used in press releases and official documents of the PRC. These are actual facts that nobody can deny. I am actually curious to know why you consider it POV and should not be used.

There's nothing unclear with "you're wasting your time trying to enlist me", but as you may already know it is Misplaced Pages tradition to have things sort out through discussion. — Insta ntnood 12:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am neither pushing a POV, nor trying to make you agree with anything. As I have said, I am curious to know the rationale behind your belief. Anyways, I respect your will, this will be my last message to you over this matter. — Insta ntnood 13:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, seeing that you have a strong opinion with regards to Mainland China, may I invite you to the discussion going on there? I'm very curious about what kind of propaganda the phrase might be used for, except that of Instandnood's. The discussion would (hopefully) be restricted to that ariticle only. Thanks. -- Alassius (talk) 30 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)

Project Broadway

Okay, sign me up. Dunno how much I can contribute, but I'll give it a shot.

Part of the project will be formulating some standard formats and credits for articles, right? --Calton | Talk 05:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad you're interested in joining. Yes, creating standard formats for articles is absolutely a goal of the project. Right now I'm working on organizing the project assets before I get to in depth with working on stuff...see especially the to-do list on the New York Theatre project page (I may link the sub-project to-do's to that one. Glad to have you aboard! EvilPhoenix 05:22, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Bring it to my user page

He's been playing numerous articles for months with little to add but what is already known. I got tired of the tit for tat with this imbecile on that page due to the fact that the argument was continuing and going nowhere. All he and I were doing was throwing insults at each other so it would be better to do it in my user page, don't you think? It's nice to see you have a user page. Aside from that anon, I rarely respond to anyone that is too lazy to open one. Check his edit history on those numerous IP's he has and yuou'll see that he has zero to add to this endeavour. I think Noel"s comments in that section pretty much sized him up.--MONGO 4 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could remove his personal attacks from the above, Calton. Thanks. -bro 172.157.33.19 4 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Border States

Calton - greetings. I noticed you recently reverted an edit I made in response to another revert at this article. While I believe your stated reason of avoiding a revert war was a good faith effort to prevent one from emerging, I would ask you to consider the circumstances of the piece of information at issue here. The edits at issue, and accompanying reverts, concern a simple matter of documented historical fact. The problem emerged when another editor, User:JimWae, was evidently researching the subject online and found two personal websites containing historically incorrect information about the Civil War in New Mexico. JimWae subsequently transposed this information into the article, which I reverted to the previous and added appropriate sources to correct the erro. The personal websites erroniously asserted that the Confederate Army had invaded and captured the town of Mesilla in July of 1861 - a reference to a battle fought there at that date, but also a factually inaccurate claim. As I documented on the talk page, at the time of the July battle the town of Mesilla (along with Tuscon, Arizona) had already aligned itself with the Confederacy and organized a pro-Confederate territorial government the previous March.

As you can see on the article's history page, a subsequent revert was then made to JimWae's version containing the erronious material by User:Willmcw. This revert is of note because it is an atypical incident with little genuine interest in the article itself. As I noted in my attempt to restore the fixed version, Willmcw has a lengthy history of stalking me on Misplaced Pages dating back over 6 months and covering over 50 different articles. Unfortunately the two of us have a long history of poor relations on wikipedia due to this behavior, and I am certain that his involvement and reverts on this particular article were simply more of the same. I am currently pursuing outside intervention to rectify the problem between myself and willmcw over his stalking of me and general harassment of my edits, however the wikipedia dispute resolution process takes time and at the moment we are only in the earliest stages of mediation. An equally unfortunate consequence of this slow process is that Willmcw's harassing behavior towards me and virtually all of my edits, on which grounds I have sought intervention, has continued unabated even while mediation is being initiated, and this article is simply the latest case. Given these unusual and unfortunate circumstances, I would ask you to review your reversion of my edit on this article and discuss any pertinent information with myself or on the article's talk page as the material it concerns is truly a matter of simple documented historical fact that never should've been the subject of a revert war to begin with. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)