User talk:Philg88/Archive 11

Talkback

Hello, Philg88. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Philg88. You have new messages at Thehumanaught's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

---

Re: St.George Day

I wouldn't have minded you erasing my comments, because they were a little abrupt and didn't belong on article. However, I am disappointed in you reverting back to what is totally untrue. Wikipedia should contain truth.

St.Georges day is celebrated on the 23rd of April in England. It isn't 'moved' anywhere. Christian churches hold St.George services on the nearest Sunday to the 23rd of April.

92.239.90.145 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they were. Adding the comment "You talk shite" to your contribution is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Please be more civil and discuss the issue with other involved editors on the article's talk page. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 01:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond

I guess that Wikipedia is now censored, since DD did do some porno and sold a bunch of t-shirts when he was dirt poor. Congratulations. The Republican party can use someone like you to conceal the truth. Onwards with the bildeburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.49.231 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What I deleted was "Screech also did porno and had a bunch of t-shirt sales because he was going bankrupt." Aside from the fact that this in ungrammatical, it is also potentially libellous, since it is an unreferenced comment about a living person. This has nothing to do with censorship, everyone needs to follow Wikipedia policies to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Last Change (Article: Shadow Warrior)

The article featured a brief, one line accusation of racism made by one collegiate reviewer, without substantiation, irrelevant to anything else and having nothing to do with the header under which it was written. I removed it because it was irrelevant and out of place.

I see now why people laugh when Wikipedia is cited as a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.71.35 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You removed a sourced statement with no explanation as to why you did so. The source was a title of ZDNet which is a reliable source. Although the section could be better titled as "Controversy" rather than "Reception", it was an unconstructive edit. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can arbitarily delete it. I am going to reinstate the paragraph you have again deleted under the new section heading with a disputed point of view tag so you can make your comments on the article's talk page. If you can find a source that disagrees with Gamespot's then feel free to add it. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Swakeleys House

Thank you for your copy edit. What do you mean with the clarification tag where you say, "Many mention that the manor became forfeit to the King?" Harrison49 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"John Charlton later took ownership of Swakeleys but a relative of his was subsequently killed during the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, while fighting on the side of Richard III. Although Henry VII subsequently granted Charlton's widow a life interest in the manor, he gave possession to Sir Thomas Bourchier."

What I mean is what relevance does the death of his relative have here? Maybe "...fighting for the army of enemy Richard III", Right now it isn't clear why Bourchier ended up with the manor. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've made it clearer now. Harrison49 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles As Adverts

If an article is written as an advertisement, and should include a telephone number. My experience has been that someone takes ownership of an article then any suggestions on the article's talk page are met with utter indifference.

That's the whole point. Wikipedia is not for adverts. I have now tagged the Stamped concrete article as questionably notable. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 21:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning lol

Like I care about your warning

You should look at User:MrBunnyMan LOL because that is User:Kagome_85. A person who is permanently banned from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.144.125 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Graffiti

Hi, Phil. Thanks for this clean-up. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. All part of the unfortunate need to fight vandalism. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Hi

Please don't think I am stalking you lol, Eastwood has been one of my role models since my early days of Spaghetti westerns, and as the invite was for several editors I am keen to read the article once you have finished. I was going to start this one a week or so ago when it first came in but my conjunctivitis got worse and I had to stop using the PC for a while.

I would like to just mention that looking at one paragraph in particular I wanted to change it from:

• For his work in the films Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (2004), Eastwood won Academy Awards for Best Director, producer of the Best Picture, and received nominations for Best Actor.

to

• Eastwood won Academy Awards for Best Director and Producer of the Best Picture, as well as receiving nominations for Best Actor, for his work in the films Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (2004).

I just wondered if you could see my rationale? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly stalking when I told you what I was doing :) The paragraph rewrite is much better and if you don't mind I'll use it when I get to that section. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Spike!

What's with the spike at 623? Did I miss some news?

(Map-related replies forthcoming. Nice work, by the way.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird, the only explanation I can come up with is that all these vandals I've pissed off by reverting their edits are coming to Haikou to do me in after reading my user page. Watch out for an upsurge in tourism to the island :). ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassed cough. Oh yes, I did know about that because of the BRICS meeting but I didn't connect the two. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Staffordshire Yeomanry

You should do some research before revertng changes and accusing someone of vandalism.

south staffordshire regiment

You should do some research before revertng changes and accusing someone of vandalism. Twat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.219.194 (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By the same token, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that you should not remove referenced content or blank sections without a comment or after gaining concensus on the pertinent article's talk page. You should also sign posts on user pages with four tildes (~~~~). Calling me a twat is like water off a ducks back. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Traumatic amputation

I'm not really clear why my edit was marked as "vandalism," considering I was making legitimate changes to a very poorly-written page. I understand and whole-heatedly support Wikipedia's mission, and as such was trying to clean up an incredibly sloppy article into something that would hold some validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.109.99 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the warning was about an unconstructive edit, not vandalism. Removing referenced content as you did here is a no-no, particularly as you did not provide an edit summary. I agree that the article needs improvement in its standard of English but please do not remove references without good reason. BTW, don't forget to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Prince Harry

Please see my edit note and the history of this article. I was reverting to existing consensus, and would be obliged if you remove your erroneous vandalism warning. Thanks. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do, the edit was unconstructive. I fail to see where this "concensus" comes from. It certainly isn't on the talk page. Frosted seems to disagree with you as he has already reverted your change to my reversion. I have never heard of Prince Harry being called anything but that since the day he was born. Please be careful you don't get into an edit war over this. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 22:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See the edit summary previous to mine. Even so, good-faith edits are never vandalism even if there is no consensus. But if you go through the article history, I think you'll find that the version to which I reverted is the preferred. Meanwhile, I have read, and deleted, your warning. Do not trust the editfilter; it tags this article whatever change is made to that field. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me about the edit filter. My reversion has nothing to do with it. As for good faith edits, ask yourself, why is the article called "Prince Harry of Wales" not "Prince Henry of Wales"? Going against nomenclature which is accepted by the Wiki community is clearly not good faith. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> I can see now why new editors get pissed off here. Never mind, I have other things to do with my life than waste it here. And "going against nomenclature which is accepted by the Wiki community" is clearly incorrect when you plainly state above that there is no consensus. You're out of line here. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but this has nothing to do with trying to piss you off. Wikipedia is at times frustrating and requires a great deal of patience. The article is called Prince Harry so that's what his name is. QED. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether you were trying or not, you succeeded. And that is not a good thing to throw at a new editor. Some articles have developed inconsistencies through discussion, however, assuming good faith is an art, and one which, when dealing with vandalism through automated tools, requires extra-special care. It's failing to take proper cognisance of inexperience, and blithely label it as vandalism, as you and another editor did, that drives away well-intentioned editors. It's all too easy to push a button and issue an {{uw-vand1}}, although I've long thought that particular message to be inconsistent. To be honest, I'd ban most of the automated anti-vandalism tools, because I've seen them abused on too many occasions; they are a lazy excuse for investigation, consideration, and thought. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, my revert would have happened regardless of the edit filter. With the Royal Wedding imminent I am watching all pages that are likely to be changed. This has nothing to do with good faith I can assure you and if you check my warning on your user page (which you've deleted), you will not find the word "vandalism". ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I accept your explanation that "this has nothing to do with good faith", because you've clearly failed to investigate the situation properly, and if it's a content dispute, you haven't cited chapter and verse in support of your position; you've just blindly reverted, ostensibly on the basis of a faulty edit filter, or for some other unexplained reason. However, {{uw-vand1}} mentions "unconstructive" rather than "vandalism", and that's just semantic nonsense. Again, I refer you to the edit summary preceding my first revert, which, as far as I was concerned, and in my experience, set out the status quo. If I was wrong, I was acting in good faith and should NOT have been criticised. In this case, WP:COMMONNAME is open to interpretation and there have been multiple discussions on the archives of this article's page as to nomenclature; we seem to have reached some stability on the naming this article, but the details remain moot. That is why I reverted an unexplained change, and that is also why I trusted the previous editor's edit summary; he, to me, is a trusted editor. Now, I have no further interest in this topic; the article can be called "The Shanghai Axe Murderer" as far as I am concerned. You just continue to make it up as you go along, and all will be right. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful. This is close to a personal attack. I suggest you move on to another article/topic. Best ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't panic. I know fully what ground I'm on. I've been on it for too long. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of Bratz products

Thank you for the contact, I added a request on the page and also attempted to correct the list by going back to the furthest non vandalized edit, which was in early April. Apparently due to previous vandalism by IPs and such, some legit editors did not use the revert function and instead removed edits or replaced missing information manually, basically leaving a lot of hidden vandal edits. Unicogirl (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work! All the best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)