User talk:Phil Bridger

Yuvika Chaudhary

Perhaps while you're trying to help build this encyclopedia, you could look up WP:CIVIL as well? Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So do you think that demanding deletion of other people's efforts to build the encyclopedia without taking a few seconds to look for evidence is civil? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do look for evidence; I appreciate I'm not infallible, and will, in the future, pay more attention. As it happens I think that what I do is not uncivil, no; since the problem here was WP:ENT, I confirmed that her roles were in most cases minor and in other cases not major enough to pass the guideline. The irony of a man accusing me of being uncivil and acting rashly after your actions is not lost on me. Ironholds (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This conversation made my day. - Someone on 3/29/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.48.239.178 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Ndum

I'm sorry for the bad speedy delete template. When looking through I thought I saw the information, but looking back after your edit it wasn't there. However, I'm not sure if the page violates some other policy, per Nkin and would like to ask for your advice regarding the matter. I saw that Nkin was WP:PRODed because "foreign language vocabulary entry with no indication of potential for expansion -- WP is not a dictionary" (I'm not trying to justify my mistake as WP:Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument.

The user moved Bankon language to a bad title.

How should I deal with Ndum? Thank you for you advice, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think

About this article in my user space [1]? I noticed you opine at AfD's and on subjects of other countries, and I think if I remember correctly also on the Balkans. This article was my first one and was deleted after an AfD. I have been improving it and continued working on it. What is your opinion on it and are you able to offer me some assistance/guidance/suggestion on it? Thank you in advance for your opinion. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly got plenty of sources there. I don't have time right now to look through the article in detail, but should be able to do so in the next few days. I can't claim to be fluent in Croatian, but do have some knowledge of the language from having studied linguistics (specialising in Slavic languages) at university over 30 years ago, so I'll try to evaluate the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bagh-i-Muattar

Since numerous (dozens of) Wikipedia articles already exist about individual writings of Aleister Crowley, why should an article about this particular writing be redirected when the other articles are not so redirected? (To see a list of the writings of Aleister Crowley on which there are already Wikipedia articles, please see Works of Aleister Crowley.)0XQ (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For diligently finding sources for Fatah Hawks where none previoulsy existed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
		I, Sulmues, award Phil Bridger with this star for saving Rexhep Demi Azis Tahir Ajdonati, Veli Gërra, Jakup Veseli, Zenel bej Begolli, Dervish bej Ipeku, Hajdin bej Draga, Bedri bej Ipeku, Dhimitër Zografi, Zyhdi Efendi Vlora, and Taq Tutulani from AFD. Since the AFD went well, all these articles are to be considered as if you owned them...Thank you for your helping Wikipedia be a better place!-- sulmues> (talk)--Sulmues 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bohdanow article

Greetings Phil,

Just saw the comments about the Boghdanow article. I added a comment from my side providing several links. I hope that this will clear the field. However, I do have problem with my other article that is mensioned in the comment about Bohdanow. I simply dont understand what to do. If You have time to help me in this matter, I would be really gratefull for You help and assistance!

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your contacting me. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Phil Bridger

I want to thank you for saving Mayor of Nicosia article. How can we stop disruptive users? Is their anyway we can tag disruptive users or warn them and warn others? Once again thank you. Also someone who I think shares our values is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#David_S._Barnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michalis Zampelas Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

King Radio

Thank you so much for adding references to the King Radio article. I was hoping to add some myself but my copy of Calypso Callaloo has gone missing. He was an important calypsonian and should have an article. James Fryer (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sedum burrito

Just wanted to say thanks as I was not completely sure what to do with that article. I had considered a redirect, but for some reason I did not proceed that way. It looks a lot cleaner this way. Cheers, Numero4 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mililani Trask

Thank you for your good work adding sources to Mililani Trask and saving it from deletion. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Marcello Guido

Apologies if my ranting comes across as too personal. I'm afraid that one of the various Wikipedia things that get me worked up is the deletion of subjects that clearly merit an article before the article is complete. There are quite a lot of articles that start out as a stub/invitation to contribute,and gradually get added to as they go from being possibly worth keeping, to probably, to secure. As long as a subject is clearly not notable it seems to be frustrating the whole object of Wikipedia to make knowledge available to block the flow of the process. Opbeith (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Guido Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bekim Bejta

I would appreciate some help regarding Bekim Bejta. The article was first proded here on 2009-11-19. The next day, 91.187.103.5 blanked the page without comment here and Coffee soon reverted that edit. Then, on 2009-11-21, 91.187.103.2 deleted the prod tag without comment or discussion. Minor changes were then made to the article until I replaced the deleted prod, which you indicate has been previously contested. Is deleting the prod or blanking the page the same as contesting it? I'm a novice at this. Tim Ross (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, deleting the prod tag does count as contesting it, as described at WP:PROD. The proposed deletion process is a quick and dirty mechanism by which an article can be deleted without discussion if nobody thinks it should be kept. Once someone has indicated by removing the prod template that they do want it kept then it needs to go for wider discussion at WP:AFD before it can be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Tim Ross (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emelio Caligdong

You reverted the edit with a reference but you didn't even put the link. I also checked that source and it doesn't even mention anything related to the topic of Emelio Caligdong. Pbnjtime (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the citation - I must have taken the information from the wrong browser window. Please note for future reference that there is no requirement for sources to be available online, so the fact that I didn't provide a link is irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of that, but I'm also aware that Manila Bulletin has an online site which they also post news which comes from their newspaper. That's why I had to bring that issue up. Pbnjtime (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Graham Langley restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rantevou stin Kerkyra

Good point. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yugoslav University Debate Network

An article that you have been involved in editing, Yugoslav University Debate Network, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yugoslav University Debate Network. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

Thanks! The line "woman who changes" rang the bell. I moved it to the official orthography. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thorndike Proctor

Actually, there is no shred of notability in the article as it sits. I was giving it time to develop, so the picture would become clearer. That's why I declined the speedy-- he's obviously significant, but has no indication of notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 08:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Just wanted to pop by and thank you for input here. Still thrashing around a bit, trying to assimilate the different guidelines, rules, formats, etc., so your clarification is much appreciated. --Haruth (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick message to say thank you for your support to the David Pugh (Conservative politician) article which I created during it's deletion proposal. The end result was a keep so thanks for your vote. I'm especially pleased as I was up till almost 3:00am writing it and didn't want that work to go to waste!! Editor5807^speak 21:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, Phil

for your help in El Shaitan article. Furthermore, I need a qualified look at another article, dedicated to fictional character, which is also proposed for deletion. If You will find a time to have a quick glimpse there and tell your opinion about it, I will appreciate it a lot. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

El Shaitan

Hi, I saw you deprodded this article stating that "there are loads of sources cited apart from the source work)". Are you sure that these sources are not just trivial in-passing mentions of this character while discussing the (certainly notable) movie itself? --Crusio (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Some of them did not discuss the movie itself. E.g. Shaheen's "Reel bad Arabs", Rovin's "The encyclopedia of super villains" and Everson's "The bad guys" have nothing to deal with movie, they are all about the c h a r a c t e r. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Cox prod

Thanks for catching that it was a repeat PROD -- I had missed that, and I hate when I miss things like that....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. It was easy to miss because the previous prodder didn't provide an edit summary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could that be fixed with a bot? We already have bots indicating "section blanking" and "very short article"; why not "prod tag added" when the edit has no summary? B.Wind (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it could, but I'm not the best one to ask for advice, because I haven't done any programming for over ten years, and prior to that my experience was in IBM System/370 and System/390 assembler language rather than in any of these new-fangled languages that today's youngsters use for programming bots and the like. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Novyi Tevriz

Thanks for renaming the article. I couldn't find anything about it at its current name, and did look on the Russian Wikipedia. I wasn't sure what to do with it so just prodded it hoping a helpful editor would come along and fix, so thanks for doing so. Aiken ♫ 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lennox Raphael

Just so you know, sourcing or not had nothing to do with why I WP:PROD'd the article. The earlier version did not make clear why he should be included in WP. Maurreen (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I think it's a good idea to at least do a Google Books search before proposing such an article for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote India

If this article is to remain than it either needs more significant coverage, needs to seem less like an advert, and needs to not be an orphan. -Cam^T|C 19:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of significant coverage in the sources in the article, making it less like an advert can be achieved by editing rather than deletion, and being an orphan is utterly irrelevant to deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Edgecombe

I notice that you have proposed the deletion of this entry for a very self effacing, brilliant chemist. I have known Chris for many decades, initially in the pharmaceutical chemistry field and latterly in industrial chemistry. I asked him to write a short piece explaining some of the more important work that he has done which has a significant contribution to ensuring we live in a clean world. Chris has always worked quietly in the background and generally has an aversion to any self-seeking or publicity of any sort. It is interesting that a person such as yourself seeks to eradicate any mention of him or his contribution to world science. In fact, he will be quite pleased to have his entry removed as he finds any acknowledgement of his talent an embarrassment. You say there is no mention of him or his work on search engines - I'm not surprised as this is quite deliberate on his part. (If you judge the value of a person or their contribution to society on whether they have an entry on Google then this is a very sad forum) If, however, you were involved in his area of expertise in either Europe or USA, you would find he is very well known indeed. It is true that he is not well liked either in Government circles (because of his work with Biofuels (Government has to pay subsidies !!)) or with Greenpeace and the like, who don't want power stations cleaned up they just want them all shut down (even tried to use MV Rainbow Warrior to block his ocean tankers from reaching UK power stations). All of this is another subject and one on which he doesn't want to be drawn. I now have a different opinion of Wikipedia as it seems to be at the mercy of any ill informed radical who wants to suppress information that he or she doesn't agree with or cannot comprehend. A very sad situation. Geekiep (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the above explains how Mr Edgecombe is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. We have a simple requirement, which is that articles should be based on reliable published sources which are independent of the subject. How else could we prevent disinformation from being posted? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for Removal of NPOV on Erich Schumann page

The sentence “His role in the project was obfuscated after the war by German physics community apologia.” is an accurate statement concerning Erich Schumann and it reflects the published findings of historians, such as Mark Walker and Klaus Hentschel. The well-documented section “Post World War II” lays out some specifics.

The myth of the German atomic bomb was a highly visible part of postwar apologia. The apologia was that a small group of Nazis had taken control, but they had been removed. Note that the real leaders of the German nuclear energy project, Abraham Esau, Erich Schumann, and Kurt Diebner, were ostracized after the war. Hence the German scientific community denied its past and purged itself of the Nazi elements, thus making way for their acceptance back into the international scientific community. Mark Walker, in his book “German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power 1939 – 1949” [pp. 231-232], said: “The role of Heisenberg as spokesman for the German nuclear power project was important for the apologia as well, for his erroneous claim, that he had been in control of nuclear power research, was accepted uncritically by friends and critics alike. In part, this acceptance is to be attributed to the perception of science by scientists and laymen as reducible to the work of a few ‘great’ scientists. Control is the key aspect of the apologia, for only if Heisenberg and his colleagues had been in command of their research, could their claim, that they had steered it deliberately away from nuclear weapons and towards ‘peaceful nuclear energy,’ appear believable.”

I firmly believe the material in the works of the historians Walker and Hentschel, as cited in the Wikipedia article on Erich Schumann, warrant removal of the NPOV tag.Bfiene (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maui Jim

Hi. I'm not sure what to do with this article. I used it as an example of WP:OTHERCRAP in an Afd discussion and I'm left wondering why nobody has done anything about this article. It looks like the body of text was much larger but got trimmed out because it was unsourced. I've added some sources, and because I grew up near Peoria I'll declare a COI and not nominate it. I will however put a notability tag on it, please don't remove it until rewritten. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I forgot about the earlier tag. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jullian Stevenson → Julian Stevenson

Thanks for catching the misspelling on this one. I didn't find much under the misspelled name, as you might imagine, but with the spelling corrected, there's quite a bit to fix the concerns I expressed. Thanks again. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 23:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV on Erich Schumann

Hello Mr. Bridger. Who is it that will make a decision on the NPOV dispute on the Erich Schumann page? I have added a my input to the discussion page for the article, in response to your NPOV tag. Thanks. Bfiene (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way forward would be to ask for a third opinion, because, although I'm by no means an expert in this field, the way that the article is currently worded seems to be an exposition of the views of some, but not all historians. I've put the appropriate tag on the talk page and listed the article here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Moyle horse

An article that you have been involved in editing, Moyle horse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyle horse. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Maveron is a previously speedy deleted file

I am not exactly sure why you removed SD tag. This is a re-creation and normally they are deleted too. Maveron was built using the Article Wizard which automatically generated the unreviewed tag. Admins generally do not delete unless absolutely necessary. When I saw the re-creation, I tagged it with the appropriate SD tag. --Morenooso (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what the article looked like when it was previously deleted, but as it is now it says that this is a venture capital firm that funded Ebay, which is a pretty clear indication of importance/significance, and it only takes a second or two with Google to confirm that that statement is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It read more like more of an ad. I had a problem going between DB-INC, DB-SPAM or A7. An admin said if I ever was in doubt to use the A7 as that allows admins more choices (although they seem to get it right anyway regardless of what I put). I am satisfied by what you wrote here. I just stepped outside to enjoy some sunshine. Thanks for saving the article. --Morenooso (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to sign to take a nap. If you get a chance, could you wikilinked eBay, Starbucks, etal? TIA. --Morenooso (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation for the Erich Schumann NPOV Issue

Hello Phil Bridger: Based on an input from TransporterMan, I have made a recommendation for the text in the Erich Schumann article. My recommendation is on the discussion page for the Erich Schumann article. I look forward to a resolution of the issue. I trust you will comment. Thanks. Bfiene (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes Posted to the Workspace Page by TransporterMan Re: Erich Schumann

Hello Phil Bridger: I have posted my recommended changes to the workspace page created for me by TransporterMan. His comment appears on the discussion page for the Wikipedia article on Erich Schumann. Regards, Bfiene (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Silk

great work. can you tell me exactly how you found those articles? i seem to have a huge gap in my search strategies, either that or im suffering from a brain fever. any tips appreciated.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Phil Bridger. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!

Who did this? Oh, it was me--I hope you don't mind: "Strictly speaking it [none] is a contraction for not one, a singular, but sometimes the singular construction sounds a bit pedantic." To make sure I am pedantic enough, I will include a footnote and a reflist. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Non-errors, on a website from someone with a doctoral degree and a book in print

Hopefully, between you and I, and irregardless of common usage, you will still, at my age, allow me a little pedantry. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing--and I apologize if I misunderestimated your grammatical grasp. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Orpheus

Current page is an obvious vanity page. Is only notable for Cassandra Complex, who are an influential band and already have a page. The rest aren't.

Don't want to enter an edit war because he'll simply change it back. It's all ready been proposed for deletion, and he simply put the page back on later.

Can someone who isn't the subject of the page sort this out please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlehive (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summaries

You know, I can appreciate the fact that editors disagree with me, and I can make mistakes in interpreting WP:FOOTYN on which I am fully willing to accept correction, but what I don't appreciate and would hope not to see is snide personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in edit summaries despite WP:FAITH or even WP:NOCLUE as in:[2][3][4]

"(contest deletion as one of a series of proposals from an editor who clesrly doesn't understand WP:FOOTYN)"

"contest deletion proposal by an editor who seems intent on eradicating all of our coverage of Bolivian football clubs, including clubs, such as this one, that have played at the top level)"

--Pstanton (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I based my summaries on the evidence that I saw. Your nominations bordered on the disruptive, so deserved such treatment. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would add that such statements as "doesn't compete at the national level which is the notability criterion for clubs in WP:FOOTYN" and "a regional championship, which isn't at the level of notability for a club team" clearly do demonstrate that you don't understand WP:FOOTYN. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fine, I didn't understand WP:FOOTYN, and accept your correction. I'm not disputing that at all. I have no problem with my prod being corrected, and being told I am wrong about the notability guideline. What I do object to is your assumption that I was "intent on eradicating all our coverage of Bolivian football clubs", editing in bad faith, even when it became obvious to you that I was simply making an ignorant mistake, which incidentally was in the course of cleaning up after Kevinzuela, who was repeatedly creating inappropriate pages on Bolivian football, hence my rather critical attitude toward articles he created. --Pstanton (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And honestly, this isn't an enormous issue. I don't want to devolve into some pointless angry argument. I simply wanted to express my pique with what I believe was an inappropriate edit summary, assure you I'm not some oddball who hates Bolivian football and move on. I hope if we run into each other in the future in editing, it won't be in such a feather-ruffling scenario. But really, this simply isn't worth getting worked up over. So I'll bid you bon voyage. --Pstanton (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang

Your contesting of the deletion of Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang on the grounds that i am treating the album different just because the artist/country of origin involved has people of brown skin colour is actually highly bias of yourself and actually suggests that i am racist. I myself am a person of colour and im seriously offended by your comments in the edit summary to so much of an extent that i am now considering reporting you to administators for uncivilness and defamation. Your edit summary now suggests to other editors that i edit with a hidden racist agenda.

In the case of the album itself, I nominate lots of music articles which fail notability for deletion and so i'm quite familiar with the criteria. Having tracklisting and album cover alone with two supporting sources is not notable enough to warrant an album having its own page... regardless of the artist's colour of skin or country of origin. It is clearly stated at WP:NALBUMS which even suggests that in such cases the information should be merged to the artist's page. Rather than edit warring over it I have nominated it for deletion discussion. In future i don't think its a good idea for you to use WP:Other Stuff Exists as an argument for notability. Just because 'x' subject exists it doesn't mean that 'x' subject is notable or correct. Equally it doesn't mean that 'y' article can be justified on the basis of 'x' subject. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to work on your English comprehension. I didn't accuse you of racism or base my argument on other stuff existing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you say your comment "let's not treat topics from a country where most people have brown skin any differently" doesn't suggest that i am treating this article differently because its subject is a countru where people have brown skin colour. Finally your also saying that if the artist was UK-based but had won the Padma Shri award that i would have treated the article differently. There is defo an element of WP:Other Stuff Exists. Comments like "i think you need to work on your comprehension" are controversial and do not help the matter. It is certainly not in WP:Good faith? You could have instead said, "Sorry if you took offence from my comment, that wasn't my intention, however i do believe that the album is notable because..."Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help

What do I need to do to this page: Camila Alves? I had done a lot of changes and it keep going back to the oldest version. I've been posting some sources. But, wikipedia keep changing it. How can I fix this page and make it works? thanx

Felix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixrob (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the content that you added has been removed - it's just that another editor made some minor improvements after you edited it. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can make such edits to improve an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Boris Dimitrov Borisov

Just a quick note regarding your edit to this page: you removed the PRODBLP template in good faith, but I've reverted it as there are no sources listed on the page. There is a single external link, but there is no indication that this is being used as a source. If you would like to improve this page, you might consider finding a reliable source and adding it to the page (preferrably in the form of an inline citation), and then the PRODBLP could be safely removed. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That link clearly verifies the basic facts of the article, so satisfies the conditions of WP:BLPPROD. Whether such a source is listed as an in-line citation or an external link is irrelevant - it's a simple matter of editing to change that, which you are perfectly capable of doing yourself rather than demanding that someone else do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not take a perfectly reasonable suggestion and turn this into an argument. Since a second user has removed the BLPPROD, I will leave it as-is. I was suggesting that you might like to make the change as you clearly had an interest, and I did not make any "demands". Please remember wikipedia's rule of assuming good faith and don't take my message as a personal attack when I was trying to do you a favour by explaining my reasoning for reverting your edit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark D. Clookie

Hi, an IP user has removed the PROD tag from Mark D. Clookie, in case you want to take it to AfD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited Advice

Hey, I think the edit summary you made here isn't exceptionally appropriate. While I agree that the prod had been placed incorrectly (I think I placed it there instead of the page I intended to as obviously neither point in my prod was founded). I'm not going to cite policies or guidelines but I think we both know that your point could have been made with a more constructive tone. I'm not saying you're a bad person and we all do things we shouldn't sometimes. You're certainly an asset to Wikipedia and I hope you're not offended by my unsolicited advice. OlYeller^Talktome 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wood for the trees

You sourced Ola Rapace, but you left in this vandalism from February. Fences&Windows 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit on Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah is reverted

As

1. Tags of lack of references and wikipedia clean up have been repeatedly deleted.
2. It contains a lot of Original research like

...of late since end 2009,serial goes biased,for instance, the May 2010 episodes are more on Wealth overtaking Values. With bad pronunciations by the Hero's son Tapu, Tapu is being glorified all times, perhaps, he's linked to producers.

...He(Bhide) ensures that he saves every single paise whenever he can, which shows that he understands the importance of money, this habit of his is laughed by many. In one of the episodes it becomes a reason for quarrel between Daya Gada and Madhavi Bhide.

...she(sonu) is a very sweet child who is not only well mannered but cultured as well. She is an intelligent and systematic girl. She goes to school on time, attends all her classes, comes back home, plays for a little while, does her homework, prepares her bag for the next day, prays to God and goes to sleep.(too much detail,they never showed a 'busy' sonu.)

...He(sodhi) owns a transport business and also runs a Mandap Decorators service as an ancillary business to support his wife.[...]He hates 'Tapu' for breaking the glass of his window unlimited number of times.

She(Mrs. Roshan) is a sweetheart and very co-operative. She innocently commits a mistake but never realizes it which turns into a funny light moment. Both Sodhi and Roshan always have communication issues because of the language barrier.

There are alot more.I'll need an article List of Original researches in article of TMKUC to explane them all.Haha

• and how can you think that an article of 78 section and sub-sections and approx. 35 thousand words could have ONLY THREE references!

Coercorash^TalkContr. 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those three references, and others such as these, are enough to show notability of the subject. Yes, there's plenty of unsourced content that shouldn't be in the article, but the solution to that is to remove that particular content, or, better still, to replace it with reliably sourced content, rather than to delete the whole article. As another issue, the WP:PROD procedure can't be used if anyone contests deletion, as I have done. If, after reviewing the available sources, you think that this article subject doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion then please start a discussion at WP:AFD where a consensus can be reached. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yoshinori Watanabe

Are you saying that the article is untrue? If so it may well be an attack. There is no easy way to determine this from the text. If not, then notability is clearly asserted and {{speedy}} does not apply. WP:AfD may well be appropriate, though.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimal Google search shows a lot of articles confirming the facts of the article. So who do you suggest it is attacking?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that the absolute requirement for references as contained in WP:BLP only applies to newly created articles, and this one has been here for five years. I have rolled you back. Please do not take offence. As I have said, I feel that the article almost certainly qualifies for deletion ubder WP:AfD; but let us do it following proper procedure.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We keep editing across each other. See my comment above. It is not my article. I have not contibuted to it. I have no intention of doing so. I am just saying let us do it the right way.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy for you to go to WP:AN/I. I am not defending the article. It should probably not be here. I am saying only that if it is to be deleted it should be deleted using the right procedure. The requirement in WP:BLP regarding references is not retroactive. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for us not to publish libel is absolute. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bren powers

I don't think he has competed in national finals. "On July 4, 2010 Bren will be competing in the Scottish round qualifiers" and "UK Strongman-North Novice competition" - Strongman-North is North of England and we haven't managed to lose London and gain national status here yet. I've given some advice and my reasons to the creator, but I don't think the subject does meet the notability standards yet. After the Scottish qualifiers, he might be in the UK finals. If not...... Peridon (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject may well not be notable, and I probably wouldn't contest WP:PROD deletion, but I think that the claims in the article and the first reference are enough of an indication of possible importance/significance to avoid speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

afd for Buquebus

You removed the csd, so I thought you might be interested. I've started: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buquebus cheers, ErikHaugen (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I've noticed you seem to be cleaning up a lot of the mess (e.g. here and here) I leave behind when declining speedy deletion requests... thanks! TFOWR 13:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection for Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah

I've requested Semi-Protection for Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah.Will help me protecting that?

Coercorash^TalkContr. 09:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed prod

I am a convinced inclusionist and almost never vote "delete" at AfDs, but this article and a couple of others created by Bikadi (talk · contribs) (who has an obvious WP:COI problem) went a little bit too far even for me. I do not like AfDs however, and prefer changes/mergings/redirects. If you have any specific objections, please state them at article talk pages. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Mandasor

I have just prodded the contributor for the second time, so hopefully we can get the data to enable a copy to wikisource. I would say that a week is sufficient and that after that you can carry out your deed. Thx. billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvaging

Hi Phil. I'm with you on many of your keeps on here and work you do saving valid articles from deletion but in the case of Deon Taylor the shameless self promotion is evident and shouldn't have been saved from speedy in my view. Articles still require verification and none of thouse sources given provide anything, In fact the imdb link is dead. Now it means a little time wasting is needed to delete this article through an AFD when time would be better spent saving valid articles.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Zaman Group of Industries

Just saw that. I seemed to have a mental block with WP:PROD yesterday, it wasn't the only daft prod thing I did. I don't think I'm normally that daft. TFOWR 23:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that prod didn't just happen by magic. It was originally a speedy deletion because of the many issues with the article. TFOWR graciously decided to change from speedy delete to prod on the understanding that the article contributor (who self identified as an employee of Zaman) would find information that they said was soon to exist.

The prod notice says If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page.

Since you didn't explain why you object to the deletion (merely suggested that some other people might object) and you haven't improved the article and do not intend to, I am undoing your removal of the prod. I would note that you have made no contribution to the discussion at all, and attempted no discussion with TFOWR on the matter, which leaves me rather concerned that we have an editor displaying such a lack of basic attention to civility, consensus building and encyclopedic accuracy. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the point is that WP:PROD shouldn't be used where the deletion is contested, which it clearly was here (albeit we're all ever so slightly sceptical as to the editor actually providing sources, but that really isn't the point). If I'd been smart I'd have deleted it as a copyvio and moved on, instead of fixing it up - the history should have shown me that there was one editor with a COI spamming. Regardless, the {{prod}} was inappropriate. TFOWR 07:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Phil Bridger provided an explanation in their edit summary: "The talk page discussion makes it clear that deletion is contested, so this is not a suitable candidate for WP:PROD". That's good enough for me ;-) TFOWR 07:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy on what makes an objection - particularly the paragraph that states:

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.

→ AA ^(talk) — 07:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR and AA, for replying to Weakopedia. You said pretty much what I would have said, but more eloquently. Weakopedia, you seem to be concerned about consensus-building, so why not use the consensus-based procedure (WP:AFD) if you think that this article should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, but thanks

Your summary on this stung, but it made me think, so thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Albert Cuny

Can you show me where it cites sources? I can see a bibliography, but that's not the same at all. Etrigan (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at what's in parentheses in the article - each one of those is a citation to a book listed in the bibliography with a page number, in the Harvard style. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's citing work that he wrote, not anything that is reliable, are secondary sources, or that talks about him - which is what is required by WP:NOTABILITY. So I still don't see why you removed the PROD when the article is completely unverifiable at WP policy standards? Etrigan (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's citing works by Émile Benveniste and Edmond Faral. Why don't you think that they are reliable, or that they talk about the subject, especially when one of them even mentions Cuny in its title? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Because only one is WP:RELIABLE - the Benveniste - and that only backs who he was and what he did, not the essential part - why he was notable. The second is in French (therefore also has WP:NONENG problems) and as far as I can tell in my limited French, is an obituary. Those are not a decent secondary source as far as I'm aware. While he may meet one of the notability criteria in WP:PROF, I can't see from the article which one, or sufficient citing to make a notability assertion WP:VERIFIABLE. Am I wrong? Etrigan (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really must ask you to read things properly and think things through before trying to argue a point. First, you say that there are no citations despite obvious evidence to the contrary, then you say that the citations are to the subject's own work when the names in the citations are obviously not that of the subject, and now you are arguing on the basis of a misreading of WP:NONENG and a made-up claim that a source published by the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres is somehow unreliable because it is an obituary. I don't mean to be nasty, but I simply don't have the time or the patience to deal with every petty-fogging objection that you come up with. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Origina research on TMKOC

Again,Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah is a victim of original research.Can you please restore it back to neutral version and request for full protection?

Coercorash^TalkContr. 12:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

June Martino

You argued persuasively to keep this article; could you take a whack at putting it into proper form? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the prospect doesn't particularly appeal to me, as the history of McDonald's isn't one of my major interests, but I'll see if I can improve it a bit in the next week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Genesis Transport

An article that you have been involved in editing, Genesis Transport, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis Transport. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

About Maharajah Sir Goday Narayana Gajapathi Rao

Heya Phil,
Yep, the Speedy tag was a mistake. I've made a few tidies, but the article still needs a whole lotta tidying. Are you still interested in working on it?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing those BLPs

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For saving multiple unreferenced BLPs from deletion by referencing them. ϢereSpielChequers 11:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Emine Sultan

Why delete the item? Then, all Ottoman princesses will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nominate this for deletion - I only restored the template that tells readers that deletion is being discussed, and which you removed against the instructions in the template. The discussion about whether this should be deleted is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emine Sultan. Please comment there if you wish to contest deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain cuisine

HI!; Two patrollers supported the tag. The article, in my third look,the article is still little more than a dictinary dfinition and needs at least a full paragraph telling us a bit more what to expect from Rocky Mountain cuisine. if you are an expert on it perhaps you could help expand the article.--Kudpung (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not an expert, and had no knowledge of Rocky Mountain cuisine before today, but it only took me a few seconds to perform the basic searches necessary to see that this is a notable topic so is not deletion fodder. I suggest that you do such searches in the future before nominating articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Edward Dick

An article that you have been involved in editing, Edward Dick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Dick. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at Stickee's talk page.
Message added 23:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for sources

Hi there. Thanks very much for the sources which you provided for this article. Before prodding the article I asked the article creator to provide some sources, but apparently he decided to ignore my message. The article seems good now with the new sources. How exactly did you find these sources? I tried looking for some myself, but all I found were blogspots and other unreliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I used a Google News archive search. This is usually much better than a plain web search because most of the hits returned are reliable sources rather than blogs, download sites etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Meanwhile, I've removed unsourced information from the article (e.g. having studied cinematography in Russia, starting his own record label, being crowned "high chief" etc.). An IP editor seems adamant in having this unsourced info in the article ([5], [6]). I've not been able to find sources which back up these claims. Maybe you could? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lu-Yu School

sorry i dont know how to send email on wiki so i will place here, you can delete this message, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu-Yu_Tea_Culture_Institute, they want to delete it, but i think it should not be deleted, you once looked at the tenfu tea college article too, thanks anyway. icetea (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bohaterów Monte Cassino Street

I've declined the prod on this -- I think your improvements are already sufficient to meet the concerns raised, but sourcing would of course be useful! Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Message added 20:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Message added 23:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celia Holman Lee

Although as the debate stands there is a consensus to delete, the article was completely rewritten yesterday. I have therefore relisted it, and invite you to revisit it and consider whether you wish to change your !vote. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Message added 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

Anything But Straight

It looks like you are an Admin. I don't think that the pejorative you used sets a good example for newer editors such as myself. It also looks like you're an inclusionist from your edit history: that's great. For my part I think unverifiable article that can't be improved should be deleted: I don't think I should be criticized for my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Lionel (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rock and alternative music in Iran

About Iranian Rock articel, that's how the article was before, but someone brought back the heavy metal article which is a bad article and and merged it to Iranian Rock, that's Y I tried to delete it, any way Its now ok, thanks. I' going to write a good article about heavy metal in Iran later. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Anak Menteng

Please see my comments at the AFD and visit my rewrite of the article as currently held at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Obama Anak Menteng (film). Thank you, --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now in main space

Obama Anak Menteng (film) is the better and more easily sourced of the two, far less likely to ever be sent to AFD, and a merge/redirect to the newer article will preserve the contribution histories of the original artcle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very mutch for your contribution

You have survived the Anabell López article.You 've find the reference on the INTERNET.I cropped this information from a musical womans's cuban dictionary that are not very knowed ,even in my country.Now I think it don't have more big problems.Anabell is a great cuban singer on her style(popular, traditional) and I think is a good contribution for wiki.Thank you aggain. Sincerely Vicond (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Manoj Jha

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manoj Jha, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Jha. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

--me_and (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Contest deletion" in BLPPROD edit summaries

Thank you for supplying references to the many articles that you do, but I don't think "contest deletion" is the correct edit summary to use when adding refs and removing BLPPRODs. BLPPROD is not a contestable deletion - it's a black and white rule that ignores the normal deletion arguments of notability or similar, and simply wants a ref. "Supply reference to remove BLPPROD" would be a better edit summary. When I've tagged articles with BLPPROD, I don't necessarily want them deleted, nor do I want people like you or DGG to go digging for them - I want the article originator to do their job properly and supply a reference. I would love to see "flagged revisions"/incubator style of thing to come into play on EVERY SINGLE new article and simply hold them in a holding yard out of mainspace and google's reach until someone checks that they have a ref. That way BLPPROD would be not required at all. The-Pope (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent deprods

I would appreciate if you would stop stalking my contributions for PRODs to contest, or at least make an endeavour to improve articles when you dePROD them — if I PROD something for lack of references, the least you could do is reference it a little. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop making unfounded accusations of stalking. I regularly scan through the list of proposed deletions and contest those which don't meet the relevant criteria, without even looking at who PRODded them. Could you please identify which article(s) you are talking about? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The only one I could find was 1999–2000 Sunderland A.F.C. season, which is probably a bad example because it's getting snow-kept at AFD. But there were several that I found when reviewing articles I PRODded over the past few months. I'll take your word that it's not me in particular (and sorry for the unfounded accusation), but it's frustrating for me when people contest PRODs on the notion that an article can be improved and then several months later, it's still there and still rubbish. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that if you were to take the trouble to "stalk" me, and look at my contribution history, you would see that when I contest a PROD tag I always either improve the article or explain in my edit summary why the tag is inappropriate. That applies whether the tagger is new to Wikipedia, an experienced administrator such as yourself or Jimbo Wales himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Inno delle Marche

You deleted the prod I had placed on Inno delle Marche, with the reason stated as "contest strange deletion proposal". My reason on the prod was "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG". I do not understand what is so strange about my proposal. Click23 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I consider it very strange that anyone would think that an official anthem of a region is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just by being "an official anthem of a region" does not make it notable. I think the info would be suited in Marche than an article on its own. Click23 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for giving the Florence House article a chance. I appreciate you helping to make it better. Feetplanted (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My revised signature

Phil,

Here is my revised signature: D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gage Clarke "Speed Deletion"

Phil, I noticed that you made a note in the History section that you'd like to contest the Speedy Deletion of character actor Gage Clarke, who had dozens of roles in early television series. If you have time, could you leave a comment on the Discussion page regarding this? The article plainly should exist but it'll apparently be deleted. MightyArchangel (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On hamlets...

You commented here on an editor creating stubs. If he were simply creating stubs that wouldn't be an issue - I've declined speedies on plenty of stubs this editor has created. The problem is that in some case the editor subsequently finds out that the places don't exist, or are duplicates of existing articles. He then seems unable to tag them for CSD, so creates long lists of articles he's created but no longer "needs" and would like deleted. The lists aren't necessarily correct, either (hence me declining to delete - the last time I worked through one of his lists most of the articles were fine, and had been extensively worked on by other editors). If the editor took the time to consider how significant the hamlets were he'd likely discover whether they still exist, whether they're already covered by existing articles, etc. TFOWR 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the hamlets still exist is irrelevant to whether they should be in an encyclopedia. We cover history just as much as current topics. I stand my my comment that your approach is more disruptive to the building of this encyclopedia than Hamish Griffin's. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the hamlets still exist is irrelevant. Indeed. Hence my comment that Hamish's lists are incorrect. It's Hamish requesting that these articles be deleted. I don't very much care whether he stops deciding he dislikes his articles, or he simply stops creating them and leaves the task to someone else. TFOWR 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not stop to think about the reason why this editor has decided to ask for deletion of some of the articles that he has created? It seems pretty obvious that it's a reaction to the hostility that has received from editors such as you ever since he started editing. No wonder we get constant soul-searching about how difficult it is to recruit new editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This was my second interaction with this editor (I think the first was via a helpme tag on his talkpage). I felt I offered encouragement and advice: I pointed out that other editors apparently felt his creations were worthwhile, and I offered pointers to places he could get advice. I don't know why he sought deletion for these articles - possibly you're right and he felt discouraged. I'd hope that I didn't play a part in that, despite declining to delete all but one of his articles. TFOWR 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

Dear Phil Bidger, I have created an article, "Imran channa visual artist" it was nominated for deletion, now i have worked on it more and edit it. i need ur help to save my article. because my task is to create articles on pakistani art & artist because there is not enough material on that topic. so every student and art critique need the material n pakistani art and artist. so this is my first article.could u plz help me out to edit my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel

What'cha think? I was able to take the crappy stub that was nominated as this, and turn it into THIS... a decently sourced start class that shows Quintel winning 2 Nicktoons Network Animation Festival awards in 2005 and recieving an Annie Award nomination in 2010. Kinda glad that the redirect was fought over and it ended up at AFD, else I would have never found it to work on. I did good? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

William James Wanless

Thanks for your comments on William James Wanless. Finally the AFD tag is removed, can you plz help me to Nominate this article to DYK, as I honestly do not Understood how do it. Plz help. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 09:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

William James Wanless is now nominated for DYK. You can review the nomination here-- . Shlok _{talk .} 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fáy András Economic High School

Nomination of Fáy András Economic High School for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Fáy András Economic High School, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fáy András Economic High School until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

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

Kenneth H. Cooper article

I resent your implication that I didn't look for sources about Cooper - I did look.

However, I am willing to concede that there might be some reliable independent sources which I missed - I look forward to seeing you adding some of these independent reliable sources to the article as there are so many.

If you can't add these, then I will take the article to Articles for deletion on Monday or Tuesday.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you looked then how did you manage to miss these books and these news articles many of which, such as the source that I put in the article when I contested deletion, explain that Cooper introduced the concept of aerobics to fitness training, describing him as the "father of aerobics"? I can't understand what searches you could possibly have performed that didn't find such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The books/articles in the GBooks results were written by Cooper himself - how are they independent sources as required by the criteria? The news coverage tends to be along the lines of "Cooper said... " - many of them that I looked at did not include independent coverage - all the quotes are from him, rather than from other people talking about him - or the coverage did not meet the 'significant coverage' which is required. So, I did find those sources, but they did not appear to meet the criteria for notability. OK, I grant that I did not look at all the thousands of sources, but I did look at a few of them. The material in the article is already pretty much in the Aerobics article anyway (apart from the biobliography), and I was tempted to suggest redirecting it to that article - but I will look into this in a bit more detail during the coming week. I am still not convinced that Cooper requires a stand-alone article (as I said, the main content of the article is in the Aerobics article) but I'm willing to be convinced, if I can find significant coverage at independent reliable sources! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you notice that the Google Books searches that I linked above explicitly exclude books written by Cooper himself? You're in a hole, so please stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And didn't you notice that the first result on the Google Books link above was "Kenneth H. Cooper - aerobics - 1968", the second one ("God's Way Is Still the Best Way By Zig Ziglar") is based (from what I can see) from what Cooper told Zig Ziglar; the third one ("Best of Health: The 100 Best Books By Sheldon Zerden") is a book review (so perhaps the book should have an article!) but only contains a couple of biographical sentences about Cooper himself; the fourth one ("Football injuries: papers presented at a workshop") is a paper by Cooper himself; the fifth one ("Shaping prose") is a chapter written by Cooper himself - the same for "Writing with a thesis: a rhetoric and reader", "Essays for explication"; "Physical fitness and wellness: changing the way you look, feel, and perform" doesn't contain anything about Cooper himself - it is a credit for the table on page 45 which is from Cooper's book.... I could go on.

Yes, the search was meant to exclude the books/articles written by Cooper himself - but the way GBooks works is that this excluded books where Cooper was the listed author - most of the results do not have him as the author (they are anthologies of writings by other authors, etc). All this shows is that you thought by adding "-inauthor:cooper" to the search terms, you assumed that it would exclude his work, which it does not. I spent the time to look at the first 8 hits on that list, and found the above results - did you actually look at them, or just assume that they weren't written by him, or as a result of him talking to someone else (and so not independent)?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! I will look through the sources at Google linked to above, and if I can find some which I feel show his notability enough to warrant a stand-alone article (rather than a redirect to Aerobics, which already mentions most of what this article says) then I'll add these to the article - otherwise I'll take it to AfD and see what the consensus is -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hunter Corbett

After some work on article can we make a hook for Hunter Corbett as a founder of The first university in China,Cheeloo University Please Have a look and enlighten. Thanks. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Zoo

Regarding your CSD decline of Brantford Twin Valley Zoo, what exactly do you think zoos are? I'd stick around to make sure this article receives the attention it deserves, whatever that means but it's your baby now. Good luck. OlYeller^Talktome 02:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Please accept my thanks Phil Bridger, for adding a source on Oya Baydar and saving it from deletion. I am a beginner on Wikipedia, this is why I am not aware of the Wikipedia politics related to my works.

Now I am writing you also to inform you that I will change your edit on this article. Maybe you don't even remember what you did for me, but in any case, I don't want to offend you somehow and want to take your attention. I hope you will approve my change. Thanks again, take care! Recep Ercan (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• And another thank you from me, for helping out on Adly Barsoum; I wasn't sure if that job was enough of a claim to significance, and I'm glad to set you straight. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the job is enough of a claim of importance to get past speedy deletion, but I'd want to see some more significant coverage before !voting "keep" in an AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Go-cart article deletion

Sorry about the redundant speedy deletion requests. And no, I am not a sockpuppet of Blueboar! It all came up due to another discussion under "Notability" and editors there remarked that "something" needed to be done. I was offline for awhile and carelessly misread Blueboar's report about his speedy deletions being declined, something I had just "discovered" existed! I tried to erase my speedy deletion requests but didn't get there in time for most of them. Sorry for the confusion. Student7 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thorga

Thanks for cleaning this up. WP:TNT! :) Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Showbiz 411 page

Hi Phil

Showbiz 411 is as deserving of a Wikipedia page as Deadline.com - this is a discussion I have already had with other contributors who had orignally deleted the page for Roger Friedman. The website is a news organization, venture funded in America. If this website does not deserve a Wikipedia page, then neither does any comparable website.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcminno782 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch

Thanks for catching my error in PRODing Evelyn Miot. Although I read the stub blurb, I missed the "Miss Haiti" part, I'm guessing from the unusual structure of the first sentence. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mister Jalopy

Thankyou for your note; I am well aware of WP:Civility which, as far as I can see, only refers to interaction between editors. I can see nothing there that relates even to article content, let alone AfDs, although I fully understand the laws of libel and defamation. No doubt you'll put me right if I've missed something.

My dictionary defines "nonentity" as "a person or thing of little or no importance". To my mind, this perfectly sums up the subject of the AfD, so I have no intention of withdrawing or amending my comments. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at WVRMad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sarvavijnanakosam

Instead of inappropriately and inaccurately accusing fellow editors for once re-tagging an article for deletion in good faith, and which re-tagging to correct that which you pointed out was in err, why not either correct the tag yourself—or better yet, improve the article since you seem to know more about it than either the author or myself? As an experienced editor, I would think you would be more willing to work together with your editor colleagues rather than resorting to snide edit summaries. Cheers, and thanks.    Thorncrag   22:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What's "snide" about that edit summary? You edit warred by reinstating a reverted edit, breaking the accepted WP:BRD cycle, and did so on the basis of a misunderstanding of the speedy deletion criteria, as WP:CSD#A7 lists the types of article to which it applies, and doesn't include books. I simply pointed out these facts in my summary. I knew nothing about the article subject before finding it in the speedy deletion category, but have the common sense to realise that a 20-volume encyclopedia published by a state agency is not the type of subject that we should consider speedily deleting. You are the one who needs to be "more willing to work together with your editor colleagues" by not calling for speedy deletion of their efforts to build this encyclopedia without good reason. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-tagging an article for deletion under slightly different rationale is not edit warring, I know you know this. Plus based on the fact that I originally tagged the article as a web site, was it not obvious that the misunderstanding was that I mis-took the topic of the article? Which was not unreasonable considering the terse and wanting state of the article. Not a misunderstanding of deletion criteria. Accusing an editor for edit warring over this which was clearly a misunderstanding is uncalled for. You were rude. Plain and simple. But enough time on this, please go about your work and we can both have a pleasant day.    Thorncrag   23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, forgot to address one thing just so we are clear, BRD really applies to modifying the content of an article—not applying maintenance tags. Cheers.    Thorncrag   23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article. I have thus withdrawn the deletion nomination. Thank you again!    Thorncrag   20:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Obvious expansion?

I'm quite amazed at the edit summary you provided when contesting the speedy deletion of Owen Strathern. You said, "quite obviously expands on the content of the other article". In my view, it's hardly obvious at all. In fact, you have to look closely to find the differences.

This is the entire "expansion" beyond the other article: (1) "Owen Strathern (born 6 October 1987 in Bellaghy, Northern Ireland)"; (2) "Owen Strathern attended Holy Family Primary School and St Mary's Grammar School as a youngpup. He left home for Belfast in 2007 to study Maths at Belfast Metropolitan College." (3) Additionally, the infobox links to Fender Jaguar Bass under Notable instruments. All of this is, of course, totally unreferenced.

For differences from General Fiasco, that's it. Unless we consider that, when copying from General Fiasco and pasting into Owen Strathern, the actual refs didn't get copied over. But that's still not an expansion, that's a reduction. So I don't see what obvious expansion you're talking about. The stuff that's not copied and pasted from General Fiasco doesn't make an entire article; it barely even filled my second paragraph. What further rationale do you have for wanting to keep this article? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not said that I "want to keep" this article, but only that it doesn't meet WP:CSD#A10. The information about where Strathern was educated and the name of his former band (i.e. the first 2½ sentences of the meat of the article, so there's no need to look at all closely) does expand on what is in General Fiasco. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Guess I'll PROD the thing, then. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Brontosaurus (Play)

When you deprodded the Brontosaurus (Play) article that I had prodded as failing the general notability guideline you asked in the edit summary what gave me that idea. I do not believe it meets the general notability guidelines because I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this play. The only reference the article has is to a passing mention of the play in a book; it is certainly not significant coverage. I checked again for sources and was unable to come up with any. Perhaps redirecting the article to Lanford Wilson would be best for right now? I've started a redirection discussion on the article's talk page and I'd like your input if you get a chance. Thanks. Narthring (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

SJK(C) Kwang Hwa - thank you

Hi Phil B. Thank you for this. I possibly clicked on the wrong WP:TWINKLE WP:CSD radio button... but so what? The article was obviously not a CSD candidate under any category. A learning experience. I thoroughly deserved a templated warning for this mistake. Will strive to be more careful in future. Thanks again!--Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hossein Sabet

So you proved me wrong! Thanks for digging up the citations. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:CSD

I recommend you calm down, and I recommend you see WP:AGF. And phrases like 'How on Earth' can breach WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Please understand that WP:BIGDEAL also reflects this situation, and understand that not every nomination for CSD is passed.

Many Regards, Yousou (report) 18:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I normally disregard honours, qualifications, etc.; without WP:RS. Many Regards, Yousou (report) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you recommend me PROD or AFD it then?

Many Regards, Yousou (report) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sophia Frangou

You may want to help User:Biological965 rather than reverting him. I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to do, but I probably caused him to remove that list. See his talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mirza Ismail Road

Thankyou for improving and thus help saving the page. I wish there are more editors like you here.Shyamsunder (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me wrong...

... at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Insect. Appears I'm in very good company. Thanks again.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Please review the quality of article William James Wanless.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sports Betting

Sorry. HG must have gotten out of sequence somehow...my intent was to eliminate the vandalism, rather than create it. Oops. Cmichael (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

--Saturdaysunshine (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)== Work together for the greater good ==

Hi Phil: The revised Mike Clifford article is 100% correct. Where do you see a information problem? I have no problem adding it. We need to work together for the good of Mike Clifford! Please respond. Thank you.

saturdaysunshine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturdaysunshine (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits removed the references in the article that demonstrate that Clifford is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. By removing them you are making it more likely that this article will be deleted. There's no point in you saying that the article is 100% correct - it has to be demonstrated by references to independent reliable sources, such as the ones that I added to the article and you removed. Please also be aware that we are supposed to be working together for the good of this encyclopedia, not for the good of Mike Clifford. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil: Add your resources to the bottom of the page. I am in communication with M.C. and he has approved the discography that I provided along with the all the other info concerning songs he did for all the movies listed.. IMDB - provides the movies M.C.'s was in. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturdaysunshine (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I am new to this & would have left the references and provided the IMDB reference as well if I knew how.  Thank you for your help!--Saturdaysunshine (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Greater good!

Hi Phil: As you can see I am having a difficult time. If you go to the bottom of the post. I have added more. I would ask you to add the references to the bottom of the page and add www.imdb.com as a source for the movies that M.C. was in. I would really appreciate your help in getting it right!

saturdaysunshine--Saturdaysunshine (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Regarding your edit summary here, I dedicate many hours per day sourcing BLP articles that are in danger of being deleted as unsourced. Out of the thousands upon thousands to which I've added sources, there are occasionally ones that either do not meet notability criteria, or are prodded for various other issues (such as was the case here). I don't appreciate your bad faith and condescending edit summary. We are all volunteers here, each doing our part to try to improve the encyclopedia. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of AIDS Article Edit

The original statement on this page is unsourced. What makes an unsourced sentence more credible than a sourced one? also, all the AIDS origin theories, are just that theories. I think in order to restore balance, a link should be placed or a statement indicating the page on alternative theories. Its very ethnocentric to place importance on one theory over another when there is no conclusive evidence that an unsourced sentence( like Aids began in Africa) exists on this page. --MsTingaK (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that AIDS originated in Africa is sourced several times in the article. If you want to discuss this further please continue the thread at Talk:Origin of AIDS#The idea that AIDs began in Africa so that other interested editors may join the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bârlad

Look at the history before reverting again. The article started as Bârlad. Two days ago, a new editor pasted the contents of that article into Bârlad, Romania, blanked this one into a redirect, then tried to prod it. That is not the way to move pages, nothing in the Bârlad, Romania article history indicates the provenance and there's no magical mind-trick to tell the reader to go to the Bârlad article to read the history. I did things in the proper order to keep a target live, you reverted to a redirect pointing to a redirect. I have no idea why the page kept functioning, it must have been coming from cache. Use a page move if you want to change the title. Franamax (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but most of that flew straight over my head. I am not the one who tried to move the page, but have been reverting the attempts to prod the redirect on the grounds that it took readers to the primary use of the title and that prod deletion doesn't apply to redirects. When I looked at the page after your revision at 21:04 it was about a rugby club - I've no idea why because when I look at that revision now it's about the city - so I reverted to the redirect as the primary meaning. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's twice now you've said I'm too hard to understand, did you actually look at the history? New editor A copy-pastes the content of [xxx] to [xxx, Romania], then redirects [xxx] to [xxx, Romania]. A then prods [xxx] as unnecessary, which you jump in and repeatedly revert - back to their own self-constructed redirect. Emboldened by this, A goes on to do the same thing at the move-protected [yyy] article, supported by an IP editor. (substitute xxx=Bârlad, yyy=Bucharest for the same pattern) I spot this and clean it up. After all of this, you revert me again. Do you really want me to provide diffs for the same thing that is easily played out in the history if you look?

You didn't say anything about being wrong or how you would avoid the same mistake in future. I'm left to conclude that either you a) feel that settlement article titles should always have a [xxx, Country] or [xxx, territory, Country] qualifier and will support those changes wherever they happen, regardless of the provenance (which is fine, but please do say so and don't war for your own version); or b) you are just not looking at what you are editing. Please take a look back, I think you blew it big time. You defended a page to restore a new editor's bad edit and you did it several times. My preferred outcome would be that you take a little more time checking up on articlehist and contribhist in future, especially when you see multiple editora making changes. I've seen you around as a pretty good editor and I'm not on an attack spree, this just came up on my watchlist. Just sayin' I think you could do way way better. Regards! Franamax (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Uttaradhikar for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Uttaradhikar, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uttaradhikar until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --NDSteve10 (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PROD deletion removal

You removed the PROD BLP deletion template that I placed on the page Evans Wadongo because "being written by the subject is not a valid reason for deletion." That is a valid reason to propose deletion, as per WP:AUTOBIO. Please look up Wikipedia policy before contributing edits like that. I have restored the deletion template. Thanks. WikiTome ^Talk 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)