User talk:Clpo13/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Clpo13. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In an attempt to keep the discussion on the Photo editing talk page in the direction of reaching an agreeable resolution, I have tried to find a slightly different approach. I would really appreciate your constructive criticism on the post that I just made, please see Talk:Photo_editing#Trying_to_establish_some_common_ground. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm always glad to help out. --clpo13_(talk) 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I've been looking through your contributions, and I must say, you're doing a great job! Keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs editors like you. Editmaniac 09:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that 69.144.68.215 (talk · contribs) is pushing a biased agenda regarding terminology (see his/her contribs). Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So it would appear. I've requested page protection on Mexican-American War, and I'll keep warning him if he keeps it up. --clpo13_(talk) 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i made that section in Talk:Robert Goren in the first place and realized it was stupid and i was just being confused because i didnt really pay attention to the episode... i guess you can leave it there but i thought it would just create unnecessary confusion to anyone who read it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.116.223 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 August 2007

It looked like you deleted a lot more than just the section you originally wrote. Anyways, deleting other peoples' comments on a talk page, as you did, is generally considered bad form. That's why I left the note. --clpo13_(talk) 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the case, if you don't mind. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. --clpo13_(talk) 05:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Secr_kerala_thumb.JPG is up for deletion. John Vandenberg 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, i'll make sure to check next time ;-) IamMcLovin 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I always like to make sure everyone's on the same page, since edit summaries can be kinda vague. --clpo13_(talk) 05:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You recently removed a vandalism edit I made on the Werewolf article and sent me a polite warning. In this case, I do feel that the sentence fits the description of vandalism in Wikipedia:Vandalism. As we seem to disagree, I have started a section in the Discussion of Werewolf about the issue of diphenhydramine use. Please contribute to it. Grhabyt 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. Sorry for being hasty. --clpo13_(talk) 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

By the way, where did you get the idea that I was a new user? I started in 2005. I guess I should get around to creating a user page. Another item on the list...sigh Grhabyt 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I see a redlink to a user page, I usually think new, but I know that's not always true. What made me really assume you were new was the complete lack of anything on the talk page. That's most often a sure sign of a brand-spanking-new user who has yet to be welcomed or warned or anything. --clpo13_(talk) 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not as frequent user as you. But it's all for the best. I have a user page now. Cheers Grhabyt 02:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if my reversions of the text messed up your grammatical fixes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's not that big of a deal. It's just a bit annoying how everyone (read: DreamGuy and Colin) blindly reverts because they can't agree on a good version of the article, and my edits just get caught in the shuffle. But it's okay, don't worry about it. --clpo13_(talk) 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings is now taken as confirmation that they've read them. Don't revert, just notify us at WP:AIV and we will come down hard on them. Good work in the spotting him! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I was under the impression that removing warnings that were still relevant was bad form. --clpo13_(talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it is, but we just use it against them now. "You've removed your warnings, ergo, you've read them, ergo if you vandalise again, it's your own damned fault". I've semi-protected your userpage as a courtesy - you should hear no more trouble from him for a while. I see you'd like to become an admin - my advice is to get onto IRC, so you can talk to us all in real-time, and get opinions from other users on what someone is doing. It's where the party's at, Cody! :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It adds nothing unique from what is contained on the author’s main page. I could have taken it to AFD, but a simple redirect seemed the best course. What where your plan for the page? Brimba (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I did not mean to be harsh, sorry if I was. But I am not sure where you could go with that page. So the redirect seemed self-evident from my prospective, which may not always be the best. Brimba (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)