User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2009 – March 2009
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Phil Bridger, for the period 1 January 2009 – 31 March 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
AfD nomination of Resonant capacitor
An article that you have been involved in editing, Resonant capacitor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resonant capacitor. Thank you. SpinningSpark 12:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Silicon Gorge
I don't see any {{Deprod}} tag on my talk page. Perhaps you could respond at Talk:Silicon Gorge. If you don't want to engage, I will nominate for AfD. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Caesar Twins AFD
AfD nomination of Caesar Twins
An article that you have been involved in editing, Caesar Twins, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar Twins. Thank you. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Park Ji-Yong
I note that you removed the speedy tag from Park Ji-Yong. What constitutes notability/importance for this person? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Playing in a fully professional league, per WP:ATHLETE. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how merely being an academic publisher absolves a company from being subject to speedy deletion for lack of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is enough of a claim of possible notability to mean that a speedy deletion is not appropriate. As WP:CSD#A7 says, importance/significance "is a lower standard than notability". Other deletion methods may still apply if notability is not demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Pat on the back
For adding references to some of the articles I prodded. I wish more editors had taken the hint. Keep up your good work. Boston (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Did some cleanup and major sourcing to show the film as part of the criculum and many major colleges and universities. I think that despite the lack of "critical" reviews (its an educational documentary after all), it now meets WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
What an absolute pain... having to deal with an article not properly transwikied from frWiki. A trout for the one who moved it. However, I did find sources and brought the article in line with enWiki guidelines for film. Know anyone who speaks Greenlandic? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Can you please help me clear all these tags to make sure that it fits into Wikipedia standards. I am pretty new to editing an article any help would help. Thank you 16:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deekaram (talk • contribs)
Do not remove the tag as you did here. Read the instructions on the notice, make your comments for your reasoning on the discussion page of the article. However, this person is not notable, with hardly a single google hit that is not related to the article itself. See WP:NOTE. Please do not reply on my talk page, I'll just delete it. Either reply here or make a cogent argument on the discussion page of your article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I made a perfectly cogent argument in my edit summary when I removed the speedy deletion tag, which, if you would care to read the instructions on the notice, anyone apart from the article creator is permitted to do. The article said that this person was a fencer on the Iranian national team, which is a clear indication of importance/significance. Sources are not needed to avoid speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. I have asked the deleting admin to review the deletion and if they don't agree will take this to WP:DRV as it clearly doesn't fall under this criterion. Lastly this is not "my" article. I had never heard of this guy till I found the article with a speedy deletion tag on it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- fwiw, I think you did reasonably to remove the tag, though I doubt it will pass AfD. DGG (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted the page because it failed to meet both WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Efe (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- fwiw, I think you did reasonably to remove the tag, though I doubt it will pass AfD. DGG (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
How to close an AfD
Ok, per my silliness in doing the wrong google search, I would like to close the AfD for Patrick Mimran. How do I go about closing it with "Keep"? Thanks Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Using your comment as a guide, I went to the article, did a bit of expansion, and a great deal of sourcing of the boy, his death, and the events that followed. The death might have been a (sad} one-event, but the continued coverage, the investigation, and the following trials as covered by the film each have a contributory notability. I wish the kid were still alive, but I had to go keep at the AfD. Thanks for the clue. Though there are only limited sources about the film, it covering a notable person makes it notable through guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a citation for this. It felt like a legitimate subject, but I did not find a decent source. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Origin of AIDS
Great move, by the way. I had been meaning to respond favorably to your proposal and never did. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
now I understand
Thank you, Phil Bridger. [1] I will study the WP:AFD and I may list the page in there.Nxo (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Dan Dorion
Well, truth be told, I was not referring to the United States with my comment, especially given the NHL has six Canadian teams, and was founded in Canada. It wasn't a nationality based comment, but one that acknowledges that the National Hockey League is recognized as being the highest level of professional hockey in the world. Resolute 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Neoneoism
Damn you — I should have thought of that!! (wink) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| For excellent work on Saib Shawkat. THF (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
BetterTrades and notability
Hi, Phil. I added some books written by BetterTrades instructors that might help solidify notability for this article. Could you check it out and let me know? It's here. Thanks! Regards, ColdPopTart (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Colin Trussel
Re db-person Colin Trussel. I suggested a db on this because he referred 1st and 2nd division matches of the FA. There are no references given for this and my feeling was that he was referring to the 1st division of the football league which, surprisingly, is the third tier of English football.Porturology (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the period when this referee was active Division One was the top level of English football - the Premier League wasn't formed until 1992. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yutthana Polsak
db-person Thanks for raising the importance of Yutthana Polsak as a Pro Thai player !
Institute of Nuclear Materials Management
Hi Phil Bridger, could you have a look at Institute of Nuclear Materials Management , the this articles entry points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Configura Sverige ???? and on the AFD list[2], its not showing properly as well, thanks Mion (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Football AFD's
I noticed your comment here on Scott Mulholland so I thought I'd expand on my reasoning:
Generally, the American amateurs we keep are only the very best, and/or prize winning amateur players. Remember that there is a distinct difference in the way North American and Europe approach college sports. In this case, while Mulholland has played professionally (thus meeting the "Ath" guidelines) he only played as a substitute in a dire club situation – he made his debut out of necessity as the club had a large number of players injured. This half-hour appearance is the highlight of his career and, judging by the fact that he no longer plays at any club, it will stay that way. The American amateurs on the other hand belong to a system where a player typically attends University, playing college sports, until the age of 21–23. The best of these players tend to become fully fledged players.
You should see the notability guidelines as only a mechanism to ensure that notable topics are included. However, some non-notable/notable topics can fall on the wrong side of these guidelines and you should use your own personal judgement accordingly, "informed but not led by the guidelines". Hopefully, you can understand my reasoning a little better now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Notability of schools
In reference to your removal of the deletion tag for Glenview New Church Schools I am not sure that elementary schools, not to mention private ones, fall under the inherently notable part relative to schools. While WP:SCHOOL isn't a consensus document, I think it lays out a good reasoning for keeping our schools articles notable and encyclopedic, and a least merits the opening of debate on deletion, not an immediate tag removal. Thoughts? -- Lucas20 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this may possibly merit the opening of a debate on deletion, but that's not what you did. You tagged the article for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, which explicitly excludes schools. If you want to start a deletion discussion then you need to follow the procedure described at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I clearly, I didn't 'tag' it, but thanks for the clarification. -- Lucas20 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Conor Mitchell
Thanks for rescuing it from me.;-) I shouldn't have let myself be influenced by its creator's track record. I've added another reference as well and formatted it a bit. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Rodilla
Hey, thanks for adding the references at my Rodilla article. :-)--RiseRover|talk 14:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
National Preservation
Thank you for the tiding up the page after the vandal attack. Railway forum (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for your quick actions here[3]. SIS 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Fascism article
I wonder if you could look at Fascism#Political spectrum. The introductory sentence of this section is not supported by the footnotes, and much of the section is devoted to "left-wing fascism", which is not described elsewhere in the article. There has been discussion, but it has not been resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
What Makes a Film notable?
Phil, Purely because I am working on the biography of David Edgar, I am following the discussion about whether to delete A Time to Keep, and I thought your response there was a point well made, and I wish I had thought of it. Thank you. I can't help thinking though that with the related arena of film articles there don't seem to be any notability criteria, and that practically the only requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia is that the film should exist. Are you aware of any criteria here? Cottonshirt (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The guidelines for films are the same as any other subject, and are covered at WP:NOTABILITY. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources, such as reviews in major newspapers as there are for A Time to Keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The NHPPL has a very large web presence via networking sites. The main html site is down for reconstruction. It has also been endorced by over 50 of the Worlds highest ranking players across varying codes of the game including Mikka Immonen (Multiple Mosconni Cup Winner), Keith Brewer (former Multiple World Champion), Darren Appleton (former European Champion) and Shane Appleton (former European Champion) & Johnny Archer (former World Champion) and many others. I don't really get the point about West/South Herts being the best and why that is relevent? The only claim made was that this was the highest profile in North Herts. Thats kind of like saying so and so is not the Welsh Heavyweight Boxing Champion because another person is the Scottish one and he's better. If you have former and current World Champions playing in and endorcing a tournament then surely it is of note.
- I think it would be better for you to comment in the deletion discussion here rather than on my talk page, as it can then be taken into account when the decision is made as to whether to delete this. Actually the article does claim that this is "regarded by many to be the highest level of amateur UK Blackball traditional pool in the County of Hertfordshire", not just North Herts. I only put in the bit about SW Herts as a bit of light-hearted banter because I occasionally play pool in Watford and Rickmansworth. I'll strike that from my comments as it seems that it is distracting from the real issue, which is that we need to see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See the guideline on notability for more information. Rileys' web site doesn't really count as independent - you really need to show some press coverage of the league. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of IGG Software
An article that you have been involved in editing, IGG Software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGG Software. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. tedder (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you reply here, please use a tb template on my talk page. tedder (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Porto
The edits were made by banned User:JarlaxleArtemis aka Grawp. This is consistent with his pattern of making 10 good (but very minor) edits to autoconfirm his accounts so that he can move pages abusively. If he wants to make constructive edits, he needs to stop moving pages. Feel free to make the edits yourself. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not insert that off-topic material again. Talk pages are intended for the improvement of the article, they are not platforms for persons to use as a soap-box for their extremist theories. As well as being off-topic for the article, the poster's claim that Armenians were "ethnic cleansing of the portions of eastern Anatolia " and "massacring Kurds as well as Turks and Jews" is without any historical foundation, as is the claim that Ataturk "promised" Kurdish independence. I intend to propose the deletion of the article shortly, so it is important that the talk page does not get filled with rubbish or the legitimate reasons for deleting it do not get contaminated by contributions from extremist editors spouting nonsensical history. Meowy 02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- That material is no more off-topic than any of the discussion by you or other editors on the talk page - it is one editor's opinion about what is wrong with the article. Being extremist and/or nonsensical is not a valid reason for deleting comments from talk pages. Could you please get on with nominating this for deletion? I'm getting tired of seeing people asking for deletion on the talk page but not actually doing anything about it. The instructions are at WP:AFD. I'm not going to nominate it because I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to give a good rationale for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your admitted ignorance about this specific subject is not an excuse for displaying your ignorance about the purpose of a talk page. If an editor is using a talk page as a platform to paste fabricated alligations that have nothing directly to do with topic, then that editors comment's should be removed. 81.77.215.203 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
An Article for Deletion request has now been created for this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurdish_genocide_(WWI) Meowy 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Nominate "Kurdish genocide (WWI)" for deletion on my behalf
Do it please, because I can't. -- Mttll (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, I won't do it, because I don't know the subject well enough to give a good rationale for why it should be deleted. As a registered user you can nominate it. The instructions are at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's have a broader discussion, then. B.Wind (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Clark Whittington
An article that you have been involved in editing, Clark Whittington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Whittington. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I like that you provided links to the sources the nom just did not wish to consider. I added a pile of them to the article. However, and on the talk page after a snow keep, what would you say about a name change from Clark Whittington to Art-O-Mat, as the artifact seems to have much greater notability than the creator? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for the backup here. The user obviously feels strongly about the material, and it may make it easier for him to accept hearing policy from more than one. I hope he takes up your suggestion of revision, because it looks like we'll have to go back quite a ways to find a "clean" version. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Size not mattering
You might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicitaries, too. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Message from User:PietroSavo
When investing in human capital the value of the risk increases market share, it takes very little risk to use the delete key. In academic circles it is acceptable to lead! A researcher’s can only wonder what the severity of the unlearning occurs because of the delete key, and the creativity is lost forever. --24.218.187.67 (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Pietro
- Thank you for those words of wisdom. I agree that in academic circles it is acceptable to lead, but in an encyclopedia it is not. We follow academic research rather then lead it. Once your work has been discussed in peer-reviewed academic journals or published by selective publishers (rather than self-published through lulu.com) it can be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Phil thanks for your professional feedback, greatly appreciated. --PietroSavo (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Pietro
Gayhurst House, Buckinghamshire
Thanks for removing the speedy delete tag. I think I was just unlucky that my starting it coincided with an admin. scanning for articles which might merit speedy deletion. Now I shall seek to expand it to make it of some use. Thanks again.
KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not about to argue with you re. an article you saved from speedy deletion but I think your approach a little severe. As an example, the following is from the featured article on Buckingham Palace; "the smiling Queen, as always, immaculately dressed in a hat and matching coat...". Whether or not the queen was immaculately dressed is clearly an opinion. It's not referenced and some, for example her arch-rival Mrs Simpson, considered that she had appalling dress sense. But the consensus is that the Queen Mother dressed well. Likewise, any architectural student would consider that the present state of Gayhurst is "sad" as the current building, subdivided into flats with very poor quality workmanship, is a poor reflection of its 19th century glory. I think Wikipedia would be rather duller and less useful if all adverbs or adjectives were eradicated. But I shalln't put it back in deference to your earlier defence, for which thanks again.
KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Good Work
Nice to see that there are indeed a few hard-working inclusionists here. I personally am so sick and tired of the Star Chamber attitude around here that I killed my account and refuse to do any work on articles anymore (too easy for people to delete, good faith is not at all assumed, people stomp around here like it's their own personal turf, and the deletion process is far too easy). It makes me want to vomit when I see a speedy tag on an article that is 5 minutes old. Since it is far, far easier to destroy than create, people throw this stuff around without realizing exactly how alienating it is to a new editor to have their early attempts summarily dismissed with obscure codes WP:A7, with a freaking bot throwing some boilerplate stuff on their talk page. No research is done, people don't care if they delete for wrong reasons....
Wow, sorry man. Guess I needed to vent. Funny thing is, none of my stuff has ever even been nominated, and it pi$$es me off so... 74.69.39.11 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please feel welcome to vent your spleen here whenever you want, but you're preaching to the converted by doing it to me :) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Joe Berg
nice bad faith assumption. He had famous friends, I didn't realise that established notability. I'm not going to AfD but you should assume better of established editors who probably have very good reasons for PRODing StarM 00:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Speen!
I will take to heart this advice, thanks for taking the time to give it. You offered to let another editor vent spleen here, but please forgive me as I muscle into the opportunity to do the same. I had an editor swearing at me and personal attacking me for a week and couldn't find a single admin that would do so much as warn them about it on their talk page. Instead, the editor received pats on the back from cronies for being an "elitist" (apparently a compliment now?) with too much passion to bother with "WikiManner." Having never been reprimanded, this user is still leaving "Deleting moronic crap" as a typical edit summary against other people. And still, no one will lift a finger. I have had hostile sockpuppets attacking me in broken English again, and again, and again. Then again. Then again. Then...again. Add thirty more "agains". Admins, good intentioned but spread thin, have been playing wack-a-mole with these accounts while I endure the abuse. In what should be an ordinary AfD debate, I am receiving a tidal wave of insults and accusations from an editor and his admitted sockpuppet ally. I resist sinking to that level because if an admin does eventually take interest in what is going on, I don't want that admin to take a 10 second glance at the situation, pronounce "bad behavior on both sides", and then bang a gavel. I've bitten my figurative tongue so many times this month I have figuratively chewed it up, figuratively swallowed it, and figuratively passed it out the other end. In summary, I am putting up with 1400 tons of shit from ill-intentioned morons, all of whom are in blatant violation of the way things are supposed to be done here and all of whom would have been blocked and their keyboards thrown on a bonfire had they chosen to pick their fights with an admin rather than me who has to rely upon third party justice. I need to go back to my favorite Wikipedia activity, creating new articles, bringing them to the front page on DYK, working towards my 200 DYK medal, and speaking to other people as little as possible because -- as you know -- under every 9th rock is an insane douchebag who will give up their day job to make the life miserable of anyone who disagrees with them. I'm aware that me being heavy-handed on my prodding doesn't make my misery any more endurable --it was an error -- so I will indeed be careful about doing that as previously indicated.
And on a lighter note, my father used to own a yellow shirt; Happy irrelevant comment day, be sure to spread the message! Best wishes, --Boston (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to take care of this AfD next week. Thanks for the reminder. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Smile
Just a note to say thanks - I'm recycling friendly advice you gave me early in my career here - in 2007 in User_talk:Axmann8#Ani_discussion_followup. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:PROD
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Good job on that article! I didn't think it could be done (otherwise I wouldn't have prodded it), but you showed me wrong, fortunately. I should have had a bit more patience with thethat "dead" link, because apparently it was only a transient error and it is live again. Just thought that, as happens so often with newspaper articles, they had deleted the whole thing. --Crusio (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
As per your request, I have added the rollback feature to your account. Please read WP:RBK before using it. Remember that using rollback (other than on your own edits) carries an implication that the edit was so worthless that reverting it does not justify an edit summary. Misuse of rollback may result in its removal. Thanks for your help. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)