User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2013 – March 2013

Google news archive.

Do you have a link to that part of Google, I used to llve it with teh timeline but then they changed it and I couldn't find it and had no idea that was only a search within last 39 days. It would be immensely helpful for my work not only with new page patrol but article creation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The people at Google seem to have done their best to hide this option. The url that I use is http://www.google.com/search?q=xxxxxxx&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 , where xxxxxxx is what I am searching for, enclosed in double quotes if I'm looking for an exact phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain edit

Just a quick message to say thanks for improving this article.

I'm not usually a deletionist, but I just couldn't find anything to make this article notable.

Great edit!

Regards

Sirkus (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Rob Trains for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rob Trains 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/Rob Trains until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article.

AfD

Hi Phil. I note that you haven't voted yet in the AfD. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Declined prod

I take issue with your characterization of my PROD rationale as "blatantly untrue". The article (prior to your edit) consisted of a brief introduction to a story, with a speculation that the story might be talking about a particular town in Turkey, followed by the text from the Qu'ran, with absolutely no other interpretation or analysis. While you might disagree with the validity my rationale, you can't exactly call it "blatantly untrue". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale said that the article contained "only the text of the story". That is blatantly untrue, because it also contained an introduction, as you now say yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Castrum Clus / Clus (castra)

Dear Phil, I saw that you deleted the proposals for the deletion of the two above articles, stating that "an anachronistic name is perfectly valid as redirect". I have the impression that you have not read the edit history of the article (as it was suggested in the proposal template). My concern was that the town where the castrum is located (modern Cluj-Napoca) bore a special name in Roman Dacia: Napoca. The name "Clus" is a Medieval Latin name, therefore the "castrum at Clus" (an Ancient Roman fort in medieval Cluj-Napoca) is a non-exising term. Could we create articles like "Londonium Eye" with a redirect to London Eye? I think it would be an original approach.Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Castrum Clus" is far from a non-existing term. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Phil, thank for your above remarks. I redirected Castrum Clus to the medieval period of the town's history (as it is suggested by the above sources). I still suggest that "Clus (castra)" should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mistral Aviation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mistral Aviation 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/Mistral Aviation until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. FoxyOrange (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Checking non-free images

Just a friendly notice that when you moved Ithaka Harbors, you did not changed the NFUR in the article, I have changed it now. FrankDev (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. It has never crossed my mind to check for non-free images when moving articles. I'll do so in the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Itzik Shmuli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labor Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You might like to look at...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-English_language_articles_-_reconsider_their_fortnight.27s_free_pass.3F Peridon (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Samuel Friedman Foundation Talk page

Phil, how do i get that anonymous lunatic off the Samuel Friedman Foundation Talk page? Is there someone I can report it to? Any help would be appreciated. Should I just delete the comments? I have never had this happen before. regards Ybidzian (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the rants. I should have done so in the first place rather than try to engage in rational argument with someone who is obviously not interested in rational argument. If the "lunatic" (you might want to be a bit more careful with your words - I have a mental illness and have no trouble with normal, colloquial, clearly malice-free use of such language, but some more sensitive souls might be offended) comes back then I think that the best thing to do is simply remove the comments without reply. Such people are usually attention seekers who give up when they don't receive any attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Phil, my deepest apologies regarding possible upsetting language toward others, even it you weren't offended it makes no difference. As you say, others may be, and I need to remain vigilant about that. If I see him/her post again I will simply remove the remarks also. I have a sort of fondness for that article but am not sure how to improve it (it was never going to be a long piece of writing, but it has to be good enough to stay). I am in the position of trying to document something that is genuinely hard to verify, simply because very little is written about Science prizes, apart from the Nobel, and possibly the Fields in mathematics. The universities themselves take note always when someone on staff gets something, but if their mention of it doesn't qualify as an independent source then it's difficult. I think I'll switch to a few different search engines!! cheers and thanks for your suggestions and action on this one. Ybidzian (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Iain King

On your huge deletion from the 'Iain King' page, your assertion that these are all publisher's quotes is not true - look at the economist review (are you saying they're not independent?), or the quote from the Royal Institute of Philosophy - just because it's cited on the publisher's webpage doesn't mean they didn't say it voluntarily, or come up that judgement themselves, or the quote from the Observer (again, cited by the publisher); the 'Publishers Weekly' review is definitely independent, and I'm sure a large publisher like Bloombury wouldn't say things like the Kofi Annan quote without a basis for it. The Daily Telegraph review, I accept, is 'from the publisher'; the 'National Library of Australia' description seems to be their own. If you think some of the quotes are based on publisher's promotional stuff, then either put that in the reference/footnote, or qualify the comment appropriately in the text. But your deletion has just taken out lots of references, most of which are perfectly valid, even by your unfairly strict criteria. AlexAlexMoore300 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Iain King. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	It has been noticed that you have saved multiple pages from getting deleted. atnair (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your argument against CSD at Gravy Boat Productions

How is producing notable TV series an indication of importance/significance? Notability isn't inherited. Hence, it's not a claim of importance. Lower standard only means that an article needs to contain a credible assertion of importance and it can be without a source. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your use of the word "hence" in your message is invalid. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why, in your opinion, is it so? Please do expand. How is claim of production of notable TV series an assertion of importance when notability itself isn't inherited? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Importance and notability are different things. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Jaikishan

Dear Mr Phil,

Thank you for removing the speedy deletion thingy on the page. I was so scared that the page might be deleted. I worked so hard, it is my first time creating a page. Thank You again Mr Phil. Hope to hear from you again.

God Bless.

Sincerely, Miss Ameba Parasit Ameba parasit (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	and others In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

again Something has to be done about the AfD and Prod guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Stalking/NY Times article

Context. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

About that passage you deleted, we're on the same page as far as it being delusions and what prompted the entry was that some weeks ago another editor deleted some of that as not matching the reference (it did- and note I specifically mentioned direct C/P because of that editor's erroneous assertion used to justify deletion of long standing content). What I was trying to reflect there was a brief description of what the Times was saying their claims were describing gang stalking- the mere presence of red and white cars for instance- I'm in no way trying to legitimize that silliness, actually only show how silly it is. I do feel if I were to tinker with the text from the Times too much I'd be pushing into OR territory. So we need to figure a way to expand on the NY Times material with the intent of establishing that gang stalking as it is widely believed is simply delusional thinking, if there aren't examples of what their delusions are as included in the article, that's difficult. Batvette (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Movement Control Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Movement Control Group 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/Movement Control Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Second Holmes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Second Holmes 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/Second Holmes until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you so much for your help. I am still new to wiki and learning the "proof" links from those considered spam. I appreciate your input. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

I see that you have been asked before, but that was a while ago. How would you feel about running for adminship? You would pass RfA very easily, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Since I retired from gainful employment I have made it a principle to avoid responsibility whenever possible. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) But don't hesitate to get in touch if you change your mind. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen your comments at an AfD (again :) and I thought about the same thing. You work in content related areas and I can't imagine that you would fail as an admin. Your competence is indisputable, your comments and interaction with others is sometimes uncompromise but always fair. As for the responsibility, I'm an admin for almost three years and I don't feel any significant changes in my editing habits or more pressure. I think that the admin tool in your hands would be good a)for you in evaluating various complicated situations (such as viewing deleted content) and b)for Wikipedia, as you are one of the best and most experienced editors in deletion areas. You have my full support or co-nomination if you want. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the answer is still "no". I certainly don't feel any pressing need to be able to delete or protect articles or block editors. You're right that it would be useful to be able to read deleted articles, especially when I think that an article might have been speedily deleted in error, but that need is not great enough for me to put myself through the RFA process where I'm sure that some of my more robust comments would be taken out of context and used against me. I'll just carry on as a rather curmudgeonly editor without admin rights. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's your choice. Thanks for all your good work. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

America Football Club

Não tenho conhecimentos na língua inglesa. O artigo principal está sob nome errado, e preciso que esse redirecionamento seja eliminado para a página ser movida para esse título. RmSilva ^{can talk!} 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Catching Mistake

Hi Phil Bridger!

Thanks for catching my mistake on Udayachal high school. Not sure why I decided to nominate it for deletion since the only problems with the page were technical. Anyway, thanks again!

Sosthenes12 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

PROD tags

Context. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right in one respect - I shouldn't have said what I said, and for that I apologise. However, your claim that my comments were "completely untrue" is itself completely untrue - see [1], [2], [3] - I could go on - PROD tags removed without you dealing with any of the issues raised. GiantSnowman 15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In the last of those cases there was no issue to be dealt with, the article already had enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. In the case of the first two I happened to be too busy to do more than point people in the direction where they could easily find sources. And I don't believe that you could go on. Two examples out the hundreds where I have improved articles for which I have contested deletion do not amount to me not "ever improving the article(s) in question". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I could go one, but I'm sure we both have more important things to do than that. GiantSnowman 16:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments deleted, among others

your comment included. This looks to me like a case of Not here/didn't hear that. Btw, I support you for admin above ;) . In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ali Guelleh Janaleh

If "one person" can only find 60 hits on Google, all originating from Wikipedia, then I would say yes, hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How many Google hits would you expect to find for one of the many possible transliterations into the Roman alphabet of the name of someone who was active in Djibouti in the 1970s? Your ignorance is simply breathtaking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lizzie Phelan

Thank you for keeping a watchful eye on the Lizzie Phelan article. I worked on saving this article from deletion and only got involved because she seems to inspire a strong negative reaction.Crtew (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you, Crtew (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)