User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2018 – December 2018
About moving aspect ratio pages to "21:9 aspect ratio"-like format[edit]
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[edit]
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)
- 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?
List of Romanian musicians[edit]
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)