User talk:Philwelch

User:Philwelch/Header

Contents

1 Notice of request for arbitration regarding AndyL 2 Minor changes to RfC 3 Re: Judy Garland 4 IP checks 5 Don't bite the newbies 6 Purple vs. violet 7 Star Wars Wiki 8 List of Star Wars stats 9 Divine

Notice of request for arbitration regarding AndyL

I've filed a request for arbitration against AndyL. For reasons described in the request, I don't believe you are a directly involved party, but you may wish to provide evidence later if the arbitration request is accepted. -- Curps 00:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes to RfC

I understand that you're a bit tired of the whole thing, and don't wish to bug you. But I made a handful of minor fixes and clarifications to it, so I feel obliged to let you know just in case there's anything that would cause you to withdraw your re-certification. The overall diff is here: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAndyL&diff=13118095&oldid=13108410); you can see the page history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AndyL&action=history) for the individual edit summaries. -- Curps 04:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Judy Garland

I have read that Judy Garland was in fact bisexual, so perhaps she is not the "prototypical example"--MDC 10:37, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

IP checks

IP checks can not be done by regular admins like myself. Need more privs to do that. Sorry! - UtherSRG 13:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies

Hi, I just noticed a recent revert you did on Free content. While this was of course justified, be careful with your edit summaries — if it looks like a curious test edit, calling it "vandalism" might offend a potential contributor. For the sort of question this person inserted, I would direct them to Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. I admit they do seem to be a little persistent. Deco 10:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Purple vs. violet

Someone has rewritten Purple vs. violet which is up on VFD. You may wish to reconsider your vote. Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki

I have noticed your contributions to Star Wars articles, and I thought you might be interested in the Star Wars Wiki (http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page) project. We could use new Star Wars contribs like yourself helping the cause. Take a look, and I hope to see you there. Cheers! --SparqMan 21:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I also hope you join based upon your SW-contributions here. (Maybe you already have and we just haven't seen you around, still we'd like for you to help.) -- Riffsyphon1024 02:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

List of Star Wars stats

I noticed that you reverted the page citing Vandalism. So tell me, what do you want me to call blanking out a page under the guise of copyvio

Replacing the article with a copyvio notice is what the copyvio policy dictates. It's not "blanking", as blanking the page would involve removing everything including the notices. — Phil Welch 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and not even listing the page on the copyright problems section.

An oversight. Thanks for reminding me, I've fixed it. — Phil Welch 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second, the notice is wrong on its face. I did not get the stats from the link you provided (which is just a copy/paste of the link I povided in the external links section). I got the info from the listed books in the bibliography, just as I said I did.

Another oversight. Thanks for telling me, I've fixed it. — Phil Welch 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third, after putting up the notice (and not listing the page in the copyright problems page) you did however remove the link in the Darth Vader page linking to the stats.

Indeed. Since there's no article there anymore, just a copyvio notice and the VfD notice, it's not a useful link. — Phil Welch 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, considering that you had already blanked out the stats, what purpose does that serve other than to keep people away from the stats article? An article which I might add, has not been deleted yet and has not yet been deemed to be a violation of copyright (only suspected). I think the discussion could benefit from a few visitors, especially since on top of alledgely being a copyvio, you have questioned its usefullness as an encyclopedia article nonetheless.

The place for those discussions is VfD, which has a large number of regulars already. — Phil Welch 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the usefullness is obvious when someone reading the Darth vader article clicks the Darth Vader's d20 stats link, but that's just me. I guess we'll never know if any other Darth Vader fans find it useful, because you took it upon yourself to delete the link on all their behalves. DarthEren 03:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Look, I know that you're trying to help Wikipedia, and I respect that. I just don't think that this is the best way to do that. I'm sorry if I've been short with you about this. — Phil Welch 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings. I know you're just doing what you think you have to. And I'm sure you'll understand when I say that's all I'm trying to do as well. Sorry for anything I did wrong amid all this. And hopefully we'll move past it now. DarthEren 07:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Divine

Why did you move back the Glen Milstead page back to Divine (Glen Milstead)? It had only recently been moved to Glen Milstead - I dont see any discussion on why this move was warranted. Is there a possibility since you moved the page you will now fix up the 50 or so redirects that go to it? Because I'm certainly tired of having to fix it myself. Megan1967 05:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, of all the times someone has asked me to do something on Wikipedia, that was the most polite. Get over yourself, I'll fix it unless you want to move it back and then re-alphabetize all the category listings. — Phil Welch 06:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You may have had valid reasons for moving the article, but a little discussion on why these things are decided on would be appreciated. I've checked the Talk pages and couldn't see any recent discussion on it. Megan1967 07:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, and I couldn't see any discussion about why it had been moved in the first place. Have a problem with it? Move it back. — Phil Welch 09:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)