Talk:Philadelphia (magazine)

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Mid‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

May issue of Philly mag

The controversy of the May 2007 issue is true, has references. Do not remove because of marketing issues, guys. Alfred Legrand 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

I was the first person to revert the edits, so let me state my case. First, I do not think this is vandalism. I do think, though, that it was poor editing, the kind I would normally ascribe to newbies, except that the user has already been warned multiple times about his edits. More importantly, though, I do not think that the section on the May issue is notable enough to warrant inclusion.

The user is correct that he has "references." The CBS 3 article that the user mentions doesn't talk about any controversy, scandal, or even minor kerfuffle over the portrait. Yes, the magazine received some letters about it, but any magazine with a readership of at least 2 will receive at least 1 angry letter. If letters to the editor are the standard, than we might have "Controversy over criticism of the Inquirer" (due to letters in the May issue), "Controversy over global warming denialism" (letters from the March and April issues), and "Controversy over the portrayal of Michael Nutter" (a letter in the February issue).

In short, the edits smelled like the work of someone with an axe to grind, and a fairly unrefined axe at that. That's why I reverted the edits. I can't speak to other users' thoughts, but I deliberately refrained from re-removing the content (not wanting to risk an edit war). It seems that other users agree with my evaluation, but that one party refuses to hear us out -- not no way, not no how.

--RunnerupNJ 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a recipient

I think it's not encyclopedic to mention that something or someone has not won some award or other.--BillFlis 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from the User:Alfred Legrand userpage: "Since I am a newby, I will need much help". Bill i have to toaly agree with you on the reverts, i have yet to really find much credibility to his edits, and basicaly they come down to being nothing more then backhanded comments. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]