User talk:Clpo13/Archive 8

9/11 movement
This 9-11 movement is totally crap. By putting the word, "mainstream version" on the site, it give credibility to other theories. It in an insult to do that. This is wikipedia, a big time joke since apparently EVERYTHING is newsworthy. Smartestmanonearth (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I agree. I really do. However, Wikipedia maintains a policy of neutrality, so giving space to other theories (as long as they are significant and notable) is necessary. As long as there is contention regarding what actually happened on 9/11/01, there will be a mainstream version of events and non-mainstream versions. Wikipedia isn't here to decide which is true; we simply record all of them and let the reader decide what to believe. Does talking about other theories make them more credible? Perhaps. It's something that's been debated endlessly on the talk page, and I doubt it'll be cleared up soon. However unappealing it might be, we must stick to a neutral point of view, especially on controversial articles such as this one. --clpo13(talk) 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Swami Krishnanandaa
Dear Clpo13,

Thank you for the welcome. I have never composed an article for Wikipedia before. However, I am a professional writer and feel that I could give Wikipedia useful contributions from time to time. I have used Wikipedia for research for years and have always wondered about the accuracy of the site’s articles; I am glad to see that there is a dedicated group of watchers!

I have only been working on the Swami Krishnananda article for two days; there is still much work to be done on it. I guess I should have composed the article on my computer first, then formatted it with Wikipedia’s software once I completed it. When I started writing I didn’t realize the extent of the Wiki formatting. I apologize for the inconvenience.

The article thus far should not be used an indication of what it will be once completed.

Please do not butcher the article. It seems that someone has already deleted one section from it. I would rather have the article deleted, then reformat it on Wikipedia once it is completed. Should I do this, or can I continue to write on Wiki? It shouldn’t take me much longer to complete.

Furthermore, the reason why I decided to write the article on Swami Krishnaanda is that the previous article on him consisted of about five sentences; it was what you call a “stub.” He was a great man, and he deserves a great article.

Kind regards,

jescoromas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jescoromas (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't look bad, though it certainly could use continued work. Feel free to keep editing it here on Wikipedia. I see you have already posted your intentions on the talk page, which is a good move. Keep in mind, however, that individual editors do not own articles, regardless of how much they have contributed. So, if you feel another editor's actions are harmful to the article, discuss it on the talk page and try to come to a compromise. Always assume good faith, and hopefully any conflicts will be resolved quickly. Good luck! --clpo13(talk) 00:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert
Could you please read a discussion before reverting a page? Or threatening someone, your actions were however unintended vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems there is more to that dispute than I previously thought (for once, I didn't bother to look at the talk page, oops). My apologies. I don't wish to get involved further, though be aware that constantly reverting is considered edit warring and it is a blockable offense. --clpo13(talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you saw my edit summary
You know I wasn't serious (it was just a joke). I would never risk getting myself blocked over edit warring over something like that and I'm sure you wouldn't either ;). cheers.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 00:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I'm sure everyone wants their own little section on WP:LAME. :) --clpo13(talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

copernicus
This is from the Astrology page

"In fact, astrology and astronomy were often indistinguishable before the modern era"

From the modern era page

" Modern era started after the 1500s"

I stand by my original point. 24.38.156.102 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on article talk page. --clpo13(talk) 04:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my next two replies, i checked one of the citations and its faulty and actually confirms what I said. 24.38.156.102 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ninjas!
Thank you for your compliment! (: ~ A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 04:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A note on subtlety
This is not completely correct. Read the Osaka article, look at the Chinese characters (Kanji) for the city, and you will notice that Daban is the Mandarin pinyin transliteration of Osaka's name. Though, yes, we should not be Sinicising a Japanese place, but this message is just for your information... -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  01:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Using your picture
Hi Cody!

I'm a bit new to Wikimedia, and I saw your picture of the butter clam on the site. I would really like to use that for an ocean conservation based website, but was curious if you would be ok with that, and how you want to be credited.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.225.225 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead! As for credit, if you could simply link back to my Wikipedia user page, that'd be perfect. clpo13(talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Point Zero for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Point Zero is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Point Zero until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)