User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2023 – June 2023

Removal of unverifiable source at Hashim Akhtar Naqvi

Hi! I hope you're doing well.

I removed a source at Hashim Akhtar Naqvi that you restored here. You said that I should tag it, presumably with {{dead link}}. However, this is not exactly suitable here; there is no URL to accompany this reference. I also checked if it's available elsewhere. It looks to have existed at some point, because a Google search yields a preview to what is probably the article in question. However, the link provided there just leads to the newspaper's archive, which does not contain the article. I also doubt that it'll be archived elsewhere, and I'm not sure how one would find it without even having the original URL.

Given that there's no way to verify the contents of this article or really even its existence beyond the Google preview, how do you suggest I tag this reference? I would argue it's hopelessly lost in accordance with WP:DEADREF. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The archive does contain it. Others may be better than you at finding things, or have access to non-Internet sources, so we should leave things such as article titles in place. See the first few words of point 6 of WP:DEADREF ("If the source material does not exist offline...) for confirmation of the most important point. I did not remove the deletion tag because the article in question is not enough by itself for notability, but we shouldn't remove sources just because we can't find Internet copies immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is relevant discussion of this on the Wikipedia discord, but I'll briefly summarise here: I manually checked their archive, and it does not have this article. What remains (and what you're referring to) is a cashed search engine preview that will be overwritten at some point in the foreseeable future. This suggests that the article at one point existed in the archive, but it no longer does.

In any case, the issue is resolved as someone else was very helpful and found a mirror of it, which I have added to the article in question. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for being a voice of reason in many discussions, particularly at AfD. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of If I Could Tell You (poem) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article If I Could Tell You (poem) 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/If I Could Tell You (poem) 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 until the discussion has finished.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Darul Uloom Pretoria

Hi there, thanks for your edits at Darul Uloom Pretoria. I think the article is bit promotional and need some copyediting to make it encyclopedic. Since you are an experienced user I would like to take an advantage of your expertise in this regard, thus requesting you to remove promotional content from there. Many thanks in advance. 103.52.135.194 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but I don't guarantee to edit this. The first problem at a quick glance is that everything is in one long paragraph. That needs to be split to make this readable before I can do anything else. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to trim it bit but I still think the content is promotional there, so adding the tag (advert) there so that interested editors can work on it. 103.52.135.217 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and apologies

Hi Phil, I misread your talk page message from earlier today, I thought you were saying the opposite of what it was you meant. I’m sorry for the terse reaction. Thanks for reaching out Jack4576 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for Atomic de Broglie microscope

Hi Phil.

I posted a proposed to delete Atomic de Broglie microscope, intending to replace it with a redirect of course. You simple replaced it with a redirect.

What should I have done in this case? Just redirect and skip the PROD? Why is there a PROD step at all?

Thanks jjb Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A PROD is a proposal for deletion, not redirection. I saw no reason to delete the history of this article, which may possibly provide something that is worth keeping as part of another article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. (I'm surprised delete also deletes history, so good to know).

Is there a "Proposal for redirection"? It makes the content disappear for most readers so it seems kinda drastic like delete. I just want to know what to do next time. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you

This is an unacceptably offensive comment. Please strike the ad hominem attacks. It would also be appreciated if you explain your comment – when you say “its notable”, what exactly is the “it” that you are referring to:

The word solitaire
All one-player tabletop games
All one-player tabletop games with the name solitaire in the title

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on it I still stand by my comment, so I will strike nothing. By "it" I of course mean the concept of Solitaire, the subject of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which “concept of Solitaire” – #2 or #3 above? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many offensive comments that this user deems necessary to post. RyanPLB (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And some might call posting that comment to an editor's User talk page offensive. It's hard to see nuance in a text message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]