User talk:Clpo13/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Jakezing and Dgmjr05

Sorry if this breaks your talk page, but I think we can say that South Harmon Is gonna be redirected, at this point are good freind who keeps insulting me is trying to use older votes from the first deletion and a big rant about how "were criminals and just as bad as harmon."--Jakezing (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dgmjr is getting way out of line with comments like this one ("illiterate user"? That's uncalled for.). If he continues you give you trouble, you may wish to file a Wikiquette alert, if you haven't already. --clpo13_(talk) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's great if people's first language isn't English. In that case, why would they be worried about English pages? Furthermore, how should I be expected to communicate with them if I can't understand them? Dgmjr05 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons to want to edit in English. It's not uncommon to edit multiple language versions of Wikipedia. And even if a person doesn't edit in another language, they may wish to practice their English or improve the largest version of Wikipedia (the English one). And honestly, if you can't understand broken English, that's your own problem. I've seen written English far worse than Jakezing's, which consists mostly of misspellings. Not a big deal. --clpo13_(talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of my bad english only extends into typing... Writing wise, it's great. I CAN contribute with an advanced level of Englisch if I want to. However; Fast typing & other things keep me from being perfect. Do not assume i am a retard, that my englisch skills are crap, or that you are better then me. You don't want to see me when you'v assumed to much about me. Also, you question me and us wit hthe rules of wikipedia, like NPA extra? I HAVE been banned before, so I know [plenty of the rules. Don't reply on my talk page.--Jakezing (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I figured it was something like that, but I didn't want to assume too much. --clpo13_(talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Collin Article

You reverted my edit that stated that Collin is a child molester, apparently without reading the rest of the article. The citation of his conviction is in the third paragraph of the second section. 24.6.157.14 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That was over a month ago. At any rate, I reverted your changes because, while Collin is indeed a convicted child molester, that information wasn't necessary to the introduction. He's most famous for being the former leader of the National Socialist Party of America. Your edit also inserted the word "notorious", which seems to me to be quite POV. Thus, I reverted. --clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno^talk 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but I was away from Wikipedia for a while. I've since left my comments. --clpo13_(talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Swamp Rabbit

I saw your ancient post (2007) on the article about the swamp rabbit. It's true, there is no good photo. The one swimming near Jimmy Carter is of poor quality, and does not really demonstrate the size of a swamp rabbit. I've just started photographing various wildlife in the southern US (Louisiana). I got some shots of an eastern cottontail today. I'd be glad to get some pics of the swamp rabbit when I stumble across one. I'll freely, and gladly submit them to Wikipedia so others can see what one really looks like. They're fairly common in Louisiana, but a little smarter than other rabbits. So it could take me a while to get one. I don't live near a swamp (Louisiana is NOT a big swamp/bayou, lol), but I do have a pond a creek on my property, which they frequent especially after thunderstorms. So if the community is still interested, I'll seek one out with my camera and submit my pics. I can also photograph nearly anything found in the southern US if need be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.164.32 (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking pictures for Wikipedia is always a good thing. By all means, submit what you can! --clpo13_(talk) 07:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)