User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2020 – March 2020

Liyi Dai
Hi Phil Bridger, I will take it to Afd. I think it can be reverted if the contested rationale is wrong. The person isn't a professor or an academic so WP:NPROF doesn't apply. He is jobbing engineer.  scope_creep Talk  12:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD is crystal-clear on this issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So I see. Another one of these crap get out clauses you are strongly encouraged to. Fair enough. It is now at Afd. scope_creep Talk  12:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a "crap get out clause", but simply an application of WP:BRD to the deletion process. You boldly proposed deletion, I reverted, and you started a discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * HI It seems your right. I have withdrawn the Afd. I'm surprised that's a thing. I've never came across that before. I'll certainly remember it for the future. A waste of time for everybody really.   scope_creep Talk  17:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Sunshine Shen
To your point about Deletion Review. Here is one that just closed as delete. Check out the !vote rationales. The majority are WP:JUSTAVOTE and yet the article was deleted. Should I appeal? Probably not right? Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom
 * Delete a non-notable model
 * Delete – doesn't meet GNG; even with the new sources recently added to the article, none meet GNG. (the only !vote that went one to discuss the !votes was Levivich)
 * Delete. (with only the editor's signature)
 * delete the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored
 * Delete Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable. (dismissed based on one source)
 * The important result of an Article for Deletion discussion that can be discussed at Deletion Review (my emphasis in both cases) is whether an article should have been deleted or not, so if you think that an article should not have been deleted, but it was, then that is obviously a case that can be reviewed. What should not be reviewed is a discussion where you are against deletion and the outcome was also not deletion. Things like redirection and merging, or unredirecting and unmerging, which don't require administrator action to perform, are normal editorial processes that can be achieved by bold editing (which should not usually be done when an AfD disussion has been held because that usually means that it is contentious) or discussion on article talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am more asking you to evaluate the rationales of the above. I have participated in AfDs where the closure was more egregious than this, but this is the most recent. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of the "delete" rationales were very weak or non-existent, but my reaction to any AfD or DRV on this subject would almost certainly be to skip it without commenting, because I know very little about which of the sources cited can be considered reliable. I think you would be better off asking someone else about this one. Sorry I can't be of more help. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of old-prod template
I believe that you are lying about your reasons for twice reverting my attempt to remove this irritating template from Talk:Charles Enz. There is no danger that this article will be PROD'd again. I believe that you are reverting my edits just to assert your arbitrary authority as an admin, and to put me down, perhaps because I used an unflattering term about another admin, in an earlier edit summary.

I will remove the template again in a few days. I propose that you should let this be, to see if some other admin steps in to enforce your idea that old-prod templates must be perpetual. If this doesn't happen, then maybe you should admit that you're just being a jerk. Eleuther (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not an admin, and secondly your message here takes no notice of the edit summary that I provided . As I said this is not a badge of shame, in that it says nothing in any way disparaging about the article subject. It is simply a factual record of what happened to prevent it happening again. Why do you believe that I am lying about this, and being a jerk? That is a serious accusation against me that shouldn't be made without evidence. Did you miss that I am the one who stopped this from being deleted by removing the deletion template? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had a quick look at that talk page and Phil is absolutely correct in restoring that "irritating template". Furthermore, he's not an admin, but I am. Next time you accuse an editor in good standing of lying without good reason, I'll block you from editing for violating WP:NPA. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I already gave good reason. Eleuther (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself, there's no danger that the article will be PROD'd again. Therefore, using a template to prevent this non-event is like the guy standing on a street corner, blatting on a trombone, in order to keep the elephants away. The real reason for this behavior, since I have to spell it out for you, must be something unrelated to elephants. Eleuther (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding templates to a talk page indicating an old PROD or AfDs are standard procedure, nothing else. I strongly suggest you drop this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Please pardon me if I don't follow it. The fact is that I am somewhat amazed by the situation. I've created articles in the past that were PROD'd, and once I'd satisfied the citation requirements, the PRODs were removed and that was that. No old PROD on the talk pages. So placing them may be standard procedure, as you say, but it's not all that standard. And anyhow, it's also standard procedure and very common to remove templates from talk pages once they are no longer relevant. I don't know of any template that comes with a perpetual may-not-be-removed policy. I've read the documentation for this particular template and haven't found such a thing.
 * In other words, removing the template should be uncontroversial, once its stated purpose, to prevent repeated PRODs, no longer applies. However, Phil Bridger has taken on the task of reverting my attempts to remove the template, without citing a written WP policy, but only asserting what he thinks the policy should be in this case ("It stays for as long as this talk page exists."). Now I learn that he's not actually an admin. So, if he continues to revert me, in the absence of an official policy, is this not edit-warring?
 * I personally believe that his reason for these reversions is not as stated (the template is necessary to prevent repeated PRODs), because this reason is no longer relevant. Rather, his purpose is simply to get in my face, because of personal dislike, probably caused because I used an impolite word (pissant) to refer to the editor who first placed the old PROD template. It's fair to say that I shouldn't have used this word, and there are mechanisms to sanction me for it. However, it is not proper WP behavior to express this disapproval by setting out on a private project to revert my legitimate edits to the talk page of an article I recently created. Eleuther (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again you are accusing me, without any evidence, of lying about my reasons. Please stop. There is no personal dislike here, and no reason for you to think that there is. The word "pissant" had nothing to do with my actions, and I have on occasion used stronger words than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add that it is far from certain that this would not be proposed for deletion again. You seem to vastly overestimate the competence of the average deletion proposer. And why, as someone who seems to want this article to stay, are you so determined to remove this template? It helps prevent deletion, rather than making it more likely. If you would simply stop acting in such a paranoid manner and assume good faith you would see that we are on the same side here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so please explain why you are so adamant about reverting my attempts to remove the template, and why you're not simply edit-warring, for ego reasons. I want to remove it because it's annoying clutter, for the same reason that I arrange things in my refrigerator in a particular way, if you like. That should be my option. If you're not doing it out of personal dislike, then you must be working on some kind of "I am always right" theory, which again, is not expressed in your edit summaries. As for the danger of future PRODs, that is NOT AN ISSUE. If a PROD comes, someone, anyone rational, will quickly remove it, as you did the first time around (thanks for that, by the way). Eleuther (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * May I say further that your idea that "we are on the same side here" is really weird. Eleuther (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's any point in wasting time on further discussion of this non-issue here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I take your meaning to be that since there is no longer an issue, I'm free to remove the irrelevant template without interference. Thanks. Eleuther (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just remember that it's not your fridge. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City 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/The Portland Black Panthers: Empowering Albina and Remaking a City until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.  Ergo Sum  19:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD of Robert Olson
Hi Phil! Hope all is well. FYI I nominated Articles for deletion/Robert A. Olson, which I thought you'd want to know about in case you're not watching the page. Cheers! – Levivich 18:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Tnx re my clumsy Nonsense tag
So "Nonsense" is a synonym for Speedy ... not so very illogical! Never would have guessed its local use could have a global effect in my recent edit, but i certainly see the logic. Tnx for your diligent attention to covering for me, and esp. diplomatic avoidance of synonyms for "damn fool"! I'll try to remember that, as i try to ration my looking ... uh ... even more foolish than i pretend to be. --JerzyA (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmitry Orlov (banker)
Hi Phil, You have just reviewed an article of mine. May I have your opinion on two further issues: a) is there a reason for placing 'résumé' and 'tone' tags there and how can I improve the article so it can be removed; b) what was 'improper' in placing an external link to a photo at a legal source with proper photographer credit in the description? Thanks, VLu (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

20 minutes
Since you said you spend 20 minutes looking for sources for Articles for deletion/Bilderberg (hotel chain), perhaps you'd like to comment there? Would be nice to get a non-partisan comment. By all means feel free to vote keep if sources you found have convinced you this article can be rescued. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Virtual Class
If one defines virtual classes as classes with virtual methods, this does not differ from the article "virtual functions". Therefore I think no sense to dedicate an article to it, maybe one could redirect the article "virtual class" to "virtual functions". The article "virtual class" contains incorrect statements in this formulation. --Diaspomod (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Are you a paid editor hired by Shogakukan to hide the TRUTH of this hate group known as Weekly Shonen Sunday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:781:8100:D5D0:64A9:846E:8DD7:A2F (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"Penis Game" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Penis Game. Since you had some involvement with the Penis Game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Reason for PROD
The reason for my PROD here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bader_Abdul_Mohsen_Al_Mukhaizeem&action=history was in the edit summary. If it needs to be in the template itself can I readd it?-- occono (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sweet William
Yeah, but think of all the fun you can have making sentences with his signature. Gotta be a Burma shave in there someplace.--  Deep fried  okra    22:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for this edit. I was just coming back to revert my preemptive closure, which wasn't appropriate in this case. The hotel should either get (a) a fair hearing at AfD or (b) it should be draftified.

Anyway, just stopping by to say thank you for your reversion and for not posting a template on my talk page. Your edit summary said everything.

Cheers,

Doug Mehus T · C  17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Besim Tafilaj for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Besim Tafilaj 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 Articles for deletion/Besim Tafilaj until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA
I'm posting this comment here as well as in the original location to be sure that you see it.

"Just as a piece of gentle advice, WP:NPA is still policy at Wikipedia, and in addition to being manifestly false in all relevant particular, your comment is rude and insulting. First, no one suggested that my twitter posts are reliable sources to that's a straw man argument. Second, not only am I not well known for "supporting D-list 'celebrities' who deign to talk to (me) at cocktail parties" there is a reason why I'm not well known for that: it's an utter bald-faced lie. In general my opinion tends to count for a great deal at Wikipedia but for no other reason than that I am a good Wikipedian who deeply respects and defends NPOV and policy based reasons to do things in all cases. I highly recommend that you retract your comment, and that if you have any specific complaints you bring it to my talk page."

I'd like to add, here on your talk page, that the offer at the end is genuine. If you have a specific concern about anything that I've done, the best thing is not to insult me in an obscure deletion review, but to talk to me about it. WP:AGF and all that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Adelaide Chiozzo
Help to expand the Adelaide Chiozzo's article. ArionEstar (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROF (Deletion proposal for Jes Vollertsen)
Per WP:PROF, the number of citations in Google Scholar alone is not proof of exceptional contribution to one's field of expertise. Quoting from the Citation Metrics section in WP:PROF: "* A caution about Google Scholar: [...] GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.[2] It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals.[3] Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only."

Have a great day Alchemist (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a rough guide. Even very roughly 4500 citations is loads. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Where are you from?
--Станислав Савченко (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Stanislaw. It's not always considered good etiquette to ask personal questions, but I don't mind revealing that I'm from the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)