User talk:PhiladelphiaInjustice

Hello! PhiladelphiaInjustice, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are doing yeoman's work on the PPD misconduct page. At some point I am going to take a big blue pencil to your work. (Nothing personal, everyone's work here is stapled folded and mutilated, that is how the project gets better.) I object to violations of Biography of Living People policy. Years ago, someone pranked the article for a guy, tying him to the JFK killing. The entire community resolved to be double-specially careful when we talk about living people. Your edits talk about policemen who (as far as we can tell) have not been convicted, have not been disciplined, resigned or otherwise admitted guilt. (The reason for this is of course the department refuses to tell the public.) So at some point when I get the time, I will have to remove a lot of your work.

Other such articles follow this firm rule. We must do so here too. It is not as though we do not have enough on this department.

I will monitor this page for your reply. Really, I appreciate your work, but rules are rules. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul: Thank you for your message. I regret not carefully having read Wiki's rules because I have spent untold tedious hours posting about Philadelphia police misconduct, some of which may have been wasted due to my unintentionally breaking the rules. I hope that you will not delete entries that lists cops who have been suspended with intent to dismiss. I believe that "suspension" meets your criteria for discipline. Would it be possible for you to notify me about unacceptable entries BEFORE deleting them? I could then do further research which might make them acceptable to you. For instance, I could list a conviction for a previously reported arrest. Please note that I am a conservative on crime and law enforcement; my sole agenda is to expose ACTUAL police crimes, which are rampant in Philadelphia. Thank you kindly for your expected assistance.

Howdy There. Trust me, we are on the same team. If you look at my edit history, you will see I am all over police misconduct cases. (Although your work is the best I have seen.) Further, don;t you just hate it when you do the research and discover nothing you can put on Wikipedia? After two hours of poking around, and you got ... nothing. It is very disappointing. One option you might want to do is open your own Wiki. There is some site that offers "Wikis for everyone," for free. There I presume you can make your own rules. Take a look before we start pruning this article. I would hate to lose information. The main thing is the entries have to be verified and appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is only fair, it is only just that we be very careful with mentioning people by name who just happened to land in the newspapers. Maybe we should try cutting out the names. Let's try that tomorrow and see how it looks. We have plenty for this list. There is no need to post each and every incident of speeding. It is near midnight here and I have just got to get out of my Ramadan sleep cycle. I will be back in about ten hours and will do at least a bit of work here. Oh, to sign your posts on talk pages, smash the three tildes in blue, in the box below the edit page, It comes out looking like this: Paul, in Saudi (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, Thanks for the quick reply and encouraging comments. I hope that you will not delete the names of cops who were convicted, suspended, fired, or successfully sued (as per credible media reports.) However, removing the names of officers who were only caught on video doing wrong - but not disciplined -or are merely defendants in current, non-adjudicated lawsuits - is a brilliant idea. I appreciate the suggestion about starting a page at a similar website, but I am only interested in posting encyclopedia-style at the real Wiki. I have already set up websites elsewhere about Philly police crimes, replete with videos, which have gotten many millions of hits. It is awesome that you are getting the word out about bad cops. It must be great living in Saudi Arabia; I cannot even imagine how exciting that must be!

Paul, Did you change the password on my account on August 2? Also, did you delete many of my pre-2012 entries on the PPD's Misconduct page?

No, I don't think anyone but you can change your password. If you need help, I can ask someone with more experience to lend a hand. Yes, I deleted a bunch of stuff. Just check the Hisotry tab and you can see the difference, the "before and after." I hope I did not go overboard. I am at the keyboard for the next few hours, let me know if I can help. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, Somebody (no doubt a Philly cop) changed my password, so I had to change it again. When I tried to again log in just now, my password had again been changed, so I had to change it yet again. Did you delete about 60 or so entries under the 2010 and 2011 listings? If not, whoever hacked into my account did. I should have made copies of the entries. These crooked Philly cops do not want their dirty laundry being aired. Six more of them were arrested by the feds just three days ago. I might just give up on Wiki because there is no way to safeguard my account and I cannot compete with corrupt police and their access to superior computer technology.

I suppose you have a very easy password to guess. Let me have a more experienced user stop by to help. I think he is in the US, so time zones will not be a problem. But not to worry about the deletions. Open the History tab and simply click "Undo" (or is it "Revert?") In any case, nothing is ever really lost. It all is retained in memory, so you need not retype it. This is a good way for you to learn your way around. Please remember to sign your posts with the four tildes. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul has asked me to stop by and offer help. The only editors who have worked on the article on

Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department

are you and Paul (and one reference formatting bot). Nobody has hacked your account, as far as I can tell based on your edits, and compared with the Chinese or Russian governments (who aren't fond of Wikipedia), I very much doubt that accused Philly cops have access to any better technology than we do. Apart from successfully guessing one's password, that is all but unknown, and largely pointless given the open nature of a wiki.

As Paul has advised, please read the

the policy as it applies to people associated with a unique event

. Please remember that you are responsible for your own edits, and that apparent anonymity is not a shield against accusations of defamation. That is not a criticism, it's just a note to respect policy and to be scrupulous about attribution and neutrality. You must tread lightly when writing about actual people.

Paul has, as he advised, removed a lot of entries that have not been verifiably adjudicated. That accords with Wikipedia policy. I'd advise concentrating on the big, easily verifiable material, as any article on a big metropolitan police department can have reams of material written about comparatively minor misconduct, and that's not relevant material for a global encyclopedia.

I suggest that you use a password that is strong and easily remembered. Your username is of some concern, as it implies that you're approaching the subject with a specific editorial mindset. Please review

isn't a place to right great wrongs, we can only document what others have reported. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your responses. I thought that all of my entries were defamation-proof because they were truthful and had major media citations to back them up. I also believed that my listings adhered to your policies. Given that over half of my entires are getting completely deleted - for whatever reason and by whoever - I will stop contributing to Wikipedia. I have far more time-efficient methods for exposing Philadelphia police crimes, such as via my own websites already set up for that purpose, certain of which have gotten millions of hits.

OK. I deleted some of your entries, as I said I would and as are annotated on the change log. We are writing an encyclopedia. Lot of stuff is true, but is not worth inclusion. If you ever want to come back, you will be very welcome. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that leaving is best: please understand that Wikipedia's goals are not necessarily the same as yours, and that it is an encyclopedia. It is a tertiary source, which uses secondary published sources as the basis for its data, and which has a cut-off of notability at a certain level. It does not exist to expose anything that hasn't already been exposed in major published media, so if that's your goal, there are better alternatives. The BLP policy is an ironclad rule, not subject to negotiation. As Paul has pointed out, this is a result of early incidents, and it enjoys a broad consensus. Since this is a wiki, all content is subject to the consensus of the community, and your edits may be themselves edited for style, language, content, or compliance with community norms. Posting material does not guarantee that it will survive. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional responses, but I bear no hard feelings at all towards you. You are volunteer editors who are merely trying to do the right thing. I am ONLY disgusted with myself for not more carefully reviewing your website's terms and conditions. It is solely my fault that I wasted several hours making posts which did not meet your standards. I may make a few more entries about major stories, but I hope that you will monitor them in case I err yet again.

Hi Paul, I reentered a few entries about police officers who had been convicted of significant crimes, were suspended for 30 days with intent to dismiss for allegedly committing serious crimes, or were successfully sued for major brutality or corruption. I suspect that you originally deleted those entries because you did not notice the convictions or civil adjudications, or were unaware about how serious the charges are in arrest cases. I did not reenter removed entries that only included minor charges or did not mention significant discipline, mainly termination or suspension with intent to dismiss.

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You are a superior authority on the subject of PPD misconduct. We are blessed to have you. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching The Daily SHow last night. (I get it delayed, given my location.) Samatha Bee had a nice report on the fact nobody really knows how many people are killed by the police in the US. The FBI simply does make it a priority. Someone on the internet is making a stab at it. They feel they have firm figures for Nevada (being a low-population state, i suppose). The fellow Bee interviewed said 8.1% of all homicides in the state are as a result of police action. I am interested in that number. As a person so in-tune with Philadelphia, perhaps you could work up some number of the City of Brotherly Love. Do you have any thoughts on this? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look into it but it sounds complicated. My sources suggest that many fatal shootings by Philadelphia cops were outright murder, but dead men tell no tales. A city cop hasn't been fatally shot on the job since 2009 (seven had been murdered on the job in just the prior two years!), probably because of the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy they have since unofficially adopted.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When we reply to each other on talk pages like this, we indent our conversations with a colon as the first character. The next guy uses two colons and so on. "T'is the custom," as they say.

You are the expert, but it seems to me the number of homicides by gun in Philadelphia is a reported figure. Then we (and I mean you) need only find all the "officer-involved shootings." Frankly you saying it is tough number to find fascinates me as this was the same conclusion The Daily Show came to. As I mentioned, I find the concept interesting, but not so interesting as to do it myself. Keep up the good work. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Camden, New Jersey, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Also, great work! / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'l try to remember your instructions. Thanks for your advice.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're marking all your edits as minor and it needs to stop. It's deceptive and keeps your long edits from showing up on some watchlists. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Philadelphia Police Department.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You have been warned a couple of times about marking non-minor edits as minor. This diff [1] is a particularly egregious example. Please stop or you may be blocked from editing. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first notification that I've received about "disruptive editing" per se. I wasn't aware that pertinent facts about major, encyclopedia-worthy incidents are disruptive. I wouldn't be surprised if you're a Philly cop who wants to brush their misconduct under the rug.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Your edits are disruptive because you are marking them as minor. This has been explained to you before. Continuing to mark very major edits as minor is disruptive. It makes it more difficult for someone who might want to contest the edit to see it, and can thus be seen as an attempt to avoid seeking consensus on potentially contentious edits. Please stop doing this now unless the edit really is minor. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". (I note too that you do not use edit summaries. You should generally use edit summaries to explain why you are making the change.) Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my bad. I've conditioned myself to check or uncheck the box, in Wiki's case for a minor edit, without even realizing it, as I do on other sites like ebay and gmail. There is no deliberate attempt to conceal anything.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PhiladelphiaInjustice,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got to admit that this is a subject that interests me not at all. That being said, even with my apathy, it sure reads like puffery. Posting their phone number must violate some rule or another. I have posted the issue with Acroterion, he is an administrator known for good judgement. Go to his talk page to see what I wrote and see what he says. I hope you had good holidays. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply and I hope that you have also had happy holidays. I shall follow your advice. Thanks for your assistance. --PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PhiladelphiaInjustice. It has been over six months since you last edited your

".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at

, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Walking Dead (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GoneIn60 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info but I was only trying to state the facts. I will now abide by the newly learned Wikipedia policies. I just added (not reverted) info to the article in question, but it was before I read your second paragraph. Some contributors seem to have an axe to grind against this immensely popular show and, thus, should not be editing its page due to their lack of neutrality.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a "lack of neutrality", it's you; you deleted negative reviews several times because you don't want anything negative about the show in the article. And if you're referring to me, I love The Walking Dead, but articles should have

WP:DUEWEIGHT. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hostile and hypocritical much? Instead of putting words into my mouth, perhaps you should have reread my original explanations. The idea that 83% of The Walking Dead's second season's reviews were positive - but someone chose to only post quotes from the mere 17% that were not - seems counterintuitive to me. Excuse me for living.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those things where it's clearly stated in the paragraph that the second season received mostly positive reviews. This is further backed up by two more statements that essentially say the same thing. The criticism, though small in number, is specific for a reason to show what elements negative reviews were focused on. To any random person reading that paragraph, it is beneficial to see where the criticism came from having just read that most reviews were positive. Keep in mind that out of 9 sentences in that paragraph, 6 are describing the season in a positive light, 2 in a negative light, and 1 that is neutral. There are quotes from two negative reviews and two positive reviews. If you feel there needs to be 1 or 2 more positive reviews thrown in there for better balance, be our guest and do so with proper references. Pick reviews that were done at least halfway through the season (not just after the 1st episode aired). Be

bold. Take a step forward and add positive reviews to balance it, instead of a step backward by deleting material like you did earlier. That's counterproductive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your suggestion, but I will refrain from posting again in that section because I suspect that most of the "critics" are not famous enough to be taken seriously by the public. I had thought about quoting a few positive reviews, but opted not to to avoid controversy. Anyway, what really matters is that the show's Nielsen ratings are through the roof.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we're on the same page now. I plan to eventually add one more statement from a positive review, but I think the key here will be to find a review that was done mid-season or later. The problem with only relying on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, is that most of the reviews (nearly all of them) were done after the first episode aired. How can you possibly judge an entire season based off of one episode? Also, specific statements from reviews may need to be moved to each season's primary article. The Reception section on the main Walking Dead article should be a brief summary for the series as a whole and not delve into too much detail on each season. Plus it seems redundant. We may need to look at that as well. As for famous critics, my approach is this. If the source is

reliable, then that's the only criteria I need to worry about. If someone wants to replace my contribution with one from a more notable critic, that's fine, but the burden is on them to do so not me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

My armchair psychology: it seems that many Wiki contributors (not you) are control freaks or bullies who just want to get their way and feel important while ignoring facts. These people may have inadequacies in real life so they attempt to compensate for them when posting online. I do not enjoy arguing with such types, so I usually give in. Although the two referenced critic sites may be imperfect and offer incomplete info, they nonetheless have the closest thing to empirical evidence that is available in a short, declarative format. As such, I repeat: it is illogical to only quote from negative reviews when over 80% of the reviews are positive. I must admit that I am a huge fan of The Walking Dead, but I merely wanted to correct a lopsided wrong while trying to retain neutrality, if that is possible. Also, as you have noted, common sense dictates that the series' main article's reception section should not delve into such detail about each individual season - but try telling that to control freaks or bullies.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that veteran editors on Wikipedia are often too quick to judge newer editors sometimes. I know I've been guilty of that at times myself. A lot of that has to do with all the vandalism and junk edits that hit articles all the time. Patience can run thin! When in doubt, starting a discussion on the article talk page is always the best route to take. It will usually get the attention of a few impartial editors. Over time as you become more familiar with the site and make valuable contributions, other editors will hopefully begin to recognize your work and ease up a bit. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Changing the content in the Reception section is something we should plan on taking a closer look at soon. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron Previte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neapolitan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Remember_(The_Walking_Dead)#RFC:_Can_the_plot_summary_contain_a_separate.2Fblock_quote.3F
also, in case it matters to you for future reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Drovethrughosts_.28User_talk:Drovethrughosts.29_17:18.2C_4_March_2015_.28UTC.29.5D.5D_reported_by_User:24.79.36.94_.28Result:_.29

24.79.36.94 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance indicates you may have missed some remarkable cases. Check it out. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillylists/Ten-large-payouts-resulting-from-Philly-police-involved-shootings.html

Thanks for the tip!--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice, don't waste your time responding to SummerPhD. I for one appreciate your comments, while I don't agree with them 100% they are at least part of a constructive conversation! Hope you and I can continue to talk and discuss things even when we disagree. --Zackmann08 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to be more interested in bossing others around and in getting their way than in expanding this encyclopedia in a meaningful way. SummerPhD has also attacked lists of on-the-job police fatalities. Considering the millions of pages (literally) of worthless nonsense that is on this website, the types of contributions that someone chooses to criticize screams volumes about his character.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree.... --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really your bailiwick, but still..

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza

Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Paul. So much for the "neutrality" of Wiki's contributors.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's inclusion criteria so far is that a finding (eg. by a court of law) of wrongdoing by the police must already exist and, IMO, this is a very good test. However, there are cases which are too recent (say those within +/- the last couple of years) for a court of law to have reached a finding yet despite of them already making their way thru the court system. In particular, there are some cases that do not fulfill the inclusion criteria but for which there may be state or federal investigation currently underway or for which the family of the victim are known to have filed a lawsuit, etc. Readers coming to this article looking to see them listed here will find that such cases are missing...

What do you think of the idea of adding a subsection listing (perhaps in some brief table format) those cases where PB is currently being investigated, court proceedings underway, civil lawsuit filed, etc? (That is, just plain public charge, outcry, opinion, etc, wouldn't be enough to qualify its inclusion) Of course, they wouldn't be proven cases of PB yet, but rather suspect cases only, and such qualification could be made in the subsection lead. Mercy11 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea is creative and I will not object to its undertaking, even though I do not agree with your premise that completely unproven allegations against law enforcement authorities belong in any encyclopedia. At least wait for the charges to be proven by the civil standard (a successful lawsuit). If you want to risk wasting the effort involved to post such a table, knowing that others (not I) may delete it, go for it. Keep in mind, though, that the prior postings demonized border agents merely for shooting at illegal immigrants who were throwing projectiles (potentially dangerous weapons) at them. I would hardly call those entries neutral, as required by Wiki's policies.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on the Philadelphia Fire Department. I would imagine a list of all the firefighters killed would be large and unwieldy. You will remember that we broke off your PPD Misconduct article when it became too large to be included in the PPD article. If you feel a need for a list of this sort, and it might have some value, it would be best handled as a separate list.

My quick glance at the talk page you cited indicates you are not being as graceful as you might be. You feel strongly about “your” pages and others feel strongly about “theirs.” Be excellent to one another as a wise man once said. I understand you think you are right, but I also understand they think they are right. There is no right answer here, it is a matter of opinion.

I would propose you walk away from this. If that is impossible, I strongly recommend you wait a month or two before returning to this article. Time heals most, if not all wounds and time for reflection is almost always called for when strong opinions meet. There is plenty for you to do. Give this time to think it over.

A nice note on the talk page telling the others you will take some time off to think about what they have written would help defuse the situation. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I have tried to start a standalone PFD line-of-duty fatality article, but detractors shot down that attempt, too. I was able to link the Philly PD's already-established line-of-duty deaths article to their main article, despite some protests. What on Earth do people have against firefighters and police officers who die while bravely doing their jobs?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I just want to mention, with absolutely ALL due respect. I would be careful about equating the notion that deaths are not notable with a lack of caring about those who die on the job. There are some in that conversation who are going about their arguments in a very, shall we say, blunt and confrontational way? But speaking for myself, and ONLY for myself... I lost a friend 2 weeks ago. He was a firefighter and died on the job. While I have the utmost respect for his sacrifice, I don't feel that his death is notable enough to be included on here. I respect your view and we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. My only point is that the fact that I personally don't feel that this is notable event for inclusion on wikipedia, does NOT mean that I don't care or have something against those who die on their job. Just be careful about painting us all with the same brush. :-) Anyway, like I said, I respect your view and difference of opinion. Hope you are well. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Philadelphia Police Department page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

. Thanks, ]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philadelphia Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Firebomb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

]

You are thoroughly confused and in it is you who is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. You have reverted my bona fide edits (whose appropriateness an administrator has praised) three times within 24 hours, which can result in being blocked from editing.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit sums about serial commas at

]

Thank you for educating me about Wiki's policies, but I have never seen "Harvard commas" used in any encyclopedia, although their use is grammatically correct in formal writing. As I had noted in my edits, other editor(s) are free to revert my edits.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks. Thanks. -

]

What "personal attacks" are you talking about? If anything, you have attacked me and my good faith contributions.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...his highly subjective excuses...a self-proclaimed expert...Cyber bullies will potentially be able to use illogical rationalizations to delete any of my contributions."[2]

"...you express such passion, rage, indignation, and bluster...you are not always right by default. Also, you have already stated that suicides belonged on another similar article, but curiously rationalize ..."[3]

"...you illogically rationalized...Your use of analogies is both patronizing and illogical....according to their common sense definitions that everyone with an IQ above 60 can agree upon....article does not need an overhaul just because you so proclaim it. You have no more authority on Wikipedia than I. I will appeal any changes that you make to administrators who DO have authority, and you may quote to infinity your irrelevant analogies. I let you bully me into submission on the PPD's and Philly firefighters' fatality pages because they are relatively unimportant, but I will fight you every step of the way on the PPD misconduct article."[4]

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please do not call me or any other editor irrational, cyber bullies, patronizing, illogical, etc. Please do not repeatedly state that I have claimed to be right by default, act by fiat, etc. Please stop stating what you think I intend to do or why you feel I have done anything, especially when you present it as fact -- you have been wrong on this repeatedly. Comment on content, not on the contributor. -

talk) 20:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that my earlier posts were impolite, but I have stopped so posting after you complained. I now realize that this ain't Youtube, where anything goes. Nonetheless, I was and am simply trying to prevent you from decimating the articles that I have contributed to. Also, if you analyze your own prior posts, I am sure that even you would agree that some of criticisms that you have made about me also apply to you.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhiladelphiaInjustice,

Generally we only use one official page as an external link for a person per "

" which says: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation. In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information. Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking and communication services where the content changes rapidly and may not comply with this guideline at any given moment in time. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing."

Reedus' official Facebook, Twitter and other official social network accounts are prominently linked from the main page of his official website under "Official social networks - click the icons below" so providing links to them is not really considered acceptable in this case. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had read and understood the Wiki policy but believed in this rare instance that an exception should be made. This is one of those Wikipedia: Ignore all rules cases due to the subject's popularity and the fact that a mere two other external links were present. Not everyone would be willing to click around to find the FB page, which by the way has by far the most likes and posts of any TWD actor's.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if

WP:FACEBOOK seems pretty clear to me in this case, but a discussion might find that other editors feel differently and support adding the link to the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Mumia Article

Can you please continue to discuss the lead on the Mumia article.? Much appreciated.--Inayity (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Kinney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Showtime. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lauren Cohan

added a link pointing to

Penultimate

The Walking Dead (TV series)

added a link pointing to Divine Intervention

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PhiladelphiaInjustice. It has been over six months since you last edited your

".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

this link

. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhiladelphiaInjustice. Just thought you should know about

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]