User talk:South Philly/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many thanks for the barnstar[edit]

I'm delighted to know that my efforts are appreciated.--Runcorn 07:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis stamp[edit]

Please take some time to read the fair use policy. Fair use cannot credibly claimed for copyrighted material outside the main namespace, that is why the Elvis stamp that you restored on someone's userpage must go again. Unfortunately Young Frankenstein on your userpage must goo, too. Sorry. Dr Zak 02:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed the image. --South Philly 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Dr Zak mentioned, Wikipedia's policy is that fair-use images may not be used on user pages; unfortunately, that includes the Frankenstein image on your user page. I took the liberty of removing it for you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five-pointed star and pentagram[edit]

Please supply a citation for your assertion that a five-pointed star is a pentagram. If you go to a dictionary (such as at [1]) you should see a pentagram pretty clearly defined as being composed of five crossing lines, which create an internal pentagon. I have put in a request for deletion for the Five-pointed star redirect, since clearly, not all 5-point stars are pentagrams. See Talk:Pentagram for more info. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the Pocket Oxford Dictionary 1978: "a 5-pointed star formed by producing sides of pentagon both ways until they meet, formerly used as a mystic symbol" and Merriam-Webster Online: "a figure of a 5-pointed star usually made with alternate points connected by a continuous line and used as a magic or occult symbol; also : a similar 6-pointed star (as a Solomon's seal)". We've already seen that Princeton University's WordNet gives "a star with 5 points; formed by 5 straight lines between the vertices of a pentagon and enclosing another pentagon".
I'm at work at the moment and don't have access to the full OED, but together these seem more authoritative than Wiktionary and Encarta (it looks like the Wiktionary entry might have been based on Encarta, but I've now corrected it). Fuzzypeg☻ 06:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages[edit]

May I ask why you are creating a user page for user who left Wikipedia and requested that his user page be deleted? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ask Away. South Philly 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not an appropriate answer. Why are you repeatedly creating a user page for a user who left Wikipedia and requested that his user page be deleted? Please do not recreate it. Editing another's user page in this manner, especially in the face of explicit wishes to the contrary, is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You said, "That is not an appropriate answer."I answered the question posed to me. It was appropriate. As for your second harangue ... The user that left had a lot of edits. There should be some place holder that shows people that the person is gone. Unless you can cite a wikipolicy that says what I did was wrong, I would like you to leave me alone. South Philly 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you have declared that you are a native speaker of English, I assumed you were familiar with that construction. They "May I ask...?" construction is not intended to be taken literally; it is not asking permission to ask the question. Rather, it is a more polite way of asking the question. I will gladly leave you alone if you stop editing his user page. For the relevant policy, please see Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, especially "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." Creating a user page for a user who does not have one is almost always inappropriate, as it is not an easily revertable action unless the user is an administrator and can delete the page. A glance at the deletion log will further reveal that User:Jtkiefer requested deletion of his user page, so to create a page for him when he specifically did not want one is even worse, and why I deleted your edits. I hope this makes sense; please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your fool question was answered with a fool answer. Don't be naive. I went to the page you cited, and read the sentence that said, "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." What you fail to mention is that the whole paragraph is preferenced by a sentence that reads, "However, pages in user space still do belong to the community"
Farther on it also reads, "User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them.'""
The user has left wikipedia, and no one owns the page. I'm going back and placing the {{User EX-WP}} template at User talk:Jtkiefer --South Philly 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians[edit]

I deleted your CfD notice; this page is not a category. If you wish to discuss a move, it should be done on Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians. Thanks. Grandmasterka 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Users not currently active, which you created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. I understand why you created the redirect (the category template expects a main article with the same title). However, redirects should not cross namespaces (that is, a redirect in the "main"/article namespace should not have a target in the "Wikipedia:" namespace). I updated the information in your cateogory. If you have any questions, please let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

As I mentioned above, fair-use images are not to be used in user space. Please do not re-add the image back, or place any other fair-use images in user space. If you continue, you may be blocked. If you have questions or do not understand, please ask me rather than restoring the image. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I will take your grievances seriously whether you express them with hostility or politeness. I am unaware that I ever expressed an opinion on the use of {{User EX-WP}}, though I prefer not to use userboxes in general; if I was wrong about its use, I apologize. Yes, I reverted your page again, for reasons I explained on your talk page, and with which I believe you agree. I was not aware my enforcement was selective; if you know of an instance where I was aware of a fair-use violation but failed to object to the user or remove the image, I'd appreciate you sharing it with me. Thank you, yes, I quite enjoy my work on Wikipedia, both in being able to contribute to this body of knowledge, and also do help maintain the administrative side when I can. Wikipedia's policy is quite clear on fair-use images. I'm sorry that my removal of the image upset you so much. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have temporarily blocked you from editing Wikipedia due to your repeatedly placing fair-use images on your user page. Making a derivative of a fair-use image does not give you the rights to release it under a less restrictive license. As I mentioned before, if you have any questions about fair use and copyrights, please ask me (or another user) before placing these sorts of images on your user page. Let me know if I can help, or if any of this doesn't make sense. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop being a WP:Dick. Most art is derivative. Please show me where it says that a piece of self-made art that is derivative of another work can't be released under a less restictive license by the creator. If you can, great. If not, I want an apology and I want to leave me a lone or I will file an RFA.

By the way, you said, "The reason given for South Philly's block is: "repeatedly posting fair-use images in user space, despite 3 requests." Could you please site the three times you asked me not to post my piece of derivative art?


--South Philly 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think taking a screenshot and using a Photoshop-style transformation will grant you rights over the image that the original license did not. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works for some information. If you dispute the applicability of this, I would be happy to seek feedback from other users. The instances to which I was referring are as folllows: [2], [3], and [4]. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, derivative works are subject the same licensing as the original work unless the original copyright holder specifically licenses differently for use in a derivative work. --pgk(talk) 09:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you plese show me the exact line in the policies that says this, because I read the cited guidlelines and did not see this. It seems like both of you are making leaps in judgement. In any case, the block was unjustified (it was petulant and retalitory). I would like the exact citation of the policy that says derivative artwork is not permitted on the user space and I want an apology for an unjustified block. --South Philly 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we are. Wikipedia's policies are written out as guidelines, not with legal precision. One may be able to find loopholes and such, but rather than increase the complexity of the rules, it is preferred that the spirit of the rules be conveyed, and that administrators use their judgment in making decisions and enforcing rules. What matters in this case is that the copyright holders' rights are respected and that Wikipedia is protected. Incidentally, there are no problems with derivative works per se; fair use is what is problematic. Please ask me or another user if you have any questions; do not add it or any other fair-use images to your user space. I'm not sure why you think the block is unjustified; I explained the justification for the block both in the blocking comment and in my comments to you. Nor do I see why you think it is petulant or retaliatory. The primary definition of petulant is "insolent or rude in speech or behavior"; I suppose blocking a user could be considered inherently rude, but I otherwise don't really feel this applies. Retaliatory makes even less sense to me; what do you suppose I would be exacting revenge for? In any case, the block has now expired, and you are free to resume editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No where in the guidelines does it say you can block me for posting my choice derivative work to my userpage. Because of your failure to apologize, not today, but when i get a chance, I will post and RFC to protest your abusive behavior. South Philly 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually spelled out rather explicitly in the blocking policy. I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with my handling of the situation. You are certainly welcome to file a request for comment; as always, I invite feedback on my behavior. I'm also willing to help you properly construct the RFC (or a request for arbitration, which is what you suggested earlier)—many users run into trouble for posting malformed RFCs. Let me know if you need any help, or if you don't understand the difference between an RFC and an RFAr. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assistance[edit]

Mmm, I don't recall doing anything with the Scouting project, but that could just be forgetfulness on my part. Is there something specific you need help with? You should be able to just copy the contents over to your page and then remove any links that don't apply to your project, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the Scouting project, assessment, and portal. I copied and then altered a lot of the MIlHIST project code. Let me know if you need help. Kirill helped me some on the portal. Rlevse 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears this was an honest mistake while you're setting up your project/portal/assessment. If so, no problem. Rlevse 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider it a 'good deed' if you could review the work I did in creating our assessment. --South Philly 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what do you want reviewed? The assessment page, cat set up, or what? Not sure what you're looking for. Go Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index and you see the bot ran. You can also look at listings of your pages and such, pretty cool. Rlevse 01:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked over your categories and assessment page, and project page. They look fine. It may take awhile, but it'd be worth the time to finish rating your articles. I just created "past picture" and "past biography" categories and tag parameters for our Scouting project. Rlevse 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

This was a good idea.

I award this Liberty Star to South Philly for his great efforts in setting up the Wikiproject Philly Assessment. --evrik 20:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to you for helping to shepard a lot o the work. --South Philly 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal[edit]

Hi. Please refrain from spamming the Philadelphia portal template on articles that are only tangentially related to the city. While it's acceptable to use on articles relating directly to the city, putting it on articles like Pretzel, Hoagie, and Stromboli is taking things too far. Thanks. - EurekaLott 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have responded to your post on the apprpriate talk pages. --South Philly 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at WP:SFD[edit]

Any insight to offer on this edit? If you were looking to add a "vote"/comment/argument to the effect that this stub type should be kept, this would not be the right way of doing it. Alai 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed, that one. This should be pretty basic stuff: don't make changes to deletion nominations under other people's signatures, add your own, separate comment, under your own signature. Doing so could be interpreted as vandalism or "forgery" of the other person's edit. Alai 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ummm, forgery? What are you smoking? One thing I dislike about wikipedai is how some random ediotr can nominate something to be deleted and then everyone has to go to 'red alert' to keep something stupide from happening. The stub is useful. Keep it, and leave me alone. --South Philly 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your thoughts on that are noted, as is your gratuitous incivility. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, "Changing people's comments". Stop doing it, or you'll be blocked. Is that sufficiently clear? Alai 02:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be a WP:DICK. For the record, I have changed no one's comments. I did change the way the stub was listed in the chart. No one in Pennsylvania, that I know of, was notified about the impending deletion, so in fact I was making the change to note that people from PA want the template. I hadn't stumbled across it, it might have gone unnoticed. Civily yours. --South Philly 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • From said WP:DICK, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." The "table" you changed is part of a signed comment, made in the deletion nomination. Changing the table is mis-representing what the person whose signature follows that comment said and intended, and materially changes what's being nominated. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. Please don't presume to speak for "people from PA": speak for yourself, do it under your own name, and inform anyone else you feel needs to know about the nomination (in some suitable central location), and let them speak for themselves, too. Under no circumstances speak for the nominator, under their signature.
        • Your objections to the nomination are really neither here nor there as regards justifying these actions, but for the aforementioned record: the category and the template were correctly tagged with the deletion nomination; informing the Pennsylania wikiproject may have been desirable (though certainly not required), but note there was no indication on the stub category that such an entity even existed, or was associated with the wikiproject, so the nominator can hardly be faulted any great amount on that account. If people are regularly using the stub type, they're highly likely to see the notices, so I really don't see that anyone is being disadvantaged by some alleged failure of notification procedure. Alai 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Hi, I'll be taking the case. I'm going to notify the other editors who you've listed on the Mediation Cabal case. SynergeticMaggot 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the star, I appreciate it. Medvedenko 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churches[edit]

South Philly, Thanks for your encouragement. Yes, I think I'll eventually join the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia. I also plan on continuing to add pages on specific churches. Although an overview article on all churches in Philadelphia is more than I can take on right now, I would not be opposed to writing on in the not to distant future. I think my research of particular building & congregations will lead me to the information that would be appropriate for a general article. Waarmstr 12:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odhiambo Siangla[edit]

Hi. You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odhiambo Siangla. Nesbit 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal[edit]

  • Did you see you were listed as a coordinator for the Philly portal?
Wikipedia:Portal/Directory#Geography

--evrik 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odhiambo Siangla[edit]

Hi, I'm finding it difficult to verify many of the claims on the page. If you could add some references, that'd be a big help. Dlyons493 Talk 02:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What I See on Odhiambo Siangla[edit]

Sankofa Publishing Company is available online. All the debaters had to do is consult the publisher.

How could the claims that needed verification be that many in the Odhiambo Siangla article when NONE of the debaters could give even ONE SPECIFIC claim that seemed hard to believe? The WP editors are often ready to improve articles. But some debaters are ready to delete with vague explanations.

Verification is proving something to be true, confirming it or giving evidence. But it has to be at least something, one thing at a time. That is how articles improve in WP:BIO.

We can only doubt many things if some of the many things doubted are particularly stated. How could writers improve articles, for example, when debaters about the entries assert not knowing what they did not know to be improved?

The ideology and practice of exclusion that have infected the debate over the Odhiambo Siangla article were certainly inconsistent with the well known and stated WP:BIO criteria.

I talk here now as a subject about whose e-mail has always been readily available. Those who have written or read articles about me, and where personal information is concerned, could easily engage me in an exchange of evidence or correction of any inconsistency in the articles. Thank you for your support on the article written about me that is now userfied. Siangla 19:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Would you please comment?

--evrik 15:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pennsylvania[edit]

There are four articles being threatened by a merge proposal. The details are listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pennsylvania#Announcements. Would you mind weighing in (hopefully in support) of keeping the articles. --evrik 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philly meetup[edit]

Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask my talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Meetup 3[edit]

FYI ... Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --evrik (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested[edit]

How do I protect my page from vandalism during extended periods of absence? --South Philly 13:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Hello South Philly. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —XhantarTalk 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![edit]

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thanks a lot for the unexpected barnstar! This really brightened my day, I appreciate it. :) I hope you have a day as great as mine. - Anas Talk? 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am appreciative as well. Thank you for the barnstar! --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Thanks ... I think ... --evrik (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your kind gesture, I greatly appreciate it :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because[edit]

For your hard work with barnstars South Philly 14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Cat out 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik[edit]

Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Awards[edit]

There are three proposals which need some comments. Please weigh in:

Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik (talk) Barnstar]]

Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik (talk)

  • Once again, someone disagrees with my interpretation of our very loose guidelines. Now I don't mind when two users like WJBscribe and Kathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na, but they've taken the disagreement and posted negative comments over at that RFC.
So ... could you please weigh in one last time ... new barnstar or a wikiproject award Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#The_Copyeditor.27s_Award. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3[edit]

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

Confused[edit]

I'm confused- for what post are you apologising? I don't remember ever interacting with you on Wikipedia before you posted to my talkpage a moment ago... WjBscribe 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't. This isn't an area of the encyclopedia I involve myself in much. I only noticed the discussions there because of the proposal to change the text of the "Editor's Barnstar", which concerned me because it would have changed it considerably from the purpose that Guanaco had created it for (and he is of course no longer around to comment). I was then asked to comment on the Copyeditor proposal by Kathryn NicDhàna. Which struck me as a good idea for recognising some of the more Wikignomish activities that often go unrecognised on Wikipedia.
Having now read your post I must say that I would have responded strongly had I not first received you apology. But to clarify, my comment on Evrik's RfC had no connection to my discussion with Kathryn. Evrik's behaviour as highlighted in that RfC concerns me, you will note that a member of ArbCom has also endorsed the complaint. I would like to point out that I endorsed Evrik's RfC the day before Kathryn posted on my talkpage and therefore before I knew of the Copyeditor award proposal.
Finally if you feel anything I said in response to Kathryn's question on my talkpage was incorrect please let me know. My comment about Evrik there may well have been influenced by my having read the RfC the previous night. Whether in good faith or not, his actions as regards this proposal do strike me as heavy handed. Yours, WjBscribe 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I wish to try and avoid getting bogged down in this dispute and in any event will be largely away from Wikipedia for the next few days. Given the proposals I see you have made in relation to the Awards process I would like to suggest the following:
  1. If any person is given particular responsibilities on Wikipedia and this is usually for ensuring that an element of process runs smoothly, it is essential that such persons are chosen through concensus. If it is not at present the policy of the Awards Wikiproject to elect coordinators etc. it should be.
  2. Where someone exercises authority over other Wikipedians by virtue of being responsible for administering some element of process (something that in my opinion should be avoid as much as possible), it is essential that they do so openly and kindly. In this context I would recommend that where a proposal is archieved without being adopted, the reasons for this should be explained fully by the archiver at the top of the discussion and a kind note be left on the talkpage of the proposer, including an explanation of how this decision may be challenged.
I think you are quite right to seek codification of the criteria by which barnstars and other awards are chosen and that should ensure peoplen understand the process and see that they are being dealt with fairly. I hope you will invite comment from the Village Pump on the specifics of such a criteria so that any decision reflects the concensus of the Wikipedia community generally. WjBscribe 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuglas (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 March 2007

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the head's up. --evrik (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops.[edit]

You mean did I intend to make it easier to add one's name and to remove evrik from his self-appointed position as coordinator? Sorry, yes I did, I will move it back. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea[edit]

haha i guess wikipedia is just frustraing me more than its worth. - taking too much time aswell cya - thuglasT|C 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects have no special authority[edit]

entitled to vote

The above is complete and utter bollocks - EVERY Wikipedian has the right to have a say - do not be confused about this, wikiprojects are co-ordination tools, they do NOT get to opt out of basic policies, they do not get to opt out of core values of the project and you have NO authority to decide who gets a say - especially in light of the fact that at least 5 editors have stated that we are not have an exclusive vote - you have no right to implement what you like over the top of the community. --Fredrick day 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't curse on my page. It is not civil. --South Philly 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, about WikiProject Awards...[edit]

Hey South Philly.

I just want to say I get just as frustrated as you appear to about the current situation here. I want this project to work, because I think that, working properly, it could be an asset to the community. I know your pretty POed about thulgas leaving, thats a quite a large blow to this project and wikipedia as a whole, but please don't post stuff like

Dev920 drove away thuglas from wikipedia. --South Philly 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously man, I know you don't like dev920, and with obvious reasons on your part, but this really isn't cool at all. I neither like nor dislike Dev920's treatment of this situation, so don't take my actions the wrong way, I just want the project to work. I really am not trying to get at you here, but please don't post stuff like that, it doesn't help us at all and just widens the gap between what seems to be two different groups forming. Smomo 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get totally what you're saying, and I understand your anger and frustration. But you're right, of course, there are big changes that need to happen for this project to get back to normal order. Kudos, Smomo 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


yes it was just horrible dev920, not a like a whole stream of other editors told you the co-ordinator was a bad idea and you trying to rig the vote didn't help or throwing your toys out of the pram when the community told you that was a no-no. No it's just dev920 all on her own... --Fredrick day 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --South Philly 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards/Dev920/ANI[edit]

I'll make no comment about the situation that does or did pertain at the Project, I haven't looked closely enough at it to say. But if the situation there has to any reasonable extent "stabilised", then I don't see what purpose there is in further posting to ANI. That's what I was trying to Subtly Hint(TM) at. I'd think that waiting until the dust settles would be exactly the right thing to do at the moment. Alai 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Situations like this and editors like Dev920 are what make me less likely to edit on Wikipedia. --South Philly 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editing then, instead of leaving messages threatening to do so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints[edit]

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack[edit]

I was extremely surprised to see you make this comment [5]. It is absolutely baseless and Cabal accusations generally should be avoided on Wikipedia. Please either substantiate the allegation or withdraw it. I don't understand why you have reopened this dispute- I had been thinking of motioning for a close and having it archived... WjBscribe 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not an attack, but I am sorry if you see it as such. --South Philly 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/MichaelMaggs[edit]

Sorry you're unhappy with the Commons Admin Request closing process. It's not right to blame me for that, though. --MichaelMaggs 08:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as I and others have commented on your commons talk page. It's almost a WP:POINT sort of thing, really. Please reconsider. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not blamed anyone. I have a problem with the process. --South Philly 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik[edit]

I'm not sure what happened, but your MFD on the page messed up numerous wikilinks in the text. Please re-do it in a way that doesn't alter the page content. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MFD is not the same as Motion to Close. You want to follow the procedure for the latter, not the former. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes[edit]

I do, in fact, because both requests are spurious. >Radiant< 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I note you have removed my comments. Please do not do that, it is inappropriate to remove comments just because you disagree with them. >Radiant< 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to edit war over this, but you'll find that keeping these requests open doesn't help either. There was a real consensus, there was no arbitrary standard, there was no lack of notice, and there was no hasty closing of the AFD. FYI. >Radiant< 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am leaving it open. My point is that these deletions aren't any different from the hundreds we get on AFD every day. While it may seem to you that they are unusual, they are in fact quite standard, both in participation and arguments, as well as timespan, and notification - and hence you don't have much of a case for overturning. Imho. >Radiant< 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

I'm not sure what you meant by this, but somehow I don't think calling other editors "Idjit" is particularly WP:CIVIL. May I suggest a refresher course in WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise regarding this. Raystorm 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:South_Philly/Archive&oldid=1085578163"