User talk:Clarka

Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! Happy wiki-ing!

I fixed the spelling errors, I believe you'll be pleasedNostrum 09:36, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Which spelling errors? Please be more specific. Thanks. clarka 24 Aug 2003

Oh, right, now I remember. Thank you. And welcome to Wikipedia. I try to dodge the politics myself and just write good material. clarka 24 Aug 2003

Hi, I noticed on one of the talk pages that you had a problem with an admin on E2. Do you happen to remember which one it was? I'm still active on that site, and I'm curious as to who would leave such an inappropriate deletion message. Myrkabah

First aid

Thanks for taking it upon yourself to rectify the first aid situation and (I expect) bringing some real expertise to bear. I helped your effort along a little bit, but please don't preserve the layout I created. -Smack 06:10, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you're still interested, I've made some fairly major changes to the First Aid Wikibook, but it still needs lots of content. Feel free to add & I hope you like the new navigation thingys! Mike.lifeguard 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meta-article

What is a meta-article?

My personal definition of a meta-article is an article that presently exists as a pile of links to a number of interrelated smaller articles, and will someday need to be fleshed out. If knowledge is like a tree, Wikipedia has a lot of 'leaves' and not very many 'branches.' A meta-article is a branch brought into existence to link together a bunch of individual leaves. Who are you? clarka 12.27.2005

Satanic Ritual Abuse

I have invited DreamGuy here to discuss the blatant lack of NPOV of Satanic Ritual Abuse, which he feels is NPOV sufficiently strongly to have removed my ((NPOV)) tag from the top. Let's see if he does it twice, or decides instead to be civil. clarka 12.27.2005 1500

I've decided to nominate SRA for review. It's broken and needs fixing. I'm not going to touch the article or its talk page for at least a week. Let's see what happens. clarka 12.27.2005 1500

Do you see what happens? The same people shout witch-hunt/conspiracy whenever it does or doesn't suit them. The "conspiracy" is the strawman they put up to beat it down, and the rest is discrediting or disbelieving plus a few non sequiturs (if one trial in court was overthrown later, it proves that all cases were false - if in several cases people where convicted and that is still upheld by the judicial system, this proves nothing). Believing in the overall idea of Wikipedia I have invited the two to come to my userpage if they'd like to find a wording which suits their "scepticism" (or "true disbeliever") POV but also aknowledges that there are books, articles, witnesses and websites to the contrary - even if those, on the background of the earlier US hysteria, should be taken with a grain of salt. Do you think, from the talk page and the edit history, that a consensus with this people is possible? I'd like to see your comment on that - perhaps on my user-page as well, if that suits you. Gwyndon 00:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Corrections

The article Corrections has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article offers little information on a subject that is well covered in other articles such as Prison, Penology, Recidivism, Rehabilitation (penology), etc.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeffJ (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Corrections for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Corrections 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corrections 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. JeffJ (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I Just noticed your comments from a few months ago (I rarely log-in either, I did to make a donation though). Thanks for the input on the ER article. That is now over 10 years old and it appears that I started it (at least I was the oldest edit). Thanks for the feedback and everything else you do. Cheers, Tres (2013-12-04 @ 02:02 MST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tres (talk • contribs) 09:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]