User talk:Clayhalliwell

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 17:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Zim vehicles
Then by all means, put those vehicle articles up for AfD. But because crap exists elsewhere is not a valid reason to keep another article. David Fuchs ( talk ) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you just encouraged me to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Clayhalliwell (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox issue with deleted images
I saw your issue on User talk:Carnildo, and made the necessary steps to make images optional. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_Star_Control_race&diff=196162042&oldid=142247802. I used Template:Infobox River as a guide. Check Androsynth out now. --Geopgeop (T) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Citadel Station
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Citadel Station, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * it is a dab page that attempts to disambiguate between pages that do not exist, and are not likely to.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Geoff Capp (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for accuracy in making edit summary
Hallo Clayhalliwell, you recently edited an article (three-body problem) and left an edit summary that read 'punctuation'. But the edit that you made was clearly not a matter of punctuation, because it was a purely textual alteration. This message is not concerned with any question whether the textual edit was an appropriate alteration or not. An edit summary 'punctuation' for a textual alteration is clearly misleading, because it does not fairly or correctly represent the nature of the edit that was made. Good understanding amongst editors does depend on not making misleading statements. It would be appreciated if you would give appropriate edit summaries. With good wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Atari BASIC
Hi there,

I've been away a long while and had a few comments about Atari BASIC, so I was sprucing it up a bit. Just got an edit conflict as I guess you had it on your watchlist and are doing the same. Don't mind which one of us it is, but it's probably best only one of us does it. Can you say whether you're intending to do more just now, or shall I continue?

If that sounds harsh please believe me it is not intended to be, just a straight question. More than happy for you to continue.

Best wishes

S.

Request for accuracy when making an edit summary
Hello Clayhalliwell. You recently edited the article Dalek and left an edit summary that read 'typo'. The edit you made did not correct a typographic error, however, but changed the correct spelling of a word to an alternative correct spelling of the word, both versions being listed in many dictionaries. This message is not concerned with whether the edit was an appropriate alteration or not. It addresses the fact that the edit summary is clearly misleading because it does not fairly or correctly represent the nature of the edit that was made. Useful collaboration among editors is not assisted by summarising the reasons for edits with misleading statements, and it would be appreciated if in future you provided accurate edit summaries to assist other in understanding the reason why changes to an article have been made. 88.109.28.209 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)