User talk:Phil Bridger

I think

I think WP:VICTIM needs to consider the death as part of the life, i.e.

1. Person X did a which make him marginally notable but not significant enough for encyclopaedia - lean towards delete
2. Person Y did b (which is of similar significance to a) and was then murdered, receiving widespread coverage - keep.

WP:VICTIM does not say "take coverage of death, put it in a box and ignore it, and just focus on the rest of the subject's life", does it? Perhaps that needs clarifying? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks like plain old common sense to me, but that doesn't seem to count for much here, especially when it comes to deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that editors ignore the guidelines. In particular, AFD should not be an awards committee that sits down and gives them the "honour" of having a Wikipedia article. In judging this award, the committee seems to exclude from consideration things done to him by others in which he was given little choice and just focus on those things done by him. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Shiny

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks for helping to fireproof aluminized cloth. I did some interesting research about this myself but was loath to waste time editing only to have the work consigned to the flames. Your efforts have encouraged me and so you have led by example - kudos. Warden (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

IBT

Found a source for David Jang founding International Business Times: [1](Mercurywoodrose)99.14.218.50 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the same source that I added to the article here, but it seems to have been removed since. I don't feel up to engaging with the POV pushers at the moment, so would you be able to put it back into the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your change...

The reject and revert you did at Asaf Khan is wrong, (at least that was I think...). Because the WP:MOSDAB says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." And if you remove all those links, the disambig is empty, so...please review you edit and reject.

I am waiting gladly for your reponse and opinion. -(t) Josve05a (c) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You nominated the disambiguation page for speedy deletion as having no context when it did have context before you edited it. That is a clear abuse of the speedy deletion process. If you think that it should be deleted then take it for discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your eyes on this appreciated

Hi Phil, would you mind checking this edit. I am no expert on templates. The editor has been messing about with other pages so am just checking. Cheers Span (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm no more of a template expert than you are, but these edits appear to introduce needless complexity to the template documentation, which would appear to run counter to this editor's claim to be simplifying things. I'll revert the edits, because I don't think that any of the template expertise that we both lack is really needed here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you Phil Bridger. You proposed to keep my article about the Boue Sisters and it is online now! Ellen Goldberg (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Tigon CSD

Could you please explain your removal/contesting of the Tigon Speedy Tag? I will assume that you didn't in fact look at the Tiglon talk page as if you had you would clearly see the discussion about the name TIGON, as stated in my CSD Tag I will add disambigs in regards to the other two articles that are not soley named Tigon therefore dont need a disambig page on thier own. Regards ZooPro 07:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Guarantor Loan redirect

Hi there, in regards to guarantor loan page that has been redirected to loan guarantee, I really think the guarantor loan page should be its own page.

The loan guarantee page is referring to the act of guaranteeing a finance agreement, whereas the guarantor loan page that I created was about the UK guarantor loan industry, which is a growing type of unsecured loan in the UK, receiving plenty of media coverage. Loan guarantee page covers government loan guarantee projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert my redirection. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Do you feel that it would be appropriate to do so? Don't want to revert if you feel there's no case to have its own page. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) OK, I've reverted the redirect, restoring the page. Thanks for you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby (talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How odd...

I noticed the same article you did and used a tool to decline it, and notify the user, but it seems the article edit never went through. At least I wasn't the only one to think the article isn't a speedy. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at 124.125.72.177's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roedy Green revert question

How do you figure references to the man's own website are unreliable? - Denimadept (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Very easily, when the content supposedly sourced by that web site is your personal interpretation of what is said there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried reading the bits cited when the change was made yesterday. I'm not seeing a serious interpretation issue. Roedy seems to have gone a bit off the deep end, but it's hard to argue with his position, given the way he's taking things. That doesn't mean you or I have to agree with him. Saying we had no reason to go to war is horseshit, but it is his position, so saying it's his position is accurate. I could see maybe toning down the interpretation a bit, making it more factual and less offended, though. - Denimadept (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation. Someone else made that edit originally. I just support it after reading the cites. - Denimadept (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statistical association football predictions

section heading added by Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Phil, I went over your editing history and couldn't find a single article made by you. Yet you're quick to judge the content made by others. If you're seeking compromise talk to the users who contribute to the page, but please do not enforce your own view on the community by starting a revert war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averio (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since when has removing spam links been vandalism? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, removing spam links is an excellent practice - as long as they are spam links indeed. Soccer prediction niche has a lot of these, and there are only two (to my knowledge) who have a real algorithmic backbone: scibet and accuscore. While writing the article I contacted many websites. The first provided a wealth of information and sources, the 2nd sent me a blurry response, the rest hardly remembered how the function derivative looks like. In spite that, I believe that accuscore should be there as well (Yahoo trusts its predictions, no reason for us not to), and generally any other website in the niche, that has something real to offer. Averio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of external links in Wikipedia is not to recommended web sites for having something real to offer in terms of performing an activity such as statistical football prediction, and most certainly not to thank anyone for providing information, but to link to places where people can read more about the topic of our article. This link does not do that. The relevant policy is WP:EL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy the latest comments to Talk:Statistical association football predictions, because discussion of specific article issues should be on the accompanying talk page where other interested editors can get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Re your noticeboard comment, I'm sorry if my well-intentioned advice was unhelpful. I also "edit in the interest of building a neutral, reliable encyclopedia", and while I agree with you that the rules shouldn't impede that interest, I tend to see that in terms of long-term objectives, and I think the community does too. In the short term, WP:3RR is a relatively bright line—with exceptions only for vandalism, BLP violations, and the like—because it's more important to make nonunilateral, consensus-based decisions about content than to immediately suppress content whose undesirability stems from relatively minor concerns. As you'll note, I did make a substantive reply to your query, and I agreed with you. My additional comment was prompted by the number of times I've seen excellent editors blocked for technical edit-warring violations. I didn't want to see that happen here, and I'll just note that if you'd posted to the noticeboard before reverting again, I or another editor would have handled reverting and the result would have been identical except nobody would have had to walk on thin ice to achieve it. Incidentally, I loathe spam and have reverted a ton of it in my day, but I think what I'm seeing here is essentially a content dispute between two good-faith editors, one of whom apparently disagrees with community standards about external links. Rivertorch (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry if I seemed ungrateful for your advice. I didn't mean my comment to imply that, but just wanted to make it clear that I don't really care about whether I'm blocked. I understand that most editors probably do care about such things, so you are quite right in giving such advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Chapil

Seriously? Have you read the book? Or have any clue in what way it mentions this drink, at all? --Jac16888 ^Talk 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Google Books preview provides enough content to show that the coverage is significant enough to mean that this is not an uncontroversial deletion candidate, as required for the WP:PROD procedure. Why the aggressive tone to your question? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly call one brief mention in one small paragraph of one book of unknown reliability to be any kind of significant coverage. I feel like you don't quite grasp the idea of WP:PROD, it is not like CSD#A7 where the barest hint of notability makes it inelligible for deletion. An article can have dozens of sources and still be deleted by prod much as it can by AFD - the fact a source exists does not make it automatically prod-proof, provided there is a good reason. I see nothing to suggest this drink is a notable one, the fact it is mentioned in one book doesn't change that --Jac16888 ^Talk 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the idea of WP:PROD is that the case for deletion should be strong enough to be uncontroversial. That source certainly has more than just a mention, and there are more potential sources found by Google Books and Google News.[2][3] Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of University of Agriculture, Makurdi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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/University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Uberaccount (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter I of Rosenberg

Excellent job saving that. I made the mistake of not placing quotes around the name when I did a Google book search, so the first three pages were unrelated and I figured someone was pulling a funny. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Tanks

Hi Phil, thanks for removing my misplaced prod from Satvasheela Samant.-- Dewritech (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Josef Stoer

Would you start an AFD on this one? As written, it obviously fails to meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot start AFD pages. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Usually I would accede to such a request, but in this case the subject so obviously does meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, and probably other criteria, that I will not do so. Just take a look at the citation counts at Google Scholar, which are simply stellar for a mathematician. We base deletion decisions on the notability of article subjects, not on the current content of articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Journatic

Phil, thank your for removing the speedy deletion. I am not sure why that editor views it as an "attack article" or if that person even read any of the sources at all (it appears that she did not, since she made no suggestions for improvement nor looked at the article's history that existed long before I came to it). The company engaged in business practices that are not ethical (plagiarism, false bylines, fabrication, intimidating interviewers, lying about firing people who really quit, and more) This is all in The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, Crain's Chicago Business, Poynter, NPR, The Guardian, The Chicago Reader, and more. The prior version was simply written by one person citing "The Journatic Journal" which was clearly not from a neutral POV. So, I just rewrote it using 24 new sources. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApolloLee (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for contesting the speedy deletion on Deena Weinstein

Hi Phil, Thanks for contesting the speedy deletion of Deena Weinstein, a much-cited heavy metal scholar. The deletion tag went up within SECONDS of starting the article!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Forward to Libraries

I've responded at WP:VPR to your statement opposing Forward to Libraries; as I see it, the situation is radically different from what you've said. Would you please respond to what I said? Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I laughed.

[4]. Edit summary win. Thanks. :) --j⚛e decker^talk 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

	The Rescue Barnstar
	For all your tireless work in saving the neglected articles in the AfDs! Zayeem (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of List of longest serving higher education presidents

Please reconsider the renaming of the article List of longest serving higher education presidents at least until you've read the talk page I've set up explaining a vision for the article to include international presidents/chancellors. Also, please refer to the talk page at the University Chancellor article for the ongoing discussion on the distinction between Chancellor and President. The list was named specifically with these issues in mind. Your renaming A) Makes the title redundant as is, since outside the United States, the head of the University is called the Chancellor and B) Prohibits the article from growing to include Universities outside the US, which seems contrary to your point that "there is a world outside the U.S." If anything, rename the article "List of longest serving higher education presidents and chancellors" to permit a multinational audience and to accurately use the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.Hartley (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B B S V Peeth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gurudev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Science and religion dialogue in India

I suspected that anyone will misunderstand my criteria. Actually I am right that it is about a person Dr. Job Kozhamthadam S.J. Read the whole article. The title of the article is misleading. Solomon7968 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowman Gilfillan

Understood, however, why has no administrator addressed the user who has now twice inserted the same copyright violating and promotional material?93.186.22.122 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.117 (talk)

your opinionn please...

You commented here about comments about individuals who don't claim 100 percent mental health.

The assertion keeps being made in WP:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes, and in related discussions, that WP:BLP requires total excision of all coverage of individuals who seem to have mental health issues.

For me, this reminds me of the older attitude towards individuals with mental health. In the 19th Century, and earlier, individuals with mental health issues were locked in attics -- as in the novel "Wuthering Heights", or they were locked out of sight in "mad-houses", where they received no treatment, and might be shackled all day, or restrained with a strait-jacket. This is still the treatment of choice in much of the third world, and in cultures with no tradition of trying to understand and integration.

I agree with you that mental health issues should be addressed in respectful terms. Articles that cover individuals who seems to have mental health issues in a respectful way probably won't turn out to be a concern if those articles are fully compliant with WP:NPOV.

I don't agree that it is in the best interests of improving the conditions of all individuals with mental health issues for the wikipedia to excise all coverage of individuals with mental health issues, based on assertions that silence is in their best interests.

Silence, and locking suffers up, out of sight, was said to be in their best interests, in the 19 Century.

I am old enough to remember when Rock Hudson outed himself as dying from AIDS. He had been a popular movie star, whose public persona was that of a heterosexual man who was devasting to women, when he was actually a gay man. Up until his high-profile decision to out himself we would have seen the same kind of arguments we see that mental health issues can't be touched for individuals suffering from AIDS. But I don't think there is any question that the best interests of AIDS sufferers were best served by open and respectful discussion of all aspects of AIDS.

Similarly Betty Ford was a high-profile sufferer of alcoholism who changed the public dialogue on alcoholism for the better through her decision to out herself as a sufferer of alcoholism.

It may turn out that Angelina Jolie's recent decision to be open about her decision to have her breasts removed, due to her genetic predisposition to develop breast cancer may similarly change the public dialogue of that kind of preventive operation.

I don't believe that removing all coverage of mental health issues, under claims of BLP, best serves the specific individuals, or for what it is worth, I don't think it best serves the general public.

I am going to draft an essay on this topic: User:Geo Swan/opinions/You can't say that here!. I'd appreciate your opinion on it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S.

I read the transcripts from the Guantanamo captives annual reviews. There were about a dozen of them, maybe two dozen of them, who knew they were crazy, who were driven to "volunteer" to engage in jihad by their frustrated families, who had run out of patience with them. They came from cultures with no history or belief in treating mental issues, or accommodating mental issues. These individuals were told that they were a huge burden, that their lives were pointless, worthless, would always be pointless and worthless -- unless they went to volunteer as a jihadist. They were told that if they died fighting for jihad their families would finally have something to be proud of about them. These transcripts made for heart-breaking reading, because some of these individuals were clearly extremely reluctant to die in battle, weren't genuine volunteers. One guy described running away as soon as shots were exchanged, because he really didn't want to be a martyr. Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Reason for deletion of Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal

Hi,

I nominated Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal for deletion because, it does not have any notable references. I had even started a discussion in the talk page of Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal. Can I again place 'contest for deletion' template? Thanks! -Vatsan34 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yo busy bro, I got a crazy idea I posted over on Talk:Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal. Check it out, I think it's what you were getting at. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

108 Upanishads

Apologies for nominating 108 Upanishads for deletion based on incompleteness, as you are correct in your assertation that it does not violate policy in being so, but I would request that you perhaps suggest an alternative? In its current state it requires real cleanup... I've proposed potentially merging it with the article Upanishads until it becomes more complete, or complete enough to warrant its own article perhaps? The main problem is it can't link anywhere really, which means it remains a dead end.

Merely trying to help clean up articles and/or clear out things that just don't work. Thanks, El3ctr1csheepz (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 20:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you justify your removal of tag

Can you justify your removal of tag[5] will it be possible to translate to English what the article is about? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The article comes nowhere close to what is described at WP:CSD#G1, and is written in perfectly comprehensible English. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok tell me what it is about? Please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's about what it says it's about. If you don't understand English then I'm afraid I'm not a good teacher, so you need to go somewhere else for lessons. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Check out the talk page pl. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Peel

I suspect we may have both been working behind the scenes on the Sir Edward Peel article and are waiting to be allowed to edit it. I have a draft here, hidden at present to avoid linkbacks. Will it be OK if I put it in place as soon as the DRV closes? BTW, I think the present title may be OK to disambiguate from Edward Peel but I'm not fussed. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. Or Edward Peel (big-game fisherman)? Thincat (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Any work that I have done behind the scenes pales into insignificance in comparison to your draft. Go for it. I'm not bothered about the title, but I know that there is resistance from many editors to the use of honorific titles rather than parenthetical descriptors as disambiguatorsPhil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, parenthetical would be wiser, I can understand people not liking titles. Peel seems in many ways an unsatisfactory person but I've found so little about him. What happened in the war, who was his wife, did they have children (there on none on a family tree I found but he was incidental to the tree anyway), did he have the yacht specially built (I see it was built in 1927), why did he get a KBE? If it gets userified to you I'll just copy and paste as a whole my draft (I have done all the edits and scarcely a phrase was in the original) so attribution should be OK. I found a photo of a steam yacht called St George but it sadly turned out to be the wrong one![6] We'll see what happens... Thincat (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I had to get up early and I found Spartaz had noticed it had been snowing overnight! I have put my text in place. Thincat (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Koridor coal mine

Hi Phil, You have removed the deletion tag in Koridor coal mine. I may have mistaken when I chose G1. But I am not sure which tag should I use. The problem is that the article refers to a nonexistent mine and the so-called reference is not about a Koridor coal mine. Maybe you can be kind enough to suggest a more appropriate tag. Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The source does mention Koridor (just search for it in the text) and confirms the amount of reserves of lignite. It is unclear whether it is referring to a coal mine or a coal field but that is simply a reason to ask for clarification, not to call for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well please see Talk:Koridor coal mine and User talk:Bine Mai. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's great that you have started discussing this. That is the way to sort out such issues rather that to look for a speedy deletion criterion to use. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Bidermann

You reverted my BLPROD on the article because you said it has a reference. If you check the reference (Google Translate works pretty well), you'll see it does not cover any of the personal information of the individual in question. Just his conviction, and sparse info at that. --Kimon^talk 22:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's enough to make it ineligible for WP:BLPPROD: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2004-05 Taça de Portugal

Hello,

I can see that you previously removed a deletion template from the page 2004-05 Taça de Portugal. Added the template again with reasons why the article should be deleted: no references, incomplete, some wrong information, the name of the article is misspelled. I have created a replacement page entitled 2004–05 Taça de Portugal, which is referenced and complete.

User talk:Alexgreene87, 10 July 2013, 13:37 (UTC)

Las Madrinas Ball

Thanks for removing the prod. The article was nominated for AfD as being the same as any other ball in any American city. That is complete nonsense. SL93 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD Atargatis (band)

The discussion is not absolute, the band's notability is weak as noted by the discussion. The discussion itself can hardly be considered significant with the 4 users who commented? The WP:BAND Notability guideline does not mandate that an article be kept if it meets a bullet point, it indicates that the subject MAY be notable. The band is inactive, achieved no standard of notability other than being signed. The General guideline states that significant independent coverage is required. it doesn't exist in this case. WP:NTEMP could also be interpreted to apply to the subject. Even if the band became notable when it signed with a label, it has not remained so. "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion,". Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All that is completely beside the point, which is that if you want to raise the issue of deletion again you need to start another discussion at WP:AFD, because, as I explained perfectly clearly and you could confirm by following the link that I provided to policy, the WP:PROD procedure for deletion without discussion can't be used for an article that has been kept at a previous discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, I had forgotten about AFD, had thought that the prod would list the article for deletion discussion. Thanks! Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

speedy

The key reason I became an admin , as I said back at my RfA, was to check speedy deleted articles. Any you think need checking, ask me, on wiki or by email. Do you want me to go thru your deleted contribution history and check all those you questioned? (btw, why just question, when you can remove the speedy tag yourself?) DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I do remove speedy tags when I contest them, but still sometimes find that the article gets deleted anyway. I don't think that there's much point in raking over old coals but I'll bear your offer in mind if this situation happens again. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Arya (tribe)

Regarding your removing the db-ar10 notice, please note that this article was created to bolster a POV that the people who entered Assam were Aryans, which is discussed here: Talk:Aryan_migration_to_Assam#Requested_move. Is this article about a single tribe, or multiple tribes not in List of Rigvedic tribes? Chaipau (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What you say here may be true, but this is in no way a duplicate of List of Rigvedic tribes as that doesn't even mention Arya, so can't be speedily deleted as a duplicate article. If you think that there is a good reason to delete Arya (tribe) then start a discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do search for a tribe called "Arya", and do check for yourself. I shall either ask for a merge or a delete. Chaipau (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't be searching because I know that there are plenty of editors (probably including yourself) who are better able to evaluate this. My only involvement is to point out that this is obviously not a duplicate article, so doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as a duplicate article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it obvious? Did you visit the references cited? Chaipau (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to look at the references to see that one article is not a duplicate of another. How can Arya (tribe) possibly be a duplicate of List of Rigvedic tribes when the list article doesn't even mention Arya? You are probably correct that Arya (tribe) should be deleted, but it doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying for speedy deletion under this criterion. As I said in my first reply above you need to start a discussion at WP:AFD if you think it should be deleted rather than try to get it speedily deleted under an inapplicable criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya

Hi, as to Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya, the book still does not fulfill notability guidelines for books, in the sense that it has not been shown to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". Consequently, your removal of PROD tags was incorrect. Additionally, this is not an English-language book not has it been translated into English as far as I know - little chances are there that an English speaker would ever look up an encyclopaedia for this title. Hence, I insist that the book non-notable on English Wikipedia (it might warrant an entry on Hindi wiki, though). Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 17:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The notability guidelines require that sources should exist, not that they are currently cited in the article, and more reliable sources can be found here and I'm sure that there are loads more in Hindi. No removal of a WP:PROD tag is ever incorrect, because such a tag can be removed by anyone who contests deletion for any reason. And this is an encyclopedia of the whole world that happens to be written in English, not of only the English-speaking world, so the language of this book and the lack of an English translation are utterly irrelevant to the question of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Google Books link shows all the 37 English-language books where the title was mentioned; none of these has BSV as subject as required by the guideline. Again, there is no evidence the book has much place in English literature, and as such should not merit inclusion on en-wiki (WP:IINFO). Language does matter, and what fulfils notability guidelines on hi-wiki does not necessarily have to be notable on other wikis. Hence, regional Wikipedias are not translations of each other.

The only option I see the book could be argued notable is saying it is an academic book, thus a different set of criteria will be applied per WP:BK. We can argue that its publisher can be called an academic publisher (even though this can easily be disputed since their books don't necessarily go through peer review).

I suggest the discussion is continued on the book's Talk page. kashmiri ^TALK 18:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are simply wrong in your statements about language. Yes, different language wikis have different inclusion criteria, and I have no knowledge of how the Hindi Wikipedia handles such things, but here on English Wikipedia there is nothing whatsoever in any of our notability guideline that discriminates on the basis of the language of an article subject, or says that a book has to have any place in English literature. If you can't grasp that simple concept then I have no interest in discussing this any further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As you are unable to back up your claims of notability (and resort to personal attacks instead), I will be nominating the article for deletion. kashmiri ^TALK 19:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made no personal attack. If you nominate this for deletion on the basis that the book is not in English then you will get plenty of other editors telling you that you are wrong, which will also not be a personal attack. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination was on the basis of notability. The language issue is an additional one. The third issue, which initially escaped my attention, is the likely conflict of interest between the article creator and principal editor and the subject. All of this together warrants a discussion IMHO. kashmiri ^TALK 21:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

PROD tag

Hi. On these two edits (1 & 2), I thought that giving the reason is optional. Can I PROD them again, this time with reason?Farhikht (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't give a reason then how is anyone supposed to decide whether they agree with you? Please start discussions at WP:AFD if you think these should be deleted, as the articles contain references that would appear to indicate that notability is likely, so deletion would not be uncontroversial as required for the WP:PROD procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok and thank you for your help.Farhikht (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note....

When you responded to User:Tertulius and wrote "The sources that have been added to the article are this one apparently published by the director of this film..." you made it appear that you believe Portugese author José de Matos-Cruz and filmmaker Ricardo Costa are the same person. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The source claims to have been written by José de Matos-Cruz, but was published at http://rcfilms.dotster.com/ , whose home page identifies as Ricardo Costa's web site. And, of course, there's the minor point that that source doesn't even mention Drifts. Phil Bridger (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I know dotster.com is a web hosting site. My own "official site" was hosted with forunecity.com before that host was bought out by dostster and I stayed with them before getting tired of hosting problems and moved it to Avahost.com And I do not see any issue with any reliable source page being archived at such a site, and just wished to clarify that the registered owner of the website hsting the archived PDF and the author of the archived page are not the same person. Tertulius could have used the wayback machine or some other method to show us the original sources for that PDF. The PDF speaks toward a planned trilogy and mentions a planned trilogy called Longes (Distant) with part one named Brumas (Mists), but yes... it does NOT speak of something Derivas (or Drifts) as part two. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Web of Knowledge

Per your AfD comment, that is a resource of which I was not aware. Do you know if there is a list of citation resources for certain areas anywhere on WP, and if not, is there any value in creating one? I can see how it would make the AfD process more efficient, either by allowing for very specific statements regarding a lack of meeting notability criteria per X, Y, and Z, or being a way to establish notability before said article even gets to AfD (and avoiding WP:HEY). MSJapan (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any such list, and the only citation index of which I am aware that is available without subscription is Google Scholar, which doesn't have clearly defined inclusion criteria so is less reliable than Web of Knowledge and Scopus, which are only available through academic libraries. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Focus Ireland

Thank you for at least partially alleviating my concern. Now, I'd like your opinion; one of the founders is Rachel Collier. Given the existence of Rachel K Collier; is this Rachel Collier notable for something else (she currently falls foul of WP:1EVENT) or should I simply carve a disambiguation page out of it?--Launchballer 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The book that I cited, and Focus Ireland's web site, attribute the founding to Stanislaus Kennedy alone, so I'll just remove Collier's name from the article and your problem will be solved. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll just redirect Rachel Collier to Rachel K Collier then.--Launchballer 14:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Taxi to L.A.

The article Taxi to L.A. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not much on the page, and WP:MOVIE

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ModelUN (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Banded speed cosmology

Camellia Plant (talk · contribs) killed the PROD you endorsed at Banded speed cosmology. I've opened an AFD for it that you may want to comment on. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Evixion

Hello,

You contested my PROD on Evixion. Why would you say that the film passes WP:MOVIE?

ModelUN (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

By virtue of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is marginal, and I wouldn't have any objection to a discussion at WP:AFD if you still consider this not to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Evixion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Evixion 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/Evixion 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ModelUN (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi, I thank you for the precisions you came with in this article though I reverted them so as to provide more references claiming that he is the youngest journalist of the country. I had a talk with other wiki admins and they seem to accept it and approve it as a secondary source. --Wikifan115 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Do external links count as references?

I saw you removed a Prod blp from Hubert Gatignon, saying it has a reference. I see one external link and no references. Do external links count as references for purposes of that? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's even in bold type. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I didn't see that. Sorry to bother you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Паркын танилцуулгаАялалаа төлөвлөеАрга хэмжээБилет болон захиалга

Hello Phil. Yesterday you removed a prod tag from this non-English article saying that there was no reason to depart from our practice of allowing two weeks for translation. You might have missed though that this article has been sitting at WP:PNT since 5 July, so time's really up now. Please restore the prod or we would have to go through an unnecessarily bureaucratic AFD. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, and sorry for the trouble. I don't know how I managed to miss that. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyril Blausten

You forgot to indicate what the copyvio was from, but it was easy enough to find, so I specified where and deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm always happy when someone corrects my mistakes! Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Special invitation to join WikiProject India

You are specially invitation to join WikiProject India. This is the template we generally copy paste:

Namaste! Phil Bridger, Behalf of WikiProject India I am inviting you to join our WikiProject. To see what is happening now in WikiProject India, follow our noticeboard. If you are not a member already, you can add your name here. Thank you. -- Tito☸Dutta 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

Now,
Please let me if you have any question or comment. I am watching this page. I'll hope you'll consider joining our WikiProjects. --Tito☸Dutta 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'll turn it down. I prefer to take a generalist approach whereby I work on any article that draws my attention rather than concentrate on any specific topic area. Even your offer below, which certainly got my taste buds twitching, isn't enough to persuade me! Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Makki di Roti Sarson da Saag for you

		Makki di Roti Sarson da saag for you
		Look, here I have brought Makki di roti with Sarson da saag for you. Makki di roti is bread made from corn flour and Sarson da saag is a curry made from mustard leaves with spices. Thank you. Tito☸Dutta 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

How are they notable?

I noticed you removed the PRODs on Suprobhat Bangladesh and Ekobingsho. I don't see anything in the articles themselves that indicates their notability. Are you seeing something in them I'm not, or do you recognize them as notable from outside what their article says? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You gave the deletion rationale "doesn't appear notable", so I responded in kind. The appearance is that Suprobhat Bangladesh is a regional daily newspaper and Ekobingsho is a literary magazine established and edited by a major writer and academic. Such topics in the United Kingdom and the United States are usually accepted as notable without question, so the equivalents in Bangladesh certainly do appear notable. Whether the topics actually are notable, beyong just appearing so, is something that should be decided by discussion rather than by summary deletion using WP:PROD. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• See also, Talk:Anjan_Dutt_discography#Sudden_merge here we are looking for second opinion (Jackmcbarn, someone has removed your request from 3O page), and they merged an article without any discussion or edit summary. --Tito☸Dutta 20:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcello Boldrini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Golly

Thanks for your input. I don't often look at my talk page, hence the long delay in hearing from me.

As I understand it, there are several published articles that reference Golly. Is that your suggestion? How should such references be handled?

Dean Street Studios

Regarding this - I described it as in the Unite States as the (only) category was Category:Recording studios in the United States. GiantSnowman 08:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to go by the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

talk:stalking

There were several comments made on the Talk:Stalking#Removal_of_properly_sourced_information section that amounted to personal attacks on both of us by editor Damenthesis (apparently by his registered account and an unregistered URL) back in April that I think would be appropriate to remove before the section is eventually archived- and probably the part of our responses that dignify them. Let me know what you think, it's not high on my priority list but I think it should be done.Batvette (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care one way or the other. Do whatever you think fit. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the lession

Thank you for the helpful edit summary here. Would you consider this article (or any equivalent) eligible for A7 if the league was left out of the into: Jane Doe is a footballer who plays as a midfielder for "club"? Or would the same indication of importance apply, if that was the same club that played in the same league? Cheers Mentoz86 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport

Phil, I have left a note for you on the DoRALGAS talk page, would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Clare.

Clare. (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Accismus

If there has already been discussion on deleting the Accismus article, why does it not appear on its Talk page? And where is the discussion? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that there had been a deletion discussion, but that deletion had previously been contested. That means that the WP:PROD procedure, which calls for deletion without discussion, can't be used again. The procedure for starting deletion discussions is explained at WP:AFD. I would add that I can't make head nor tail of "since the article was written, comment has been misapplied and unreferenced" as a reason for deletion, or as an English sentence at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx. Staszek Lem seems to have taken the article in hand so I'll hold off for a while to see if the article develops into something less dictionary-like. My incoherence arose from sitting at a cramped table in a noisy Cretan hotel lobby. While it's an ideal place to contemplate figures of Greek rhetoric, it's not good for concentration! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

MS Mode

Phil, I placed a delete banner on MS Mode for one primary reason, namely that it is almost completely composed of unverified and unverifiable assertions. I don't believe it can be improved by simply editing it. In order to comply with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, you would have to gut it completely.

The secondary reason is the bad grammer, but I wouldn't want to correct it for fear that I might be seen to be supporting or accepting any of the prose.

Hope this helps, I realise it's not exactly NPOV on my part, but none the less, the article is an ugly pollution in Wikipedia.. Dutchdavey (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Vickiel Vaughn

Your PROD2-ed this, and it was deleted, but undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND by the IP that was edit-warring to add damaging information. I have restored it, but warned the IP that adding it a fourth time without first getting consensus will lead to a block - see WP:REFUND#Vickiel Vaughn. I don't know American football - you implied that this record wouldn't pass notability? If he's not notable, maybe AfD is the best course. It seems likely that the original PRODder is the subject so, for what that's worth (not much) he wouldn't object to deletion. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

On looking at the article again the infobox seems to be saying that he played in the NFL for the 49ers. I'm also ignorant of American football, so I'll leave the article alone in the hope that someone more knowledgeable will check it out. I'll keep it watchlisted in case any more WP:BLP violations appear. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ramaz Abesadze for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ramaz Abesadze 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/Ramaz Abesadze 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Emeraude (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Issue with your edit summary

You left an edit summary of add a reference and remove maintenance tags for issues that have either been fixed or never existed in the first place at Government First Grade College, Kolar Gold Fields‎. The last bit is rather odd and seems to assume that I added those tags in bad faith. You only fixed one, yet you removed all of them. Please explain.--Auric talk 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't claim that the tags were issued in bad faith, but simply that they were incorrect. There was sufficient context, as the article clearly said that this was a college in a particular place, and the claim that "this article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents" was obviously incorrect as the lead section constituted the whole of the contents. What else was there to summarise? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. I interpreted it differently.--Auric talk 20:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ministries of Djibouti

Hi Phil Bridger. Thanks for the formatting here. There seems to be a problem with one url; it isn't linking properly. Too many brackets apparently, which seem to be conflicting with Wikipedia's url code. Could you please help make it point correctly? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem with the "]" characters contained in the url. I know I've fixed similar problems before so I'll try to look up the solution, remember how I did it or work it out again. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've had to manually encode the "[" and "]" characters in ASCII. I'm sure there should be a more user-friendly way of doing this but I can't find it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Leave templates when contesting deletion proposals

Hey Phil, thanks for the work you're doing to save pages from deletion. You may already be aware of this, but please be sure to add Template:Old prod or Template:Old prod full to the talk page of articles for which you've contested deletion, per WP:DEPROD. It'll help save the articles from getting PRODed again in the future, and help editors keep track of past issues with the page. Ibadibam (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll try to bear it in mind but it won't be my top priority, especially when my time is limited. I always leave an edit summary saying that I am contesting deletion which should be just as easy to find as a talk page template. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

One Loudoun

You noted for One Loudon that "the WP:PROD process doesn't apply to redirects". What is the correct way to remove redirects? -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The procedure is to start a discussion at WP:RFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

PhD. Ignazia Bartholini

Deat Mr. Btidger

I know that you are influenced by user "Vituzzu" from Italian Wikipedia, but I don`t know what is the problem of this person. Mrs. Ignazia Bartholini iz a Professore aggregato (a faculty researcher with a temporary appointment for a given course)whis is offical rank from wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_ranks. She is the leader of all recherche project from Sicily for Violence agains child and women. If you find that these few word about her in Wikipedia is incorrect or not important do not hesitate, deleted it. Best regards from Italy Zizibart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.138.44.38 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who Vituzzu is, have not knowingly communicated with anyone from the Italian Wikipedia and edit according to the evidence that I see, not under anyone's influence. If you want a reply to your subtantive comments then please withdraw your ridiculous accusation of some kind of conspiracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Kundalini article

Hi Phil, I was disappointed by your comment on the disambig page. If you don't revert it, how does this fit in with the bold revert discuss cycle? Note that the disambig page was made without any discussion on the talk page and the current discussion only began after the disambig page was created. I urge you to reconsider or explain to me why this action should pass with no consensus on the talk page? Freelion (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The title is clearly ambiguous, so a disambiguation page is needed. And how can the creation of a page be discussed on its talk page before the article and talk page have been created? Please think about what you are writing before spouting such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PsiEpsilon#12 October 2013

You may want to comment there about the IP 110.172.23.136. Regards, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 11:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Harald Wydra

Hi Phil, I saw that you de-PRODded this article a while ago, saying in the edit summary that he clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. Could you perhaps expand a bit on that? A GScholar search reveals a rather scanty citation record and he's a lecturer, not a "named" chair, so I'm wondering which criterion exactly he meets. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going mainly by the book reviews which, in this field, I think are a better indication of significant impact than citation count. I have cited two such reviews of Communism and the emergence of democracy, and some more are listed at Worldcat,[7] and I haven't yet checked for reviews of any of his other works. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I would also point out the parenthetical note at "Lecturer#United Kingdom": "Some lecturers may be equivalent to professors. In traditional universities such as Oxford, professors are those who lead a group of other academics, equivalent to department chairs in North America- all the other academics are classified as a lecturer". Cambridge is such a traditional university. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, but the simple fact alone of being a full professor (at a US university) or a lecturer at Cambridge is not enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Salamanca AC

I don't know if you understand Spanish, but if you read that website, you learn the club has been disapear without play any match. In this week will play the 9th time and the Salamanca doesn't play because administrative problems with the LFP (Spanish League), RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) and the AFE (Spanish Football Players). So, i think this article should be delete because has not relevance despite the references.

The Salamanca hasn't got license for play. You can search about it by internet if you want, and if you don't understand, you can use whatever on-line translate. --Ravave (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Another reason: --Ravave (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

El CSD rechaza definitivamente la inscripción del Salamanca AC. Niega la inscripción en el grupo I de Segunda B y da por zanjado el asunto del "equipo 20".

The CSD finally denies the Salamanca AC's inscription. They refuse their inscripyion in the I group by Second B division and resolve to end with the "Team 20" theme.

: You don't answer me yet. What do you think about a redirection to Unión Deportiva Salamanca. If you still without response, i understand you said yes and will redirect myself the Salamanca AC to the UDS. In the Spanish Wikipedia, we had to do the same. --Ravave (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm mistake of user. Sorry, this isn't for you. --Ravave (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

North East National Board of School Education ‎

Hi, I notice that you removed the speedy delete tag from this article because it was inappropriate for 2 reasons. Upon investigation ,it seems that the article was indeed created before the block, but what is the second reason that you mention? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The second reason was that the user was blocked with the message, "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing." That doesn't equate to a ban on editing, so even if this had been created under another username after the block it wouldn't be subject to speedy deletion for that reason. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont quite get what you mean. Are you saying that the user Nenbse was not banned from editing? Or are you saying that the person using that account wasn't banned from editing and if they chose a new username, they could edit? Benboy00 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not an either/or: the user and the person are one and the same, and that user/person was not banned from editing, but just told to choose a different id to edit with. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, what you are saying seems to be inconsistent. While the user and the person are technically the same, the user(name) was banned (the person was not). Since this is not so in most cases, usually the user is thought to be the same as the person. It was made clear that the person controlling the user was allowed to make a new user (which is only the case with objectionable usernames, and not with normal bans). Since the page was made with that (banned) user, (if it had been made in violation of the ban, i.e. afterwards) the page would be eligible for G5. I hope this explanation helps. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help, and it's not an explanation. Please learn the differences between a ban and a block and between a person and a user id before presuming to explain things. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for misusing the term banning. I meant to say blocked. However, the rest of what i said still applies. When I say user here, i do of course mean user id. It is the user id that was blocked in this case, but the user was allowed to make a new one. Creating content with the old user id, however, is still not allowed, and any such content can be speedy deleted. Is there something specific about the explanation that you disagree with? Benboy00 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If an id has been blocked then creating content with it is impossible, not "not allowed", so that reason for deletion can never arise. Peridon has explained this on your talk page with more patience than I have at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally agree. Benboy00 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Get lite

I guess you are technically right, I should have left it as essay/OR. Although there was no asserted significance, you are correct that it doesn't strictly fall into that category. Hardly seems worth restoring to delete as just OR. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Walsh Brothers

I note your revert of the PROD. The fact that they come from Boston means that their local newspaper happens to be a big newspaper with broad readership, and would imply that coming from Boston makes one inherently more notable. I thought we'd already decided that web series weren't sufficient for notability. What am I missing here? Risker (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What you are missing is that for an article to be deleted without discussion the case for deletion should be strong enough to make it uncontroversial. In this case the source is enough to mean that we shouldn't be deleting the article without proper investigation and discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not as the article was written

re: [8], but I found some sources that probably make him notable, due to his wealth, and resulting coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Żmien L-Ispanjoli

Courtesy ping, I'll look forward to seeing you rescue this with the sources you mentioned; I'd be happy to withdraw the nom then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(2nd) Nomination of Kevin Bott for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Bott 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/Kevin Bott (2nd nomination) 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

As a participant in the 1st nomination discussion, you may wish to participate in the 2nd.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi admin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheik_Abdur_Rahman_Madani, some one want delete this article but i created it with so much effort by adding reliable sources, could you help me? thanks Highermafs (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of CLEAR framework for deletion

I noticed that you had proposed deletion of the CLEAR Framework for Enterprise Architecture last July. I have submitted the page for WP:AFD. Please feel free to join the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLEAR_Framework_for_Enterprise_Architecture Nickmalik (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove the Deletion indication

Hi Phil Bridger I have written an article on Prince Richardson that needs your approval. The article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. I believe this article has some good sources, but an Wikipedian decided to submit it for deletion after I notice there are similar article was approval without deletion. This article Paul Bates has no reliable independent source with minor roles, I feel there should be up for deletion, but it still meets Wikipedia guidelines. Another article Brittney Wilson used the same database I use for my article, that meet Wikipedia guidelines without deletion. I also notice this article Young Cartoon with bad independent sources and anyone could wrote this without reliable source that speak for the article. The article meet Wikipedia guidelines but doesn't bring show any notable content to be an article. So I wrote my article but and even clean up the article for more reliability. Please can you fix my article and removed the deletion remark. Iranmichealswiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Maliyekal Thoma has been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Corey Schou for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Corey Schou 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/Corey Schou 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Phil Bridger. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

About moving aspect ratio pages to "21:9 aspect ratio"-like format

Some users proposed to move 14:9, 16:9 and 16:10 to the "# aspect ratio" format. If you are interested, please participate in the moving discussion. Thank you. UU (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Tokyo Union deprodded

Please put more time and thought into deprodding articles, as with Tokyo Union. In your edit summary you wrote "a book search for '"tokyo union" jazz' shows clear notability)". You need to be more specific. Do you mean a search on Google revealed one book or two books or what? Which books? Where? In Google Books? Are you assuming that I haven't put any thought into proposals for deletion? I reverted your deprod for the simple reason you are not following the rules. When you responded "A contested WP:PROD tag can't be reinstated - if you really think that insufficient sources exist for notability then the procedure to use is described at WP:AFD)", yes, that is usually true—when the rules have been followed. In this case it doesn't apply, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, evidence that there are sufficient reliable sources for an article of substance. A reliable source must do more than simply mention the subject in passing or in an index. If the sources are unreliable, the prod is not controversial, and the prod template should remain.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are the one breaking the "rules" here. Just read WP:PROD and you will see that that is the case. Constructive editing, such as finding sources and adding them to the article, takes a bit longer than destructive deletion tagging, but is what is needed to build, rather than destroy, an encyclopedia. And, since you ask the question, I do think that you haven't put any thought into this deletion proposal. This isn't some sort of game where people can propose articles for deletion on a whim and expect others to put in work that you could have easily done yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are throwing out a lot of assumptions here that you need to examine. You are making assertions that conflict with the goals and methods of Wikipedia. Your assumption is that deletion is bad. Morally bad. If the documentation says that, please show me where. When you say "what is needed to build, rather than destroy, an encyclopedia" I don't see that in the documentation, and if you are hinting that this applies to me, that by prodding I am destroying Wikipedia, you couldn't be more wrong. What am I destroying? At first I thought you were accusing me of prodding frivolously. Now I see that you hate prodding altogether, that you think it is morally wrong, that you think nothing ought to be deleted, because deletion means "destroying the encyclopedia". Therefore I must repeat it is you who are breaking the rules, not me, because Wikipedia makes it very clear that some material has to be deleted. I remind you, too, that personal attacks are against the rules, and if you continue on that course and deprodding out of some agenda based on your imaginary arbitrary morality, then I will have to seek the intervention of an admin regarding your methods. Watch who you are calling lazy, kid. You know nothing about me. But rather than annihilate your assertions one at a time, I leave you with a bit of advice: Examine your assumptions about deletion. You are not "saving" anyone. This isn't a drowning child we're talking about. It's a piece of data on a computer. Moreover, nothing on Wikipedia really gets deleted forever. You need to choose your words and actions much more carefully. Capece?
Vmavanti (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as you were describing yourself rather than me when you wrote about breaking the rules, you are doing the same again by writing about throwing out a lot of assumptions. If I had blindly gone through and deprodded every article that was was proposed for deletion you would have been correct about me, but I did not do that. I deprodded articles that were were clearly not uncontroversial deletion candidates, as required by the "rules" of the WP:PROD procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Romanian musicians

Why should their be lists of musicians that are already covered by categories?
Vmavanti (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's explained much better than I could do so at WP:CLS, which I pointed to in my edit summary. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And, by the way, I think you meant "there", not "their". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing CSD

Administrators will consider author reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Only admin can remove speedy deletion tag please don't remove it but i have moved article into draft space for now. Regards, AD ^Talk 18:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Azkord: I did not create this article myself, so was entitled to remove the speedy deletion tag. Your statement that "only admin can remove speedy deletion tag" is simply a lie. If you can't perform the simple task of looking at the history to determine who created an article the you have no business bossing people around with templates. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed that things before you replied me and i'm not bossing here that's all. AD ^Talk 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And author had also told in talked page that he is the owner of that page ane he created the page himself and i think you know very well about WP:COI cause of that it would be better if you hadn't removed csd tag from that page. Regards,

Sorry, but that's not good enough. You said that only admins can remove the speedy deletion tag, which is simply a lie. And the speedy deletion tag was obviously incorrect because this is not about web content, and, anyway, I added sources, and the creator did not ask for this to be moved to draft space. You are obviously incompetent in both determining speedy deletion and in determining whether an article should be moved to draft space, so, if you dont revert your move, I will request that the right to perform such moves be withdrawn from you. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You're directly giving an order and that's not fair. Author had clearly asked not to move the page into draftspace or sanbox here for a week[9] but another Praxidicae has suggested him to work on draftspace or sandbox and owner can't create article themself as it's direcrly WP:COI and sorry for that template i told what i knew (as i told you admin can remove csd tag) cause i thought that. Anyway you can check the talk page. Regards, AD ^Talk 19:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have checked the talk page, and the author made a request that is totally in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because this article was not eligible for speedy deletion so, if any deletion procedure should have been used, it would have lasted for a week. The fact that some other random incompetent editor suggested using draft space is irrelevant. If you didn't even know that non-admins can remove speedy deletion tags then you should not be getting involved with the administrative side of Wikipedia until you learn the basics. Are you willing to learn, which would involve reverting your move, or not? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Page has been moved to the draft and deleted under r3 if you feel that should be on mainspace than you can submit it for afc. Cause submitting to afc wont charge you a price and i'm not reverting my move. I am bold on my desicion. But author can submit it for afc. We are not here to serve COI who request not to delete not to move. I did what was appropriate. Cause anyone can perform that task. Wikipedia doesn't run according to your orders. FYI: No one is born talented neither i am. I was learning i am learning and i will learn. Regards, AD ^Talk 19:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just checking in...

Hi Phil Bridger! I hope you're doing well and that your holiday season and new years celebration were all fun and stress-free (mine were... alright I guess... lol). Anyways, I'm messaging you to express some concerns regarding some recent comments you've made when communicating with other editors (such as 1, 2, 3). I'm not going to go off on you, scold you or talk down to you, or go into huge detail about Wikipedia's civility and no personal attacks policies - you've obviously been on Wikipedia a long time and you obviously know about these policies... so I'll spare you the lecture... lol. I just wanted to point these comments out to you and talk about them briefly...

I've obviously been here for quite some time; I completely understand how discussions and disagreements with other editors can become frustrating at times, how easy it is to become annoyed with others, and how tempting it can be to tell someone to stick it somewhere (lol). Obviously, referring to other editors as "officious" or "incompetent" is not compliant with the policies I pointed out above. Taking that aside, that kind of communication is not going to make the discussions go any better nor will they make things any easier for yourself. Those kind of comments will just draw more frustration toward you from other users... incivility never usually results in other users leaving you alone (obviously, since someone escalated the situation by coming to me and asking me to step in... lol)... they usually just upset other editors more and drive them to escalate the matter and try and point the "admin spotlight" toward you.

Just consider this in the future... and if you find yourself in a situation where you're pretty much about to tell someone off or refer to them as something... not-so-positive, just know that I'm here for you and that you're welcome to come to me any time for input or help with a frustrating situation. My talk page is always open to you and you are always welcome to message me whenever you need or want to. I just wanted to mention the concerns and encourage you to keep these things in mind with your messages in the future. Thanks for hearing me out. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: it's very difficult for me to reply to those comments when I wasn't informed of the discussion where another editor asked you to step in. Could you please link to it? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Jay Wynn

Note that your edit followed one by a human masquerading as a computer. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making me chuckle. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation

Greetings, you are invited to join Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia. To join the association, add your name to the list here. To indicate your membership of the association, you may care to add the following template on your userpage	Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia
{{AWWDCCW}} {{AWWDCCW}} {{User wikipedia/AWWDCCW}} {{User wikipedia/AWWDCCW}} {{User:TheStrayDog/COC}} {{User:TheStrayDog/COC}}

--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, thanks. I certainly sympathise with the aims of that group but prefer not to join any association. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

NYU faculty articles

Hello, I noticed you were mentioned at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#NYU faculty articles and that you seem to be keeping an eye on some things. I went down the list quickly and found some serious issues as well as made at least one mistake. If you have the time it would be nice if you can look at the others on the list. Otr500 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Schools and A7

The section WP:NSCHOOL says that For-profit schools can be considered Organization as well. Thus, A7 should also be applicable , shouldn't it? Daiyusha (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it qualifies for speedy deletion. WP:A7 clearly says, and it's even bolded, "with the exception of educational institutions". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Afd related to Cheng Taining

Hi have seen your comment in afd on Cheng Taining, yaa i agree with you there may not be no live news sources available but have you seen there mentioned some award prize for him on 2004 with an new page creation link, that's an un-sourced detail.i thought some one is trying to make an orphan article an back link. so what do i want to do wait for some more discussions or close the afd, please advice me. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My strong advice, which you are welcome to take or not, would be to withdraw this nomination as notability has been clearly demonstrated per WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

so What do i want to do next, wait or remove the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijesh sreenivasan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to withdraw the deletion nomination then don't just remove the template from the article, because there are other things that need to be done to the deletion dicussion page and the article talk page. The best thing to do would be to simply leave a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Taining saying that you wish to withdraw and someone who knows all the details of what to do will close the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry i didnt see this message on your talk page and i have changed every thing related to the afd of Cheng Taining, i have added tags to article talk page and afd discussion page, can you please check that. hope every thing is ok, if there is any mistake happened from my side then sorry. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It all looks pretty good to me, but I'm not an expert in the details of such procedures. Don't worry that you might have done something wrong - if there's anything missing then someone else will come along and tidy up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hello, Phil. You will no doubt read the AN report mentioned in the post above from Robert McClenon, but I think taking the matter there was a mistake, and I will just let you know my thoughts on the matter here. It concerns your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdolrahman Razani, where you said, in effect, that the only reason anyone might support deletion was that he "happens to work in Iran". There is certainly, unfortunately, a cultural bias in Wikipedia concerning articles on academics, and I agree with your concern about it. However, what you said went further than expressing concern about a general problem, and amounted, whether intentionally or not, to accusing those who had argued for deletion of that particular page of ethnic bias. My experience of you over the years encourages me to think that you did not intend it as a personal accusation, but I confess to being somewhat offended when I read your comment, being myself one of the editors in question. I did, in the heat of the moment, post a note in that discussion asking you if you had evidence to support your accusation (though I thoughtlessly failed to ping you, so you may not have seen that note) but I now think that was not necessary, and I could have just forgotten the matter. The other editor involved (Robert McClenon), however, took it more seriously, and, as you can see from his post above, took it to WP:AN. As I have already said, I now think that mentioning the matter at all was probably unnecessary, let alone taking it to an admin noticeboard, but now that it has happened, perhaps it would help if you could do one of the following two things. Preferably, simply say that do not accuse me (and perhaps Robert, but that is a matter for him, not me) of ethnic bias; alternatively, if in fact you do believe that I am guilty of such bias then say what evidence has led you to that conclusion. (I do not believe that I have assessed the draft in question any differently than I would have done had the person involved been anywhere else in the world, nor do I believe that my editing history contains anything of the kind, but if you think I am mistaken in that then I really should be made aware of what I have done or said that has given that impression.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson, I will reply to this over the weekend because I don't have time to make a well-thought reply today. I'm not ignoring you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, there's no hurry. Probably a storm in a teacup anyway. Thanks for at least letting me know you will think about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't given this an enormous amount of thought, but let me first say that I'm not accusing anyone of deliberate bias. There are, however, a couple of points that I'd like to make.

The first is that you have taken the time to provide a full, personalised, message to me explaining your position. Wouldn't it have been better to spend that time in giving a personalised explanation to User:Arazani rather than to me? I really don't get any reason for that difference in consideration given other than unintentional national bias.

The other is that any monitoring of deletion nominations demonstrates that articles about non-Western non-Anglophone topics shows that they are held to higher notability standards than American or British or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand or Irish or any other such topics are held. I can't spend the time going through histories to substantiate that claim, largely because it's a matter of statistics rather than proof that any particular article is subject to such bias, but just one such case that I have seen in the last few days is that of Moms at War, the fourth highest grossing film of 2018 in what is, by some definitions, the third biggest film industry in the world, which wasn't just nominated for deletion once, but twice.

I see such examples of systemic bias time and time again, and it is one of the biggest problems for the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly note

Hi Phil. Just to let you know that based upon your edit summary re deleting the notability template on the Afghan poet - which I added after extensive googling and was meant as nothing more than a question for discussion - you may be surprised to have a look at my recent editing contributions. (And fyi my mum was a published poet - selected for many local anthologies as well as winning awards and attracting favourable reviews - but she wouldn't pass the notability guidelines.) Thanks for providing a print source, which was not available to me. Nothing to do with foreignness, so please don't jump to conclusions! I'm very aware of bias on the English Wikipedia, which is partly understandable because most of us editors rely primarily on English sources mostly found online, so reflect this bias. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. Being on a dodgy tablet atm, I didn't check the edit history before (which I just have done), but did look at the talk page and saw nothing there. Perhaps you could add something on the talk page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

Are you focusing on what i do most of the time? I'm not mad, i'm just... confused. --TheWinRatHere! 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No. I just happen to have your talk page watchlisted, because I have commented there before and I have the preference selected to watchlist every page that I edit. And if I'm going to comment on anyone's talk page I want to make sure that my comment is fair, so I check the editor's contributions to check whether a mistake is part of a pattern or simply an aberration. I'm afraid that in your case these mistakes seem to be part of a pattern; hence my message. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∯WBG^converse 19:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Alert about General Sanctions

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

∯WBG^converse 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

DJ Suketu

From a comment in AfD II, I gather sources are available but never made it into the article. Thanks for fixing it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding Phil

	Namaskar
	Thanks for guiding me on the NCHTUK page, added references...look forward to contributing more from #India :) Amitized (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Guianan Creole

Hi, I move this page, because the real and official name in French Guiana of this language in English, is Guiana Creole, as you can see on the page history, someone move the page to "French Guianese Creole" an unused name, please help me to move to the official name Guianan Creole like before please ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem solved ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not solved, because you did an improper cut-and-paste move, which breaks the article history. Also, English Wikipedia uses the most common name in English, which is not always the "official" name. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, BilCat, for dealing with this while I was asleep. LeGuyanaisPure, the place to discuss the underlying issue is Talk:French Guianese Creole, where a decision about the title can be made based on what name is most commonly used in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Lacrosse teams

I disagree with your assessment on the two articles from which you removed the CSD.

• All 6 teams were sourced by Archers page on the league's website;
• The league hasn't had a single game yet, characterising it as a "a top-level league" is just buying into their marketing BS, pure WP:CRYSTAL.

The other 4 got redirected to the league's article, Premier Lacrosse League, for the time being. That's not my first choice outcome, it's helping them build a buzz to become notable, and we should be recording stuff that is notable, but it certainly makes more sense than just removing the CSD. Cabayi (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi, the test for WP:A7 is not notability, but a claim of importance, which these articles had. If they don't meet the higher standard of notability then other procedures such as merging or WP:AFD are available. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to justify yourself but to consider an alternative. Cabayi (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is what I did. I gave you two alternatives. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Diabaté

Sorry about that. I crosschecked their dates of birth, but now see I was a decade out. Will get new glasses. In mitigation, I have a a Toumani album and an EP, both of which I love. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize. There seem to be at least four notable members of this family, three of which have "Sidiki" in their names. I have looked at the history of the Sidiki Diabaté article, and it looks like it was started about the even more obviously notable grandfather of the current subject of the article, but was cut back to a stub because of a copyright violation. I'm about to go to bed now, but I'll try to get round to sorting out this mess in the next couple of days. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

New Article upon Commando 3

It's clear but it's not written properly Commando 3. Whereas a clear and appropriate article is already there Commando 3 (2019) AR.Dmg (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Then the title should be Commando 3. Disambiguation is not needed when there is no other topic with the same name, so you should have edited the existing article (if this film really is notable yet, which I doubt) rather than create a new one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Phil Bridger. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Citations in Hallwang Clinic GmbH

Hi Phil, I´m nor a friend of alternative pseudo-scientific but neither a friend of unbalanced articles, particularly citations of secondary source when the sentence is one to one from the BBC article and not in David Gorski´s book, who maybe wants to promote by adding his citation everywhere possible. So, I think we should cite the primary literature rather than promoting a book. Nevertheless, I will think of an inclusion of his citation, in a more general way. But when sentences have been taken from Jim Reed then they are from them and not from Gorski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkpoint18 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Checkpoint18 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that personal blogs should be cited in general - since they are an opinion piece and potentially libelousCheckpoint18 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)