User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2011 – June 2011

Robert Duncan George Anderson

You removed the AfD notice on this article. I've restored it but retained some of your other changes, because it's still under AfD. Perhaps you'd care to comment on its notability (or otherwise) at the AfD discussion. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how that happened, but thanks for cleaning up after me. Maybe I edited an old version of the article - I know I've done that before. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lorenzo Iorio

You recently made a comment on the AfD of Samo Stanic that I had brought... You know alot more than me. There's a messy situation at Larenzo Iorio's Page. There has been so much sockpuppetry and the sliminess of everything is coloring my impartiality.

Background: The page was deleted once, also with alot of sockpuppetry. The Italian page was just deleted, with sockpuppetry. The english page was allowed to be recreated, but so much sockpuppetry has gone on that it's hard to tell what is true and what is false.

I need to really go over this before I submit for AfD and I also will submit another possible account for sockpuppetry (User:Mega Sazabi 144). It was created within hours after the other accounts were banned. Could you take a look at the article and talk page and give me an opinion of what you see? Bgwhite (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility please

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering accurately describes the term as pejorative. You could have very easily contested the proposed deletion of Nahuel Donadell without having to insult me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you examine whether your actions fit the definition of wikilawyering, i.e. "abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles", rather than bleat about a perceived "insult". Your action could easily be interpreted as a much greater insult to players in the Chilean Primera División than any claim of wikilawyering. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point that the insulting remark, whether accurate or not, was completely unnecessary. You could easily have stated something to the effect of Clearly playing in the Chilean top division is much more notable than playing at the fourth level in England and still gotten the same message across. You have clearly taken some offense to my actions and for that I apologise. As I do not wish to spawn unnecessary animosity between us. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

David Price (Soccer)

Page was deleted because another page David Price (Football) was created. Please reverse action or advise. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAL1234 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for this. I'd honestly tried to ref the article, but couldn't find any reliable sources even mentioning him (and must have forgot to check gbooks). The outlandish bit that I mentioned in the PROD is the stuff about being the Pele of Italian hockey. Anyway, thanks a lot for fixing my mistake (I should have remembered to check gbooks). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeez and now I see this as well. Can't believe I didn't find that ref. Many thanks (and apologies for making you go to the trouble). Jenks24 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

Well done! Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Recently

Hello. It's not very important, but I'd just like to say I disagree with your edit at Rizwan Khan. In my edit summary I put "show over - temporary 'recent'". When it ceases to be recent, it can be removed. Wikipedia isn't a print encyclopedia: it is in a constant state of flux, and people know that. Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried...

Believe me, I spent considerably more than a few seconds looking for sources on Castles In The Air. It seems to get a lot of hits - 134000 on Google and 140 on GNews - but I couldn't find anything approaching significant coverage. This and this were about all I could find, and most were more akin to this. Even Google Books only gave stuff like this, unless I'm missing something. I'll be interested to see what you found. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, and there was Chart Stats (apparently it only got to #47 in the UK, which seems much too low for such a good song). Be nice to see the originals of the articles quoted here, which look more promising, but I can't seem to find them. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians

You contested the prod on National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians stating that references exists. Please improve the article with those references. Also, please help make clear how this organization might meet WP:ORG. Thanks. --RadioFan (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Betty Helsengreen?

Hi, Phil,

I proposed an article for deletion some time ago, Betty Helsengreen, and you countered the proposal with the argument that a Google Book search suggested she was, in fact, "not unnotable." I did not follow up on the topic at the time, but wanted to do so now.

I just did a Google Books search on her myself, and while there were 9 "hits," it doesn't look like any of them is applied in the actual Wikipedia article anywhere-- in other words, it looks like none of them have been used to attempt to establish her notability. So I bring the question: if these hits on Google Books make her notable (which perhaps they do, I can't read Danish), how come none of them is used in the article as proof of that fact? And then also, is number of hits on Google Books sufficient of notability? (for kicks I just did a search on myself, and actually came up with 12 Google Books hits that were me, book chapters I have co-authored or journal articles I've written, yet in all humility I am certain I remain unnotable!).

I'd like your thoughts, if only to better familiarize myself with the deletion process and policies. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 10:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gareth Swift‎

Thanks, I'll try and keep an eye out for reversions there. Most appreciated. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for incorrectly tagging Rajkeswur Purryag with {{BLPPROD}}. I have no idea how that happened. (My theory is that, because of the large number of new BLPs without references, tagging for deletion per BLPPROD became almost procedural in my mind.) Thanks for removing the tag, and I certainly will do my best to prevent it from happening again. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: New page patrol

To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources. --Σ _☭^★ 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh... is this a reply to the post above this, or... ? Guoguo12--Talk--  23:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you for rescuing John Reading

Thank you for rescuing John Reading (composer). He may not have set the Thames on fire but, as you say, he is worthy of Groves. Hikitsurisan (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List_of_villages_in_Panchkula_district

I see you contested the deletion on the grounds that it can be fixed up. Do you intend on fixing it up? If not, please restore the PROD because nobody else will fix it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the PRODs are the result of a large effort to sort out a huge mess as shown here. We've spent ages trying to undo the mess. I don't think any of us are up to fixing those two unPRODs. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For further reference, both articles have now been sent to AfD. This is not a case of incremental improvement. The lists are at least 80% redlinks, and their blue links are 90% to the wrong articles. Given our history with the author, we don't even have good reason to believe that the list is at all accurate--this could be a list he made from memory, from a phone book, from documents that are decades old...basically, what I'm saying is that there isn't anything to improve on. There is no doubt in my mind that a blank page would actually be far far more useful for the future. However, you are, of course, welcome to disagree in the AfD discussions, which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Panchkula district and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Haryana. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And these? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and those. Your reason for prodding was "contains many links to incorrect pages. Unsourced. Category is more accurate at present." I explained how that was not a valid reason in my edit summary, "inaccuracies can be fixed by editing, and lists and categories are complementary per WP:CLN." If you had explained in your deletion rationale that that there was evidence that cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the list, as Qwyrxian has done, then maybe I wouldn't have contested deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence??? Are you saying that I needed to provide evidence that "...Contains many links to incorrect pages. Unsourced.."???

My edit summary "...Contains many links to incorrect pages. Unsourced..." was a good reason. I don't need to provide evidence that there are no references. I don't need to provide evidence that half the blue links lead nowhere. What did you want? Diffs? I checked and then said so. That was the reason for the PROD. You are an experienced editor. One look by you in advance, (about the time it takes to undo), would show no references, and bluelinks that would likely lead nowhere accurate.

With respect, your removal of the PROD was a bad edit. My prod and the explanation was a good edit. Your 2 contested prods cost Wikipedia 1,000 backroom keystrokes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still have to disagree. According to deletion policy "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Both the issues of containing incorrect links and the lack of sources can be fixed by editing, and a list of villages in a district is pretty self-evidently a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Any waste of keystrokes is being caused by your continuing to argue the issue rather than getting on with building this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Robots blindly follow policy. Please just try to examine the article next time and use your best judgement instead. That would prevent others from being drawn away from building the encyclopedia to address such matters. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please get up to speed

This is the third in the group. Please, before you PROD another, read the creator's talk and talk archives first. You contested the prod after I posted at your talk. I would have guessed that you'd have dug into things first, being such an experienced editor. Please make yourself aware of all of the facts. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly up to speed. Articles on verified villages are invariably kept at AfD, and we don't delete articles for being stubs. The identity of an article creator is irrelevant to the question of whether the article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dandy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

We just crossed paths at Dayirman and I have to stop and say you do fantastic work with deletion, sir. jorgenev 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you reference Masayoshi Yamaguchi?

G'day Phil, back in 2009 you twice saved Masayoshi Yamaguchi from deletion - once from a PROD and once from a A7. Now, he's showing up in the final month's worth of UBLPs from 2009 and whilst I'm smart enough to be able to reference sportspeople and politicians with ease, referencing academics always gets me confused. In AfDs/deProds I have seen references to google scholar lists, or h-counts, but how do you actually incorporate them as refs in an article? Do you just list a few of the most cited articles or is there a "IMDb" equivalent site for academics! Regards, The-Pope (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good question (by which I mean that I don't really know the answer). Usually for academics there is a bio on their university site, which, even though not independent, can be taken to be reliable. A university wouldn't want to risk its reputation by getting caught inflating the credentials of its academics. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

H. B. Walikar

Your edit summary here is obnoxious and reflects poorly on you. The version I edited had no references section -- something you might have fixed yourself when you edited the article before I did. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I might. And so might you when you edited the article. References to reliable sources used for verification should not be removed from articles, even if they suffer from the trivial problem of not being in your preferred format. To describe the removal of such a reference combined with tagging the article as unsourced as leaving a mess is factual, and by no means obnoxious. I note from your talk page that you don't hold back from describing other editors as incompetent, so please accept criticism when you do sloppy work. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What I'd like to know, please, is whether you have some sort of history with me that inhibited you from leaving me a polite message on my talk page about this instead of using an obnoxious edit summary. (Extensive prior history is what accounts for the interaction you saw on my talk page.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mounir Abou Fadel

Honestly, to state "How about helping rather than hounding a new editor. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned about - see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/May_2011_Update" is beyond the pale and clearly lacks an assumption of good faith. I am very familiar with the Strategic Plan and have a solid track record of reaching out to new editors and directly providing support and guidance. To imply otherwise is puzzling and reveals a clear lack on your part.

Before impulsively removing PRODs and stating that another editor is "hounding" rather than helping, spend some time reviewing the situation, rather than reacting blindly through inaccurate assumptions. There's a big difference between reacting and responding. One is made through ignorance and emotion, the other through wisdom and grace. I would encourage you to learn from your mistakes and aim for the latter.

If you were to review the edit history, you will see the clear disruptive editing contrary to the Manual of Style. I have made numerous efforts to help this editor, including email attempts to no avail. The editor is the child of the subject, clearly editing with a conflict of interest and stating that the article content is derived from family sources. The editor has refused to communicate. I would be very interested to see you attempt to reach out to this editor. I don't suppose that you would have any different results than what I have achieved.

In the end, thank you for adding a reference. Can you provide an English source, in accordance with our verifiability policy? Can you provide any others that may establish notability? In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article. The article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. At this point, the article is lacking in this area. Regards, Cind.amuse 20:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference is in perfect accordance with verifiability policy, and notability is established by the fact that it confirms that the subject was deputy speaker of the Lebanese parliament, when just being a member of that parliament would be enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. To claim that deletion of an article with such a strong claim of notability is uncontroversial, so should be done without discussion, is nothing short of disruptive. I stand by my comment that your approach to this is a blatant example of what the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned about, and to claim that I am the one acting "through ignorance and emotion" rather than "through wisdom and grace" really takes the biscuit. My edit to this article was based on evidence. I have very serious doubts about whether you have the right attitude to be a Wikipedia ambassador. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I stand by my statements above. And I stand by my action in placing the PROD, which initiated and ended in the desired result. Again, thank you for adding a reference. I ask again, can you provide [an additional] source, in accordance with our verifiability policy? As far as my statement made above, this is the one that speaks directly of your action, not only in this specific instance, but apparently in previous ones in which I was not involved, "Before impulsively removing PRODs and stating that another editor is "hounding" rather than helping, spend some time reviewing the situation, rather than reacting blindly through inaccurate assumptions." The others are speaking in general terms. That said, if they struck a nerve, you may want to consider taking a look at that. Please note, in light of Wikimedia's Strategic Plan, you may want to revisit the insults which you so freely offer to your fellow editors. As such, they are in direct opposition to the goals of the project. In the future, if you see a PROD, for which you are able to address the issue, please do so. But for the sake of the project, please try to keep a tight rein on the emotional impulses and personal insults. They are really not doing you any service, and reflects poorly on the project overall. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fayçal Karoui

Thank you for adding a much-needed reference to Fayçal Karoui. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at Talk:Jamshid_Behnam#Removal_of_prod.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Politicians arrested and charges with corruption

You are invited for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1 and also Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption-- . Shlok _{talk .} 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ted Alan Worth

Hello Phil, with regard to the AfD nominator for this article, Wikipedia does have his IP address but he has zero contributions prior to making the AfD. This may well be a bad faith nomination, possiblty by somebody who saw my name in another AfD discussion. He (or she?) also appears to be giving a POV in regard to the scope of Ted Alan Worth's recordings and the originator's credibility. In regard to the notability of the subject (or lack thereof), I've stated my case. This is the ONLY issue that should matter - whether or not Ted Alan Worth meets notability standards, not whether or not I've had an earlier AfD. (If that forever dooms an editor's credibility I may as well quit now.) Mariepr (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP thanks

Thanks for adding references to several BLP that I prodded. Nicely done. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology (Ontario)‎

Hi there. I was curious as to why you removed the deletion template from Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology (Ontario)‎. You didn't state a reason. I might take this though a formal deletion process if you have a legitimate concern. --Natural R_X 11:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Prop. deletion template

Thanks -- I'll use the dynamic template in future tags. Neutrality^talk 02:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

David Nelson Beach

I don't see how a Google Books search would demonstrate that the subject satisfies GNG. Perhaps you confused my PROD with comments made by someone else on the talk page several years ago and possibly in another country.

As I've found elsewhere, a prod is often (unfortunately) the best way to find out if an article should be kept. Like knocking to see if someone's home. If an article is prodded and no one notices, then chances are it was not an article we needed. As for the requirement that an article be an uncontroversial candidate, its impossible to tell until there is a controversy. I would have thought that a lack of significant edits over several years is the standard for uncontroversial. In this instance, my PROD appears to be the first significant edit since late 2006.

Anyway, thank you for contributing to the article. I'm not going to contest the deprod. I've also removed the notability tag as a re-reading of the text indicates the subject may have a certain prominence in the history of prohibition in some American state.

LordVetinari (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Meek - Deletion

Dear Phil Bridger, looking to have the Wikipage "Chris Meek" deleted/removed from wikipedia. It has come to the attention of Chris that the firm that he works for does not allow members to have wiki pages. We see that the request of deletion was denied by you, please let me know if there's a way to have this deleted - for his position at work is at risk, and lawyers are requesting the removal of the page. thank you for any help that you can provide. Sincerely, Eric Sydor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esydor (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs can no more prevent Wikipedia editors from writing about Mr Meeks than it can prevent The New York Times from doing so. Whatever makes you think that it can? And shouldn't their lawyers be working on legal matters, rather than on things that have no connection with the law whatsoever? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia site about me

I would like to request that the Wikipedia site about me (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Meek) be taken down as soon as possible. This is personal and private information I do not wish to have disseminated.

Thank you for your help and prompt attention.

Regards, Chris Meek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdmeek (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Meek to determine whether this article should be deleted. Please note that the decision will be made based on Wikipedia's policies, not those of Goldman Sachs, who have no power to dictate what we choose to include in this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and closed this for deletion. Hope that's OK with you.--Scott Mac 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me as the best result. I'm not too sure about your reasoning, but we have more important things to do, such as building an encyclopedia, than arguing about that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: your deletion of Chris Meek

I would please urge you to reconsider your deletion of this article, in lieu of taking it to DRV I thought I'd talk to you first. I understand your point of view here but on the other hand it sets a bad precedent if we allow a company's internal mandate that employees not have articles trump WP:GNG. The article needed to be edited, it is true, but the subject met the notability guidelines. In addition speedy deletion was inappropriate as it was not an uncontested deletion. At the very least I would like you to allow a full discussion of the case merits before deletion. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article. You need to speak to Scott Mac about that. I nominated the article for deletion purely on notability grounds, and have made clear above and in the deletion nomination what I think of Goldman Sachs' attempts to dictate our content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

oopsie, my bad I misclicked. This certainly is a sticky situation. On one hand you don't want to hurt an article subject on the other hand, corporate censorship is dangerously prolific as it is. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

You have posted your email on User talk:Scott MacDonald. While this is your descision, I highly discourage it. Web spiders have an annoying habit of finding email addresses on Wikipedia and selling them to spam companies. I reccomend you remove it from the page immediately, then contact an overseer to learn about how to have it deleted from the edit history permanently. Quinxorin (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Quinxorin (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No I haven't. Why this sudden spate of people attributing other people's actions to me (see the section above)? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I got the message, feel free to blank this. Sorry for any confusion. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: What search engine did you use?

If this question of yours (above) was directed to me on the articles for deletion for Jessie Castillo nomination, I used Yahoo! and checked the Google News afterwards. Are sure you found results for Jessie Castillo and not someone else? This is what it showed me. Cheers, SwisterTwister (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That search only covers the last thirty days, searches for the words separately, and includes a word which could only be expected to appear in a minority of articles about the subject. This is a more useful search. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2011 (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.

UOJComm (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Provanhall

Phil, Provanhall is not an area of Glasgow. It is a neighbourhood of Easterhouse. No more and no less. There is not official recognition of Provanhall as nothing exists. As the 'area' is not verifiable then stop vandalising my edits as per WIKI guidelines.

Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provanhall that we should have an article on Provenhall. The only vandalism taking place is your insistence on flogging this dead horse. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Phil Bridger, you may be blocked from editing. User:blairtummock (User talk:blairtummock) 09:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Provanhall, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairtummock (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

At the least the coordinates want a check. It could be that there is nothing to establish this place exists, but is confused with other places of the same or similiar names. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Phil Bridger. I do not live in Blairtummock, one only uses that as a user name. You have jumped to assumptions that there is some sort of local rivalry. Nothing is further from the truth. Provan Hall - not the spelling as you keep spelling it provenhall with an 'e', is a medieval country house (actually houses as South Wing is called Blochairn House) in what is now the very eastern most reaches of Glasgow. The various landed gentry estates (Barlanark, Provan Hall, Balirtummock, Bishopswood and farms) of the area were bought by Glasgow by compulsory purchase after the war to build houses for the working class living in slum conditions in Glasgow. The estate or scheme of Easterhouse was built - named after a village, itself named after a farm. Some neighbourhoods of Easterhouse - made by housing associations took on some of the old estate and farm names in recent times. Provan Hall is one of these. There is a school called Provanhall primary but the nearby St Benedicts is not in an area called St Benedicts. Provan Hall is not 'part' of Provan Hall housing estate - it is in the middle of Auchenlea park, now partially taken up by Glasgow Fort. Blochairn House (south wing of Provan Hall) is not in Blochairn - which is several miles away.

Whilst there may be some limited interest in having a Provan hall page, I think it should be part of the Easterhouse district.

You also need to remove 'provanhall' from the district of Glasgow page - as a neighbourhood of a district cannot also be a district of the larger entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairtummock (talk • contribs) 10:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Watch your temper

Hey, be careful getting angry like you did in this edit summary. You removed the template and clicked save page, it was natural to assume you were done editing. At the time, I was in the right to re-add the PROD notice. The page still made no statement that the person was no longer living, and had no references. In the future, lets just cut the confusion and add the new information and reference before you remove the template. It still had 7 days before it expired. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

notability issue

hey phil,i saw that you reverted some of evaders99 speedy deletions,maybe you can help me,i created a bunch of articles of members of the French National Assembly and even put reference to the official website yet evaders99 put notability issue and also said i had no reference,if you dont miind i would appreciate it if you give alook at articles of Younoussa Bamana Hegesippe Legitimus Said Mohamed Jaffar El Amjad and Gilbert Annette thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazelle001 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)