User talk:Spikebrennan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Philadelphia Project
Hi i have noticed that you have edited several articles on subjects related to the Philadelphia area. Several other users and myself have got together to creak a project to help improve, expand, and create articles concerning the Philadelphia/Delaware Valley region. While our project is still new, we are inviting people to join us to help it get started off on the right foot. You can find the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia, feel free to add your name and drop off an suggestions that you might have. If you have any questions, drop me a line anytime. Thanks. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on Richardson Dilworth. I'll check into Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia. This is my first dip into Wikipedia in quite awhile and I don't much know what I'm doing, so I'll have to feel my way. I grew up and lived in the Powelton Village area for many years, where my mother had been quite active in the community. I've also been researching a murder that took place there in 1900 which I've been half-heartedly turning into a novel. In the meantime I've updated a few areas such as MOVE and Frank Rizzo. I was thinking of adding just a bit on Ira Einhorn, but is he really worth it? Dsbd 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good catch on the Amoroso name...my bad on that one.--Looper5920 15:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I believe dominant is the right word for this one. If you go to the Links section of their website and see who they distribute to it is safe to consider them tops. If you want to change it maybe "preeminent" might be a better word? My opinion--Looper5920 15:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Main Line category
Like the new category but I would caution against putting entire counties in there. For example, while some of DelCo is considered the main line you would never consider darby and yeadon as Main Line townships. My personal opinion is that it might be better to stick with towns vice counties.--Looper5920 10:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FYI - I put prod on List of words and phrases alleged to be derived from misunderstandings
IMHO it's not really the right kind of material for a wikipedia article - basically being unverifable. Please discuss at the article (and provide sources) if you feel different. Cheers. Megapixie 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beaver
What the dickens is it about Beaver that makes it so popular with the vandals (beside the obvious)? Bridesmill 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do doubt the veracity of the citations (re. beaver + pope = fish). I'm certain they're genuine, but 'beavers were once considered fish by the Catholic Church' is (I suspect) an urban legend with a substantial spread. In other words, they're fallible.
None of the sources cited were experts on Catholicism or the period in question. The closest it came was a page on Catholic practices (which, if it ever contained anything about beaver counting as fish, doesn't any more) and an article by a Swedish natural scientist (as a Protestant during the Enlightenment, someone with a lot of irreconcilable baggage against and not necessarily the best source on the practices of the Church).
It stinks of an urban legend to me, and I'm of the school that if you can't prove something asserting it is ridiculous, especially if it's fairly ridiculous on its face to begin with. ACK-47 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding Articles to the WP:AFD
Thank you for taking the time to add an article to the WP:AFD. Please review these steps in order for the community to properly review an article for deletion. I formatted your request properly, but you will know for the future. Thanks! --Porqin 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Empty articles
Hello,
Please to to avoid adding empty articles to Wikipedia, as they provide no meaningful content. 13:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the Compliment
I just wished to thank you for the kind compliment on Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania#Separate Sports article. Please feel free to improve Sports in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the sports section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or any other part of that article. -- danntm T C 01:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wanamaker organ
Hello--I noticed you were putting the wanamaker organ up as a FAC. Are you really serious about this? I would be thrilled to see it on the front page because I've put alot of work into it, my father being the manager of the Friends of the Wanamaker Organ, but I don't think it's up to par. Do you have any suggestions as to how to proceed in improving it? AdamBiswanger1 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you are right. I just feel that it's a bit too short and it doesn't have enough references (something I was going to fix with the wealth of books under my father's control). Other than that, though, you are right. It's very good . AdamBiswanger1 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Philadelphia vote
I don't understand your "rule is a rule" reasoning for opposing the move. Like Kafziel pointed out earlier, "consensus dictates convention, not the other way around". The only reason New York City and Chicago are listed as exceptions is because editors on their respective pages voted to make them exceptions. To use the fact that this city is not yet explicitly listed as an exception as a reason to oppose making it an exception is nonsensical. --Serge 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You wrote, "If what you really want to do is change the general U.S. city naming convention, then I would urge you to resume the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006)". Do you not understand what Kafziel means when he writes, "Consensus dictates convention, not the other way around"? The written conventions simply reflect what the conventions are; they do not determine what they are. They are not rules. And that's not where they are changed. They are changed at the individual article level, and then the written reflection of what the conventions are are updated accordingly (like Chicago was added to the exception list after editors decided it would be an exception not on the naming convention page, but on the individual article's page. I think you're not understanding the feedback mechanism that must be in place here. Yes, the convention guidelines provide guidance in those situations where guidance is being sought - the only way conventions could ever change is through the mechanism we're using here, at the article level. Therefore it makes no sense to cite the rule as the reason to oppose a given case being an exception to that rule. You say your concern is a slippery slope leading to a lack of coherent policy. I think you're confusing the process of policy evolution with policy elimination. Please read all the comments and discussion and reconsider your vote, and decide on the individual merits of whether Philadelphia should be an exception or not (and, if not, please specify the reason(s) you believe it specifically should not be an exception). Thanks. --Serge 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Good and productive discussion. Thanks. Users like you make Wikipedia work. --Serge 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had others initially disagree with me on this issue and then some weeks later let me know they've seen the light... You seem objective and rational enough to come around too. We'll see... I'll leave you with this to think about: the main point is we already have a convention that is shared by all Wikipedia articles, including most city articles in other countries - use the most common name unless there is an ambiguity issue (and use the disambiguation convention in those cases, and in those cases only). There is no reason to have an inconsistent guideline that calls for applying a disambiguation format on an article name that has no ambiguity issues, which is easily determined by whether the common name redirects to the article anyway (e.g., Philadelphia -> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). If there is such a reason, what is it? And why is it not expressed in the discussion section of the voting on Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania? --Serge 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] L.A. vote
Since you recently voted on the Philadelphia move, I thought you might want to know about a similar vote at Los Angeles. See Talk:Los Angeles, California. --Serge 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Cloud-gate-from-underneath.JPG
[edit] Philly meetup
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 CComMack's. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FP Promotion
 |
|
--Fir0002 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Spike,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Abraham Lincoln head on shoulders photo portrait.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 4, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-04. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the review
I know you wrote the comments over a month ago, but thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Sculpture. They were much apprechiated. --Whats new? 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
