User talk:Phil Bridger

29th and Gay

Hey, thanks for adding sources to 29th and Gay. I was trying to verify how the books about Shakespeare cover this film and I wasn't able to find anything. But I was a little confused on the second citation you added. You cited page 1045 of Shakespeare Survey: Volume 62, Close Encounters with Shakespeare's Text. According to the Google Books, it only has 454 pages. Is this an error? BOVINEBOY2008 10:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see the relevant text via Google Books at [1] (about 140 words) and [2] (about 50 words), but Google Books can be very unpredictable about what it actually shows to whom. The page number is as reported by Google Books in the "&pg=PT1045" parameter, but there is no number actually written on the page. The reason this is covered in books about Shakespeare is that the protagonist of this film appears in a production of Henry V. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the explanation! BOVINEBOY2008 11:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Danish Trade Council

Could you point me in the direction of some of the sources you found for Danish Trade Council (beyond the one you added to the article)? There are quite a lot of Google Books and Scholar results, but they all seem to be either passing mentions, citations or publications by the organisation itself. Likewise, Gbooks only has snippet view of the 2006 Worldwide Government Directory With International Organizations, but the 2013 edition clearly falls short of substantial coverage. So I think I'll take this to AfD, but thought I'd check whether you turned up anything I've missed before doing so. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A section has been added for you to add your summary of the debate if you so wish. Thanks. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

JPL

Hi. I've noticed across a few AfDs comments you've made directed at JohnPackLambert about the quality of his participation and suggesting he doesn't do his own research when !voting. I would suggest leaving him a message on his talk page might be a more effective way of expressing those concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Devi Sridhar

Your views would be most welcome at Talk:Devi Sridhar. All the best Alssa1 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer not to get involved in a content dispute at this article, apart from trying to get the parties to talk to each other rather than reverting each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that the one person who took issue with the content has disappeared and gave a rather questionable reason for its removal in the first place. I believe there is value in it being present, I'm willing to discuss it with those who disagree and I'm willing to compromise. Would you take issue if I restored it, or do you think I should wait longer? Alssa1 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LennyBernstein (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Scissor Manohar

I am the creator of this page. Kindly read this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive320#TamilMirchi TamilMirchi (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. It would be better for you to have made that clear either in the edit summary adding the speedy deletion tag (as you have now done) or at Talk:Scissor Manohar. Many editors don't read the Administrators' Noticeboard, and many that do don't remember everything said there for months afterwards. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edit

Hi Phil, You removed this speedy deletion tag I put on this article: Saeid Eslamian here saying that "much of this is worded factually". Could you please let me know what do you mean by factually worded? It has basically no reliable references, only links to irrelevant websites. The name of the person is only mentioned in one of the references, which is a uni homepage (you could write anything your homepage!). For biographies of living persons multiple reliable sources are needed. Much of this article is original research. I came across this article after receiving an email from a predatory publication. They included a link here too. This is clearly advertising. There are thousands of academics with better qualifications than this person, but I am afraid they do not meet the notability requirements. I even checked the person's papers before nominating the article for deletion: mostly mediocre or predatory publications. Thanks, Pirehelo (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You give reasons for deleting this article, which would be good to include in an WP:AFD discussion if you choose to start one, but I do not believe that the article qualifies under the strict criteria for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, why doesn't the name appear here in the list of AFD articles? Thank you. Pirehelo (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi Phil. You might be interested in this discussion where I use some of your edits as an example. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pannaiyar

I am happy that you are starting it fresh. Previously there was no single citation and full of crap. I hope you will make it better. EruTheLord (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this is a notable topic, but believe that there are enough sources available to avoid deletion without discussion. You are welcome to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD if you can't find further sources, at which point I might, if I am so inclined, look for more sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is pannaiyar is used a social marker to emphasise land landholding and wealth. And is not strictly used by a single people group per se. Therefore I dont hope to find any further citation. However You are welcome to add to the content if you believe there are legitimate sources to back it up. EruTheLord (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Gregory Michael Stanley

Hi, Phil Bridger,

Just a reminder to please post a notice on the page creator's talk page when you tag a page for deletion. If you use Twinkle, this will happen automatically. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not feel obliged to do so when a page is a clear WP:BLP violation, as this was. The important thing was for it to be deleted as soon as possible, without regard to the creator's feelings. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Morteza Javidi

Hi Phil Bridger. I understand the infobox states that he is a general, however, none of the sources I read refer to him as such, instead using the terms "commander" and "martyr". Additionally, he commanded a battalion, which usually has, at best a colonel, but usually a Lt. Colonel or even Major as its commanding officer, being a unit of 1000 or less men.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

La Clinica del Pueblo

Just wanted to say that I appreciated your work on that prod and at AfD. It looks like you meant to decline it but didn't actually remove the template. I just did, after citing another academic source … In any case, I look forward to seeing your name around in future. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to remove the template. Thanks for doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Lemi, Ethiopia

Thanks for sourcing this after I PRODded it. I've now added the coords, and resolved various redlinks, including creating Alem Ketema. PamD 11:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Georges Sada AfD

Thanks for suggesting the AfD process. :)

Nomination of Georges Sada for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georges Sada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges Sada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hello Phil, could you write your opinion ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.194.183 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Escola Portuguesa de Luanda

Just a head's up, you have been mentioned in a deletion review : Wikipedia:Deletion review#Escola Portuguesa de Luanda. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Russell Dennis Lewis

I believe you are being unfair to me regarding this issue, I am educated to degree level, I have reason to believe, and can provide evidence, that articles created in this way have a history of not supported by the creator, and end in a very poor state for their duration. So by protecting this title page of a notable person, in my opinion is denying a real and valued article being created by an author who is going to value it and maintain its quality. It is similar to someone claiming all the best domain names. This is a serious issue for wider debate, we cannot just believe one attitude "the community" is correct, ghost articles need to be deleted. Not being admin, I cannot address this, but I feel this needs debating and action.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't get what you are going on about. You can write an article about Russell Dennis Lewis by simply replacing the redirect with your article. There is no credit involved with creating the page, but individual edits to it are credited, so, if it's really important to you, everyone will be able to see that you turned it into an article. Your replacement of the redirect with a message is vandalism, pure and simple. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Lara Sousa

Thanks for taking off the "db" tag. I indeed appreciate! Kambai Akau (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman Azhari

Dear friend, thanks kindly for pointing out that this needs to go through a WP:G4 process. I am unsure how to initiate that and wonder if you could please assist me. I’m sorry I don’t know how it’s done. Thank you and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

George, the way to nominate an article for deletion under WP:G4 is simply to put the {{db-repost}} template at the beginning of the article, but on further investigation it seems that more sources have been added since this article was deleted, so, if you think they are inadequate, another discussion at WP:AFD is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

About titles and honorifics

Hello once again and greetings,

We were discussing this topic of titles & honorifics @ Village pump (policy). Since I need to engage in some other discussions related to appeal to popularity I want to limit my self on titles & honorifics as of now and any ways one single discussion does not produce much result on WP being to many people involved, so putting point forward and waiting is any ways there.

Still I want to reply you (will try to be brief but not sure).

Titles and honorifics related issues I cited is not just about some new comers making sundry decisions. Even experienced people (and groups) otherwise citing rational logic most times may reserve some areas as beyond rationals and logic it's very human. As such I am my self a strong proponent of fifth Wikipedia pillar Wikipedia has no firm rules do think Wikipedia community need to be more firm on principle to avoid appeal to popularity for better grounding of encyclopedic value. Why? because titles and honorifics create normative and can end up compromising with lop sided narratives which in turn ends up in compromising neutrality.

Since Wikipedians usually go by commandments and not spirit of values then people follow popular commandments and ignore non popular ones where they get chance. Things are so normalized some one who does compromise on principle or value does not easily realize.

Some one asked me once about a statement in one Wikipedia article saying '.. 2nd Baron was son of 1'st Baron and lady XYZ..' You might ask what is wrong with this statement isn't it? Then there are Popes, Saints, Mothers and Mahatmas and so is Allamah in Wikipedia article titles. We just don't notice them since those are normalized with some or other excuse. If people are determined then many of those excuses can be avoided and alternate ways to name articles can be found out as in 'Mary, mother of Jesus', I repeat it is just appeal to popularity and tradition wins in those compromising cases.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is just to keep you informed that, following discussions seem to move ahead further and may be you want to share some more inputs further.

• • Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Which (all) Wikipedia articles still retain Honorifics?
  • and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity

• Thanks, Bookku (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit warring.

Phil Bridger, cut it out with the edit warring, if you don´t care about the name of Kiteretsu, then just leave it then.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolman971 (talk • contribs)

I reverted you, which is not edit-warring. You then reinstated your edit rather than discuss it on the talk page, which is. As I and at least two other editors have explained to you the thing to do if you think the name of an article should be changed is to discuss it on the talk page, in this case Talk:Kiteretsu Daihyakka. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR)

Regarding North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR), what is the correct next thing to do? I don't have a strong opinion about notability. Research centers organized under the same rubric in Indian law have not always been found to be notable. But anyway, the originator has disclosed a COI on the talk page, which sounds rather like a paid COI; they should not be making inclusion decisions. (Secondarily, the two copies of the article should find their way back to one another, or both be deleted, though I'm surely not disputing your untagging.) Is AfD really the next step? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not looked into notability, and do not have the time or inclination to do so today or tomorrow, so can't give you any advice as to whether this should go to AfD. I do however have pretty strong feelings about moving articles to draft space when the original author has not agreed to it. Draft space may have some benefits as a means to get a potential article reviewed at AfC, but in general it is, despite what is said in policy and the intentions of the people moving articles there, a back-door means of deletion by non-admins. People don't edit there and articles get deleted without any sort of questioning or review after six months. I just wish that with this people would accept that an experiment has failed, something which few people seem prepared to accept due to the sunken cost fallacy. The current use of draft space goes againt the basic wiki principal that articles are edited in main space. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that articles sometimes (often?) get moved to draft space unduly. In the situation where an editor is still active, the move sometimes seems like a reasonable thing to do, particularly when there are COI issues (and especially paid ones). It seemed reasonable in this case. Anyway, I guess AfD is the place for this, as I think the community should decide on notability (which is unclear to me). I'll probably wait a few days and see what happens first. While I'm writing: I appreciate the good work and reasoned arguments you bring at the AfDs we've interacted on! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit war is still going on

Please have a look at ATK Mohun Bagan FC. The edit war is still going on. I have also reported to one administrator regarding the issue. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I know it is still going on, but I don't think there's much else that I can do. Administrator action is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit Wars / Tag removal with out improvement

Tags for deletion, improvement or notability can not just be randomly removed because you don’t personally agree. There is a process. Follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.185.50 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The process is called WP:BRD. User:FactCheck0001 boldly added the notability tag, within process. I then reverted, also within process. But you, instead of starting a discussion on Talk:Azeem Majeed, edit-warred by re-reverting, not following process. And what user talk page were you talking about in your edit summary? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

2 × 2 real matrices

Hello! Regarding 2 × 2 real matrices, I agree with you that "many of our articles on mathematics provide some trivial results but then presuppose much more advanced knowledge". Might you be willing to take a look again? To me, it is not so much that the later topics in this article are advanced; it is that they are bizarre. The article is full of topics and terminology not found in the standard linear algebra textbooks at any level, such as split-quaternions, involutory matrix, split-complex numbers, and profile.

I wasn't the one who proposed deletion, but I think that there is a strong case for it.

Thank you for reading this, Ebony Jackson (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Phil for removing the proposal for deletion; that made the proposer into a nominator and the full AfD process to occur. Thank you also for participation in the discussion on the deletion page, but you didn't leave a keep or delete vote. The article contains elementary ring theory so it steps beyond ordinary topics of introductory linear algebra. Rgdboer (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Uttara FC

I've added the source date of most of the references Please check if it is ok now there in Uttara FC Fahim Mokbul Ur Rahman (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jessie Hillel

The article Jessie Hillel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject has requested deletion. She is relatively unknown, and a non-public figure, Subject was a minor child star, and now, as an adult, seeks to remove herself from the spotlight

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Rklahn (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Jessie Hillel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessie Hillel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Hillel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Rklahn (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frère-Bourgeois

courtesy ping as you declined the PROD and I'm not sure whether you were watching page or just on PROD patrol. StarM 20:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Revision

You removed an important piece of information from Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day article. Would it not be reasonable to cite it with an alternate source, in the event the reference is the issue? DocWattkins (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide an independent reliable source for the colours and the information can then be restored. A facebook page is about as far from being an independent reliable source as it is possible to get. The source should be provided at Talk:Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day in the form of an edit request. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have on several occasions cited an independent source link, when published the talk does not appear in the discussion thread. Is there a template required for the citation of sources? Where can I find info related to the editing of the wiki? Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Dynamic HTML for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dynamic HTML is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic HTML until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

4E616D65 (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Paja Brava

Hi. I found this article, tagged for notability since 2011, and I'm wondering whether it can be improved, but there's not a lot to be found online. I see that you added a Rough Guides book as a source with this edit. Do you still have access to this book? If so, could you provide the information it gives about Paja Brava? Thanks in advance! Lennart97 (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm cooking dinner at the moment so can't check now. I'll try to get to it tomorrow, UK time (which I just remembered goes forward an hour tonight). Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't recall editing this ten years ago, but Google Books shows me this. It may or may not show you the page, as it is very unpredictable what Google Books shows to whom. There is clearly not significant coverage of the band there, but it does list it as one of the prominent exponents of its style, indicating that sources probably exist elsewhere. I added that source to show that this shouldn't be speedily deleted, but a more in-depth search for sources would be needed to determined whether it should be deleted at AfD. I'm probably not the best person to do that as my Spanish is rather rudimentary and most hits for the title seem to be about a type of grass with this name. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! The book's mention of the group indeed does suggest that it may be notable and that sources probably exist. I'll see if I can find help somewhere, maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin music. Lennart97 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of article about Axininca language

About your comment in the reversion of the proposed deletion in the article about Axininca language: "this is something that needs to be determined by consensus at WP:AFD, rather than by summary deletion, and I distrust anyone who says that they have "certain knowledge" about such matters"

If you think that the deletion of this article needs to be determined by consensus, deleting the proposed deletion by yourself is no consensus, but just your unilateral decision; maybe you might have invited me to start the consensus procedure. I write in Wikipedia sometimes, but I'm not a keen Wikipedian, so all this is quite complicated for me --haven't you already heard complaints about the complicated Wikipedia procedures? I didn't say in my message that I have a "certain knowledge" on the matter, as you claim, I just said that it's obvious for anyone having a certain knowledge on Amazonian linguistics that it's incredible that 20% of the speaking population are literate in their language, just as anyone with a certain knowledge on geography knows that Tunisia is an Arab country in Northern Africa. As for me, without boasting, I'd rather should say that I don't have a certain knowledge, but a lot of knowledge on the matter, but this is not my argument: I pointed to the lack of references in the article and to the fact that this alleged language is just a variety in a dialect chain, which is already described in another article. You can see a lot of references in the references list, but most are articles that only mention this alleged language together with many other languages. I think it's all quite well explained in my argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS20M (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no other way to contest a WP:PROD tag, which calls for deletion without discussion, than by myself. You may be right that this should be deleted, but that is something that should be determined by discussion following the WP:AFD procedure. Yes, I know that Wikipedia has complex procedures, and I wish they were simpler, but that is the procedure for gaining consensus for deletion. I thought that it was implicit in my comment that you quoted that I am inviting you to start the consensus procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the feedback. I'll try the WP:AFD procedure when I find the time.--CS20M (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Leonore?

Hello! Did you mean to vote "Delete" here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I meant to contribute to the deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing up that article! Toad62 16:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Alex Oliveira" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Alex Oliveira. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Alex Oliveira until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. D-M (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Contested speedy deletion of Robert Turner (Bahá'í)

CC-BY-NC-SA is not a compatible license with Wikipedia. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I somehow managed to miss the NC. I've self-reverted. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello @Phil Bridger: I wanted to thank you for your input on the article Bhola Thapa. I stumbled across that article because I noticed a certain user was appearing to be oppressive in their edits (my opinion). It didn't make sense to blank the entire article and then contest the content in the talk section, so I tried to strike a middle ground. I'll have to pay more attention to WP:PROF myself. Cheers! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

[3]

Not much of a source, was it? I'll Afd instead. But yes, unsourced BLP:s bother me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

USERS

I can't discuss something which is not to be discussed. INFO with reference is not the same with INFO without reference. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything that is disputed needs to be discussed. Not everything that is sourced is necessarily fit to be included in a Wikipedia article and, although I haven't followed discussions on sources for football, the reliability of rsssf.com is certainly questionable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

USER

And as you are a user also, don't say me what to do. I wrote in administrators' page and your answer is already deleted in my mind. (is wikipedia a forum for discussions? Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just giving you some good advice about where to discuss content. If you won't take advice then you are unlikely to enjoy editing here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Query regarding proposed deletion of Alexander Nikolov (poet)

Hi there, so I noticed you reverted my proposal for article deletion per WP:BLPPROD for Alexander Nikolov (poet), listing the following reference as to why: "contest deletion - cite sources". Now, perhaps it was the case that I chose the wrong template/reasons for deletion, given that there were several sources linked to for the page, however the reason I chose to do so is that of the four citations listed the primary source link was broken (returning a 404 error), two were from poetry magazine's own website and did not contain any of the information described in the article and the four was merely a link to an Amazon web store page of the author's self published poetry books.

Needless to say, I feel the article fails basic WP:BIO criteria – but even then the stub is also clearly not properly sourced at all. Hence why I chose the template that I did. The article was first created when it's subject was just 19 years old and mostly pertains to his publication in a local poetry magazine. You can read nothing about him anywhere else in the Bulgarian press, or any serious options for sources, (such as books, newspaper articles, journals, web pages or film, television, or video recordings). I suspect the author wrote his own page as a form of self-promotion; (again the fourth of four citations on the article is a link to his own web store page on Amazon!).

Given the above, would you suggest I use the WP:BLPPROD template again, or should I try the normal system instead? Do you feel you disagree with my rational for proposing the article's deletion? Many thanks in advance for your advice and comment in this matter! P.Marlow (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My removal was purely because the strict requirements of WP:BLPPROD are not met. That procedure is only for use when there are no sources at all in the article, even if the sources come nowhere near showing notability. I haven't looked in-depth but at first glance it seems that Nikolov is not notable. If you think the article should be deleted then your best bet is probably to start a discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is for always standing up for the truth and never following the “crowd mentality” There aren’t many editors who can expressly state their opinion(s) thank you for always being part of the group of editors who state their opinions regardless of anything. Thanks once again. Celestina007 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tony Juliano

Wrt https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Juliano&diff=prev&oldid=1027391218&diffmode=source, which external links do you think "are enough to mean that this procedure cannot be used"? https://web.archive.org/web/20130515000711/http://www.forgot2laugh.com/Home.html doesn't mention his name, neither does http://www.stuckism.com and http://www.myartspace.com/interviews/interviews/art-space-talk-tony-juliano.html is a dead link. If I understand you correctly then, BLPPROD can never be used when the subject links to their own website. Is that what you meant? Tx, Vexations (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That is true. The WP:BLPPROD policy is about protecting the subjects of articles, not about notability. Just read it, and you will see that his own web site is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I had of course read it. We just seem to disagree on what it says. I read this process (when correctly initiated) requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography as excluding the subject's own website because self-published (by the subject) sources are not reliable. In this case, there are no external links to reliable sources that say anything about the subject at all, except one that is not reliable. Vexations (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You have left out the words "To be cancelled" before that quote and ignored everything else in that policy, which is crystal clear. If you want to nominate an article for deletion based on lack of notability then simply use one of our other procedures, but please read it first. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I find your continued insistence that I should just read the policy a tad condescending. I have read it, more than once, and again just now. You cancelled the PROD despite the absence of any reliable source that supports at least one statement, as required. You seem to think that the presence of one unreliable source (actually, that page itself contains no biographical information, but it does link to one that does), is sufficient.

There is no mention of protecting the subjects of articles in the policy BTW. But I think you know that.

Anyway, I'm giving up on PROD. I'll take it to AfD. Vexations (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I cancelled the WP:BLPPROD, which is a completely different beast from a WP:PROD, because it did not fulfil the requirement (which you must have read because you quoted it back) that it had been correctly initiated. It was not because the policy itself is crystal clear that to place such a tag there need to be "no sources in any form that support any statement made about the person in the article". I'm sorry if you find my insistence that you simply read the policy condescending, but if you so obviously have not read it, or are incapable of understanding such clear English, then there is little else that I can do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I see, I'm too stupid to edit Wikipedia. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Some concerns

You just put a note about PRODS on a user's talk page. I have also expressed concern there, pinging you. I am wondering if there is more to this editor than meets the eye. I had an earlier question for them based on their first 24 hours. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that this issue has been dealt with now. Thanks. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please Be Patient

I was busy coming up with a well-composed rationale behind my deletion propose, which you can see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viacheslav Vershinin. Please understand that sometimes, things take some thought and effort to put things together and assume good faith. Tautomers (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Qishuyan railway station for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Qishuyan railway station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qishuyan railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Jeepday (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Heycambry (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Pedant" pedantry

A pendant

A pedant

Hehe, I just wanted to point out the irony of a pedant misspelling "pedant". I'd also like to note that the word "litterally" is relevant to the situation on which you were commenting. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoist by my own petard. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Worthington-New Haven State Road for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worthington-New Haven State Road is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worthington-New Haven State Road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:usernamekiran § Galgotias College

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:usernamekiran § Galgotias College. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Thanks for responding! "What is the Best AI model for Content Moderation on Wikipedia?"

Dear @Phil Bridger: Thanks so much for your participation in our discussion post "What is the Best AI model for Content Moderation on Wikipedia?" in Village Pump! Your insights are really appreciated! I wonder if you would have time to engage a bit more with us and other interested editors on this topic? We plan to host an online zoom discussion session soon to invite editors to discuss further with us and with each other -- of course you can turn your camera off if you want :) If you're interested, please get in touch and I will send you (and others) a WhenToMeet link to schedule the session! Thanks so much again for your time! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)