User talk:Bridgeplayer/Archive 2

Country music awards
Regarding this dab, the Jalon awards are a blatant hoax. Just letting you know; this one seemed blatantly obvious to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR guidance
Thanks for your note at my Talk page. I appreciate your interest in keeping discussion constructive. Pls. see my reply there. Please, however, could you also give some corresponding guidance to SarekOfVulcan. His 2 removals of Disputed tag for the National Historic District article do already amount to pushing over a suitable line, IMO, because the article is clearly disputed as is being civilly discussed at the relevant Talk page, the RFD. I asked him nicely to stop, at User talk:SarekOfVulcan; your commenting there would be helpful. --doncram (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Luton Swiss Tournament system
Hi,

I stumbled across the Swiss-system tournament, and I happened across the description of the Luton system, which seems to resemble something that I have been working on. I couldn't find anything on the Internet about it, so could you point me to some sources about the Luton system? Thanks, RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  22:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I couldn't find a good source either. This system is used widely on chess playing internet sites such as Internet Chess Club. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ginger biscuit
I am not an expert on this, but are you sure you want to use speedy deletion on Ginger biscuits? Won't its history be lost in that case? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had just realised I had placed the template on the wrong page (I should have placed it on the redirect) but many thanks for the heads up. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Countries
Appreciate you providing a complete rationale for your decision on closing the Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 10 for List of Countries. Please advise the action taken regarding the Note to closing Admin section. Many thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I suggest that the best solution is that you table your concerns at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a complete cop-out. Did you have no concerns, then? 08:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are seeking, quite properly, is an admin ruling. However, I am a non-admin like yourself. As you will have seen, strong counter views have been expressed. You need to weigh these up and decide if you wish to pursue matters. If you do wish to take your concerns further, then you need to bring them to admin attention, and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would enable independent, and wider, consideration. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I had assumed that only Admins closed RfD's as, by the look of it, had another editor too. Just out of interest, do you have a view as to whether the vote was correct and all above-board? Daicaregos (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries; I thought that might have been the case. Any editor in good standing can close an XFD with some exceptions. Firstly, a non-admin can't close an XFD where admin tools are needed to implement the decision e.g. deletion. Secondly non-admins are discouraged from closing XFDs where the decision is in doubt. In truth, this one was on the cusp of that but since closing was so overdue, and no-one else had shown any inclination to close, I decided to be bold. The key point is that RFD is not a vote. I noted the straw poll but the main factor was the debate. This RFD had lengthy arguments that I had to weigh up. My judgement is that the notifications did not sway the result. HTH. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

GeniusIQ165
Well done for spotting that attack in the history. Cheers for the closure as well - you gave me two edit conflicts while I was trying to do it myself! Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! Perhaps a bit over-keen there! :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfD
Sorry, I haven't had the time lately to template all of them, but I will try. In the meantime could you do it to some of the ones I've missed for me? Cheers, :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  05:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What an interesting awesome edit summary. Just saying. :) Have a great day mate,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and you too. :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PROD or MERGE?
See City Spires, which of the two? I'd say merge. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, my position is that it is not notable enough for a standalone article. At the moment the only source says that the proposal was abandoned in 2008. If you can source enough material for a merge that's fine by me. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Hi there - Thanks for your editing tidy up of the page I created (E. A. J. Honigmann), adding those extra categories, and for your support for the redirect Hart Wud (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony Forrester
Thanks for the kind words. I'll try to find time to take a look. JH (talk page) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Solar Saros
It is basically just a table, not really an article per se. The link to saros provides information on what a saros is. I also added a link in the lede to Eclipse cycle. There are some 50 or so different saros running concurrently. It would be a difficult task to describe each one uniquely. Perhaps a short boilerplate summary of what the saros is would suffice? Thank you for your feedback. --TimL (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am starting to understand; thanks for your patience! A short boilerplate summary sounds useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll let you know when I've hashed one out. --TimL (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

RFD
Hello -- at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22 consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26. Best, —Ireilly talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Sigh. Sorry for the hassle, and many thanks. Best, —Ireilly talk 14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 1
Hi Bridgeplayer. Thanks for catching that mistake and reverting it before any additional recommendations were added. -- 110.49.225.238 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; I am just sorry that your well intentioned work was in vain. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_7
Thanks for closing. What does "NAC" mean? And, any advice to me for future RfD discussions? This one took a while because it was a bit of a puzzler to me... --Lexein (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NAC=Non-admin close. Non-admins are only permitted to close non-controversial discussions and are expected to declare their status since a non-admin close can be reversed by any admin. I thought that your contribution was excellent; if I was to be ultra-fussy then I would say that the retargetting and removal of the rfd template should have been left to the closer but in the circumstances that would be a quibble. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I did not know that about the closing steps - I blithely treated the process perhaps too informally, based on my assumption that redirects are less consequential than articles.  Doh. I retargeted, treating that the same as, say, adding refs to an article under AfD: as the "obvious" consensed improvement. And I sorta jumped the gun, instead of just letting the 7 day clock run.  Doh2. --Lexein (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a message on my user page from IP contributor, I am sure in good faith, saying oops to pre-empt Brigeplayer. I know Brigeplayed does a hell of a lot of good work at RfD, and I am AGF with the IP contributor, especially because he or she said oops, but not sure quite what he was on about. I think Lexein did the right thing but perhaps we should have discussed it farther rather than a speedy close. In my opinion the decision was the right one, but perhaps it was taken a bit too speedily? If Brigeplayer would care to have a look at my talk page I would very much appreciate it. I also appreciate very much his hard work, also Lexein's in bunging in a list article (which essentially was what I said to do) so no complaints against either. I do appreciate your hard work, both of you. Si Trew (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Helpful feedback; thanks. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Layman
Since you participated in this recent AFD you might be interested in this follow up discussion.TMCk (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD decision
Please bear with me because I've never done this before, and I'm trying to understand the policies. WP:NAC has a section on non-administrative closures of AfDs. As I read it, the part that applies is: "experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep" (deletion discussions that have lasted more than 7 days like the one here). Yet, you did a non-administrative closure with a "no consensus".

As I read WP:DRV, the first step in challenging your decision is to talk to you first, which is why I am here. Could you explain how your NAC was appropriate? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This was well-overdue for closing so I made what seemed to me to be a clear call to move matters on. The weight of keep !votes were offset by the rather better arguments of the deleters. The guideline is, as you stated, but non-admin 'no consensus' closes have been made before when clear. If you consider that my close conclusion was in error, please indicate why and I will reconsider. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (Some of your reasoning about "muddled" and my nom itself was, in my view, at least unnecessary and possibly inappropriate, but, nonetheless, probably not relevant to our discussion now.)


 * I don't disagree with your conclusion that there was no consensus, but I don't think you should have closed it. What I've seen in other discussions when it goes beyond 7 days without consensus is it is relisted for further comments. WP:RELIST seems to permit either a relisting or a no consensus closure, but given that I don't believe a NAC was appropriate, I think you should have left it alone, either for an administrative closure of no consensus or a relisting.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have refactored my close comments in the light of the valid comment that you have made. The revised statement about the nomination is accurate though; you posed the nomination as a question, I agree, but you did not specify policy-compliant grounds. Relisting takes place when there has been insufficient discussion; that is not the case here. Considering the strength of feeling that clubs at this level are notable, I do not believe that relisting would have brought a 'delete' conclusion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to take this any further because it's not worth the trouble. Although I still disagree that a NAC was permissible, I suspect you're right about the relisting. So, if I were to formally challenge your decision, I would be doing precisely what I objected to regarding the nom, going forward on a technicality. It would waste everyone's time, not something I'm fond of.


 * Just out of curiosity, if I had stated in my nomination the exact same question I did but preceded it with, "Doesn't meet WP:GNG", would that have eliminated the procedural complaints about the nom?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The short answer is 'yes'. If a football club is notable then having played for just one season and being sold wouldn't be relevant. Notable things/organisations can be shortlived. For example, there is a WP:FOOTYN standard that if a person has played one minute in a Football League Two match (4th tier in English football) then they are notable. I don't feel comfortable with this standard but it is a consensus amongst editors on that project. Stating "Doesn't meet WP:GNG" is always a sound basis for a deletion nomination IMHO. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the "doesn't meet WP:GNG" is pretty much implied by the nomination itself and saying it was unnecessary. However, I'll reconsider my more direct approach in the future, if for no other reason than to avoid the sometimes strident complaints from other editors on this nomination. Truly making a mountain out of a molehill. In any event, thanks very much for the discussion; you've been very courteous, and I appreciate that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Given your statement Indeed, the only policy based argument was that by Stuartyeates who rightly pointed out that WP:GNG was not met. when closing the above, would you consider re-listing this as an alt to a NAC, give it another week and see if consensus could be reached ? Mt  king  (edits)  06:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Amir Taaki
Hi, Carrite said they'd help me with fixing up the problems on my bio page, but they're protesting against a sysop's demotion this month. I'm fine with waiting until then to work with an editor- I don't want to touch my own page according to the guidelines.

But would you mind changing that awful picture? I put it up for my user page and didn't realise it would be used for an article. Please use this instead. License is Public Domain. Also the original editor asked my birthday which is 06 Feb 1988- not sure if that's needed for some reason.

Thanks. Genjix (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you think that photo is bad you should see some of the ones of me!:-) Seriously, though, I have no problem replacing the image. What you need to do is to upload it (Left panel, toolbox, Upload file) with a suitable licence, first. The point about the birthdate is that some core personal information is always good in a biography. It humanises the profile. Typical information that could be included would be where/when born, marital status, schools/college attended etc but it is your call whether you wish to declare any of these. HTH. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Steaua in Europe
The current version of FC Steaua București in Europe is the wrong, please edit back to version from 06:06, 27 September 2011. Current page has no aesthetics, please look at the page of Chelsea, format of Steaua is very bad, a small table, large table, then a small, large table... Another example: Every change are making is changing from a direct link (like Budapest Honvéd FC) to a redirect (like Honved FC). Since the title of the article is Budapest Honvéd FC, we should match that in the article. While it's okay to have redirects in an article, there is no reason to intentionally change to redirects. In addition, many of those names are governed by our policies like WP:Article titles and WP:MOS, and so they may need to remain in their current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmihai (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am sorry about this but I am not an admin and, consequently, am not able to edit that page. The best way forward would be to air your concerns at Talk:FC Steaua București in Europe and seek to reach an accommodation with the other user who keeps reverting your changes. Concerns over redirects are best taken to WP:RFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Karl Koch (musician)
I have userfied it to User:Bridgeplayer/Karl Koch (musician) as requested. Davewild (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Raymond Bessone
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh darn it BP, you beat me to it there, while I was "otherwise engaged". I had a whole page mocked-up and everything back in August! I commend you for so studiously avoiding his own Bessone, R. (1976), Raymond – The outrageous autobiography of Teasie-Weasie, London, Wyndham Publications, ISBN 0-352-39757-8 - which was my only source. In fact, I thought the picture of him on the cover might be usable under-fair use as an image for the article. I still have it if required. The book is gloriously candid and quite amusing. But well done on a super job. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability of incomplete ships
Do note that ships do not have to be completed to be notable: see Grom class destroyer (1939). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point; thanks for this. However, for the two ships in question we have good information at the target so I don't think that we should delete the redirect unless some clear evidence of notability is presented. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar and an enquiry
There's the barnstar, and now the enquiry - would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? I've seen you in action often enough at RFD to know that you have the judgement it takes to become an admin, and the willingness to wield the mop when required. The awards on your userpage and the discussions here on your user talk also indicate that I'm not the only one who thinks you're capable and I highly doubt I'm the only one who thinks you are deserving. So, are you interested? Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay in replying but I've been away for a few days. Many thanks for the barnstar, it is much appreciated. Certainly the buttons that come with being an admin would greatly enhance my RFD work; both in closing more discussions and being able to action obvious speedy deletions. So, yes, I would certainly be interested. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that. I'll work on a nomination statement when I get time over the next couple of days (probably wont be much tomorrow) at user:Thryduulf/BPRFA. Probably aim for making the actual nomination this weekend. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm not going to be able to react much until Saturday evening anyway because I will be chasing around sorting out some real life tasks (isn't it really annoying how real life gets in the way of our more important Wikipedia work :-) ). Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Later than I planned to do it but the first draft of my nomination statement is at User:Thryduulf/BPRFA. Make all the comments on it you want, particularly if there is anything I haven't covered that you'd like me to mention. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay but my wife's parents are not too well so I have been distracted by the necessary running around. I have just made a few grammatical tweaks. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, and your edits are just fine. Let me know when it's a good time for you to run, RFA is a much more stressful (and more complicated) place nowadays than it was back in 2005. It's probably going to be best to wait until your real life will let you spend the time on it, but it;s entirely your choice. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Enric Garriga i Trullols listed at Redirects for discussion
Thanks for notifying me. GiantSnowman 10:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/Bridgeplayer

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on 2007 Bernard Matthews H5N1 outbreak. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matt Hunter
I can't tell who created this article, but you were one of the early editors.



The article Matt Hunter has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * fails notability. Article has not had any significant edits since it was created more than one year ago, and has been tagged for notability for most of that time. Only claims to notability are a video contest win almost a decade ago and two web=posted videos.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Meters (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Bridgeplayer/Natib Qadish
User:Bridgeplayer/Natib Qadish, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bridgeplayer/Natib Qadish and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Bridgeplayer/Natib Qadish during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Capello Index.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Capello Index.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)