User talk:Clpo13/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Anatomy of a Murder

Hi - I didn't mean to revert your edit. I'm in discussion (User_talk:SilkTork#Re_Footnotes_v._References.2C_part_duex and User_talk:Ed_Fitzgerald#Anatomy_of_a_Murder) on this issue and looking for a solution. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly all right. I probably shouldn't have barged in there without discussing, anyways. --clpo13(talk) 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I actually appreciated you edit, because I was editing to policy. I'm sure more to friend, who made major corrections to the article is a former attorney for the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, and so much more, for so many years. Needless to say, I will keep SilkTork's pov in mind and will adhere to what he argues....My best Luigibob (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to nominate you for adminship

I have reviewed several of your edits and also I am impressed with your knowledge of wiki policy. I believe you have the skills to be an excellent admin. Would you accept a nomination?Thright (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, although I'm a bit worried my low edit count may work against me. But I'll gladly accept a nomination. --clpo13(talk) 06:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A nomination has been created, you now need to answer the questions - - Good luckThright (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added an optional question. Hopefully the edit count doesn't come into play...anyways, good luck, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just FYI, I have left you a few questions at your RfA, feel free to take your time answering. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, seriously

How the hell was the Antlion page a vandalism? 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that seemed a bit harsh, but you reverted a redirect (a couple, actually) that was decided by consensus. All the information is here, though I can't find the actual discussion. I know it happened because I was a part of it, and while I don't necessarily think it was the best move, rolling back community consensus is generally considered to be vandalism. --clpo13(talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see the discussion, I only saw a lot of pages suddenly gone for no apparent reason. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Monster Bat

Wow! That was quick. Thank you very much. Regards. --JamesJJames (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I voted on it not too long before you withdrew it, so I figured I'd close it. --clpo13(talk) 07:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for your intervention against vandalism by User:Pgp688 -Ravichandar 07:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. That's what I'm here for. --clpo13(talk)


I was responding to a post that Dreamguy had made to my user talk page, and noticed your (clearly) frustrating conversation with him. I think you made the right decision in deciding to confine your contact with him on the relevant article discussion page. I don't think he sees the damage he is doing to his rep via his behavior and, as you've learned, he is highly resistant to change. If a stone is dropped from a height, who are we to stop it from hitting bottom? - Arcayne (cast a spell)

That said, I would encourage you to continue to contribute to the article. Yours is a leavening influence, and your opinions and contributions are valuable there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. It's certainly hard to talk calmly with someone who appears to think everyone is against him. I'll be sure to keep up with the JtR article. --clpo13(talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've added my statement. --clpo13(talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That 'thing'

I've been watching 'that thing'. While I am inclined to support, there remains the issue of number of edits - and that does seem to have attracted most of the opposition. I do think you have the maturity and the willingness to engage for the role; and most importantly - as some of the supports say - 'will do no damage'. If it moves to borderline, I will be glad to push it over, but if the figures remain stubbornly below (say) 65% over the next day, or so, I would urge you to consider withdrawing for the moment. It is no disgrace and shows maturity, it will also help you in a renomination in 2-3 months time; and give you the opportunity in the meantime to meet some of the objections.

Anyway, whatever you decide the very best of luck and remember it is 'no big thing'; so, if unsuccessful on this occasion you can always try again. You could always request an coach in the meantime. Kbthompson (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Very much appreciated. I'll certainly consider withdrawing if things don't start to improve. --clpo13(talk) 11:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA. Regardless of your support or opposition, it was very much appreciated, especially if you had helpful advice on how I could become a better candidate next time I apply to be an admin. I'll definitely continue to stay around and contribute to Wikipedia and improve as best I can. --clpo13(talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Just being friendly here)

If you were never told not to split an infinitive, I'm just curious whether you know what an infinitive is. Have your ever studied a foreign language?

The infinitive is frequently ONE word. In Russian, (I don't have Russian fonts, but who cares), the word pronounced "beat" is the infinitive of a verb, normally translated into English as the infinitive "to be." "To go" would be pronounced "eedeet," and would be conjugated: I ("YA") "eedyoo," you ("tee") "eedyosh," and so forth. Russian is very highly "inflected," meaning that there are all kinds of endings on words, required by their use in the sentence and by the kinds of words they accompany. Wowest (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I only know what infinitives are through Wikipedia and other explanatory sites, and even so, I still don't think I'm perfectly clear on the concept in English. I studied a bit of German (two years) in high school. --clpo13(talk) 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Forerunner merge

Both Forerunner and United Nations Space Command were merged to Factions of Halo per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Halo, since those two articles did not have any secondary sources so they could stand alone as articles. The plan is to elaborate on the sparse out of universe detail provided and improve the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, all right. I didn't see discussion on either talk page, but I didn't think about the project talk page. Gotcha. --clpo13(talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


"People" is already plural. There is no need to put an "s" after it to make it plural. As a corollary, the plural possessive form of "people" requires addition of apostrophe-s, not s-apostrophe. Please also tell your friend to leave pages alone about which he has no knowledge. Thanks! =) Dgmjr05 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, I don't need the grammar lesson. Second, Jakezing is not my friend and what he does is not my problem. However, my warning still stands: do not put maintenance tags on user pages. --clpo13(talk) 01:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)