User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2013 – December 2013

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,[1] 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: [2], 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)