User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2013 – June 2013

I think

I think WP:VICTIM needs to consider the death as part of the life, i.e.

1. Person X did a which make him marginally notable but not significant enough for encyclopaedia - lean towards delete
2. Person Y did b (which is of similar significance to a) and was then murdered, receiving widespread coverage - keep.

WP:VICTIM does not say "take coverage of death, put it in a box and ignore it, and just focus on the rest of the subject's life", does it? Perhaps that needs clarifying? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks like plain old common sense to me, but that doesn't seem to count for much here, especially when it comes to deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that editors ignore the guidelines. In particular, AFD should not be an awards committee that sits down and gives them the "honour" of having a Wikipedia article. In judging this award, the committee seems to exclude from consideration things done to him by others in which he was given little choice and just focus on those things done by him. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Shiny

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks for helping to fireproof aluminized cloth. I did some interesting research about this myself but was loath to waste time editing only to have the work consigned to the flames. Your efforts have encouraged me and so you have led by example - kudos. Warden (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

IBT

Found a source for David Jang founding International Business Times: [1](Mercurywoodrose)99.14.218.50 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the same source that I added to the article here, but it seems to have been removed since. I don't feel up to engaging with the POV pushers at the moment, so would you be able to put it back into the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your change...

The reject and revert you did at Asaf Khan is wrong, (at least that was I think...). Because the WP:MOSDAB says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." And if you remove all those links, the disambig is empty, so...please review you edit and reject.

I am waiting gladly for your reponse and opinion. -(t) Josve05a (c) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You nominated the disambiguation page for speedy deletion as having no context when it did have context before you edited it. That is a clear abuse of the speedy deletion process. If you think that it should be deleted then take it for discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your eyes on this appreciated

Hi Phil, would you mind checking this edit. I am no expert on templates. The editor has been messing about with other pages so am just checking. Cheers Span (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm no more of a template expert than you are, but these edits appear to introduce needless complexity to the template documentation, which would appear to run counter to this editor's claim to be simplifying things. I'll revert the edits, because I don't think that any of the template expertise that we both lack is really needed here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you Phil Bridger. You proposed to keep my article about the Boue Sisters and it is online now! Ellen Goldberg (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Tigon CSD

Could you please explain your removal/contesting of the Tigon Speedy Tag? I will assume that you didn't in fact look at the Tiglon talk page as if you had you would clearly see the discussion about the name TIGON, as stated in my CSD Tag I will add disambigs in regards to the other two articles that are not soley named Tigon therefore dont need a disambig page on thier own. Regards ZooPro 07:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Guarantor Loan redirect

Hi there, in regards to guarantor loan page that has been redirected to loan guarantee, I really think the guarantor loan page should be its own page.

The loan guarantee page is referring to the act of guaranteeing a finance agreement, whereas the guarantor loan page that I created was about the UK guarantor loan industry, which is a growing type of unsecured loan in the UK, receiving plenty of media coverage. Loan guarantee page covers government loan guarantee projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert my redirection. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Do you feel that it would be appropriate to do so? Don't want to revert if you feel there's no case to have its own page. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) OK, I've reverted the redirect, restoring the page. Thanks for you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby (talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How odd...

I noticed the same article you did and used a tool to decline it, and notify the user, but it seems the article edit never went through. At least I wasn't the only one to think the article isn't a speedy. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at 124.125.72.177's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roedy Green revert question

How do you figure references to the man's own website are unreliable? - Denimadept (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Very easily, when the content supposedly sourced by that web site is your personal interpretation of what is said there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried reading the bits cited when the change was made yesterday. I'm not seeing a serious interpretation issue. Roedy seems to have gone a bit off the deep end, but it's hard to argue with his position, given the way he's taking things. That doesn't mean you or I have to agree with him. Saying we had no reason to go to war is horseshit, but it is his position, so saying it's his position is accurate. I could see maybe toning down the interpretation a bit, making it more factual and less offended, though. - Denimadept (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation. Someone else made that edit originally. I just support it after reading the cites. - Denimadept (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statistical association football predictions

section heading added by Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Phil, I went over your editing history and couldn't find a single article made by you. Yet you're quick to judge the content made by others. If you're seeking compromise talk to the users who contribute to the page, but please do not enforce your own view on the community by starting a revert war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averio (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since when has removing spam links been vandalism? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, removing spam links is an excellent practice - as long as they are spam links indeed. Soccer prediction niche has a lot of these, and there are only two (to my knowledge) who have a real algorithmic backbone: scibet and accuscore. While writing the article I contacted many websites. The first provided a wealth of information and sources, the 2nd sent me a blurry response, the rest hardly remembered how the function derivative looks like. In spite that, I believe that accuscore should be there as well (Yahoo trusts its predictions, no reason for us not to), and generally any other website in the niche, that has something real to offer. Averio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of external links in Wikipedia is not to recommended web sites for having something real to offer in terms of performing an activity such as statistical football prediction, and most certainly not to thank anyone for providing information, but to link to places where people can read more about the topic of our article. This link does not do that. The relevant policy is WP:EL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy the latest comments to Talk:Statistical association football predictions, because discussion of specific article issues should be on the accompanying talk page where other interested editors can get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Re your noticeboard comment, I'm sorry if my well-intentioned advice was unhelpful. I also "edit in the interest of building a neutral, reliable encyclopedia", and while I agree with you that the rules shouldn't impede that interest, I tend to see that in terms of long-term objectives, and I think the community does too. In the short term, WP:3RR is a relatively bright line—with exceptions only for vandalism, BLP violations, and the like—because it's more important to make nonunilateral, consensus-based decisions about content than to immediately suppress content whose undesirability stems from relatively minor concerns. As you'll note, I did make a substantive reply to your query, and I agreed with you. My additional comment was prompted by the number of times I've seen excellent editors blocked for technical edit-warring violations. I didn't want to see that happen here, and I'll just note that if you'd posted to the noticeboard before reverting again, I or another editor would have handled reverting and the result would have been identical except nobody would have had to walk on thin ice to achieve it. Incidentally, I loathe spam and have reverted a ton of it in my day, but I think what I'm seeing here is essentially a content dispute between two good-faith editors, one of whom apparently disagrees with community standards about external links. Rivertorch (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry if I seemed ungrateful for your advice. I didn't mean my comment to imply that, but just wanted to make it clear that I don't really care about whether I'm blocked. I understand that most editors probably do care about such things, so you are quite right in giving such advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Chapil

Seriously? Have you read the book? Or have any clue in what way it mentions this drink, at all? --Jac16888 ^Talk 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Google Books preview provides enough content to show that the coverage is significant enough to mean that this is not an uncontroversial deletion candidate, as required for the WP:PROD procedure. Why the aggressive tone to your question? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly call one brief mention in one small paragraph of one book of unknown reliability to be any kind of significant coverage. I feel like you don't quite grasp the idea of WP:PROD, it is not like CSD#A7 where the barest hint of notability makes it inelligible for deletion. An article can have dozens of sources and still be deleted by prod much as it can by AFD - the fact a source exists does not make it automatically prod-proof, provided there is a good reason. I see nothing to suggest this drink is a notable one, the fact it is mentioned in one book doesn't change that --Jac16888 ^Talk 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the idea of WP:PROD is that the case for deletion should be strong enough to be uncontroversial. That source certainly has more than just a mention, and there are more potential sources found by Google Books and Google News.[2][3] Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of University of Agriculture, Makurdi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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/University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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 notice from the top of the article. Uberaccount (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter I of Rosenberg

Excellent job saving that. I made the mistake of not placing quotes around the name when I did a Google book search, so the first three pages were unrelated and I figured someone was pulling a funny. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Tanks

Hi Phil, thanks for removing my misplaced prod from Satvasheela Samant.-- Dewritech (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Josef Stoer

Would you start an AFD on this one? As written, it obviously fails to meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot start AFD pages. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Usually I would accede to such a request, but in this case the subject so obviously does meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, and probably other criteria, that I will not do so. Just take a look at the citation counts at Google Scholar, which are simply stellar for a mathematician. We base deletion decisions on the notability of article subjects, not on the current content of articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Journatic

Phil, thank your for removing the speedy deletion. I am not sure why that editor views it as an "attack article" or if that person even read any of the sources at all (it appears that she did not, since she made no suggestions for improvement nor looked at the article's history that existed long before I came to it). The company engaged in business practices that are not ethical (plagiarism, false bylines, fabrication, intimidating interviewers, lying about firing people who really quit, and more) This is all in The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, Crain's Chicago Business, Poynter, NPR, The Guardian, The Chicago Reader, and more. The prior version was simply written by one person citing "The Journatic Journal" which was clearly not from a neutral POV. So, I just rewrote it using 24 new sources. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApolloLee (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for contesting the speedy deletion on Deena Weinstein

Hi Phil, Thanks for contesting the speedy deletion of Deena Weinstein, a much-cited heavy metal scholar. The deletion tag went up within SECONDS of starting the article!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Forward to Libraries

I've responded at WP:VPR to your statement opposing Forward to Libraries; as I see it, the situation is radically different from what you've said. Would you please respond to what I said? Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I laughed.

[4]. Edit summary win. Thanks.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

	The Rescue Barnstar
	For all your tireless work in saving the neglected articles in the AfDs! Zayeem (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of List of longest serving higher education presidents

Please reconsider the renaming of the article List of longest serving higher education presidents at least until you've read the talk page I've set up explaining a vision for the article to include international presidents/chancellors. Also, please refer to the talk page at the University Chancellor article for the ongoing discussion on the distinction between Chancellor and President. The list was named specifically with these issues in mind. Your renaming A) Makes the title redundant as is, since outside the United States, the head of the University is called the Chancellor and B) Prohibits the article from growing to include Universities outside the US, which seems contrary to your point that "there is a world outside the U.S." If anything, rename the article "List of longest serving higher education presidents and chancellors" to permit a multinational audience and to accurately use the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.Hartley (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B B S V Peeth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gurudev (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) 11:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Science and religion dialogue in India

I suspected that anyone will misunderstand my criteria. Actually I am right that it is about a person Dr. Job Kozhamthadam S.J. Read the whole article. The title of the article is misleading. Solomon7968 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowman Gilfillan

Understood, however, why has no administrator addressed the user who has now twice inserted the same copyright violating and promotional material?93.186.22.122 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.117 (talk)

your opinionn please...

You commented here about comments about individuals who don't claim 100 percent mental health.

The assertion keeps being made in WP:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes, and in related discussions, that WP:BLP requires total excision of all coverage of individuals who seem to have mental health issues.

For me, this reminds me of the older attitude towards individuals with mental health. In the 19th Century, and earlier, individuals with mental health issues were locked in attics -- as in the novel "Wuthering Heights", or they were locked out of sight in "mad-houses", where they received no treatment, and might be shackled all day, or restrained with a strait-jacket. This is still the treatment of choice in much of the third world, and in cultures with no tradition of trying to understand and integration.

I agree with you that mental health issues should be addressed in respectful terms. Articles that cover individuals who seems to have mental health issues in a respectful way probably won't turn out to be a concern if those articles are fully compliant with WP:NPOV.

I don't agree that it is in the best interests of improving the conditions of all individuals with mental health issues for the wikipedia to excise all coverage of individuals with mental health issues, based on assertions that silence is in their best interests.

Silence, and locking suffers up, out of sight, was said to be in their best interests, in the 19 Century.

I am old enough to remember when Rock Hudson outed himself as dying from AIDS. He had been a popular movie star, whose public persona was that of a heterosexual man who was devasting to women, when he was actually a gay man. Up until his high-profile decision to out himself we would have seen the same kind of arguments we see that mental health issues can't be touched for individuals suffering from AIDS. But I don't think there is any question that the best interests of AIDS sufferers were best served by open and respectful discussion of all aspects of AIDS.

Similarly Betty Ford was a high-profile sufferer of alcoholism who changed the public dialogue on alcoholism for the better through her decision to out herself as a sufferer of alcoholism.

It may turn out that Angelina Jolie's recent decision to be open about her decision to have her breasts removed, due to her genetic predisposition to develop breast cancer may similarly change the public dialogue of that kind of preventive operation.

I don't believe that removing all coverage of mental health issues, under claims of BLP, best serves the specific individuals, or for what it is worth, I don't think it best serves the general public.

I am going to draft an essay on this topic: User:Geo Swan/opinions/You can't say that here!. I'd appreciate your opinion on it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S.

I read the transcripts from the Guantanamo captives annual reviews. There were about a dozen of them, maybe two dozen of them, who knew they were crazy, who were driven to "volunteer" to engage in jihad by their frustrated families, who had run out of patience with them. They came from cultures with no history or belief in treating mental issues, or accommodating mental issues. These individuals were told that they were a huge burden, that their lives were pointless, worthless, would always be pointless and worthless -- unless they went to volunteer as a jihadist. They were told that if they died fighting for jihad their families would finally have something to be proud of about them. These transcripts made for heart-breaking reading, because some of these individuals were clearly extremely reluctant to die in battle, weren't genuine volunteers. One guy described running away as soon as shots were exchanged, because he really didn't want to be a martyr. Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Reason for deletion of Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal

Hi,

I nominated Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal for deletion because, it does not have any notable references. I had even started a discussion in the talk page of Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal. Can I again place 'contest for deletion' template? Thanks! -Vatsan34 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yo busy bro, I got a crazy idea I posted over on Talk:Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal. Check it out, I think it's what you were getting at. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

108 Upanishads

Apologies for nominating 108 Upanishads for deletion based on incompleteness, as you are correct in your assertation that it does not violate policy in being so, but I would request that you perhaps suggest an alternative? In its current state it requires real cleanup... I've proposed potentially merging it with the article Upanishads until it becomes more complete, or complete enough to warrant its own article perhaps? The main problem is it can't link anywhere really, which means it remains a dead end.

Merely trying to help clean up articles and/or clear out things that just don't work. Thanks, El3ctr1csheepz (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 20:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you justify your removal of tag

Can you justify your removal of tag[5] will it be possible to translate to English what the article is about? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The article comes nowhere close to what is described at WP:CSD#G1, and is written in perfectly comprehensible English. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok tell me what it is about? Please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's about what it says it's about. If you don't understand English then I'm afraid I'm not a good teacher, so you need to go somewhere else for lessons. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Check out the talk page pl. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)