User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2008 – December 2008

Deletion review.

Why don't you create a deletion review for Tim Chey. There we can all argue directly and get input from outside sources. I will support undeletion if you take it to DRV, as I agree with your stance. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Phil I remember you being excellent at finding sources for some articles nominated in the past for AfD. I will try to find something, but I am not good at digging these up in a hurry. The article for Tien for Dragonball has been AfD'd and I would appreciate if you could help find some sources for something so obviously notable, which appears to have been nominated by a small group of die hards who have lost every AfD on this subject in the past, are annoyed they just lost consensus on the merge, and who didn't even notify the merge discussion this was happening. If you can dig out some sources, maybe this fuss can be stopped for good.JJJ999 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Baxter Basics un-prodding

Hi Phil B,
Truly very fine work indeed. Feel free to collect your optional Southern Marsupial Mole-shaped and arguably somewhat dubious Barnstar of helping me out. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
ps: see also!

Regarding your edit summary

...that you made here, I'm not on any 'campaign against 1950s songs'. The problem is that Wikipedia has a very large number of song stubs that are unreferenced, unwatched, and that collectively become magnets for copyright violations. As much as I'm able I build up those stubs into referenced articles (I currently have four good article candidates about songs), yet there are over 16,000 songs stubs and an additional 10,000 unassessed song articles. So year by year I'm going through these pages to remove copyvio lyrics, take out attempted citations to obviously unreliable sources such as Blogspot, and copyedit. I'm doing that throughout the twentieth century; I just happen to be on the 1950s right now. In a few instances I prod an article--the one where you made your comment had been tagged as unreferenced for nearly two years before I prodded it. Hope that clears things up and best wishes, Durova^Charge! 08:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your citation is not valid

Phil - As I said on the talk page you are not providing a citation that links to the "Akron Beacon Journal", you are giving a citation that links to a commercial site the sells articles. When you click on the link you get "There is a $2.95 fee to view the full-text of any article." This type of linking is not allowed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement in any policy or guidelines for sources to be freely available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are not understanding. The reference link you provide is not to a freely available source. There is a $2.95 fee to view the full-text of any article is what one has to do if one wants to verify your source. If you are not seeing that message than it may mean you have paid for the article, however I have not. Either way please provide a free link or do not use the one you are currently using. Please read WP:SPAM#LINK for information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are the one who is not understanding. Verifiability policy only requires that verifiable sources exist, not that they can be checked online without paying. This source can be verified online by paying a fee or offline by going to a library that keeps this newspaper. The link that you provided is not about sources provided for verification but about external links provided for additional information. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil is correct. It is very common to cite news items or scholarly articles behind paywall. The paylink is just a convenience for those who can access it at a library or who have a subscription, or for those who care to pay the fee. The reference is also to the print copy available at a library. This kind of citation is commendable. Edison (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

liviu cangeopol

I noticed that you worked on this article and it seems that someone else is still messing with it. I am not sure why. I got so annoyed with it that I might even delete it. I believe that it is an interesting article of a Romanian journalist that fought under the communist and wrote a book that put his life in danger. As I researched, even the US Government mentioned his name in one of the books written about human right and communism in Eastern Countries. Please let me know if you can do anything about this article. I have many references from the time I created the article. If you need more references, please write to me at danafree122@yahoo.com -Thank you, david122. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David122 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

liviu cangeopol

Phil, I believe that mikeorange was talking about APA style references on cangeopol's article. Below, are the APA Style references and some additional ones: I am afraid I might not be able to insert them correctly so please include them into the article to meet the Wikipedia's standards. Please replace the existing ones (they are numbered accordingly and include as well the new ones. Thank you!

References:

1. Nicoleta, Vieru. (2006, December 12). Iassy’s dissidents, the pylons of Romanian dissidence. Ziarul de Iasi.

2. Open Society Archives (1988, April 6). Weekly Record of Events in Estern Europe. Daily Liberation.

3. United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations. (1990). Pace of democratic reforms and status of human rights in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: hearings before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. The Supt. of Docs: Congressional Sales Office, U.S. G.P.O.

4. Tismaneanu, V. (2006). Statement of the President of Romania Mr. Traian Basescu, at the Romanian Parliament. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from Romania's Presidential Webpage Web site: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=det&tb=date&id=8288&_PRID=search

5. Lucian Gheorghiu, Alina Mihai. (2006, December 19). Commnunism’s phantom fights until the last moment. Cotidianul.

6. Craig Smith, S. (2006, December 19). Romanian Leader Condemns Communist Rule. The New York Times —Preceding unsigned comment added by David122 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature dish

When I googled for this phrase, the first thing I came up with was a definition that said roughly, "the only thing a guy is known for cooking, in some cases because it's the only thing he knows how to cook." I gather that this is not the common usage of the term. I will admit that I fear this article will become a magnet for vanity insertions by folks seeking to publicize themselves, their restaurants, etc.; and this concern may have affected my judgement. Thanks for weighing in on the topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SMK Lembah Subang

An article that you have been involved in editing, SMK Lembah Subang, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMK Lembah Subang. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Phil

Sometimes i look what people write on my person on wikipedia (see Christophe Neff). Some persons think that the wiki article on me should disapear as soon as possible - and some times - they think articles that I have created (under my nom de plume) should also disapear as soon as possible (for ex. Robert Ditter, Bernd Richter, Susanne Andreae, Bernd Richter, Evelyne Marie France Neff or Dieter Anhuf(the last was deleted in the last days]] - so just a little thank you sent to from old Europe ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

deleted a ref of yours (sorry)

I thought I had put it in and it was dangling. I have it down as a review anyhow. Please keep adding stuff to the article. Like adders/helpers/content creators. Put it back if you want, but I have it as a review. (Thinks we were workign in parrallel.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maja Marijana

I wish to removed my afd tag for Maja Marijana but do not know how. I enjoy reading articles on wikipedia and decided I wanted to contribute in my own way. I was trying to find a niche in articles that for one reason or another should not be on wikipedia and for some reason picked the Maja Marijana as my first. I now realize maybe that was not the way to go about contributing. I apologize for my insulting language and I am sorry for the inconvenience in this matter. Dunkergilligan (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Belton (Kaid)

Many thanks for timely intervention at Andrew Belton (Kaid). RashersTierney (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PROD on Dennis Eagle

Hey, I saw that you removed my WP:PROD on Dennis Eagle, citing the existence of sources on the Google News Archive and Books. Even so, could you explain to me how such an article is notable and how it passes WP:CORP? Thanks! DARTH PANDA^duel 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Google News [1] and Google Books [2] search results show that it has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", to quote WP:CORP. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! DARTH PANDA^duel 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Contesting PROD courtesy

Hello again, Phil Bridger ...

I don't mean to be a WikiLawyer, but according to Wikipedia:PROD#Contesting a proposed deletion:

2. As a courtesy, notify the editor who initiated the PROD by placing a {{Deprod}} tag on their talk page.

I would also ask that you update any {{Oldprodfull}} tag to reflect that a PROD was contested ... I've done that already for Brian Nixon and Skip Heitzig. :-)

BTW, what is your opinion regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The electra, an article created by the same author? Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{11:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)}

Thanks for pointing out {deprod} - it's a long time since I've studied WP:PROD in detail so I wasn't aware of that. I'll try to remember to use it in future. I have no opinion on deletion of either Brian Nixon or The electra. I only removed the prod tag from Brian Nixon for procedural reasons as it has been nominated at AfD, and I don't usually comment on non-obvious popular music deletions because I don't really know what the reliable sources are in that field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Copy that … FYI, see this Talk page for my disposition of these articles. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have no interest whatsoever in an article being deleted or not ("I'm here to repair it, not to research it!"), but must admit that I enjoy seeing an article rescued by Some Other Editor … by flagging it, I have brought it to the attention of others, and perhaps someone (with more interest than myself) will champion its retention … I'm glad to have been a part of the process, if only as the thorn in the side that Some Other Editor decided to scratch.

On a related matter, both articles are still in Category:Flagged articles … OTOH, Brian Nixon is bundled in the AfD for The electra, so it's academic for that one … Skip Heitzig still looks a little precarious to me, but I'll just ignore it for now. — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ratna-Gotra-Vibhaga

Thanks for putting in the redirect, I wasn't sure what the proper procedure is. Zero sharp (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vincent Elbaz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vincent Elbaz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Elbaz. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PROD for Tung-Wang

I see that you've removed a prod tag from yet another of my tagged articles. This time, though, I'm almost sure I'm right. Even with your added references, I do not believe Tung-Wang passes WP:BIO. Can I hear your thoughts on this before I go nominate him for AfD? Thanks. DARTH PANDA^duel 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that the references are a bit weak, but I think there's enough there at least to mean that this should be looked at by more editors at AfD rather then summarily deleted with prod. I won't be at all offended if you take it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I agree that this needs to be AfD'd at this point (per your references). I'll tag it now. DARTH PANDA^duel 14:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike Freese

I saw your removal of the Speedy Deletion of the Mike Freese page citing that the references provide the notability required by Wikipedia. Please help me understand how being interviewed by a news organization qualifies. I am not arguing, only asking for clarification. Thanks...

ttonyb1 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily provide the notability required by Wikipedia, but it does provide an indication that the subject might be notable, which is what is required to avoid a speedy deletion. It's quite possible that this would not survive an AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Biometrics Institute

Thanks Phil for adding in the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy67 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Allegations?

Per your revision undo on the ACCA article, you say my edits are unsourced? Have you ever even been to one of these "churches"? Let me ask you something. What are your sources? The pages soul purpose is to give this "church" some sort of validity, and by having an internet presence of some sort, they hype themselves up to make them look like they are an actual REAL jurisdiction, when in fact, they are nothing more than a fringe group (at best) that scam people out of giving them rent money. (I.E. via Knoxville news sentinel articles) Happyhourdude1 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Enric Duran Article

I don't feel that the first reference should be restored. It is a for-pay article whose first three (free) paragraphs don't include the the phrases 'Enric Duran,' 'anti-capitalist' or 'activist'--the subject of the first sentence. There is already any internal link to 'anticapitalism.' I don't feel that this link adds anything to the article. Why do you feel like it should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressure.drop0 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it verifies that Enric Duran is an anti-capitalist activist. There is no requirement that sources should be available online, and if they are available online there is no requirement that they should be available without payment. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for saving the BernzOmatic page from deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.115.177.228 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian/5W Public relations

Your help is needed as this site has been edited by Mosmof and allies and you have assisted previously. Years of history cant be all negative.

Great solution!!

Thank you for redirecting the novels Unbelievable and Perfect. Much better than just deleting. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your most recent intervention on Antiochian Catholic Church in America--Midnite Critic (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Are plausible redirects speediable?

You may wish to comment here. TerriersFan (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Well (church)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Well (church), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well (church). Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Smart fabric

Notability is absolutely not demonstrated in that article. Switched to AfD. Mr. Darcy talk 04:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was demonstrated, I just agreed with you that it is a notable subject, so the quality and sourcing issues should be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

there are going to be some problems without a wider range of examples and references. DGG (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lourdino Barreto

Here are some additional links related to Fr. Lourdino Barretto. I am sure I can come up with more (as well as for Fr. Chico Monteiro, whose article is slated for deletion):

An award has been instituted by Kala Academy in honor of Fr. Lourdino Barretto http://www.kalaacademy.org/Schedule1.htm

A short biography of Professor Maestro Lourdinho Barreto http://www.songs-from-goa.at/goa/barreto.php

http://www.india-seminar.com/2004/543/543%20d.%20mauzo,%20xavier%20cota.htm

http://www.ismps.de/India_ISMPS.htm

The award that i had founded (Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award) -- which was posthumously conferred on Fr. Lourdino -- and reference to which has since been deleted by Rklawton, should not prejudice Fr. Lourdino Barreto's notability in his own right. --Dommartin99 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rosemary Owens

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Owens. Darn you for having to spend five minutes Googling and starting the AFD debate. (that last line was in jest.) hbdragon88 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

En Thangai

You have both a "keep" and a "redirect" at the AfD. I did a quick google search (noted at the AfD) that show multiple sources for each of the nominated stubs. Being terse is no reson for deletion if the article can be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. I now realize you were commenting on the diffeent films that were listed. What a confusing AfD this one is going to be. Still think that a decent search will allow expansion of the various stubs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Shane P. Davis

If I speedy delete as G7, then undelete an article and prod it, because in my judgment (endorsed by User talk:Alansohn#Shane P. Davis it is not eligible for G7 because it has had more than one editor, please drop a note on my talk page if you decide to overrule me about whether it is eligible for speedy deletion. The best course is for the original admin (me) to go ahead and re-delete the article. There does not seem to be any urgent deadline for deleting it. Thanks. Edison (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see new proposal at MOS RFC on date linking

Your Nov 25 comment at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Year-in-Field links should be made in certain cases makes a point I discussed further on in a new proposal on that page, so you might be interested in it: "Year-in-Field links in tables and lists are just fine but should be identified" -- Regards, Reconsideration (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rolando Gomez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion comment

Hi phil, I recently amended a comment of yours on a delete discussion as the comment appeared to be attacking as per WP:NPA . I would appreciate it if you could review the sentiment expressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.182.126 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider my comment to be an attack - more a piece of friendly advice that when you're in a hole you should stop digging. I gave an accurate description of how your comments would come across to any reasonable reader. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, so thanks for that. The discussion has gone off topic with the feedback however, so if you could consider a review of description of what a reasonable reader would think, that would be appreciated.82.31.182.126 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you've asked so nicely, I've removed the advice and toned down my comment a bit, but I think that what I've left is relevant to the deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The business does have a serious reputation, just not at the required level to be accepted on Wikipedia it would appear. The creation of the article was merely to provide a bit of background to the company name, its trademark, and the company's position in the support of the digg clone, dotnetkicks. It was believed that it was notable enough. There have been several people supporting the keep, but I'm not sure that all of them are connected with the company. All the best 82.31.182.126 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mostafa Gaafar

Thanks for improving (sourcing) this article. You added the "refimprove" tag, which is correct: for BLPs, I think it is preferable to use the BLPsources tag though, because BLPs need special attention. I hope you don't mind me changing the tag accordingly. Fram (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of prods for various footballer articles

Hello. I've noticed you have done a lot of good work to improve articles on football, including several that I prod'ed. I didn't mean to waste anyone's time, as I'm willing to improve articles about notable footballers (e.g., know that I know Juan Carlos García played in the Mexican Primera, it is worthwhile to improve the article because it will pass WP:ATHLETE). I just don't have the desire to work on the really poor articles which cover truly non-notable footballers that won't pass WP:ATHLETE. Thank you for your help and I apologize for not doing more diligence on the guys like García and Obelar. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are so busted!

I have Acroterion on my side. Give up. You can't beat me!

And now Thesavior666 (talk · contribs)'s blocked, the user by Antandrus and the IP by me. Let me know if the user gives further trouble, as the IP's a 48-hour block and the user for 24. Regards, Acroterion _(talk) 05:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your sourcing on It's the Talk of the Town. Too many people seem to be unfamiliar with the older music, and simply like to mark something as non-notable if it's before their time. I probably should have done what you did, but had so many other things on my agenda. Thanks. -- BRG (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

Your talk page comment was worthy and I don't mind the POV tag as long as a few valid points are raised. Cheers and happy new year, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)