User talk:South Philly/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, South Philly/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

... thought I'd give you a proper welcome.

--evrik 14:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

Comment on content, not on the contributor
Personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Note that you may be banned from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Please Stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --CComMack 01:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I attack anyone?South Philly 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment you signed your name to with this diff is in violation of WP:NPA. I know you're a new user, but this is an important policy, and I ask that you look over it so that there's no difficulty in the future. In fact, if you haven't yet, I'd recommend reading through the five pillars of Wikipedia to get a feel for the core policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry your initial experiences are being unpleasant, and I hope that you go on to be a happy, productive contributor to the project. Have a nice evening, CComMack 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar

I appreciate it and will display it proudly.evrik 14:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE LIKE ME (They really do)

Permanently blocked

Your skillful editing style combined with your targeted editing of articles and user talk pages related to a month long edit war suggests to me that this account was not created primarily for the purposes of constructive and harmonious editing on Wikipedia. As such, it has been blocked. --HappyCamper 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HappyCamper (a misnomr), I responded on your page. South Philly 01:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I'm trying to get back to you regarding these edits you made on my talk page recently.

This is part of what you wrote to me:

I was a lurker for a very long time. One of the reasons i lurked was that any time I tried to make an edit to an issue i cared about I was reverted by the same editor over and over again. I have been following the goings on over the Philly pages and started to make some more edits, but i also wanted to make my voice known with the troll who discouraged me from posting before.

These edits you made in their context make it quite clear that you do not like Boothy443 - this is perfectly fine and acceptable. If no one on Wikipedia has properly acknowledged your stance, let me be the first to do so. Of course, we do not need to like everyone that we encounter or work with. It would not be reasonable to expect everyone to like everyone they encountered. However, there are a few things I have concerns about. For example:

On Wikipedia, we try not to prolong edit wars by continuing the reversions after it has stopped;
On Wikipedia, we try first not to spread negativity about particular users on various talk pages - instead we try first to work with them instead, and make ourselves open and approachable so that any problems we have with them can be put into the open and resolved in an mutually amicable, diplomatic, and respectful manner.

Regarding the former - it is clear from your short edit history that you are familiar with the month long edit war - in fact, it is my inclination that you have been following it very closely - for example, your edits contain neologisms which were only recently used during the edit war. You are knowledgeable enough to award a barnstar to someone who you felt was standing up to a "wikibully" - subsequent reversions by the recipient made reference specifically to you as a reason to revert. In essence, the edit war was prolonged due to your prescence. It is not coincidental that your intervention occurred during a lull in the reversions - you were knowledgeable enough to know when to intervene, and you did so with the intention of re-enforcing behaviours on other users which were to your benefit. I would like to request that the reversions stop - the history of those pages are cluttered, and I do not think that an adequate attempt to communicate has been made yet.

Regarding the latter - your knowledge of Boothy443's arbitration pages shows that you are aware of the administrative side of Wikipedia - your edits on various talk pages informing users of Boothy's intensifying edit summaries tells me that you intentionally did so primarily to further the arbitration case against him. In the context of your dislike towards Boothy443, you have made clear that you have no intention of cooperating with him, nor seek a common ground. Your indication on my talk page that you do not wish to be a part of Boothy's arbitration case is contrary to your behaviour. There are two reasons why this may be the case - it is quite possible that as you said, you wanted your grievances against Boothy to be properly heard and recognized. Now that this has been accomplished, I see no reason why it needs to continue. You do not need to like Boothy - nor do you need to feel inclined to co-operate with him. What is clear is that editors on Wikipedia need the space they deserve. Based on your comments regarding your edit history, if Boothy consistently oversteps your boundaries, then simply inform him of that politely. Avoiding this is not an appropriate alternative - no editor on Wikipedia understands your position bettern than yourself. Advocate for yourself when and where necessary, and seek for help when it fails.

When you do not adequately take responsibility for yourself, your edits are easily misinterpreted as "personal attacks", "intentional trolling", and various other negative terms which thoroughly do not adequately reflect you - for example, as was the case with CComMack above, and subsequently, with my initial decision to permanently block this account. We all have a part to play in dispute resolution, so for my part, I would like to ask that if you encounter problems with Boothy in the future that you let me know immediately. I will look into things on your behalf. For example, I have blocked Boothy before with reason, and I can do so again if necessary.

Let me also take the time to recognize your patience and your knowledgable editing - there is also no reason why Wikipedia should be denied of this, so this account is now unblocked. If you wish to discuss further anything raised here, please let me know. Otherwise, I consider this reasonably adequate to express the context behind my initial decision to block you, and the subsequent unblocking and explantion acceptable to resolve all outstanding issues. Let us recognize that your concerns, my concerns - Boothy's, CComMack's, Evrik's concerns are all equally valid. Sometimes it is difficult to find a good balance between everything, but we are not unreasonable as well, and can make adjustments as necessary. So, with this, I wish you well with your future editing around here. If you need anything, please let me know. Regards, HappyCamper 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking...

Try editing the sandbox here: WP:SB -- does it work? It should as I unblocked you immediately after I got your message. I'll check the logs right now to make sure everything is okay and get back to you :-) --HappyCamper 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - there was something wrong! For some reason, the autoblocker kicked in when it was not supposed to. I don't know why that happened, but I cleared it, so it should be okay. I have to head off now, but I will come back to double check things to make sure everything is okay. --HappyCamper 22:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still no luck. South Philly 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has already been lifted: see [1] - it must be the case that you are editing under an IP address which roams around quite a bit - but this should not be happening. --HappyCamper 02:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still being blocked.South Philly 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something I'd like someone to create for me

’’’Southwark’’’ was one of the first districts in the county of Philadelphia. It had a very close relationship to the Swedish settlements of Wicaco and Moyamensing. The name was adopted from the name of a borough in the county of Surrey, England, immediately opposite the city of London. It was also a nod to the districts relationship to Philadelphia.

The northeast boundary started at South Street and the Delaware River to South and proceeded to Passyunk Road. Passyunk was the western boundary and traveled south to Moyamensing Road; along Moyamensing and Keeler’s Lane to Greenwich Road and then back to the Delaware River.

See Southwark, Philadelphia. --HappyCamper 20:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it is fixed!

Okay, I see that you can edit now - finally it is fixed. It really shouldn't have taken so long. --HappyCamper 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this page

If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.

St John Bosco and LGBT edits evrik 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if that's a fight I want to join. South Philly 13:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am grateful for advice from everyone, and take it all with a grain of salt. Haiduc 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the beer, and thanks for the support. --evrik 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Booth443 just claimed that your account was a sockpuppet on the request for protection page. You may want to comment, or not.evrik 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]