User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2010 – June 2010

Maveron is a previously speedy deleted file

I am not exactly sure why you removed SD tag. This is a re-creation and normally they are deleted too. Maveron was built using the Article Wizard which automatically generated the unreviewed tag. Admins generally do not delete unless absolutely necessary. When I saw the re-creation, I tagged it with the appropriate SD tag. --Morenooso (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what the article looked like when it was previously deleted, but as it is now it says that this is a venture capital firm that funded Ebay, which is a pretty clear indication of importance/significance, and it only takes a second or two with Google to confirm that that statement is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It read more like more of an ad. I had a problem going between DB-INC, DB-SPAM or A7. An admin said if I ever was in doubt to use the A7 as that allows admins more choices (although they seem to get it right anyway regardless of what I put). I am satisfied by what you wrote here. I just stepped outside to enjoy some sunshine. Thanks for saving the article. --Morenooso (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to sign to take a nap. If you get a chance, could you wikilinked eBay, Starbucks, etal? TIA. --Morenooso (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation for the Erich Schumann NPOV Issue

Hello Phil Bridger: Based on an input from TransporterMan, I have made a recommendation for the text in the Erich Schumann article. My recommendation is on the discussion page for the Erich Schumann article. I look forward to a resolution of the issue. I trust you will comment. Thanks. Bfiene (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes Posted to the Workspace Page by TransporterMan Re: Erich Schumann

Hello Phil Bridger: I have posted my recommended changes to the workspace page created for me by TransporterMan. His comment appears on the discussion page for the Wikipedia article on Erich Schumann. Regards, Bfiene (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Silk

great work. can you tell me exactly how you found those articles? i seem to have a huge gap in my search strategies, either that or im suffering from a brain fever. any tips appreciated.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Phil Bridger. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!

Who did this? Oh, it was me--I hope you don't mind: "Strictly speaking it [none] is a contraction for not one, a singular, but sometimes the singular construction sounds a bit pedantic." To make sure I am pedantic enough, I will include a footnote and a reflist. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Non-errors, on a website from someone with a doctoral degree and a book in print

Hopefully, between you and I, and irregardless of common usage, you will still, at my age, allow me a little pedantry. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing--and I apologize if I misunderestimated your grammatical grasp. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Orpheus

Current page is an obvious vanity page. Is only notable for Cassandra Complex, who are an influential band and already have a page. The rest aren't.

Don't want to enter an edit war because he'll simply change it back. It's all ready been proposed for deletion, and he simply put the page back on later.

Can someone who isn't the subject of the page sort this out please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlehive (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summaries

You know, I can appreciate the fact that editors disagree with me, and I can make mistakes in interpreting WP:FOOTYN on which I am fully willing to accept correction, but what I don't appreciate and would hope not to see is snide personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in edit summaries despite WP:FAITH or even WP:NOCLUE as in:[1][2][3]

"(contest deletion as one of a series of proposals from an editor who clesrly doesn't understand WP:FOOTYN)"

"contest deletion proposal by an editor who seems intent on eradicating all of our coverage of Bolivian football clubs, including clubs, such as this one, that have played at the top level)"

--Pstanton (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I based my summaries on the evidence that I saw. Your nominations bordered on the disruptive, so deserved such treatment. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would add that such statements as "doesn't compete at the national level which is the notability criterion for clubs in WP:FOOTYN" and "a regional championship, which isn't at the level of notability for a club team" clearly do demonstrate that you don't understand WP:FOOTYN. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fine, I didn't understand WP:FOOTYN, and accept your correction. I'm not disputing that at all. I have no problem with my prod being corrected, and being told I am wrong about the notability guideline. What I do object to is your assumption that I was "intent on eradicating all our coverage of Bolivian football clubs", editing in bad faith, even when it became obvious to you that I was simply making an ignorant mistake, which incidentally was in the course of cleaning up after Kevinzuela, who was repeatedly creating inappropriate pages on Bolivian football, hence my rather critical attitude toward articles he created. --Pstanton (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And honestly, this isn't an enormous issue. I don't want to devolve into some pointless angry argument. I simply wanted to express my pique with what I believe was an inappropriate edit summary, assure you I'm not some oddball who hates Bolivian football and move on. I hope if we run into each other in the future in editing, it won't be in such a feather-ruffling scenario. But really, this simply isn't worth getting worked up over. So I'll bid you bon voyage. --Pstanton (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang

Your contesting of the deletion of Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang on the grounds that i am treating the album different just because the artist/country of origin involved has people of brown skin colour is actually highly bias of yourself and actually suggests that i am racist. I myself am a person of colour and im seriously offended by your comments in the edit summary to so much of an extent that i am now considering reporting you to administators for uncivilness and defamation. Your edit summary now suggests to other editors that i edit with a hidden racist agenda.

In the case of the album itself, I nominate lots of music articles which fail notability for deletion and so i'm quite familiar with the criteria. Having tracklisting and album cover alone with two supporting sources is not notable enough to warrant an album having its own page... regardless of the artist's colour of skin or country of origin. It is clearly stated at WP:NALBUMS which even suggests that in such cases the information should be merged to the artist's page. Rather than edit warring over it I have nominated it for deletion discussion. In future i don't think its a good idea for you to use WP:Other Stuff Exists as an argument for notability. Just because 'x' subject exists it doesn't mean that 'x' subject is notable or correct. Equally it doesn't mean that 'y' article can be justified on the basis of 'x' subject. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to work on your English comprehension. I didn't accuse you of racism or base my argument on other stuff existing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you say your comment "let's not treat topics from a country where most people have brown skin any differently" doesn't suggest that i am treating this article differently because its subject is a countru where people have brown skin colour. Finally your also saying that if the artist was UK-based but had won the Padma Shri award that i would have treated the article differently. There is defo an element of WP:Other Stuff Exists. Comments like "i think you need to work on your comprehension" are controversial and do not help the matter. It is certainly not in WP:Good faith? You could have instead said, "Sorry if you took offence from my comment, that wasn't my intention, however i do believe that the album is notable because..."Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help

What do I need to do to this page: Camila Alves? I had done a lot of changes and it keep going back to the oldest version. I've been posting some sources. But, wikipedia keep changing it. How can I fix this page and make it works? thanx

Felix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixrob (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the content that you added has been removed - it's just that another editor made some minor improvements after you edited it. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can make such edits to improve an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Boris Dimitrov Borisov

Just a quick note regarding your edit to this page: you removed the PRODBLP template in good faith, but I've reverted it as there are no sources listed on the page. There is a single external link, but there is no indication that this is being used as a source. If you would like to improve this page, you might consider finding a reliable source and adding it to the page (preferrably in the form of an inline citation), and then the PRODBLP could be safely removed. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That link clearly verifies the basic facts of the article, so satisfies the conditions of WP:BLPPROD. Whether such a source is listed as an in-line citation or an external link is irrelevant - it's a simple matter of editing to change that, which you are perfectly capable of doing yourself rather than demanding that someone else do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not take a perfectly reasonable suggestion and turn this into an argument. Since a second user has removed the BLPPROD, I will leave it as-is. I was suggesting that you might like to make the change as you clearly had an interest, and I did not make any "demands". Please remember wikipedia's rule of assuming good faith and don't take my message as a personal attack when I was trying to do you a favour by explaining my reasoning for reverting your edit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark D. Clookie

Hi, an IP user has removed the PROD tag from Mark D. Clookie, in case you want to take it to AfD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited Advice

Hey, I think the edit summary you made here isn't exceptionally appropriate. While I agree that the prod had been placed incorrectly (I think I placed it there instead of the page I intended to as obviously neither point in my prod was founded). I'm not going to cite policies or guidelines but I think we both know that your point could have been made with a more constructive tone. I'm not saying you're a bad person and we all do things we shouldn't sometimes. You're certainly an asset to Wikipedia and I hope you're not offended by my unsolicited advice. OlYeller^Talktome 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wood for the trees

You sourced Ola Rapace, but you left in this vandalism from February. Fences&Windows 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit on Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah is reverted

As

1. Tags of lack of references and wikipedia clean up have been repeatedly deleted.
2. It contains a lot of Original research like

...of late since end 2009,serial goes biased,for instance, the May 2010 episodes are more on Wealth overtaking Values. With bad pronunciations by the Hero's son Tapu, Tapu is being glorified all times, perhaps, he's linked to producers.

...He(Bhide) ensures that he saves every single paise whenever he can, which shows that he understands the importance of money, this habit of his is laughed by many. In one of the episodes it becomes a reason for quarrel between Daya Gada and Madhavi Bhide.

...she(sonu) is a very sweet child who is not only well mannered but cultured as well. She is an intelligent and systematic girl. She goes to school on time, attends all her classes, comes back home, plays for a little while, does her homework, prepares her bag for the next day, prays to God and goes to sleep.(too much detail,they never showed a 'busy' sonu.)

...He(sodhi) owns a transport business and also runs a Mandap Decorators service as an ancillary business to support his wife.[...]He hates 'Tapu' for breaking the glass of his window unlimited number of times.

She(Mrs. Roshan) is a sweetheart and very co-operative. She innocently commits a mistake but never realizes it which turns into a funny light moment. Both Sodhi and Roshan always have communication issues because of the language barrier.

There are alot more.I'll need an article List of Original researches in article of TMKUC to explane them all.Haha

• and how can you think that an article of 78 section and sub-sections and approx. 35 thousand words could have ONLY THREE references!

Coercorash^TalkContr. 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those three references, and others such as these, are enough to show notability of the subject. Yes, there's plenty of unsourced content that shouldn't be in the article, but the solution to that is to remove that particular content, or, better still, to replace it with reliably sourced content, rather than to delete the whole article. As another issue, the WP:PROD procedure can't be used if anyone contests deletion, as I have done. If, after reviewing the available sources, you think that this article subject doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion then please start a discussion at WP:AFD where a consensus can be reached. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yoshinori Watanabe

Are you saying that the article is untrue? If so it may well be an attack. There is no easy way to determine this from the text. If not, then notability is clearly asserted and {{speedy}} does not apply. WP:AfD may well be appropriate, though.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimal Google search shows a lot of articles confirming the facts of the article. So who do you suggest it is attacking?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that the absolute requirement for references as contained in WP:BLP only applies to newly created articles, and this one has been here for five years. I have rolled you back. Please do not take offence. As I have said, I feel that the article almost certainly qualifies for deletion ubder WP:AfD; but let us do it following proper procedure.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We keep editing across each other. See my comment above. It is not my article. I have not contibuted to it. I have no intention of doing so. I am just saying let us do it the right way.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy for you to go to WP:AN/I. I am not defending the article. It should probably not be here. I am saying only that if it is to be deleted it should be deleted using the right procedure. The requirement in WP:BLP regarding references is not retroactive. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for us not to publish libel is absolute. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bren powers

I don't think he has competed in national finals. "On July 4, 2010 Bren will be competing in the Scottish round qualifiers" and "UK Strongman-North Novice competition" - Strongman-North is North of England and we haven't managed to lose London and gain national status here yet. I've given some advice and my reasons to the creator, but I don't think the subject does meet the notability standards yet. After the Scottish qualifiers, he might be in the UK finals. If not...... Peridon (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject may well not be notable, and I probably wouldn't contest WP:PROD deletion, but I think that the claims in the article and the first reference are enough of an indication of possible importance/significance to avoid speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

afd for Buquebus

You removed the csd, so I thought you might be interested. I've started: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buquebus cheers, ErikHaugen (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I've noticed you seem to be cleaning up a lot of the mess (e.g. here and here) I leave behind when declining speedy deletion requests... thanks! TFOWR 13:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection for Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah

I've requested Semi-Protection for Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah.Will help me protecting that?

Coercorash^TalkContr. 09:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed prod

I am a convinced inclusionist and almost never vote "delete" at AfDs, but this article and a couple of others created by Bikadi (talk · contribs) (who has an obvious WP:COI problem) went a little bit too far even for me. I do not like AfDs however, and prefer changes/mergings/redirects. If you have any specific objections, please state them at article talk pages. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)