User talk:Clpo13/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Westlife are Irish not British

I've reverted your change to Westlife (diff), as they are an Irish boy band, and defenitely not British. I'm sure it was an honest mistake. --The.Q | Talk to me 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I just wanted to clarify what they were, but I guess I should have looked into it a bit more. --clpo13 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Silencer contributions

Hey, your additions and rewrites to the Silencer (game) page look really good. Thanks for spending the time to add something nice to that page. --Eptin 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Fixing things up are what I'm here for. --clpo13 05:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

calories/joules

Yeah, since it's a food, I could only assume that Calories was meant instead of calories, so I changed it back. If an egg yolk had only 60 calories, well, that wouldn't be too nutritious... Oh, and as to that earlier revert: I agree, eggs are not fruit :) digfarenough (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jedi Exile

Please see the discussion page before making any edits to the article about the Exile’s gender please. I don’t want you to get into trouble with that article or anything like several people have. Thank you.--The Matrix Prime 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't want me to get into trouble? Excuse me, but ever since I got involved in the Exile article, I've discussed all my edits regarding the gender on the talk page. You are the one who's been reverting without discussing, which is a big no-no. --clpo13 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page! Much appreciated. --Bonadea 06:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Always a pleasure to help out a fellow anti-vandalism user.--clpo13 06:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent dispute

Hi, I noticed your problem on the Admin Noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. A problem that I've noticed is that people don't follow the dispute resolution and when they need to take further action they don't know what to do. You've done the first and second step. So well done so far. :-)

If no action is taken to your concern on the admin noticeboard then I suggest you move on to "Discuss with third parties". Try an article and/or user Requests for comment and/or Wikiquette alerts if one of the editors is beign abusive.

Then if the worst comes to the worst, which it may or may not do after all else fails try Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

I hope this helps, I know how it can feel to get involved in a dispute. I wish I had of known what I know now when a similar dispute occured with me. (Just for the record so far I think you've conducted yourself well, but whatever you do don't revert a user's talk page as they may twist it and use it against us as mentioned on the admin noticeboard) Good luck. :-) Englishrose 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! This is definitely very helpful. --clpo13 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Per a recent comment, I am merely giving you advice. I am not harassing or wikistalking him as he no doubt will accuse me of. If people followed that advice and put things on record then to be frank, in my opinion I think he’d have been reprimanded by now. Englishrose 09:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse

(This discussion was originally posted on User talk:DreamGuy, but was moved here and deleted from the other talk page by its owner.)

I don't know what your problem with Dicklyon is, but your little edit war on Photo editing is really becoming annoying (that's not even going into how many times the three-revert rule has been broken). A number of editors are trying to come to some kind of compromise regarding the section on Photoshopping, but your constant reverts are getting in the way. Now, I'm not saying your contributions are wrong, but you have yet to give solid reasons for the mass content removals you keep doing. Please, discuss your edits and allow some kind of consensus to be made. Heck, bring in a mediator if you must. Constantly reverting edits does nothing for an article. I would think a person who constantly throws Wikipedia policy links around would know that best. --clpo13 06:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My problem isn't with Dickylon, my problem is, just as I have mentioned in the edit comments and on talk, that rather trivial mentions of amateur neologisms backed up by unreliable sources should not be given undue weight on an article about a serious topic, especially when there is already other articles more than adequately covering those specific topics. I don't particularly care if you think my reverts are "getting in the way", and it's sheer nonsense anyway as I have continually made compromises, just more in line with policy and not just throwing bones to the Dickylon character that STILL end up as an end result violating several Wikipedia policies. If you want to talk about reverts being bad for the article, it's Dickylon who has repeatedly ignored discussion of the problems with his version on the talk page and continually forced it back in over and over. And if you ought to go reread the 3RR policy if you are under the misguided belief that I violated it. And if you think I have "yet to give solid reasons" you just haven't been paying attention. Constantly reverting BAD edits DOES plenty for an article: it gets rid of bad edits. And anyone with any sense would know that. Thanks to my not rolling over dead when Dickylon over and over ignored everything and insisting that it not be ignored, the vast majority of his crap has already been taken out, so I have accomplished far more than anyone else there just to get it going. It still needs a fair bit more, and that's what I intend to do. Oh, and if you must make nonsensical accusations about my edits and false claims about not giving reasons, etc., please keep it off my talk page. I have enough clueless people making false accusations there as it is, I don't need any more of it. If you do post any more such nonsense on my talk page I will nust move it here again or delete it completely. DreamGuy 07:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have every right to put comments on your talk page. If you think it's taking up space, you probably shouldn't have a talk page in the first place. I honestly don't know what your problem is, but apparently, discussing calmly and rationally isn't one of your strong points. I'm trying to be civil here, but you're making it rather difficult. WP:OWN swings both ways. The consensus now seems to be a compromise which includes parts of the section you keep deleting. Image editing is the more serious article. Photo editing includes cultural references (like memes), which photoshopping is. The article on Photoshop contests is about something entirely different. But really, the finer points of the article should be discussed there. I'm just letting you know that a little assumption of good faith might do you some good. That includes not deleting my legitimate comments.
Anyways, just to clarify: my problem is with your method of handling the article, not what you put in (or take out). By constantly reverting Dicklyon's edits, you are indeed edit warring. It doesn't matter who's wrong or right. There are better ways to handle a content dispute than rolling back edits which you find unconstructive. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but if there's a dispute, it's best settled by discussion, not strong-arm enforcement of what you see as right. I'm sorry if you felt that I accused you in my original comment. I'm just trying to come to some kind of compromise on Photo editing that everyone can live with, since you and Dicklyon appear to have irreconcilable differences. But it's hard when my edits are reverted, especially when other editors agree that they're closer to a compromise than yours. --clpo13 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

I'm sorry that you feel your complaint was ignored or dismissed. My point was not that DreamGuy was behaving well. My point was that once you started the conversation in 'attack mode' it became a case of WP:KETTLE and, in some sense, you lost your right to complain about any subsequent behavior.

Perhaps even more importantly, 'refusing to read' someone's comments is not a blockable (administrator required) action. DreamGuy may, or not, have been impolite, but it did not warrant an AN/I posting. Please see WP:DR.

By saying "Ok I was wrong, and I apologized", you earned some respect.. but then translating that into some required conduct on the part of DreamGuy negated your apology. An apology is given freely and without any reciprocating requirement. If it comes with 'price attached', then it is not a true apology.

Once it was pointed out that you did not open the conversation well, and you apologized.. it would have been a much better idea to simply 'drop' the AN/I, as no admin involvement was really needed. By pursuing a weak case, and insisting that DreamGuy change, you received criticism and no support.

I believe it is for these reasons that you received the treatment on ANI that you got. Peace.Lsi john 14:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

68.89.170.59

The IP ypu just warned was already blocked. See WP:ANI#Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83 for some more info, if you're interested. Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was just messing around on the Prince Charles page and noticed some vandalism by an IP that hadn't been warned. Didn't think to check the block logs since the talk page was empty. --clpo13 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a bunch of admins are watching for this person and smacking without prejudice (or warning). Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling issues

I was about to revert my British -> US spelling amendments, back to the UK variant. Can't find them. Have you done this for me?--User59 08:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already did that. Sorry, I should have made that clearer in my comment on your talk page. --clpo13 08:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

British spellings

I see you have made those changes.

I apologise (as you can see).--User59 08:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not offend

Thanks for your message. You did not offend me.

BTW, do not rely on those UK (or Australian) spell checkers, which are generally compiled in the US. They'll throw up "program" because we watch a television programme, but in British English we program computers.

Then there's grammar. "A thru Z" is better in the UK English than "A through Z" because our grammar dictates "from A through to Z."

In Australia, manual work is Labour, but Australia's largest political party is the Labor Party. If you get the time, and you may need to check this is true, how does it sound to you in North America when Australians refer to their main right wing party, by its formal name, The Liberal Party?

Australians tell me outside Australia they call it the conservative party. Outside NW Europe, the UK and North America, liberal means right wing (as it does in France).--User59 09:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)