User talk:Philwelch: Difference between revisions

In an effort to better simulate a face-to-face encounter in which you will, no doubt, be far more civil, here is a high-resolution portrait of myself: File:Philwelch.jpg

• To start a new topic of discussion, use this link.
• To continue a pre-existing topic of discussion, edit the relevant section.
• To request some task of me, use this link to add it to my to-do list.
• Sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
• I will respond on my talk or to-do page.
• I archive my talk page whenever a discussion has concluded.

Thank you for your consideration.

FA Reward!

Hey, Phil!

I have recently brought Half-Life 2 up to featured status with the help of User:Thunderbrand and User:ZS, and I was wondering if you could compose a limerick for us three per your posting. If it's easier, you could do one about Half-Life 2 instead. Take care! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are one sick puppy. *wide grin* Thanks! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Two communities

"I cannot see how anyone can in good faith belong to both the Wikipedia community and the Wikipedia Review community, when the WR community is focused not on criticizing Wikipedia, but on harassing our editors and destroying us."

I belong to both and see no contradiction at all. I'm not interested in harassing anyone, and certainly not in destroying or in any way harming this project I've poured an unbelievable amount of time into for over 2 years; that would be insane. I'm not even interested in criticizing Wikipedia! I'm a diehard supporter of WP. My criticism is personally focused only on administrative practices that I consider harmful to the encyclopedia; others have other criticisms, which is to be expected. People come at "reviewing" from all different kinds of angles. Everyking 06:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Katefan0 incident crossed the line in terms of what's acceptable? — Philwelch t 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Did you read the WR thread on that stuff? I protested rather strongly and told Brandt he ought to apologize and retract his threat to her. But it is definitely mistaken to blame WR collectively for what Brandt does. Everyking 08:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

StanleyGoodspeed777

Since this user has promised to you not to go on revert-wars after being blocked due to his activities on the Way International article, and that same user wasted no time making the same types of edits on the Victor Paul Wierwille article (founder of TWI), (i.e. removing information and calling it "corrected punctuation") but doing it logged out, does this constitute a breaking of his promise to stop doing that sort of thing? I'm thinking it does, myself.Pete Snowball 14:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits in question took place before his unblocking and probation, and before he agreed to the terms of unblocking. — Philwelch t 21:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up, man. I'm doing everything I know to do to be civil, courteous, and a better Wikipedian, but Pete seems to have it in for me ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pete_Snowball ). I just want a fresh start, to make some friends, and to be able to contribute to Wikipedia on my pages of interest.

Totally Unrelated

Yo, Phil, dunno if you remeber me from #macrumors but I'm just saying hi :D --Kazushi 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zach! Of course I remember you! :) — Philwelch t 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's puppet

Why are you so puppet to Jimbo?

You frek

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.84.124.246 (talk • contribs) 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What next

I am slowly at the point of blocking editors for continued reinserting biased info to the point of disruption. What do you think? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A block under these circumstances would kick up a big firestorm, so I'd look for another solution first. Personally I'd think it would be questionable, but I'm not about to get in your way over this. — Philwelch t 04:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had nothing in mind yet, and I think the straw poll is a better way. It will however only resolve a single issue, and I think the edit stuff will continue on he remaining issues. Maybe we need a series of staw polls..... :-( -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

need your help

Hi, I am a new user who found your page by just clicking through links and ended up at Prodego's page and then some others. I only know a very little about editing and stuff. Could you tell me where I can learn to write wiki markup and find all the stuff that I need to learn while being here, if there is such a place? Thanks. Twasmetrec 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You should've been welcomed with a template, which would've included a link to Wikipedia:How to edit a page- which should be able to answer your questions or at least link to pages that can. --maru (talk) contribs 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First new users are asking me general questions about Wikipedia on my talk page, and now other admins are chipping in to answer them before I do. Am I the second coming of Jimbo or something, arose on 6/6/06? — Philwelch t 04:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are but the latest beneficary of my munificence, is all. I'd tell you to not let it get to your ego, but it appears to be too late for that. --maru (talk) contribs 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest Jimmy Wales changes

I think it is perfectly fine to refer to the talk page, the issue is that Jumbo is part of wikipeida, and as such, some information can only be found here. As long as it is his own quotes, I think it is fine. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Delete

Template:Delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wisden17 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars newsletter

Project updates Greetings, Star Wars editors! Deckiller here. It's the first edition of the WikiProject Star Wars newsletter, and yes, it's a semi-ripoff of the Esperenza newsletter. I think it's important to begin with some good news: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and Jabba the Hutt have reached featured article status! Kudos to the editors who helped obtain these achievements! WikiProject Star Wars is also on a mission to improve Star Wars articles using the following ideas: An out of universe perspective versus an in universe perspective (see Wikipedia:Writing about fiction and the future ammendments to our manual of style) Evolving lists into regular articles Moving excess information and specifics to Wookieepedia (and providing links to Wookieepedia per the "see also" and/or "external links" sections) Enhanced communication amongst WikiProject members More to come These should provide the basic steps needed to improve and "encyclopedia-fy" the Star Wars series of articles. Things to do There are plenty of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do. An update to the page is coming very soon, and it will represent the new and exciting changes that Star Wars pages will be receiving! Out-of-universe versus in-universe perspectives Although details are forthcoming, I would like to take this time to explain the gist of this concept. Wikipedia has generally agreed that fictional articles should write about the topic from a "real world" perspective, focusing on real world issues and topics, with a section or two for plot synopsis and so on. Jabba the Hutt is a solid character example, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) is quickly moving toward an out of universe perspective.

Article evolution As many of you know, lists of minor Star Wars-related themes are very common on Wikipedia; however, since these may be seen as violations of Wikipedia policy (and having seperate articles would breach even more policies), the tentative solution is to create general articles on a list's topic (for example, turning List of Star Wars devices into Technology of Star Wars, which allows us to cover everything from hyperspace to comlinks in a general encyclopedic fashion). This can be very tough for some broad topics, so the key is organization. I encourage all editors to list their ideas on the WikiProject talk page. It will be a very difficult — but tangible — effort. For an example, let me point you to the Final Fantasy WikiProject. Some of us over at that WikiProject decided to turn various components of Final Fantasy X, such as Pyreflies, Yevon, and the backstory — into an article describing the world of Spira. Location descriptions were given a List of locations in Spira article, and the details themselves were placed on the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page. This is a decent template to follow — however, we will need to place priority on out-of-universe, "real life" topics and perspectives in realtion to the article. Sounds confusing, eh? It won't, for examples will be popping up left and right in the near future! Signed... — Deckiller 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism

I thought you would be interested in a discussion that is happening on List of religions regarding Matrixism. An anoymous is trying to get it included. -- Jeff3000 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism

Could you explain your reasoning for deleting this from Religion and the internet, given there is a secondary source reference. Addhoc 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "Matrixism" was discussed several months ago when the same vandal tried creating an article on it and linkspamming it from List of religions and New religious movement. Most of his supposed sources at the time failed to check out, and while they seem more promising now, they really consist of nothing more than one-off references from news writers or book authors who happened to stumble across the same Geocities page this guy has been linkspamming on Wikipedia. A Google search reveals that he used the same linkspamming tactics on multiple message boards, to a similarly hostile reception. Long story made short, this "Matrixism" nonsense is a probable hoax, and even if it is a serious attempt at a new religious movement, it has not reached any level of real-world notability yet (despite a moderately successful linkspamming campaign across message boards and a failed linkspamming campaign across Wikipedia). If any evidence of this supposed religious movement arises other than (a) the Geocities page itself or (b) some lazy writer referencing the Geocities page in a passing one-paragraph mention without any further examination, then (and only then) can we reexamine our position on this. Until then, this is a probable hoax pushed by one very obsessive linkspammer. — Philwelch t 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, 80.189???? has not engaged in any form of vandlism. Look closely at the edits on List of Religions and Religion and the internet. Also look at pacificism, civilian casualties and fossil record. Addhoc 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, you haven't engaged in too much linkspamming vandalism this time around. Only edit warring and hoax-mongering. — Philwelch t 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I have never engaged in any form of vandlism. 2) I have never gone past 3RR. 3) I'm not sure what hoax-mongering is, but it doesn't sound very nice. Could we continue this discussion at Talk:Religion and the internet , on the basis of assuming good faith and no personal attacks. I'll write a revised draft form of words and give you opportunity to comment, before editting the article. Addhoc 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism is, as far as we can tell, a complete hoax. Its existence is not even borderline verifiable, and unless you present clear evidence of its existence as a *real-world religion* (i.e. NOT just as a Geocities page), mentioning it in Wikipedia is unacceptable. I strongly suspect you are the same person who's been perpetuating this hoax across Wikipedia for over a year now, but in case you aren't, let me clarify one thing: there is at least one extremely obsessive individual who has done so, and the community has been clear in our opinion that such actions are not acceptable. For the sake of the valuable edits you do contribute, I suggest you drop the matter entirely—or provide the evidence I have asked for—before you exhaust the community's patience. — Philwelch t 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any practical way of demonstrating that I have no connection to Matrixism? In my editting of Fossil Record, there was a brief misunderstanding that I could be a creationist and from my perspective this is fairly similar. In that instance, I think my work on the Pacificism article and my concern that Religion wasn't used to imply Abrahamic beliefs was sufficient for good faith to be restored. Other articles that I have editted include FWBO, Just War tradition and Intensive pig farming. I have made a significant number of edits to List of Religions and have consistently supported the consesus that Matrixism should not be added. My first edits to Wikipedia concerned the inclusion of Sunni on the List of cults, which I consider to be a very serious error. Anyway, if there is a procedure, let me know... Addhoc 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a very practical way of demonstrating that you have no connection to Matrixism: give up trying to use Wikipedia to publicize it. — Philwelch t 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for what its worth on 30 June, I deleted Matrixism from List of Religions. Also, I am not a follower of Matrixism, which in my understanding (but not Jeff3000) is an offshoot of the Baha'i Faith, in turn an offshoot of the Babi Faith, which is unequivocally an Abrahamic religion. As it happens I am not a member of any Abrahamic faith, but am sympathetic to Unitarian Universalism. To be honest, I am far more concerned about the inclusion of Sunni in List of cults, but also have don't seem to be making any progress there. Could you advise whether the "Matrix Vandal" has been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia and are there special restrictions about mentioning such banned persons? Addhoc 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He usually edits from anonymous IPs so indefinite blocks and bans aren't very effective. Most mentions of Matrixism within actual encyclopedia content are removed on sight though, I prefer to say it's a settled subject until further evidence is provided. — Philwelch t 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we clearly disagree about some issues. However, we agree the information provided in the Geocities site is dubious. WP:V regarding links to dubious sources is fairly clear: "Material from... sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information .. in articles about themselves..." and I don't think we disagree about this. Could you review the Matrixism links in the Adam Possamai article? Addhoc 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just cleaned up a BUNCH of accumulated linkspam. Hopefully looking at my contributions you can see how out of control this gets. If possible I'm going to stop at the library to actually pick up the three books these kooks keep on citing just to put this issue to rest. — Philwelch t 23:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Describing persons who are followers of a specific belief, in this case Matrixism, as kooks is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You have been warned. Addhoc 11:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I will assume this is a joke. — Philwelch t 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vibrator award

File:Vibrator.JPG

I hereby award you the Good Vibrations award for your outstanding efforts at sending faithful and civil vibrations across the Wiki. Nicely done, and I hope you return in full swing very soon! — Deckiller 03:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about wikipedia

Do you by any chance know how much space (in terabytes) Wikipedia approximately takes up? --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. — Philwelch t 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I stumbled upon your page, and seeing that picture of a human being just made me smile; surely, in civility, the great equalizer must be a human face! My civility just increased 36%, and I credit it all to you. Have a barnstar. (And yeah, it's a pretty cute picture; how you doin'?) --Emufarmers(T/C) 08:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!! — Philwelch t 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would follow your example and post my own glorious visage, but I don't want people to get, you know, jealous and all. :) --Emufarmers^(T/C) 08:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Law & Order trivia

I am just curious as to why you deleted this article without a discussion, as was done previously. There was discussion on the Law & Order page to merge the trivia page into the main article.[1] Thanks. -- Dcflyer 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's trivia--by definition non-notable information. The previous AFD was in error, and in any case the only usable information in that article was already present in the main articles in question, leaving nothing to merge. I used my administrative discretion. — Philwelch t 08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and the info. -- Dcflyer 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

File:RfathxPhilwelch.jpg

Open your card!

Dear Phil, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear Phil, this is the perfect opportunity to finally speak to one another after reading your words for months and months. I am sure that we'll be able to talk often, and trust me, it'd be my pleasure. Many times I've been on the verge of messaging you, because your words of support and sympathy in the worst moments I've ever had to endure in my entire wiki-life meant incredibly much to me; yet, for some reason, I never did. I sincerely offer myself as your friend from now on, in case you're willing to accept it. You are special indeed, Phil. With a big hug,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

Cylons

I'm curious (not the sarcastic "I'm curious", the serious kind) on why you think the Centurions' near-immunity to small-arms fire isn't an important part of their description. Yes, it's not an absolute rule, but given that:

• it's important in-show, as the protagonists don't have the resources to fight toe-to-toe with the Centurions (if they were vulnerable to small arms, Valley of Darkness would have had significantly less drama).
• perhaps more important, it actually gives the reader a good idea of what their capabilities are. "heavily armored" is not a very descriptive phrase. An explanation of how heavy that armor is, using a situation from the shoe, does a much better job of getting the point across to the reader. Stilgar135 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, it's horribly inconsistent. None of the first season Centurions were even resistant to small-arms fire, and even in the second season, many of them are easy to take down with regular guns. The fact that a heavily-armored variant of the Cylon Centurion appeared in one episode is not really worth mentioning. — Philwelch t 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I erred in making a unilateral declaration. But there should definitely be a discussion of what exactly "heavily armored" comprises. And to totally nerd this up, I think the only time in the first season that humans and Centurions fight is when Helo is firing at the one in the restaurant (I'm probably forgetting other Caprica stuff, but it all blends together after awhile). One can certainly make the argument that, as part of the courtship process, the Cylons had sent a particularly weak Centurion for Helo to destroy, giving him the feeling of being Sharon's protector. Yes, I know it's unencyclopedic, and I'm not going to include it. Would you be amenable to "while individual Centurions are armored to different degrees, at least some of them are nearly invulnerable to small arms" or something to that extent? Stilgar135 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's still too much detail. It's not just the ones they sent after Helo (and Helo himself killed quite a few Centurions)--the Cylons encountered on Kobol, on Caprica during the liberation of the farm, etc. were all vulnerable to small arms fire. The point is, though, not to get ahead of ourselves. We're summarizing an aspect of a TV show here. We're not pretending that Cylon Centurions are real things and documenting them the way we'd document (for instance) real-world military hardware. We're recognizing that Cylons are made-up beings on a TV show, and documenting them according to that. — Philwelch

t 06:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What does pretending they're real have to do with anything? Within the show, their entire existence is based on manual labor and fighting. When that's all you do, the amount of firepower you can withstand is pretty damn important. I can accept that the information we have is too vague and muddled to be encyclopedia-worthy. That doesn't change the fact that their armor is important to their existence, and if solid information is ever released about it, it will be worthy of inclusion here. Stilgar135 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go: within the show, Cylons are cybernetic creatures, some of which are built for manual labor and combat, etc. etc.. Wikipedia is about the real world. Within the real world, the Cylons are (at least in the new series) an example of human hubris, following in a tradition dating back to the myth of Prometheus, etc. etc. See what I mean by "pretending they're real things" and recognizing they're fictional? — Philwelch t 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree. They're important because of the role they play on a TV show that a lot of people watch. If something is important in that context, then it's appropriate for the article. Their main purpose is entertainment, not allegory, and the articles about them should focus on that. Stilgar135 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep your personal disagreement in mind, but these are the community standards for fictional entries. — Philwelch t 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...

I came over to apologize for this morning on #wikipedia; I just blew my stack. I've never done it before, and I hope I'll never do it again. I'm sorry. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, don't worry about it. What happens on IRC stays on IRC. — Philwelch t 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cylon characters

A lot of the characters you redirected into the main Cylon article are important characters. The only one who isn't is Simon, but the others are important characters (Number Three, Leoben Conoy, and Aaron Doral are all important characters; I'm not sure about Brother Cavil, but seeing how a well-known actor was chosen to portray him he may be important down the line as well). Furthermore, their character entries on the Cylon page carry little information about them, because most of the information is on their own pages). --DrBat 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information on their pages is reiterated plot summary, which is already available in the episode summaries. Also, please discuss large-scale reversions of multiple merge actions *before* you do it, not after. — Philwelch t 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So do you plan on redirecting all of the character entries? Because the same could apply to them as well. Also, did you ask for a discussion before you merged them? --DrBat 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I was being bold. I think most minor character entries should eventually be merged (Dualla, Gaeta, Cain), but the major characters (Adama, Roslin, Starbuck, Six, etc.) can probably keep their own articles. (You'll notice I *didn't* merge back Sharon and Six because they're the two main Cylon characters in the show.) — Philwelch t 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Lucy Lawless's character has garned a lot of attention from the media, she's a well-known actress, and she seems to have a large role in season 3 (being signed on for at least ten episodes), I think she at least warrants her own article. --DrBat 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's possible, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm wary of anyone having their own article beyond the top 6 (Adama, Roslin, Starbuck, Apollo, Baltar, Six, Sharon), and she doesn't have a large role *yet*. It's cool that BSG can get guest appearances from famous actors like Lawless or Stockwell, but so far, D'anna Biers/Number Three isn't even well-developed as a character yet, even compared to minor characters like Billy or Gaeta. I'm not opposed to expansion totally, but I'd wait until we have more information to expand *with*. — Philwelch t 20:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MatthewFenton

Please don't block users you are involved with it looks bad. You also failed to explain how the user was "disrupting the normal functioning of Wikipedia". As a result I have unblocked. You might want to readthis Yes I know it is far from uncommon practice but it is best avoided.Geni 20:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cylon Redirects

Hey man, you can't just come in and make a redirect of an article like Leoben Conoy without some discussion and a vote. Too much work went into them to just delete everything because you think it isn't important. Have some common courtesy for the rest of us. Cyberia23 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is underway. — Philwelch t 20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I submitted a complaint about you on the Admin Incidents and Notice Board on behalf of my friend Cyberia23 who I feel you've blocked for no good reason other than to throw your weight around and act all superior. Hopefully someone will see what I see and have that power taken away. BTW, you look exactly like some kid I knew in back in high school - and I didn't like him much either. Have a nice day. SkeezerPumba 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you unblocked Cyberia a few minutes afer blocking him, he said he was denied access for hours. The blocklog shows about 30 minutes so I told him to refresh his cashe file or clear cookies. I haven't heard from him since he last bitched about it so I dunno what he's doing. I still think you were in the wrong, but whatever. SkeezerPumba 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I is not a forum for libel and personal attacks, and neither is my talk page. Please cease and desist. — Philwelch t 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

GF Notice

Hi. I thought it only GF to notify you i'd made a report at ANI.

I've started a discussion at WP:ANI, here MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, lay off the reverting

A few articles about minor characters on Battlestar Galactica aren't worth revert warring over. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not abuse [2] the rollback tool.--SB | T 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be using rollback (and, worse, blocking) in disputes you are manifestly part of. This is not OK, as tempting as it may be. Please, don't do this. You're a valuable admin - it would be a great pain if you were no longer one. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)