User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2011 – March 2011

Gerald A. Browne - spaminess

How about the whole of the 11 Harrowhouse section? I doubt his publicist could have written it any better - maybe they did? – ukexpat (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Then the solution is to do as I see you have now done by removing the offending section, not to delete the whole article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for the snarky edit summaries - I do more than most to build this encyclopedia. – ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Then how about spending a few seconds looking for sources rather than looking for a way to get the article deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletion tag at Jonathan Navea

I can't understand why you remove this tag. This article is created by a user who had been banned because of advertising. I did include this reason below the tag.

You gave the reason "has several indications of importance/significance, so please start a discussion at WP:AFD if you think this should be deleted" but please note that there is no sources or Google search results for that. Anyone could write them without citations. He created many articles about himself but most of them have already been deleted with speedy deletion.(See his talk page). It would be a waste of time to discuss them since they are blatant advertisements. Thank You. Soewinhan (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources are not required to avoid speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#A7 - just an indication of importance or significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Leslie

I prodded Stuart Leslie because I could not source it and you contested it with three perfect sources - very dispiriting. I guess I need to make a bit more effort before I prod stuff. Mark^Dask 15:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No reason to feel dispirited - the whole idea of a wiki is that we collaborate to reach the best result. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Some Gorgeous Accident

Coolness, thanks for the informative edit summary. Best wishes, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

VolkerRail

Many thanks for your help with VolkerRail. The current (slimmed-down) version is much more factual and as such better quality. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Afd for Hovid Inc

Hi, Phil. Thanks for some extra info at the Afd, would appreciate your comment and support on Hovid Inc. Thanks! Felixlhk (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Erik Kloeker

Erik Kloeker - Hi Phil, in case you didn't see this article is at AFD, as you removed the prod and suggested significance, I was interested if a Guinness world record is automatically wiki notable? Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I contested WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion back in 2008 because it seemed to be enough at least to avoid speedy deletion, but I wouldn't argue for keeping at AfD without better sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Barresi

Re this; if the content was a copyright violation and you knew this, you should have removed it. If the content was not a copyright violation, it was spam, and you should have removed it. If it was not a copyright violation and not spam, it was still unreferenced. If you wish to reference an entire article to a single source, do not place the only inline citation at the top. Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: your edit to John Etnier

I can see that you are quite busy and your contributions on WIKI are well appreciated. I'd like to call your attention to ["An edit"] ["comp page"]which, in light of the high standard of your work, you will likely want to review.

You removed a Prod and a Second, which were arrived at by consensus- you did not attempt discussion on the talk page or the BLP board- both do have active discussion regarding this article.

You left this explanation:
Contest deletion proposal with an invalid rationale, as there is no obvious reason why the sources provided should be considered unverifiable. Sources do not have to be available on the Internet.

This really seems to have skirted due process. The several other Major issues of concern (which were clearly articulated in the tags you removed) were not addressed at all in your summary.

True; not all Reliable sources have to be available on the Internet, but it is hard to conceive that there could be a BLP of note, without even one... Particularly when this person is supposed to be notable in part, in a high-tech field. Let's pretext that scenario could somehow happen, other editors have looked and found these sources to be lacking or non-existent. I actually verified that these are not available in the libraries said to contain the physical issues, and reported such. There exists single specimen/examples of the referenced periodicals at best. The single reference-quote-link takes the reader to the quoted person's music store website... where again, one is provided a link to the author/subject's credit card ordering page.

There is no notability, not even claim of such in the article, so even if these sources were considered reliable and were verifiable, how would it justify the existence of the article?

This is an autobiography- look at the page history, it was unquestionably created by the subject; a marketing/promotions professional as per his article and other sources. His provided Outside links are to commercial sites he specifically runs. Two of these are actually credit card ordering/check-out pages. The other is to the services he provides including marketing and promotions. I'll also point out that this autobiography-author combo has been tagged by WikiProject Spam four times in the past. There seems to be a long standing shelter against due process with respect this article & author/subject.

I've attempted to stay with the correct process, and to elicit some conversation, which has proven tedious. Rather than simply reverting this seemingly inappropriate edit which defies consensus in 2 locations, I urge you review these issues to your satisfaction, reconsider your actions and revert your edit. I'm sure this was an issue of oversight, due in part, to the high amount of fine work you accomplish here.

TYIA for your cooperative and collaborative actions.--74.75.249.135 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PROD is a process for uncontroversial deletion of articles without discussion. If any discussion is necessary then the due process is to start a discussion at WP:AFD, not on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Phil, thanks for the barnstar! I know how inevitably tough it is to be new and we are all volunteers, so I try to keep the motivation alive.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Assistance request

Hi, Phil Bridger as you have seen from my edits to Corner Brook City Council I would like to propose it's deletion. I have started a deletion arguement you can contribute your views on the matter if you like. Thanks, Aaaccc (talk), 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Collier Books

Hi Phil, would it be worth proposing a merger with the other Collier article? I accept that, as with most things, you can get 250,000 Google hits for an obscure publishing company. You can get a few thousand for me, and I'm definitely not notable and have no desire to be! The fact remains that the article is going to be difficult to expand and, except for the phrase "Collier Books", its detail is contained in the other article regarding the family etc. If Google can throw up a ton of hits for a 'd appreciate your thoughts - I'm fairly new at this but am finding the WP:Notability guidelines to be a complete and utter mess, based often on non-neutral opinions or fallacious supporting proofs (I accuse you of neither of these things). Sitush (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

seljuk architecture

You removed the history part because it is not about Architecture but it is. Those information was important because you have to know where the seljuks lived and ruled and a short history, without history the article is not complete. The Great seljuks and anatolian seljuks are 2 different stories. I am going to add history again but shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My signature

Point taken, wonder why nobody has mentioned it before, since it's been that big for bloody ages. BarkingFish 13:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hypothetical: You're going through the unreferenced backlog from April 2010. You go through all of the articles you can and reference the ones you can find references for. However, there are a few you are unable to find sources for after doing a 5-10 minute search. That doesn't mean they're not out there, but you haven't found them and no one else seems to be able to either (given the length of time it has been unsourced). This person completely fails WP:V and thus cannot be said to be notable under Wikipedia guidelines (as far as you're aware). So you phrase your PROD appropriately. You say: Sources do not appear to exist - which is showing that you don't think you're all-powerful but that you've made a good-faith attempt to try and find them.

Could you please explain to me how this is deliberately disrupting the project? People really want help with the unreferenced backlog but you're the fifth person to make that accusation. I've completely stopped for now, but I really wanted to help solve this problem and it appears that every time I miss a source (even in another language I don't read or from an obscure journal I've never heard of), I'm accused of deliberate malfeasance. I really don't understand where this hostility is coming from. What happened to WP:AGF?

Sorry to bother you. I just want to help! All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch on Besim Tafilaj

Missed that reference, thanks! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 16:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback action - Reply

Hi there PHIL, VASCO from Portugal here,

regarding the message you sent me, yes i see what you mean, but i did not waste any time checking for vandalism, this "user" has been banned (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#User:Zombie433), for various reasons, including: inserting false info in articles, writing ZERO edit summaries and doing the exact same amount of talkpage replies.

Attentively, sorry for any incovenience - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is that people who see your reversions don't know why you have done them if you use rollback for anything other than obvious vandalism. I see that you reverted my reversion of your reversion, but still didn't leave an edit summary, so someone else may well revert this again without knowing that you did this because the editor is banned. Using rollback without giving an edit summary may save you ten or twenty seconds at the time that you do it, but in the slightly longer term wastes a lot more of your and other editors' time in discussions such as this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed you are correct Phil, my bad. Will take better care next time. However, correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think it's possible to write summaries in rollbacks? Or is it? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's why rollback shouldn't be used when an edit summary is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Shikaripura

There is nothing called an English name for the town unlike Bangalore, Mysore, Mangalore. The town is called Shikaripura even in English. See here. Moreover this article's title has a missing 'I' in between even if you wanted it to be in the so called English name. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered which spelling is used. I based my comment on a couple of maps that I checked and had the spelling "Shikarpur",[1][2] but if "Shikaripura" is more commonly used in English then we can use that as the article title. My main point was that the other possible spellings shouldn't be deleted, but retained as redirects, precisely because, as you say, there is no "correct" spelling in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered which spelling is used Pretty strange . Based on google maps here, Bangalore is shown as Bengaluru. So are you gonna change the Bangalore article name to Bengaluru based on this?

I don't see why you're making such an issue of this. I did a quick check and found the spelling "Shikarpur" on some maps, but you seem to know the subject better and say that the the usual spelling in the Roman alphabet is "Shikaripura", which I'm perfectly prepared to accept. Just go ahead and move the article rather than making such a fuss about it. To reiterate, my only interest here was to point out that alternate spellings should remain as redirects rather than be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

D'Jais

I've asked several people to take a look at [3]? I especially hope you'll come because I think this place is just a bar, but the article's one and only editor I don't think understands the need to find notability-lending sources. If you'll make your usual bloodhound-like serach we can all rest easy that no such sources will be overlooked! Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Prod declined, now at AfD

I thought you'd like to be notified that a prod you had seconded (Secret German Aircraft of World War II) was de-prodded and is not up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret German Aircraft of World War II. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of José Martins Ribeiro Nunes for deletion

The article José Martins Ribeiro Nunes is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Martins Ribeiro Nunes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Rural banks in Ghana

I actually did put in the time to look up these banks; none of them are even remotely close to meeting WP:CORP. If you insist on having this list, you could at least remove all of the useless redlinks. You could check with me next time you think there's a systemic bias issue; my content editing is mostly in Burmese articles, so I'm more likely to see the value in obscure topics. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You tagged the article for speedy deletion five minutes after creation. That is not "putting in the time". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can read several times faster than most people. I initially tagged it for G8, thinking the rule for redlinked disambiguation pages applied (there's a thread at WT:CSD that explains it in detail). When that was declined, I checked through these banks and decided to PROD it; AGF much? And by the way, it'd have been nice to have a note that it was contested. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And just an FYI; I've moved it to Rural banks in Ghana, and I figured that it should be an actual article so I chopped out the list. Figured I'd let you know. The individual establishments aren't notable, but the topic in general seems decent enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jelena Karleuša

Hello! Jelena Karleusa has not accepted the Oscar award for the popularity of the 2011th because she does not sing folk music, she sing a POP MUSIC! Do you understand? You kept returning the article was incorrect, and I do not like not right! Are you fan of JK or are just there to arrange a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.74.200 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

She was nominated for the award in the folk category, as confirmed by the source that I added to the article. I am not a fan of Karleuša, and have never knowingly heard her music, but I can read what reliable publications write about her, which is that she is a turbo-folk singer. Are you here to write an accurate encyclopedia or to manipulate it for marketing purposes? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 1991 BDO World Darts Championship for deletion

The article 1991 BDO World Darts Championship is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1991 BDO World Darts Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...

Phil, I seem to see you a lot in areas on WP I am in, and it seems you are going out of your way to disagree with me as a person as opposed to commenting on article content. I don't appreciate it, and I would ask that if you cannot refrain from making assumptions about my actions, then you simply not comment at all. MSJapan (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly not going out of my way to target your edits - I regularly look through articles nominated for deletion via PROD or AFD, contesting deletion when I think it appropriate whoever the nominator is. I hadn't even noticed until I just checked that two of the ones that I have commented on in the last few days have been from you. And no, I will not refrain from expressing my opinion on anyone's deletion nominations, which in the case of those two is that I disagree with the nomination, not that I have anything against you as a person. How could I when I don't even know who you are? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rex Barrat

Thanks for removing the incorrect tag, I can't imagine how I didn't see it was a non living artist! Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Margaret Creek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret Creek 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/Margaret Creek until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Propositional representation. Accusing other editors of lying and threatening is not helpful. If you really believe that threats are being made, please consider dispute resolution.

You said that these searches demonstrated that the subject was unnotable: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. A quick look at the Google Books and Scholar results shows that that was a lie. Assuming good faith does not mean that we can't point out a bare-faced lie when we see one. And your comment on the talk page was clearly a threat, so, again, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am now unsubscribing from your talk page on the principle explained in WP:IAD. Feel free to follow the steps found in WP:DR to resolve your bad-faith accusations of wrongdoing on my part. Guy Macon 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Parga

Hi Phil--I appreciate the comment and the effort you put into proving me wrong. You spoke fightin' words, of course, and that is just fine with me: the encyclopedia can only get better as a result. Thanks, and see you next time! Drmies (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

devoe redirect

oooh, thank you for your help. so helpful. ViniTheHat (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Carole Lieberman

You recently contested this article's proposed deletion:[4] I have now taken the article to AFD, as I do not believe she passes our notability test. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Lieberman. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Emilia Carr

Hi, if you feel like it please take a look at the Afd for Emilia Carr.For me personally its keep but we need a better consensus so the more opinions the better. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Vilayet

Please respond to this discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Swiss Management Center

Justify your arguments of "Marketing Brochure" of the page. The page states facts, no promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki honesty (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indef.  Sandstein  18:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on the "William K. Boone" article

Thanks; I'm looking into these references. Thanks also for the lesson on "AND" and "OR" operators for doing Google searchs.--Wkboonec (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrei Galut

You contested my prod on this article - it seems I'm not as good at referencing as I might be but I'm learning :) Mark^Dask 18:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Burj al Luq Luq Community Centre and Society

Hi Phil Bridger! Can you please give a policy-based explanation on why you removed the proposed deletion for Burj al Luq Luq Community Centre and Society? This is part of my comprehensive effort to clear WikiProject Israel of clearly non-notable articles. I have proposed many of them for deletion this week, this one being the only one related to Arab–Israelis as far as I am aware. I believe your personal attack against me was unhelpful and ask you to explain the removal in a policy-based manner. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy-based explanation is that the subject meets notability requirements, as evidenced by the references that I added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ram Charitra, Accountant & Tax Consultant, Suva, Fiji

Your emphasis on “notability” as defined, may be misplaced. There are/were people out there who were notable in the area of their expertise, and who made no noise outside the confines of their institutions to get noticed. Some, including the late Mr Ram Charitra, were of the sterner stuff who thought they had a good argument, and if given fair play and decency of the human mind, they could have made the difference, and altered things for the better. Persons of his ilk have come and gone, and the world is none the wiser or better, for their pains.

It is only since I have come across his documents, petitions, and submissions to the Governor of the former Colony of Fiji, that I have felt compelled to take this up and bring his thoughts, ideas and the goings on in the British civil service, to the forefront, as a monument to his struggles to reach the top, and which should have been a natural progression purely on the strength of his great facility in the areas of taxation and accountancy, and his ability to communicate. Many of his contemporaries felt that he was the best Head of the Inland (Internal) Revenue that Fiji never had, because, it appears that racism, not merit, was their guild line.

In his normal course of work, he exposed a number of failings of his superiors, including the Head of Department. Was this a stumbling block? Should he have not brought such matters to their attention? The Attorney General of the land agreed with his interpretation, not with that of the Commissioner – Did this add to the chagrin of the Head as well? On the one hand, he was praised for his work, on the other, he was asked to take an early retirement!

In the period he lived and worked, expatriates were imported from England, Australia, and New Zealand, to work in the country, despite the official pronouncements which laid down that locals were to be preferred. But when this was shown not be the practice in an article “Black Man’s Land, White Man’s Paradise” in ‘the Fiji Guardian’ – a weekly newspaper, published by Dean Printers, from Marks Lane, Suva, c.1962, the paper was promptly shut down!

Wikipedia, as has been said, is a work in progress. I am developing this article on Ram Charitra, and I expect, in time, to expose how the civil service worked in colonial times, which I am sure will be of interest and benefit to anyone looking at this subject matter - an aspect of the mechanism of the British Colonial Civil Service.

If, in spite of the foregoing, it is felt that the article should be deleted, then please do so.Binod Charitra 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binodcharitra (talk • contribs)

Jean-Claude Sebag

Good idea to redirect this article. Wish I'd thought of it. Thanks! Pburka (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)