User talk:Phil Bridger/July 2008 – September 2008

The Times of India

Hi Phil, regarding your edits on Times of India. I am a self declared TOI Fan, but those criticisms I are valid. Someone less balanced would have worded it more strongly. In terms of the frequency of allegations, there was that one forum and several more websites. To a fan, your edit is fine. I was trying to bring in the different aspects of criticims made... anyway Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The criticisms may well be valid, but they don't belong in the article unless you can provide reliable sources for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike Libby

Hello. Just wanted to thank you for adding the references to the article about Mike Libby, thus preventing its deletion. Amhantar (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zohreh

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zohreh, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zohreh. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Potatoswatter (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Casey Gardiner

Phil,

Thanks for making my point for me. Regardless of whether the person in question is notable or not comments like the "Personnel Clerk" issued should not only be avoided but, they should be called on it at every opportunity. Thank you again for that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

I'm restoring/relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nur Amalina Che Bakri (2nd nomination) to see if a consensus can be established, since the delete rationales weren't really good. Give me some more time to decipher the other one. Wizardman 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombina and The Skeletones, the consensus looks pretty obvious to me to delete. The delete votes were cited in policy, yet the keep votes excluding yours weren't really valid. Plus, your source finding was still disputed by another editor. DRV that one if you really want to, it looks just as clear a delete after re-reading it. Wizardman 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

== July 2008 == When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Did you bother to read what the link in the summary actually said? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you are talking about. Firstly it would have been courteous of you to say what article this concerns, rather than make me spend valuable editing time trying to work out that it was Phugla, and secondly I can't see any evidence that the link that I restored was to a site that breaches copyright. Please explain properly what you object to rather than throw templates around. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking through, The concern was due to comments made over on OpenStreetMap concerning the geonames.org site. However consensus seems to be otherwise here on Wikipedia, you can remove the above if you want.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Phallic Building again

This has been nominated again despite a clear keep only a very short time ago. As such I am informing those who last voted for it to get this AfD kicked off. The reasons all seem to consist of invalid arguments like "silly smut" and "don't like it".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Phallic_Building_contest_(2nd_nomination)#Most_Phallic_Building_contestJJJ999 (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnsley Hall Hospital

You removed a PROD from this pages, citing that you did a search of Google Books and found "loads" or sources. Given that I did the same search and got nothing that made the hospital notable.....and by this I mean: there area a lot of governmental documents listing the hospital as having existed but nothing that gives it notability. There are lots of documents that have doctors giving barnsley hall hosp as an address...but again this does not make it notable...Please add the references you found that give the article notability ...or I will put if back up for delete... Please comment on the article talk page if you wish to discuss the issue...I am not watching this page benjicharlton (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Code of Indian Offenses

I added categories to the Code_of_Indian_Offenses article. As a newer editor I'd like feedback on my choices. I'm also curious to hear your opinion on whether or not it needed categorizing as it may be moved to Wikisource. I did it mainly to clear the uncat tag. --Sultec (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chris Underhill

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chris Underhill, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Underhill. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? WWGB (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a reply to your comment on Nyttend's talk page.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier; I got distracted and forgot. Since you have sources to improve the article, I'm not going to restore it: but you can find the article at User:Phil Bridger/Underhill. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Novak

Hello Phil. Did you forget to remove the PROD from this article? You implied that you had removed it in your edit summary, but it is still tagged. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 1884 in Mexico

An article that you have been involved in editing, 1884 in Mexico, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 in Mexico. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Cripes

Can I call you in on every afd i have to bear? You are a breath of fresh air and deserve more than what a barnstar could even reflect - trust you have a good day/night/whatever wherever you are and a thank you for a small glimmer of hope in an increasingly dark cloud of xfd territory - regardless of what happens to the art (usually no one outside the Indonesian project has any idea the problem of trying to keep the xxx's at bay)- thank you SatuSuro 14:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Concha

Hi. I noticed that you removed a PROD (not mine) on Carmen Concha. I took at the link that you provided and there is not really anything more than trivial coverage of her in the article; I was wondering if you would be opposed to a merge into Cinema of the Philippines. She seems notable enough to warrant a blue link, but there are no reliable sources available from which to verify non-trivial information and write a neutral and full biography on her. I believe that the information available on her currently is enough to warrant mention in the aforementioned article, but not to carry her own. If more sources emerged, it would be very easy to change back. Thoughts? Cheers, CP 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't have any objection to that. I was just concerned to preserve the information (little though it is) and to ensure that anyone entering the name into the search box would be directed to it. Those objectives can be achieved just as well whether this is a separate article or a redirect to a more comprehensive article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll propose the merge on the page and see if anyone objects within a week. Cheers, CP 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)