User talk:South Philly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

South Philly is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:South Philly/Archive

[edit] Gone for a while

Busy in real life. Email me if you want me to answer. South Philly 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia Meetup 3

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

[edit] Help requested

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

Hello South Philly. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —Xhantar^Talk 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

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)

I am appreciative as well. Thank you for the barnstar! --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

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

[edit] Barnstar Thanks

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

[edit] Just because

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

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

[edit] Evrik

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)

I'm not familiar with the dispute in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik, but I've removed your wikilink to histrionics, which redirects to histrionic personality disorder. If you weren't aware of the redirect, you may want to clarify that, since attempting to pin a psychological diagnosis on someone is a particularly ugly form of personal attack. —Cel ithemis 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Awards

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]]

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)

I'll look. --South Philly 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

[edit] Confused

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)

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)

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:

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.
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)

[edit] Comments

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

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] Woops.

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)

You are not good for wikipedia. --South Philly 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yea

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

Good luck. --South Philly 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiprojects have no special authority

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)

Please don't curse on my page. It is not civil. --South Philly 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --South Philly 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards/Dev920/ANI

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)

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)

Stop editing then, instead of leaving messages threatening to do so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

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)

[edit] Attack

I was extremely surprised to see you make this comment [1]. 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)

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

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

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)

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)

I have not blamed anyone. I have a problem with the process. --South Philly 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/u/User_talk%7ESouth_Philly_d25e.html"