User talk:Calwatch: Difference between revisions

Thanks for all of the comments you make. Please be aware that if you would like a personal response, to let me know in the body of the text so I may contact you.

Please do not use this page to conduct discussion of my edits on specific pages, except to link to relevant discussion on the talk page of that specific page. I have a policy of conducting all discussion about articles on the talk page of that article. If you post a comment on my user talk page about a particular article, I will not respond here but in the talk page of the article in question (unless the changes are minor, in which case I will just make the changes without any additional discussion). Calwatch 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calwatch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates’ statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calwatch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates’ statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —B-bot (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calwatch. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I see you reverted my edits, do you really think this kind of not-notable family history has a place on Wikipedia? You didn’t give a reason for the revert. I don’t think we should be documenting non-notable high school teachers just because they are members of a famous family.Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and think that there needs to be continuity in a genealogy. You can’t cite individuals downstream without noting where their ancestors were upstream. If you feel some of the downstream people are non-notable (I don’t) then make that call and cull the article completely of non-notable individuals (anyone who doesn’t meet the notability criteria), but then the entire article could go to AFD. Calwatch (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a Missourian, I think the family is notable, they’ve certainly been a bit of a political dynasty here no need to AfD them. This isn’t the place to list every member of every generation or document family genealogy. I’ll try to convert the list into prose, highlighting the notable members and important aspects of the family. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better a category though? Like the Coors or Ridder families? I’m going to list it for review to get other opinions. Calwatch (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ABC Sports. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#ABC Sports until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 02:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to move Draft:Banfield (NewsNation) to mainspace? I can do it for you if you believe it’s ready. BilCat (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was. Thank you. Calwatch (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done After I made the initial move, I realized that the correct title is Banfield (TV program), as disambiguators should be as generic as possible. BilCat (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calwatch. I noticed that you recently used adfontesmedia.com and mediabiasfactcheck .com as sources in Media bias in the United States. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN and WP:RSP is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of such information. I’ve gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let’s discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.–Hipal (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Life & Times (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Local-access show, unlikely to be notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article’s talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Life & Times (TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life & Times (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 California Proposition 50, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Kiley.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited This Is Gavin Newsom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Galloway.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 California Proposition 50, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Gallagher and Nick Schultz.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Banfield episodes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I created this article for Banfield when it was one guest for one individual show, which would be similar to a list of podcasts or episodes. Since then, the program is like every other cable news talk show, with multiple guests and topics, and said page is no longer notable (and hasn’t been updated in years).

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article’s talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page’s history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed one of the sources you added to Elliott Investment Management. simpleflying.com is a deprecated unreliable source – see WP:SIMPLEFLYING. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Will Stancil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Stancil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your efforts to cover this topic, Editor. I hadn’t contributed in some time, so it was nice to see that this notable subject had already drawn coverage. Lamentable (imo) that an uncompelling deletion proposal has been filed, but hopefully common sense + plain reading of notability guidelines prevails. Cheers! joepa^T 01:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]