User talk:Philwelch

File:Philwelch.jpg

I'm going to reinstate an old practice and keep a self-portrait at the top of my user page, so that anything you say here, you have to say to my face.

Limerick

I believe I asked you some time ago for a limerick in return for my FA Jake Gyllenhaal? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on that this afternoon or tonight. Philwelch 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very violent, I must say. But thankyou. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Observation

There was a yong fella name Phill,

With a light bulb tried for a thrill,

To make it look worse,

I wrote up this verse,

And now it's all going downhill.

That's the trouble with the Limerick. Everybody thinks they can do it. See this. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

File:040307 1757a.jpg

Jesus loves you!

— Deckill er 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username: =

I note with interest your experience an editor today. It was very similar to mine. I believe he has contravened WP:NPA on several occassion. With yourself, that makes two editors - at least. I think your comment pretty well summed it up. Regards, Fred 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Freemasons

Please at least google for a possible citation before you delete entries. MSJapan 00:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least google for a possible citation before you add entries. Philwelch 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the entry in the first place, and I don't appreciate the condescension. We are supposed to be collaborating on these articles - that doesn't mean X puts it in, and Y doesn't like it and takes it out without checking, especially on a historical figure claimed as a Grand Master (which he was). We're all adults here, so I'm going to be blunt: if you can't edit constructively and put a modicum of effort into the edits you do make, then don't edit. If it takes a minute to check something, then take the minute to do it, or don't touch it at all. Clearly, not everybody reads guidelines on citation before they add stuff, so it's up to us to pick up after them to a certain extent, or we're going to lose perfectly good entries. MSJapan 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't condescending to you, I was correcting your misinterpretation of attribution policies. The onus isn't on me to look for citations before I delete something, it's on whoever adds a factual claim to an article. Philwelch 04:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

*giggling* -- "vitally important" -- thanks for the laugh :) Joie de Vivre 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wig

Are you wearing a wig in your picture or what?

That does not look like your real hair. The Slowphase 07:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my real hair. Philwelch 22:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Whole Foods edits and John Mackey edits

You've reverted my edits twice. Improve the edits with the basic content if you don't feel that direct quotes are the way to go. You are not discussing the issue on the talk page, or improving the edits. You're not even giving suggestions on what you feel would make it better.

Okay, you think that direct quotes are not the way to go, so improve the article or discuss it on the talk page.

Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.194.253 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72.208.194.253 does have a valid point about using the talk page, but one can't overlook the fact that he/she isn't using it either, something I've noted on the IP user talk page. I'd hate to see this degenerate into a 3RR problem. Just a friendly reminder. —Travis ^talk 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guidelines suggest either article or user talk page. I am following wiki guidelines as I've read them. I have nothing to add to the user talk page because I don't know what Philwelch is looking for in a change. I have no information to go on, and feel it is the responsibility of Phil to at least give suggestions as to what it should look like, and a reasonable solution would be for him to rewrite it within what he feels make sense, and then we can edit it from there. 72.208.194.253 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, once questioned, it is the responsibility of the editor adding the information to justify its suitability for inclusion in the article. Philwelch's edit summaries ("Wikipedia is not a source repository, and I'm not sure of the copyright situation with these posts" and "rv--Wikipedia is not a primary source repository") clearly state his concerns. Since you disagree with his reasons for reverting, you should dispute them on the articles' talk pages. Replacing the material without an explanation can only lead to conflict. Thanks. —Travis ^talk 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me a link to a Wikipedia policy that states that Wikipedia is not a source repository, and what the criteria for meeting that is. I searched when he completed his first revert, and found nothing so continued. Thanks. 72.208.194.253 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can come up with is WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not a directory, but Phil may have something else in mind. —Travis ^talk 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that, and did not feel that it fit, nor would be a cause to blank out an entire section. 72.208.194.253 02:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikipedia's policies are pretty clear—primary source information isn't included (and "What Wikipedia Is Not" covers that): "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording.". Also, the forum posts are probably still under copyright of John Mackey, so the revisions that added them in should probably be even deleted by an admin, and the anon blocked if he adds it back again. (We're fairly strict about copyright compliance here.) Philwelch 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix talk page re-factored

I just cleaned up the Talk:The Matrix page. Specifically I added a warning template with your message about the linkspamming that the article has been victim to. Check if that is ok with you and maybe archive your old message. I think the warning box helps remind people in at least a more visually noticable way than just a basic message, the only issue is that I also added the skiptotoc box, which jumps just below that message. - Optigan13 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]