User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2009 – June 2009

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

In what way was my edit vandalism? Antique Rose (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was reverting some previous vandalism, and for some reason didn't get a warning about an edit conflict. I didn't mean to suggest that your edit was vandalism, only the previous ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I thought it must have been something like that. It has happened to me too. Best regards! Antique Rose (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Icon Publishing

Thanks for giving me the heads up on the circular references created by Alethic mood having text in "books"... derived from wikipedia. Messy. Ronabop (talk)

"Remove prod tag - it only takes a couple of seconds to verify that the book exits"

Hello Phil!

As I quote above, you removed a PROD tag from the Inter City article because "it only takes a couple of seconds to verify that the book exists".

I did a search in Google for the book by Cecil J. Allen called Titled Trains of Great Britain, and I looked through the results. I can easily tell that they're unreliable.

If you don't think that the results are unreliable, think again. I can post the results AND a page from that search if you need "proof". Here are the links:

---

One of the resulting pages: http://www.steamindex.com/library/allen.htm

The results from the search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=cecil+j.+allen+titled+trains+of+great+britain&meta=

---

Feel free to look at any of the others, but I will stress that they are unreliable.

When replying, please post {{Tb|calvinps}} on my talk page.

-calvinps- (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Try this search. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, sorry for this! I never knew Google had a book search LOL! -calvinps- (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks guys for sorting this out. I've had this book on my shelves for 56 years, but as a new wikipedian wasn't quite sure what to do next.Flying Stag (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Pat Kenny

I am sorry but I never made any changes to Pat Kenny!!. Would you care to explain your comment on my talk page?. 86.41.37.134 (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A user from your IP address vandalised the Pat Kenny article in March[1]. As noted on your talk page IP addresses can be shared or can change, so to avoid getting messages intended for other people you may wish to consider creating a Wikipedia account. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to your comment on Gorton

Response here Alice.haugen (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gesupur

Well done. Your Proposed Deletion patrol work, addressing things with sources and being unafraid of merciless editing, sets a good example. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can do without your thanks, as I get a lot benefit from Wikipedia by virtue of the way that deletion nominations prompt me to look up subjects and learn about them for myself, but it's still good to know that some people appreciate my sharing the knowledge that I find. I also learn a lot about human nature in monitoring deletion nominations. I never cease to be amazed by the lack of natural curiosity in the way that some people rush to delete articles about subjects that they've never heard of rather than look for information about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to move article Vladimir Lenin incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Vladimir Lenin to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ibansk

Re: tag removal on Ibansk.

I have added back in the original research tag which you removed: "The most admirable character is Bawler. Truth Teller is obviously Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Lesser characters are more difficult to figure out." is all original research. The article is also

If you feel the article should be improved instead of deleted, please consider adding expand or expert rather than leaving the article untagged, uncategorized, and already marked as patrolled.

Please consider, as a courtesy, posting a deprod notification and the detailed summary of why you removed the tags. Wikipedia:PROD#Before_deletion

Thanks. JCutter (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at LinguistAtLarge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Faizan

Hi, I see you've edited this article. Do you have any idea what it is about? Some of it reads as if it is about a historical character, other bits just don't make sense. Do you think it should be up for deletion? Thanks, Fahrenheit 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't make much sense of it either, but some bits of the article seem to claim that he was a ruler of Sindh, in which case I would expect him at least to be mentioned in some English language books, but a Google Books search for Faizan+Sindh finds nothing that looks relevant: [2]. My edit was just to remove some obviously irrelevant stuff about Fisherman's Wharf. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find any hits on google either, so I proposed it for deletion. I'm going to give it a bit more of a cleanup, and if I can't get someone who knows about it to improve it, propose it for speedy deletion Fahrenheit 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

You may not have seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block feedback requested. Unfortunately, Footage (talk · contribs) has violated copyright in multiple articles. Unfortunately, your rescue work at Bhogali Bihu (AfD discussion) was heavily polluted by xyr copyright violations, both in the text that you built upon as a foundation (to the extent that after rescue it still contained sentences lifted word-for-word from the sources) and afterwards with additional copyright violations. I expect that this is very annoying. But it is why the article has just had to be restarted from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Of cource it's annoying, but that annoyance is directed at the editor who caused the problem, not at you or Blueboy96. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow/Raduga film

Thanks for the help on the film page for Raduga. It was about to be deleted since it said only "1944 Russian film" and I came across the speedy delete notice while patrolling recent changes. It seemed a shame to delete an existing movie like that and looking at the internet info on the film, a seemingly important film for the period. Sadly, I had never tried making a page before and my efforts weren't completely up to film article standards. Thanks! Age Happens (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

AYR

Thanks for saving the little stub AYR, much appreciated. EA210269 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Silliness indeed

I didn't get why you deleted my "silliness" sentence here ... are you moving it to a new section? It does kind of drift into another topic, maybe a topic for another day. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Excellent research on "outburts" btw, I'll add the redirect if you haven't already. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't deliberately remove the "silliness". I think this might have been a case where an edit conflict wasn't flagged on saving - I've had that happen to me a few times recently. Or maybe I just fucked up. Anyway, please feel free to put the comment back in if you haven't already. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

K. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Our somewhat philosophical discussion on notability

Relocated because we were veering too far offtopic for an AfD really:

I'm not arguing for or against keeping this particular article, but I must dispute the claim that notability means the same thing as exceptionalness (shouldn't that be exceptionality?). This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. If every subject in a particular class passes the notability guidelines then we can have an article on every one of them, not just the exceptionally notable ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that in those cases, the definition of the class itself limits the class members to only the exceptional. "Every US president" is a class that only consists of people whose political career was exceptional. In the end though, I think it comes down to numbers. Arguing that every relation in a class of 20,000 relations is inherently notable isn't going to go very far. If there were only 10 countries in the world, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, every bilateral relation would surely be notable. Gigs (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Anton incident

You voted delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen based on WP:BLP concerns. I have moved the article to Anton incident and removed the full name from the article. Meanwhile, in the real world the the diplomatic row has reached new levels. Considering how seldom formal diplomatic notes are used in Finland–Russia relations I guarantee that this story will be remembered 50 years from now (see de:Notenkrise). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - In case I forgot to mention it, I was asking you to reconsider your vote. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Coff

I had prodded this article, and you redirected it to a page on Third Ear Band. The only problem is, I'm far from certain this is the same Richard Coff; the one I prodded is an American, and I'm not sure he is that old (although they both play violin). Maybe we should give Richard Coff the Suzuki-method teacher a little more time to come up with some notability? And as to the other one, I'm not sure he even merits a redirect. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I won't object if you reverse the redirect and let the prod take its course. I think that the article subject is just about old enough to be the same as the Third Ear Band member, as I found something in my web searches that suggested the he was active in the 1960s, but I don't have any real evidence that they are the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to revert myself, so that a deleting admin won't treat my redirection as contesting the prod tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I just did a bit of looking. and it seems like he graduated from the New England Conservatory in 1968. It is not inconceivable that he went off and was part of a progressive rock band in England for a few years, but if so, he fails to mention it in any of his profiles online - maybe it is just too dodgy of a past for a kid's violin teacher? I don't know. It is also possible he went directly off to learn from Suzuki, as in other places it says that he studied with Suzuki in the 60s. It isn't clear whether they are or are not the same people. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

M-girls

Multiple albums isn't a claim of notability if they're on a non-notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And what is your evidence that this is a non-notable label? Please don't say that it's a red link - all that means is that we don't yet have an article on it, which is par for the course outside the Western Anglophone world. Speedy deletion is for clear cut cases. Articles that need further investigation should get proper scrutiny at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you found sources too. That helps. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Flibbering

I have nominated Flibbering, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flibbering. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations

Can you help find sources for Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a go when I first saw the AfD, but couldn't come up with anything substantial. I even tried checking whether Alexander the Great got as far as Kyrgyzstan, but it seems that he didn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha

I never expected to get tips on writing style for a talk page. I think your point is well taken, but I went with the singular in this case since I want to emphasize that each and every administrator would have that obligation. Of course, I write articles differently. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Richard Bamping

An article that you have been involved in editing, Richard Bamping, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Bamping. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kleinzach 10:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

common enemy

I saw your reversal of that spammy link with "polite" summary--but I reversed myself on the rollback of the other edit. After looking at the source again it didn't look so spammy. What do you think? Feel free to revert me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Gonzaga College edit.

Wasn't me, must of been someone else who had this IP address before me. 86.44.205.18 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, Unsourced

Re: David Blatherwick. The reason I used that word twice was not to make it so. Each was used as a descriptor for two important things here. BLP should be sourced. POV should be sourced. Neither was appropriately so. The PROD comment was not wrong. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with "insufficiently sourced", but this wasn't "unsourced", and it was specifically the POV statements that were sourced to an article in Canadian Arts. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point on the first, insufficiently was right, not unsourced. On the second, maybe true but what I had in mind "Initially interested in the potential for interconnectivity suggested by new media and the internet, David Blatherwick evoked the immense complexity of these center-less networks in his paintings" and "Consistent throughout his entire oeuvre is a fascination with all forms of seething, rampant life" (mostly the later). Were they in the Canadian Arts article? Sourcing suggested otherwise. My resources did not allow me to find that article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pat O'Donnell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pat O'Donnell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat O'Donnell. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

AfD nomination of An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project

An article that you have been involved in editing, An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

David Blatherwick

You are invited to revisit the article and perhaps consider any further improvements that it might require. Thank you for a chance to affect a decent rescue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added references to Malaysia–Sweden relations, do you think they are sufficient, can you help out looking for more references? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"I see that WP:MOS has this silly inconsistency between song titles and other titles"

No, no inconsistency there. Quotes are used to set off shorter artistic works or single works within collections, like songs and short stories. Italics are for longer/major works, such as the books those short stories are published in or the albums those songs are included on. It's not just a Wikipedia Manual of Style thing, it's the accepted practice most everywhere. Just thought explaining the reasoning to you might help you understand the rule and apply it to other similar situations as they come up. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not convinced, but I'll go and look up a few manuals of style. This seems to me to be a typical horse designed by a committee rather than a sensible way to approach formatting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't think it's sensible. Makes perfect sense to me. But then I've been using it as a rule from the AP Stylebook for more than two decades now, so it's not like I've had any reason to question it for a long time. DreamGuy (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for saving my article from deletion! I don't check my account regularly and by the time I revisited, it would've been too late! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gausie (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What'cha think?

Took this and made it into THIS. Not too bad for something that was "supposed" to fails WP:NF (grin). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project.

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gathania

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gathania Cheers. I have responded on your comment about Gathania. Do you think this shows she is relevant? Linnea Linnea94 (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made my comment at the AfD in favour of keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lodge Cottrell Ltd

Thanks for the editing you made to Lodge Cottrell Ltd. I believe you have now made this into a neutral entry fit for Wikipedia. I have also now added source and categories. Guess I should have put this Under Construction (?) It is certainly a notable company and will hopefully receive valuable contibutions over time. I would welcome any further assistance you can provide on this. Jet9864 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of independent sources to the article, and commented at the deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Michael Galea

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious revert

Just curious, was this accidental or intentional? If the latter, why did you revert that edit? --Conti|✉ 09:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally accidental. Thanks for pointing it out. I see that User:Dank has already cleaned up after me. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Guessed so. Thanks for the quick response. :) --Conti|✉ 09:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kostadin Angelov

Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. I agree it is not a candidate for deletion any longer. Previously it was not even clear what teams he managed. Accurizer (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How could two editors miss a blatant hoax at Jim Dawson?

Err, perhaps because of this and this? Google Books would tend to indicate that he exists... Bencherlite^Talk 12:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, it's good to know that I can't always be right! Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Jabr

Good catch on that, I was struggling to find a reference to show that he was actually a minister and remove the PROD. I've had the page on my watch list along with some of the other pages within the family tree. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your rationale

• Carina Axelsson (AfD discussion)

Of course, you are better authority on what your own, "made up", rationales are, so you might want to contribute here. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Stamford

Please do not insult my intelligence. It is easy enough for someone to assume Stamford Bridge crosses Stamford Brook as they are both in West London. It is surely helpful to point out here that in fact Stamford Bridge crosses Counters Brook. There is room in the article for that little piece of information Motmit (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think that anyone other than you has confused Stamford Brook with Stamford Bridge then please provide a source to confirm it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Really - How can you expect to get such a source? By that rationale you would do away with hat notes and any other useful pointers. An encyclopedia should be helpful. Your move was unhelpful.Motmit (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're not to go by what sources say then we're left with common sense, which says that Stamford Brook (a very little known drain in West London - and please don't accuse me of belittling it because I once lived in Emlyn Road, W12, just down the road from Stamford Brook tube station) is much less likely to be confused with Stamford Bridge Stadium than this Stamford Bridge. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. If you can can find that any such source reports that someone has been confused by this coincidence of naming then it can go in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Society for the Scientific Study of Reading

Hi I noticed that you added a reference on the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading artilce. I was wondering if you would be interested in trying to sort out the mess that exists in the Category:Reading. There is a need to may be create some sub categies for reading support programs, ad may be a sub category Category:Reading instruction by country for all the the multitude of article which only refer to reading issues and orgnaistions in the USA, so that the whole Reading Categories can become more globalised. My main interest and time consuming interest i the editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia articles. dolfrog (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish articles being tagged as being in Hertfordshire

I've found the root cause of the problem: Category:Hill forts in Scotland had been categorized as belonging to Category:History of Hertfordshire, and the bot's simple-minded upward category traversal found then took it at face value, and concluded that Scotland was in Hertfordshire. I've removed it from that category, which will cure the category graph weirdness as of the next dump. Stopping the bot from following arcs upwards from categories naming the UK or its constituent countries would also have caught this: I've now also added some code to do this. -- The Anome (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick-and-dirty scan of the category tree fails to find any more articles that have both the strings "Scotland" and "Hertfordshire" in their immediate parent categories. Although that's not an exhaustive check for the class of mistake above, it would have caught all the ones I've seen to date, so it suggests that there are not too many of these left: hopefully, none. -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On manual review, it looks like they've all been found and fixed. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)