User talk:Philwelch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- I'll get on that this afternoon or tonight. Philwelch 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Very violent, I must say. But thankyou. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Hey
— Deckiller 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] List of Freemasons
Please at least google for a possible citation before you delete entries. MSJapan 00:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please at least google for a possible citation before you add entries. Philwelch 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] ANI
*giggling* -- "vitally important" -- thanks for the laugh :) Joie de Vivre 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
