User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2019 – June 2019

Deletion of “De La Salle Health Sciences Institute”

Hi! I proposed the deletion of De La Salle Health Sciences Institute and moved it to De La Salle Medical and Health Sciences Institute since the institution was renamed. I also edited ALL ARTICLES that contains the former name of the institution to avoid broken links. I wonder why you removed the template? It is necessary to be deleted because the former name still appears in search engines and this may create confusion for future interested students and/or researchers. Mat 1997 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No, a redirect is needed because someone may look up the old name. Future interested students and/or researchers may be a concern of this institute, but not of Wikipedia. And, anyway, anyone who would be confused by such a simple matter certainly wouldn't have enough intelligence to study or conduct research at this level. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is already a “former names” section on the infobox of the new page and was also in the history section. So what’s the need to keep it? Mat 1997 (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read my first sentence above. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would you look up an old name that is already in the new article then just see a blank article? How is that making sense to you? Plus like I said you can search the institution’s new name on google and the first thing that pops up is still the old article. Mat 1997 (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If you look up the old name you don't see a blank article, you get redirected to the new name. That's the whole point of redirects. If you have a problem with Google then complain to Google. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

So now you don’t know how google works? The old article appears in the search engine because it’s still up and running. I know what a redirect is. Why can’t this be just deleted? What’s so complicated about that? Mat 1997 (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The old article is not "up and running": the title redirects to the new one. What's so complicated about that? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain this then:

File:Dlshsiscreenshot.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat 1997 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, complain to Google if they are not dispaying what you think they should. The title on Wikipedia is redirected. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And as I said, it still displays that because the former article still exists even though the one on google maps was already corrected. That thing is a display that they base from wikipedia. I know what a redirect is sir. Mat 1997 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Mat 1997: Mat, I moved De La Salle Health Sciences Institute to Draft:De La Salle Health Sciences Institute without leaving behind a redirect for a few minutes, and then reverted it. During that time, the redirect was blank, and the Google title did not change. Whether or not there is a redirect on Wikipedia had no effect on the Google title. As Phil has said, this is something handled by Google, and you'll need to contact them to correct it. By the way, the Tagalog language Wikipedia article is still at tl:De La Salle Health Sciences Institute. I'm not assuming you read Tagalog (I'm only fluent in English), but if you do, that article needs to be moved. Also, it's currently only one sentence, and it might be a better use of your school's efforts to see that article improved, rather than worrying about a redirect on English Wikipedia that has no effect on Google. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason why Google doesn't display the new title is almost certainly that Google's crawler has simply not visited the page recently enough. Google will right itself when it does. There's nothing we can do about here on Wikipedia to control what Google does, so it's a waste of time trying. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I assumed too, but I wanted to know for certain if it would have an immediate effect, and it did not. - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for checking the histories - I looked but didn't see the citations. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks again. DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate redirect for Peter C. Oppenheimer

@Phil Bridger: There appears to be a great deal of confusion with the Peter Oppenheimer Wikipedia articles. There are two current Peter Oppenheimers on Wikipedia, Peter Oppenheimer who worked for Apple and is on the board of Goldman Sachs and Peter Oppenheimer (economist) who is an economist and fellow of Christ Church, Oxford. The third Peter Oppenheimer is the one that I wrote about today in a new article and that was mistakenly redirected. This is Peter C. Oppenheimer, the chief global equity strategist and head of Macro Research in Europe at Goldman Sachs. These are three different people with completely different accomplishments and I’m requesting that the Peter C. Oppenheimer article that was redirected today be reinstated as its own article. Here is an article about each of them so that you can see that these are all different people.

Peter Oppenheimer: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/03/04Apples-Peter-Oppenheimer-to-Retire-at-the-End-of-September/

Peter Oppenheimer (economist): https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/how-come-our-cash-strapped-universities-can-afford-so-many-administrators/

Peter C. Oppenheimer: https://www.barrons.com/articles/stock-market-bear-signal-goldman-sachs-1536329757

I look forward to your reply Jackson Marcus (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Jackson Marcus, I have reverted the redirection of Peter C. Oppenheimer. Sorry for my confusion - it was the Goldman Sachs connection that fooled me. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply and your speedy action. I was confused as well which is why I made the page. It's very confusing! Jackson Marcus (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Joe Gqabi

Do you think this New York Times article [1] will be of use in the Joe Gqabi article? I'm unfortunately not very familiar with the topic (and the article appears to contradict the currently-stated place of death), but I could add some content from here if you want. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

As regards the place of death, Salisbury is simply the old name for Harare. I also know little about the topic, but simply saw the article with a speedy deletion tag on it and saw that the subject was actually very notable, so I cited a few sources. I don't claim any ownership of the article, so please go ahead if you want to add more sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Brown People

Thank you Phil for protecting some of the wiki bios from Kriminal99 - he uses many different aliases to harass people. Editors like you are more needed than ever. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoor-siamak (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Please take a look at your recent edit.[2] WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how that happened, but I think I've fixed it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was a little unnecessary

John had already apologized for his error in interpreting your original comment, so this was unhelpful and did nothing to move the conversation along while probably inappropriately berating a longtime editor who doesn't share the same interpretation of the indent process that you have. Indeed, confusion about indentation seems to be the most mentioned challenge in the recent talk pages consultation. Perhaps reconsider your tone when responding to others - if your intention is to educated, this tone wasn't doing it. Thanks for your time. Risker (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Prema sridevi articles CSD

I am the one who wrongly nominated the article for CSD. I stopped the edit warring but , I have a few doubts though, I would like to know what's the best Approach for them

1. Is being a journalist for a notable organization enough for a credible claim of significance?

2. Although the article creator has declared not-UPE, his message for contested deletion says "My only attempt was to help an honest journalist reach out better to the general public,". To be honest, she seems to be a well to do journalist who held high positions in many top media houses, and seems to be on her way to set up her own media house(article says so, but strangely I dont find any source on the Internet mentioning that, prema's tweeted a few weeks ago that she would let us know her future plans but never revealed her setting up a company). I believe this article's timing and the amount of uncited and own research is indicative of paid editing. I want this too be looked upon without the creator being informed as he seems to be having lots of experience and few suspected UPE articles. Is Wikipedia COIN the only place for such a discussion? can I post there without intimating the user? Daiyusha (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuits primary sources

Please point me in the direction of the Guidelines for listing lawsuits where it requires secondary sources and defines secondary sources. Shadowfax0 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to secondary sources, and the distinction between primary and secondary sources is not something made up by Wikipedia, and should be understood by anyone before they presume to edit an encyclopedia. Please explain what your beef is at Talk:George Siber rather than make incompehensible edits and add incomprehensible tags without proper explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ingrid van Kessel

Hi. That was simply because the article is poorly cited, and I can't read Flemish. I thought those two bodies, based on the article's construction, were local bodies to Turnhout, rather than national bodies. Thank you for pointing that out.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed Proposed Deletion from S. N. Fazil

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that you requested Proposed Deletion on S. N. Fazil I have added 2 reliable sources for his work in Tamil Cinema, hope this is okay? WikiLover97 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Carleton Jones

Apologies - I was too speedy with my speedy there, thanks for picking it up. There's clearly a connection - a son perhaps? - but without access to the only source listed, it's hard to say. Anyway, I should have noticed the difference in birth dates, so thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks pretty likely that they are father and son, but I don't feel interested enough in the topic to spend time checking that out, particularly because my Wikipedia editing is a displacement activity from the exam revision that I should be doing, even more so because I'm a bit slower now in my sixties than I was in my early twenties when normal people take master's degrees. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with the exams! If you want a blast from the past, here is our first interaction (I thought your username was familiar!) - you responded to my first ever Wikipedia post, when I was in my thirties and you were a young buck in your fifties. FWIW, Qatar now has a 12km breakwater covered in these things, and I packed that game in to become a primary school teacher. What a difference a decade makes... GirthSummit _(blether) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of CSD tag at Uche Odoputa

Surely this is not a reliable source. In fact, it is the shadiest source someone could pick and using it as a claim of notability might as well lead us to use Trump comments as third-party RS coverage. You should really re-assess your opinion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:A7 has nothing to do with reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It means that the "credible claim of significance" is not credible. And, you should check out what edit warring means, I reverted you after I sent you a talk page informing you of the same to discuss and only reverted back to my version after you didn't appear to be online. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Rather than make yourself look silly, as you did in my last interaction with you, why not just read WP:A7? And re-reverting an edit is the very definition of edit warring. Hasn't it crossed your mind that your initial knee-jerk reaction to something might be wrong? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious?... I reverted you and you re-reverted. And no, it hasn't crossed my mind at all, your snide remarks about everything being a knee-jerk reaction or some other ad hominem up your pocket, regarding editors are not required on Wikipedia. And for once, quit with your shameless rhetoric where you make comments like "rather than make yourself look silly", I have done my reading of policies and you would do well to understand that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No. You added a speedy deletion tag. I reverted that. You re-reverted. If you can't get such simple facts right then you have to expect such comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank for removing G4 from Abhinay Berde Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 17:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Trevor Maynard, writer

First off, I declare an interest in that Trevor Maynard edited and published my book through Willowdown Books. Now he used Createspace to do this because Createspace is a Print on Demand company, and many small publishers now use its tools. This is not self-publishing. The assertion this is in some way obscured is not true, as when others edited the publisher as Createspace, I corrected them to accurately reflect that Willowdown Books publishes through the Createspace platform. Trevor Maynard edits The Poetic Bond which has published eight anthologies containing the work of 213 poets, as well as having three collections of his own. The books are published by Willowdown Books which uses the Print on Demand services of Createspace and Lulu. Regarding the sources, the reviews of plays are accurately sourced and linked to several other notable pages. Up until four years ago, this Trevor Maynard came first google search ahead of the Lloyds one. Google search now sees this Trevor Maynard returned as the second Trevor Maynard in the list. Therefore I belief this deletion is somewhat harsh and does not truly reflect the community spirit and dissemination of useful information that Wikipedia represents. I am also at a loss why the page only attracted attention for deletion after it had been up for years, clearly indicating many people who edit Wikipedia did not have an issue. I believe the article should be undeleted. PAS Peteralansoron (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Jazz prods

You removed four PROds and gave this reason: "According to User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Dürener Jazztage deletion is not uncontroversial". Is that what Dr. Blofeld said? Where?
Vmavanti (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Both User:Gerda Arendt and User:Dr. Blofeld said so very clearly in every edit they made to the section that I linked. Phil Bridger (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

South African State Theatre

I noticed you recently removed my PROD for the South African State Theatre with the rationale that you easily found notable sources. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to be directed to the "loads of coverage from reliable, third-party sources" on the State Theatre that was found with "a few seconds' searching". Because I can find little that constitutes, per WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My specific concern is significant coverage; per WP:NOTE: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I tried to find sources to see if the article could be improved per WP:PRODNOM, because it seemed like it would be more notable, but all I turned up was this article from Pretoria News, a local news outlet. It's good, reliable, independent coverage, but this one article from a local newspaper hardly constitutes "significnat coverage" on its own. Every other article was effectively "[Thing] is being hosted at the State Theatre", followed by literally no further mention of the theatre, i.e. trivial coverage (see: WP:TRIVIAL).

I also want to note, since it's possible this argument will be brought up, that being the largest theatre complex in South Africa does not automatically impart notability. Per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." (emphasis mine)

I ask this because if there is significant coverage, then there's no reason that a picture, a dead primary reference, a link to the theatre's website, and a brief sentence should constitute the entirety of the article. That is, the article can and should be improved if this is the case. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

For most topics it's best to look first in books for independent reliable sources, so the obvious first search to do in this case is this one, which finds loads of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see "loads". I see a one-page entry in a book specifically covering African theatre, and I also see an entry in a book called Contemporary Perspectives on Art and International Development, although it seems most of it is redacted thanks to Google Books. While I think it's ridiculous to call it "loads", I'll assume the redacted book gives the theatre reasonable coverage, enough to warrant a weak keep between the three sources, and hope someone comes along and turns the article into a good, short article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Christian Sulheim CSD

Hi! I don't think I understand what you mean in this edit summary. Are you saying that instead of a CSD for copyvios dating back to when this article was less than two sentence long, I should have requested a revdel of every version from the present to this one sentence version? If so, did you already ask for the revdel, or does that still need to be done? If I'm misunderstanding, then what did you mean? Orville1974 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

QRG Health City

Hi. Not sure what you meant when you removed the A7 tag, "contest speedy deletion - about a hospital, not its owner"? I wasn't tagging it for speedy because of the owner, but because it appears to be a non-notable mid-size hospital, since the article doesn't "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Am I missing something? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something. The template that you applied relates to an article about "a company, corporation or organization". This is not about a company, corporation or organization, but about a hospital, which is not subject to WP:A7. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but where does A7 say that? The only exception seems to be educational institutions. A7 is for "for commercial and non-commercial organizations", which would seem to apply to hospitals. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A hospital is quite obviously not a company, corporation or organization, but is usually owned by one. The relevant part of WP:A7 is "...it does not apply to articles about products...". A hospital is a product of a company, corporation or organization, not one itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why you think a hospital is not an organization, and instead is a "product". Using that logic, a local bakery, which was "owned" by an LLC, would similarly be categorized as a "product" of the LLC, which is clearly not the case; or a record label, owned by an S-Corp would simply be a product of that S-Corp. Hospitals, are either independent entities, and as such are organizations, like The Valley Hospital in Phoenix, which is clearly an organization. Or they are part of a network of entities, all belonging to an over-arching entity like Banner Health, in which case they are simply they are simply parts of an organization. And Banner Health is a non-profit organization. In the latter case, the overall organization may be notable, while the individual entities might not, like Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center (which btw was deleted via A7 - twice).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Max Lu talk page

Hi Phil. Your comment on the talk page on the Max Lu article came across as a threat to an editor unfamiliar with WP:PROUD. They brought their concerns to the WP:TEA. Perhaps adjusting your talk page comment to include a link to WP:PROUD or restating your intent regarding the "it will turn out badly for you" part of the comment will make the message seem less menacing to newer editors. I've been dealing with a similar issue, and it's been very taxing to keep an eye on the anonymous blanking going on, requests for AfD, COI requests, etc. [3]. Orville1974^talk 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean my comment as a threat, but simply as advice. I have added a further comment which I hope clarifies this. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)