User talk:Philwelch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Phil, I saw that the article (which was a redirect only) for Felgercarb was changed into a VERY brief article. I figured that you would wish it reverted, and I would agree, but I also didn't feel it my place to do so instead leaving that to more Wiki-experienced people like yourself. I would absolutely agree that Felgercarb needs not its own page, especially what is there now. Perhaps one of these days (though I doubt SciFi will ever use it simply cause it sounds just plain silly).

VigilancePrime 00:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, feel free. Be bold in editing articles! — Phil Welch 04:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Vader

Phil, since you closely monitor the Darth Vader article, I thought I would let you know of a possible controversial addition I've made to it. I've added information from The Star Wars Holiday Special to the Vader article, as it gives useful information as to how Vader searched for the rebels, following the destruction of the death star. Also, the info I've added seems to fit quite nicely with the flow of the article. It might need a little rewording, however. The Wookieepedian 18:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem, but I moved it to the "expanded universe" section. — Phil Welch 20:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Phil: I edited the Darth Vader article's 2 pictures - the ghosts and Sebastian Shaw, because they're old and I replaced with the DVD version pictures (Hayden's ghost, Sebastian without eyebrown). The pictures: Newsebastian.jpg and Anakin_yoda_ben.jpg — Obi-Wan 15:34, 20 October 2005 (CET)

Yes, that's under discussion on the talk page. — Phil Welch 16:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vadersketch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vadersketch.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much.

Thanks, Tabor. I went ahead and added a rule to my talk page guidelines in honor of you. — Phil Welch 22:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

NPA

Heya, please keep in mind WP:NPA. Thanks. --fvw* 22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a personal attack? When? — Phil Welch 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In your edit summary just now you called someone an insensitive clod. Not the worst of personal attacks I'll admit, but you're generally better off playing the ball instead of the man. --fvw* 22:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant it as a joke, you insensitive clod. :) — Phil Welch 22:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry. I've seen people react very aggressively to image deletion notifications, I was misinterpreting. Carry on! :-) --fvw* 22:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was responding more to him transcluding the template instead of substituting it, and also failing to sign it. — Phil Welch 23:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Template

What exactly is, and how do you set up a "fork" template? The Wookieepedian 19:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the talk page. Essentially, your idea for what you want that template for is a little different than what we might want to call "the EU template". It therefore makes little sense to have your template under the title of "Expanded Universe". There's a redlink on the talk page--if you follow it, copy the source for the EU template into it, and change the heading and contents of that template toward what you're trying to do, we'll now have an alternative template with the intended purpose you have in mind. — Phil Welch 19:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration against Copperchair

I've opened a request for arbitration against Copperchair, and I'd appreciate it if you could comment, as you're one of the users I've named as part of Party 2. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

irony

Well your edits in irony got followed by someone who, by his user page couldnt give a "----" about wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I think that must be ironic in itself! vcxlor 12:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And they just a keep a rolling on! vcxlor 15:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OT.com

That link to originaltrilogy.com isn't there for the purpose of the petition. That site is well-known, mostly for its forums, where members work to preserve the original versions of the original trilogy on DVD. I'll change the wording, as the petition really isn't the main focus of that site, anymore. The Wookieepedian 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Friendly revert?

Sorry, I've run out of AGF with you. "Friendly Revert?" Perhaps you could TRY to be a little understanding, or are you a troll? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Do what you will. You win at the internets. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The "friendly revert" was to show that I wasn't disagreeing with you, only clarifying my own intentions. It meant that I was trying to clarify a misunderstanding instead of engaging in a dispute. I want you to assume good faith and try to work with me, but if you refuse to do so that's your choice. — Phil Welch 02:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence. Fred Bauder 19:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi Phil,

I've seen nothing but good edits coming from you. Are you interested in becoming an administrator? If so, send me a line and I'll nominate you. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again,

Per our IRC conversation, here is your nomination. Good luck. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Phil,

As of this posting, you've got 17 support votes to 1 oppose. See? Nothing to be afraid of ;-) (/me knocks on wood but you hopefully won't need that). Keep doing what you're doing now, and you should be fine. Linuxbeak | Talk 13:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re "suicide pact / internet suicide" issue

Hi Phil. Concerning my addition of the "internet suicide" note beside the suicide pact link on the Template:Suicide page, this is the explanation previously provided to (and accepted by) Nickptar:

Hi "N": I recently expanded the stub titled suicide pact and it now includes a lot of information about recent internet-related suicide pacts. Since there isn't a separate article or stub on internet-related suicide pacts, I was trying to introduce a little "sign post" that might lead someone looking for information about it to the right place. It's a "hot topic" right now, I myself was looking for info on the subject, and that's how I ended up writing the article myself. If there were room beside the suicide pact link, I would have added "including internet suicide pacts". But due to the lack of space, I just added "internet suicide". But the article itself is not limited to internet suicide pacts, and I don't think anyone would think it was based on what I added. Hope that makes sense. If not, please reply further.... Best, VR.

If you read my suicide pact article, you will see that it is difficult to treat "traditional" suicide pacts and "internet-related" pacts entirely separately (i.e. to make "internet suicide" a completely separate page, as suggested elsewhere). However, it if is not Wiki-kosher to have a non-linked "note" beside the suicide pact link, then I guess the only solution would be to combine the two into one link, as you have done. However, shouldn't the suicide pact article title then be changed as well to read "Suicide Pact / Internet Suicide" ? If you agree, could you tell me how to do that?

Thanks, look forward to your response. --Victoria 00:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. It's just more clear combining the two into one link. If you want to start a discussion at Talk:Suicide pact about this I'd be glad to contribute. I'm just busy recently, but after a couple other things are settled, I'd love to try and address these issues :) — Phil Welch 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, so how do I go about changing the title of the suicide pact article title to "Suicide Pact/Internet Suicide" ? Thanks... --Victoria 00:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Um...I wouldn't recommend that, that's somewhat against our article titling guidelines. But Internet suicide could be a redirect to Suicide pact. In fact, I'm gonna set that up right now :) — Phil Welch 00:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've been beat to it. Let me think of something else to do. — Phil Welch 00:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've forked the article, creating a separate internet suicide article that suicide pact links to. That should address most of your concerns. It's alright on Wikipedia to have separate articles about closely related issues, as long as there's a good reason to separate the articles, and in this case I think there is. — Phil Welch 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your decision to separate the subjects, as they are totally interelated. I really regret having introduced the "internet suicide" note on the template now, if this is what it has led to. I feel you've butchered my original article, so that the two artificially "created" articles now make no sense as separate entitites. Will you PLEASE let me put the article back together as it was? --Victoria 05:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

They make plenty of sense as separate entities. Suicide pact is about suicide pacts in general, Internet suicide is about suicide pacts over the internet in particular. It's perfectly normal on Wikipedia to have separate articles about interrelated subjects, or even to have one article about something and another article about a specific type of something. If it's a big deal to you bring it up with User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, since he's involved too. — Phil Welch 06:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfB and your opinion therein

Raul654 (talk • contribs) is already a bureaucrat and a long-term member of ArbCom. He and I also frequently disagree. I don't think there's any real risk of having bureaucrats on ArbCom leading to a "cabal", at least not anymore than there is already. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but my oppose vote isn't about current personalities in the here and now. It's about laying down a solid foundation for a project that very well may continue years after everyone here is dead. And in my view, that solid foundation includes separation-of-powers principles. Wikipedia's importance may grow beyond that of almost any other organization, project, or national government, and once we're that important, these sort of principles will be crucial. A cabal on Wikipedia today means slight problems. A cabal on Wikipedia 20-50 years from now may very well mean that a chosen few get to decide for all of humanity what the sum of human knowledge will consist of. That's a staggering amount of power, and my oppose vote is meant to prevent that amount of power ever falling into the hands of a cabal. It has nothing to do with you, Raul654, or any other Wikipedian. — Phil Welch 05:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats!

Hi Phil,

You have been promoted to administrator! Congrats on a successful RfA! Linuxbeak | Talk 17:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody got here before me! Well, congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't done already, now is the time to read Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. All the best, Warofdreams talk 18:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been giggling and deleting CSD backlog for a few minutes already :) — Phil Welch 17:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool, you've got promoted. Good luck and make good use of your power. Regards, --Sn0wflake 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congrats! Use your powers for good! :) Coffee 18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Aww, I wanted to use them for awesome! — Phil Welch 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

More congrats! I see you've hit the speedies pretty hard. How did you like my Chris purge? Melchoir 23:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

re: My RfA

Congrats on your admin privileges =) I'm sure you will use them well, and enjoy your newfound responsbilties! Later. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Same here. Congratulations!--Sean|Black 22:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)