User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2008 – March 2008
This page is an archive of past discussions for the period January 2008 – March 2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
List of Afghan singers
Ok, thanks. I will provide the category link. BamyanMan (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion
If you have sources to show that he had solo shows, I will most definitely undelete the article. That was a mistake, and I apologize to you for the inconvenience. Thank you. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am aware of that, I will undelete the article momentarily. I just don't want it to be re-tagged, causing you more trouble; people are more likely to tag an article without sources. Keilanatalk(recall) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked you to modify, strike or redact your statement at the above.[1] I for one am very conscientious when reveiwing RFA's and I find your comments insulting and assuming bad faith at best, and an attack (bordering on personal) to the supporters at worst. Please reconsider. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your respect and calmness in doing this. [2] Honestly, it's appreciated. I respect your oppose and stance, but sometimes comments run away from an editor and are against the collegial atmosphere we all strive for. Sorry if I came over as to harsh. Again, thank you. Best. Pedro : Chat 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you didn't come over as at all harsh. You just reminded me that I don't have the right to assume bad faith just because I'm annoyed when someone else seems to be doing exactly that. I'll try to rise above that in future! Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you didn't come over as at all harsh. You just reminded me that I don't have the right to assume bad faith just because I'm annoyed when someone else seems to be doing exactly that. I'll try to rise above that in future!
RfA Thanks
db-spam
You might be interested in looking at Artists' Quarter too.--Appraiser (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{
A lot of fans suspect Mimi Pond is a pseudonym, because she hasn't been involved with the writing process since and she has never been mentioned by the Simpsons producers once. -- Scorpion0422 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Mimi Pond
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
Another unsourced British sports guy, is he notable or not?
I replied to your query.
- Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Homepage: http://www.olimpbase.org/ look at the right panel and sroll down
"COPYRIGHT
OlimpBase :: the online encyclopaedia of international team chess events
© Free to copy.
Please cite the source.
2003-2008
Wojciech Bartelski"
Humortueio (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Doczilla (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sergio Villanueva Fernández
Thanks for your information about
Just want to say thanks for your contributions and references to this article! Voorlandt (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Economica
Thanks for fixing the sourcing issues on Economica. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Hi, Phil. That A1 rule also applies to declarative sentences with little or no content. It was up to the original poster to provide the minimum content required for a good stub, i.e., at least a couple of paragraphs. A couple of sentences are better than this. Heck, no article whatsoever is better than this. These sorts of empty articles are (or at least were) deleted all the time and, IMO, it isn't fair to assume that someone is going to step up and expand this. Besides, anyone researching this subject already knows what it is he does as ambassador. Jimbo Wales himself has lamented over this lack of content; we shouldn't have the article simply for the article's sake and I don't want to disrupt the site to run this on AfD. On the other hand, I feel that this is setting a really, really bad precident by letting these sorts of "nanostubs" stay. Sometimes, these can be redirected but it can't be done in this case. Result: We're left with a single sentence (which makes this site look bad) and a bunch of expansion templates. I know nothing about New Zealand politicians, but it appears as if I'll be expanding this myself...and I really don't want to. Thanks for letting me vent. Regards, --
Wolkonsky or Volkonsky
Hi,
You redirected
Thanks, --Mart071 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for removing the deletion template from
NYMagazine
Phil, I am not sure the NY Magazine list of best doctors is a source for notability. Can you explain to me why you think it is sufficient? DGG (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Phil,
Thanks for your contributions. I'm glad we were able to get the orphaning issue taken care of, and that you added some sources, but my primary problem with the article is that it satisfies no part of
Phil,
Apologies for my misuse of PROD. Somewhat silly mistake on my part. That said, I have filed an AfD regarding the article. My reasons can be found here. SingCal (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI
Burke's Boy
A 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I re-tagged this article. We really do not want to give every horse that wins an FEI four star its own wikipedia article, no matter how famous its rider, unless it goes on to do something else. Otherwise, there'd be a thousand new articles. it's the equivalent of, oh, maybe putting up an article on every winner of the Santa Anita Derby, just because they had a famous jockey or something. Not saying the horse wasn't talented, just challenging notability. Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
NASDAQ
Perhaps you should read up on
- Phil Bridger (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the case then perhaps you'll point me to the place where it states as such. If there is no place then I can only presume you've unilaterally decided it to be the case. In which case I'd recommend you leave the CSD notice removals to admins who do know the rules rather than making them up as they go. --WebHamster 10:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just pointed you to the place, Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of what that guideline is, I meant (and I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant) where is the statement that says a NASDAQ ticker has any relation to notability. It just means it's a publically traded company, nothing more. Are you sure you're not confusing it with Fortune 500 which is an assertion of notability? Now judging by the contents of your talk page it's pretty clear that you aren't totally au fait with these sort of things, so I would suggest once again that you leave the CSD (and prod) removals to those who know what they are doing. --WebHamster 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- There you go again, talking about assertions of notability, when I have already given you the quote which says that A7 is about indications of importance/significance, not of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- They are the same to all intents and purposes, but regardless you still haven't pointed me to the place where a NASDAQ ticker is an assertion of "importance/significance". All it is is a symbol showing that the company is publically traded along with 1000s of other companies. So back to the start, please point me to the location where you picked up this factoid and this exchange can cease. If you can't then I suggest you re-appraise your rationale for removing the CSD. Incidentally, for your edification, the wording on the CSD-A7 only changed recently, prior to which it was "asserting notability". This is why I use the phrase out of habit. So, the location? --WebHamster 11:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- If "they are the same to all intents and purposes then why does A7 say "This is distinct from questions of notability"? And as for the wording, it has said "importance/significance" since it was created in 2005. There's nothing that explicitly says that a NASDAQ listing is sufficient for this, just as there is nothing detailing precisely all of the thousands of other reasons why a subject may be considered important/significant. That's a subjective judgment which I propose that we should agree to differ about. Now, to come to your statement, "judging by the contents of your talk page it's pretty clear that you aren't totally au fait with these sort of things", could you please point me to specific articles discussed here where my tag removals were unjustified? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The recent change I referred to was the "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources.". You will also find that most of the admins dealing with the CSD notices as well as 'time served' editors use the phrase "assertion of notability". Just call it an auld pharts inability to change. As regards my comments about your talk page. I didn't mean about removal of CSD notices I meant about creating articles that don't fulfil the relevant criteria. You seem to have had a good size collection of articles which have been speedied or AfD'ed. For this to happen shows to me that you aren't totally au fait about what makes a justified WP article. I've been known to be wrong before though. --WebHamster 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't created a single article which has been subsequently deleted. You kept asking me for evidence to support my claims, so now I would like you to either do the same or retract your statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who said anything about being deleted? Regardless, this has gone on long enough and I really don't want to spend any more time on it, so as a means to end this I'll apologise and retract my above comments. --WebHamster 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Were running out of space to indent any further! Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Were running out of space to indent any further!
- Who said anything about being deleted? Regardless, this has gone on long enough and I really don't want to spend any more time on it, so as a means to end this I'll apologise and retract my above comments. --WebHamster 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't created a single article which has been subsequently deleted. You kept asking me for evidence to support my claims, so now I would like you to either do the same or retract your statement.
- If "they are the same to all intents and purposes then why does A7 say "This is distinct from questions of notability"? And as for the wording, it has said "importance/significance" since it was created in 2005. There's nothing that explicitly says that a NASDAQ listing is sufficient for this, just as there is nothing detailing precisely all of the thousands of other reasons why a subject may be considered important/significant. That's a subjective judgment which I propose that we should agree to differ about. Now, to come to your statement, "judging by the contents of your talk page it's pretty clear that you aren't totally au fait with these sort of things", could you please point me to specific articles discussed here where my tag removals were unjustified?
- They are the same to all intents and purposes, but regardless you still haven't pointed me to the place where a NASDAQ ticker is an assertion of "importance/significance". All it is is a symbol showing that the company is publically traded along with 1000s of other companies. So back to the start, please point me to the location where you picked up this factoid and this exchange can cease. If you can't then I suggest you re-appraise your rationale for removing the CSD. Incidentally, for your edification, the wording on the CSD-A7 only changed recently, prior to which it was "asserting notability". This is why I use the phrase out of habit. So, the location? --WebHamster 11:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- There you go again, talking about assertions of notability, when I have already given you the quote which says that A7 is about indications of importance/significance, not of notability.
- I'm well aware of what that guideline is, I meant (and I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant) where is the statement that says a NASDAQ ticker has any relation to notability. It just means it's a publically traded company, nothing more. Are you sure you're not confusing it with Fortune 500 which is an assertion of notability? Now judging by the contents of your talk page it's pretty clear that you aren't totally au fait with these sort of things, so I would suggest once again that you leave the CSD (and prod) removals to those who know what they are doing. --WebHamster 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just pointed you to the place,
- If that's the case then perhaps you'll point me to the place where it states as such. If there is no place then I can only presume you've unilaterally decided it to be the case. In which case I'd recommend you leave the CSD notice removals to admins who do know the rules rather than making them up as they go. --WebHamster 10:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
I'm sorry you felt I am inexperienced to become an admin. I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. I hope you had the time to review my answer to Q8 on my RfA before the RfA closed. I hope that if your questions about my ability to uphold Wikipedia policies could not be proven to you with those answers, that my future edits here will help you establish that by my next RfA. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Most Phallic Building contest
Thanks!
The Barnstar of Peace | ||
I present this |
Matthew Freeman(footballer)
Is this guy notable Matthew Freeman(footballer)? MBisanz talk 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that, even if I'm about to disagree with you, I appreciate that you gave a thought out response with policy quoted for your keep vote on the deletion discussion for
) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Thank you for expanding this article and saving it from deletion. Well done! Johnfos (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of North Marion High School (Oregon)
If you still think those templates are not the proper ones, please consider doing something useful and add the proper one, 'cause
- The proper way to go with this if you think it should be deleted is to nominate it for deletion at Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Shaikhul Hind Mufti Mahmood ul Hasan
thought this article was earlier Speedy deleted for notablity.Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moeed1991ahmad Sorry if I was my mistake.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be eligible for speedy deletion as a repost the article needs to have been previously deleted after discussion at AfD - see Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
American College of Psychiatrists
It could be that scientologists prodded it, backlash from Project Chanology. Speciate (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds likely. I was rather suspicious about the prod coming from an IP user. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You untagged this article yesterday on the grounds it didn't meet the {{db-nn}} criteria. You're absolutely right and I tagged it by mistake. You deserve recognition. Keep up the good work, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Recovery | ||
For excellent and valuable work preserving many useful articles from the chop. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
Notability
Is this rugby player notable Sam Faust? MBisanz talk 05:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to be. I've edited the article to provide context. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Oldprodfull}}
Hello, Phil Bridger ... please see Talk:David Roberts (swimmer) and tell me what you think of my newly created
Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tried contesting the notability of this article the correct way, as it seems to me to be nothing more than self-promotion. You keep removing my tag and accusing me of removing sources which is simply not true. Why? 81.156.57.113 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it simply is true that you have been removing sources. I put references in the article to sources from the Sunday Times and the BBC to show that this is a notable subject, and you keep removing them. If you still think that the article should be deleted you need to use the procedure described at Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried, but I cannot make head nor tail of the procedure described at WP:AFD. 217.44.99.30 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried, but I cannot make head nor tail of the procedure described at
Susan Kuronen
How does this article indicate importance/significance? See
- The article says that her book caused "uproar and intrigue", and that she "continued to make headlines". That is enough for it to be able to avoid speedy deletion, but it may well be that, if you take it for discussion using the Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work saving the article. It's better to see one worked into shape than deleted. Cheers -- BPMullins | Talk 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
RFA
If you are interested, there was a follow-up question, 8.1, on my RFA that I'm certain will alleviate your concerns about A7 tagging. Cheers,
Request
About your removal of the prod on Karen Arenson - could you provide the references on the talkpage as to her notability outside that one instance? Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
RFA
Thanks for participating in my Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Rajac - removal of PROD
Thanks for this - I did not know that template existed, otherwise it would have been the first thing I would have done! - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD of K. S. Balachandran
I have nominated this article for deletion, due to the numerous issues. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of K. S. Balachandran
An article that you have been involved in editing, K. S. Balachandran, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Creating articles
Well, I took your advice and created an article. Needless to say, it's a mess. I can't even figure out why the references are all screwed up. Travis Grant Enigma msg! 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, you might be interested about this afd. Thank you--NAHID 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible to rewrite the article to actually make a claim of notability? If you are trying to protect it from deletion, I guess, that is the best thing you can do. I have tried it twice (for Jayne Mansfield in popular culture and Whale tail), and both times it worked. The technique is called the Heymann Standard by some. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the Heymann standard - I apply it every day. In this case I don't really see what rewriting is needed to establish notability. The article already says "Muhammad Abdul Haque served as president for Sylhet District BNP for more than 12 years" which is his main claim to notability, and provides a reference for that. There are also wikilinks in the article for Sylhet District and BNP so readers can see the importance of this position. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the in-line citation provided does say nothing about that claim. No 12 years, no president. If there was no AfD running, this should have been removed immediately as unverified claim. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the Heymann standard - I apply it every day. In this case I don't really see what rewriting is needed to establish notability. The article already says "Muhammad Abdul Haque served as president for Sylhet District BNP for more than 12 years" which is his main claim to notability, and provides a reference for that. There are also wikilinks in the article for Sylhet District and BNP so readers can see the importance of this position.
Response
Hello, Phil! A few things:
- It would probably be best to assume good faithon other editors in the future.
- My opinion stands as it is.
- The wording of the delete template is semantics (i.e., irrelevant to the discussion).
- Your tone is uncivil.
- I'm sorry that we cannot agreeon the subject matter, but that is what makes Wiki great!
Unless there is any constructive things to be mentioned (without condescending overtures e.g., "...I'll spoon-feed you..."), I am done talking about this. However, if there is anything else that I can be of assistance with, please feel free to contact me! Cheers!--Sallicio 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Salicio, I certainly didn't mean to cause offence - I was just expessing my personal opinion about that template, which, I'm afraid, I find irritating. I already said that I don't question your right to disagree. My next comment was not specifically addressed to you (note the change of indentation), but to "the discussion" in general. It seemed to me that notice wasn't being taken of my earlier reference to "basic searches", so I clarified what I meant. If "spoon-feed" was the wrong phraseology then I apologise, but I do think that you're being a little over-sensitive - I just meant that as a bit of friendly banter. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I moved this whole section out of the AfD (as it is an inappropriate place for us to have the discussion) I appreciate the sentiment. Just as an FYI, you might want to limit the friendly banter with those that you have an established relationship. We have to remember that others can only "hear" what is written! Cheers!--Sallicio 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Carroll Consolidated School
Hi there, as the person who prodded this, I just wanted to let you know that I don't plan to pursue deletion further. After I tagged it, User:Gene93k added enough information to make it a good stub, which is a vast improvement over what was there before. I agree with you that school deletions are often controversial, but I don't think this one would have been if it stayed in the form that I tagged it. As it stands, however, it's fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!
Thank you so much for not deleting Vijay Siva, and being bold in making the necessary edit. It is a pity that the editor who placed the speedy-delete tag on the article has been assuming bad faith in trying to go through all the articles I either created, or significantly contributed towards. Still, there was an ANI pending against him. In any case, your action in this matter has been greatly appreciated, by both myself, and the project. Thanks again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) - WikiProject India Assessment Department.
I seem to be perpetually hazy on the {{db}} reasons, so thanks for fixing up Sofie McQueen. Question: should the same be done to User talk:Monkey29? (db-attack and blanking) Not a rhetorical question, as I've got to wend to bed, so I'll give my worries to you. ;-) Shenme (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ankle breakers
Phil, I see that you have found some sources for this -- thank you -- could you please add referenced to them to the article, so it won't end up going through the deletion process over and over again until someone either adds a cite or it ends up being deleted? -- The Anome (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Google Scholar and Google Books searches show that sources exist for the use of ankle breakers in Roman fortifications, but unfortunately I don't have access to a library where I will be able to get the details needed to reference the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added the searches to the External Links section for the article: it's much better than nothing, and may perhaps motivate someone with access to a library to come up with a direct cite. -- The Anome (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)