User talk:South Philly/Archive

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

Philadelphia Meetup 3

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

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. —Xhantar^Talk 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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]

• 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. —Celithemis 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Moving the LGBT Barnstar
• Changes to The Editor's Barnstar
• New_Proposals - Neuroscience_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) Barnstar]]

• Changes to The Editor's Barnstar
• New_Proposals - Neuroscience_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]

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

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

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]

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

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

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]

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

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)[reply]

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

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]