User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2021 – March 2021

Phil Bridger, cut it out with the edit warring, if you don´t care about the name of

I reverted you, which is not edit-warring. You then reinstated your edit rather than discuss it on the talk page, which is. As I and at least two other editors have explained to you the thing to do if you think the name of an article should be changed is to discuss it on the talk page, in this case

Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Please have a look at

I know it is still going on, but I don't think there's much else that I can do. Administrator action is needed.

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

oh hey guise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.199.15.16 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The process is called

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject was a minor child star, and now, as an adult, seeks to remove herself from the spotlight

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are welcome to provide an independent reliable source for the colours and the information can then be restored. A facebook page is about as far from being an independent reliable source as it is possible to get. The source should be provided at

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm cooking dinner at the moment so can't check now. I'll try to get to it tomorrow, UK time (which I just remembered goes forward an hour tonight).

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

There is no other way to contest a

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thank you for the feedback. I'll try the

WP:AFD procedure when I find the time.--CS20M (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]