User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2010 – December 2010

William James Wanless
Thanks for your comments on William James Wanless. Finally the AFD tag is removed, can you plz help me to  Nominate this article to DYK, as I honestly do not Understood how do it. Plz help. -- . Shlok  talk. 09:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * William James Wanless is now nominated for DYK. You can review the nomination here-- . Shlok  talk. 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Fáy András Economic High School for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Fáy András Economic High School, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fáy András Economic High School until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Kenneth H. Cooper article
I resent your implication that I didn't look for sources about Cooper - I did look.

However, I am willing to concede that there might be some reliable independent sources which I missed - I look forward to seeing you adding some of these independent reliable sources to the article as there are so many.

If you can't add these, then I will take the article to Articles for deletion on Monday or Tuesday.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you looked then how did you manage to miss these books and these news articles many of which, such as the source that I put in the article when I contested deletion, explain that Cooper introduced the concept of aerobics to fitness training, describing him as the "father of aerobics"? I can't understand what searches you could possibly have performed that didn't find such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The books/articles in the GBooks results were written by Cooper himself - how are they independent sources as required by the criteria? The news coverage tends to be along the lines of "Cooper said... " - many of them that I looked at did not include independent coverage - all the quotes are from him, rather than from other people talking about him - or the coverage did not meet the 'significant coverage' which is required. So, I did find those sources, but they did not appear to meet the criteria for notability. OK, I grant that I did not look at all the thousands of sources, but I did look at a few of them. The material in the article is already pretty much in the Aerobics article anyway (apart from the biobliography), and I was tempted to suggest redirecting it to that article - but I will look into this in a bit more detail during the coming week. I am still not convinced that Cooper requires a stand-alone article (as I said, the main content of the article is in the Aerobics article) but I'm willing to be convinced, if I can find significant coverage at independent reliable sources! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you notice that the Google Books searches that I linked above explicitly exclude books written by Cooper himself? You're in a hole, so please stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And didn't you notice that the first result on the Google Books link above was "Kenneth H. Cooper - aerobics - 1968", the second one ("God's Way Is Still the Best Way By Zig Ziglar") is based (from what I can see) from what Cooper told Zig Ziglar; the third one ("Best of Health: The 100 Best Books By Sheldon Zerden") is a book review (so perhaps the book should have an article!) but only contains a couple of biographical sentences about Cooper himself; the fourth one ("Football injuries: papers presented at a workshop") is a paper by Cooper himself; the fifth one ("Shaping prose") is a chapter written by Cooper himself - the same for "Writing with a thesis: a rhetoric and reader", "Essays for explication"; "Physical fitness and wellness: changing the way you look, feel, and perform" doesn't contain anything about Cooper himself - it is a credit for the table on page 45 which is from Cooper's book.... I could go on.
 * Yes, the search was meant to exclude the books/articles written by Cooper himself - but the way GBooks works is that this excluded books where Cooper was the listed author - most of the results do not have him as the author (they are anthologies of writings by other authors, etc). All this shows is that you thought by adding "-inauthor:cooper" to the search terms, you assumed that it would exclude his work, which it does not. I spent the time to look at the first 8 hits on that list, and found the above results - did you actually look at them, or just assume that they weren't written by him, or as a result of him talking to someone else (and so not independent)?
 * I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! I will look through the sources at Google linked to above, and if I can find some which I feel show his notability enough to warrant a stand-alone article (rather than a redirect to Aerobics, which already mentions most of what this article says) then I'll add these to the article - otherwise I'll take it to AfD and see what the consensus is --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hunter Corbett
After some work on article can we make a hook for Hunter Corbett as a founder of The first university in China, Cheeloo University Please Have a look and enlighten. Thanks. -- . Shlok  talk. 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Zoo
Regarding your CSD decline of Brantford Twin Valley Zoo, what exactly do you think zoos are? I'd stick around to make sure this article receives the attention it deserves, whatever that means but it's your baby now. Good luck. Ol Yeller Talktome 02:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Please accept my thanks Phil Bridger, for adding a source on Oya Baydar and saving it from deletion. I am a beginner on Wikipedia, this is why I am not aware of the Wikipedia politics related to my works.

Now I am writing you also to inform you that I will change your edit on this article. Maybe you don't even remember what you did for me, but in any case, I don't want to offend you somehow and want to take your attention. I hope you will approve my change. Thanks again, take care! Recep Ercan (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And another thank you from me, for helping out on Adly Barsoum; I wasn't sure if that job was enough of a claim to significance, and I'm glad to set you straight. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the job is enough of a claim of importance to get past speedy deletion, but I'd want to see some more significant coverage before !voting "keep" in an AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Go-cart article deletion
Sorry about the redundant speedy deletion requests. And no, I am not a sockpuppet of Blueboar! It all came up due to another discussion under "Notability" and editors there remarked that "something" needed to be done. I was offline for awhile and carelessly misread Blueboar's report about his speedy deletions being declined, something I had just "discovered" existed! I tried to erase my speedy deletion requests but didn't get there in time for most of them. Sorry for the confusion. Student7 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thorga
Thanks for cleaning this up. WP:TNT! :)  Nolelover  It's football season!  22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Showbiz 411 page
Hi Phil

Showbiz 411 is as deserving of a Wikipedia page as Deadline.com - this is a discussion I have already had with other contributors who had orignally deleted the page for Roger Friedman. The website is a news organization, venture funded in America. If this website does not deserve a Wikipedia page, then neither does any comparable website.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcminno782 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch
Thanks for catching my error in PRODing Evelyn Miot. Although I read the stub blurb, I missed the "Miss Haiti" part, I'm guessing from the unusual structure of the first sentence. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mister Jalopy
Thankyou for your note; I am well aware of WP:Civility which, as far as I can see, only refers to interaction between editors. I can see nothing there that relates even to article content, let alone AfDs, although I fully understand the laws of libel and defamation. No doubt you'll put me right if I've missed something.

My dictionary defines "nonentity" as "a person or thing of little or no importance". To my mind, this perfectly sums up the subject of the AfD, so I have no intention of withdrawing or amending my comments. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook  18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sarvavijnanakosam
Instead of inappropriately and inaccurately accusing fellow editors for once re-tagging an article for deletion in good faith, and which re-tagging to correct that which you pointed out was in err, why not either correct the tag yourself—or better yet, improve the article since you seem to know more about it than either the author or myself? As an experienced editor, I would think you would be more willing to work together with your editor colleagues rather than resorting to snide edit summaries. Cheers, and thanks. Thorncrag   22:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What's "snide" about that edit summary? You edit warred by reinstating a reverted edit, breaking the accepted WP:BRD cycle, and did so on the basis of a misunderstanding of the speedy deletion criteria, as WP:CSD lists the types of article to which it applies, and doesn't include books. I simply pointed out these facts in my summary. I knew nothing about the article subject before finding it in the speedy deletion category, but have the common sense to realise that a 20-volume encyclopedia published by a state agency is not the type of subject that we should consider speedily deleting. You are the one who needs to be "more willing to work together with your editor colleagues" by not calling for speedy deletion of their efforts to build this encyclopedia without good reason. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-tagging an article for deletion under slightly different rationale is not edit warring, I know you know this. Plus based on the fact that I originally tagged the article as a web site, was it not obvious that the misunderstanding was that I mis-took the topic of the article? Which was not unreasonable considering the terse and wanting state of the article.  Not a misunderstanding of deletion criteria.   Accusing an editor for edit warring over this which was clearly a misunderstanding is uncalled for.  You were rude.  Plain and simple.  But enough time on this, please go about your work and we can both have a pleasant day.     Thorncrag    23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, forgot to address one thing just so we are clear, BRD really applies to modifying the content of an article—not applying maintenance tags. Cheers.     Thorncrag    23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving the article. I have thus withdrawn the deletion nomination.  Thank you again!    Thorncrag    20:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Obvious expansion?
I'm quite amazed at the edit summary you provided when contesting the speedy deletion of Owen Strathern. You said, "quite obviously expands on the content of the other article". In my view, it's hardly obvious at all. In fact, you have to look closely to find the differences.

This is the entire "expansion" beyond the other article: (1) "Owen Strathern (born 6 October 1987 in Bellaghy, Northern Ireland)"; (2) "Owen Strathern attended Holy Family Primary School and St Mary's Grammar School as a youngpup. He left home for Belfast in 2007 to study Maths at Belfast Metropolitan College." (3) Additionally, the infobox links to Fender Jaguar Bass under Notable instruments. All of this is, of course, totally unreferenced.

For differences from General Fiasco, that's it. Unless we consider that, when copying from General Fiasco and pasting into Owen Strathern, the actual refs didn't get copied over. But that's still not an expansion, that's a reduction. So I don't see what obvious expansion you're talking about. The stuff that's not copied and pasted from General Fiasco doesn't make an entire article; it barely even filled my second paragraph. What further rationale do you have for wanting to keep this article? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not said that I "want to keep" this article, but only that it doesn't meet WP:CSD. The information about where Strathern was educated and the name of his former band (i.e. the first 2½ sentences of the meat of the article, so there's no need to look at all closely) does expand on what is in General Fiasco. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Guess I'll PROD the thing, then. Thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Brontosaurus (Play)
When you deprodded the Brontosaurus (Play) article that I had prodded as failing the general notability guideline you asked in the edit summary what gave me that idea. I do not believe it meets the general notability guidelines because I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this play. The only reference the article has is to a passing mention of the play in a book; it is certainly not significant coverage. I checked again for sources and was unable to come up with any. Perhaps redirecting the article to Lanford Wilson would be best for right now? I've started a redirection discussion on the article's talk page and I'd like your input if you get a chance. Thanks. Narthring (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

SJK(C) Kwang Hwa - thank you
Hi Phil B. Thank you for this. I possibly clicked on the wrong WP:TWINKLE WP:CSD radio button... but so what? The article was obviously not a CSD candidate under any category. A learning experience. I thoroughly deserved a templated warning for this mistake. Will strive to be more careful in future. Thanks again!--Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hossein Sabet
So you proved me wrong! Thanks for digging up the citations. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:CSD
I recommend you calm down, and I recommend you see WP:AGF. And phrases like 'How on Earth' can breach WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Please understand that WP:BIGDEAL also reflects this situation, and understand that not every nomination for CSD is passed.

Many Regards, Yousou (report) 18:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I normally disregard honours, qualifications, etc.; without WP:RS. Many Regards, Yousou (report) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you recommend me PROD or AFD it then?

Many Regards, Yousou (report) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sophia Frangou
You may want to help User:Biological965 rather than reverting him. I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to do, but I probably caused him to remove that list. See his talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mirza Ismail Road
Thankyou for improving and thus help saving the page. I wish there are more editors like you here.Shyamsunder (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me wrong...
... at Articles for deletion/Paul Insect. Appears I'm in very good company. Thanks again.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
Please review the quality of article William James Wanless.-- . Shlok  talk. 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sports Betting
Sorry. HG must have gotten out of sequence somehow...my intent was to eliminate the vandalism, rather than create it. Oops. Cmichael (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

--Saturdaysunshine (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Work together for the greater good
Hi Phil: The revised Mike Clifford article is 100% correct. Where do you see a information problem? I have no problem adding it. We need to work together for the good of Mike Clifford! Please respond. Thank you.

saturdaysunshine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturdaysunshine (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits removed the references in the article that demonstrate that Clifford is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. By removing them you are making it more likely that this article will be deleted. There's no point in you saying that the article is 100% correct - it has to be demonstrated by references to independent reliable sources, such as the ones that I added to the article and you removed. Please also be aware that we are supposed to be working together for the good of this encyclopedia, not for the good of Mike Clifford. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil: Add your resources to the bottom of the page. I am in communication with M.C. and he has approved the discography that I provided along with the all the other info concerning songs he did for all the movies listed.. IMDB - provides the movies M.C.'s was in. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturdaysunshine (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I am new to this & would have left the references and provided the IMDB reference as well if I knew how. Thank you for your help!--Saturdaysunshine (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Greater good!
Hi Phil: As you can see I am having a difficult time. If you go to the bottom of the post. I have added more. I would ask you to add the references to the bottom of the page and add www.imdb.com as a source for the movies that M.C. was in. I would really appreciate your help in getting it right!

saturdaysunshine--Saturdaysunshine (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary
Regarding your edit summary here, I dedicate many hours per day sourcing BLP articles that are in danger of being deleted as unsourced. Out of the thousands upon thousands to which I've added sources, there are occasionally ones that either do not meet notability criteria, or are prodded for various other issues (such as was the case here). I don't appreciate your bad faith and condescending edit summary. We are all volunteers here, each doing our part to try to improve the encyclopedia. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of AIDS Article Edit
The original statement on this page is unsourced. What makes an unsourced sentence more credible than a sourced one? also, all the AIDS origin theories, are just that theories. I think in order to restore balance, a link should be placed or a statement indicating the page on alternative theories. Its very ethnocentric to place importance on one theory over another when there is no conclusive evidence that an unsourced sentence( like Aids began in Africa) exists on this page. --MsTingaK (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that AIDS originated in Africa is sourced several times in the article. If you want to discuss this further please continue the thread at Talk:Origin of AIDS so that other interested editors may join the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bârlad
Look at the history before reverting again. The article started as Bârlad. Two days ago, a new editor pasted the contents of that article into Bârlad, Romania, blanked this one into a redirect, then tried to prod it. That is not the way to move pages, nothing in the Bârlad, Romania article history indicates the provenance and there's no magical mind-trick to tell the reader to go to the Bârlad article to read the history. I did things in the proper order to keep a target live, you reverted to a redirect pointing to a redirect. I have no idea why the page kept functioning, it must have been coming from cache. Use a page move if you want to change the title. Franamax (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but most of that flew straight over my head. I am not the one who tried to move the page, but have been reverting the attempts to prod the redirect on the grounds that it took readers to the primary use of the title and that prod deletion doesn't apply to redirects. When I looked at the page after your revision at 21:04 it was about a rugby club - I've no idea why because when I look at that revision now it's about the city - so I reverted to the redirect as the primary meaning. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's twice now you've said I'm too hard to understand, did you actually look at the history? New editor A copy-pastes the content of [xxx] to [xxx, Romania], then redirects [xxx] to [xxx, Romania]. A then prods [xxx] as unnecessary, which you jump in and repeatedly revert - back to their own self-constructed redirect. Emboldened by this, A goes on to do the same thing at the move-protected [yyy] article, supported by an IP editor. (substitute xxx=Bârlad, yyy=Bucharest for the same pattern) I spot this and clean it up. After all of this, you revert me again. Do you really want me to provide diffs for the same thing that is easily played out in the history if you look?
 * You didn't say anything about being wrong or how you would avoid the same mistake in future. I'm left to conclude that either you a) feel that settlement article titles should always have a [xxx, Country] or [xxx, territory, Country] qualifier and will support those changes wherever they happen, regardless of the provenance (which is fine, but please do say so and don't war for your own version); or b) you are just not looking at what you are editing. Please take a look back, I think you blew it big time. You defended a page to restore a new editor's bad edit and you did it several times. My preferred outcome would be that you take a little more time checking up on articlehist and contribhist in future, especially when you see multiple editora making changes. I've seen you around as a pretty good editor and I'm not on an attack spree, this just came up on my watchlist. Just sayin' I think you could do way way better. Regards! Franamax (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Uttaradhikar for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Uttaradhikar, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Uttaradhikar until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- N D Steve 10 ( talk ) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PROD deletion removal
You removed the PROD BLP deletion template that I placed on the page Evans Wadongo because "being written by the subject is not a valid reason for deletion." That is a valid reason to propose deletion, as per WP:AUTOBIO. Please look up Wikipedia policy before contributing edits like that. I have restored the deletion template. Thanks. Wiki Tome Talk 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one who needs to read policy/guidelines: both WP:AUTOBIO, which nowhere says that deletion is the appropriate response, and WP:PROD, which says that a proposed deletion template may not be replaced once deletion has been contested. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

World Darts Championships
Hello, Phil Bridger. Nice to greet you this morning! Do you have any sources you could add to the World Darts Championships articles? I couldn't find any, but of course I am not really conversant with the subject. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked the Darts project for help. I'm sure that these articles can be sourced, as they are about world championships in a sport that is very popular in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out the sources myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you say, they can all be sourced since they would have all been covered extensively in the UK press. It will take time for someone to dig up all the results though, especially for the earlier tournaments (pre-internet media and all that). wjemather bigissue 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are good ideas. I will try a direct message also to the people who sponsor the competition in hopes of getting a source for all of the articles. There is no hurry on any of this: What's a few more weeks after four years of waiting? If it's OK by you, I will copy this to the World Professional Darts Championship Talk page and hope that others will join in. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

E.J. Thomas
Nice work finding that print reference for E.J. Thomas, thanks. Top Jim (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Now wait a minute...
Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_McCaig&diff=395609804&oldid=395603636 and tell me where the reference was when I replaced the prod blp tag. What anyone else has done since I replaced that tag is nothing to do with me and I take great exception to being called 'disruptive'. I tagged an unreferenced article twice for being unreferenced - which it was - and then left it alone. Over to you. Peridon (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look through the history before you placed the second prod blp tag you will see that the author made a good faith attempt to cite a reference, which was to a reliable source. How about helping to format the reference properly rather than robotically applying policy and potentially scaring away a new editor? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about because I too have trouble getting inline citations right? I'm as likely to make a mess of it as he/she is. As I saw the article, it was unreferenced. So I replaced the tag, which is not the same as replacing an ordinary prod, so far as I know. Later, I saw there was an attempt at referencing and didn't want to make things worse. So I left it. As to biting - I replaced a tag and put "As this is proposed because of the lack of referencing, I would suggest two things. First, don't remove the tag unless you have remedied the problem. Articles that are biographies of living people MUST be referenced. Second, look at WP:BLP to check that I'm not making this up, and then look at WP:RS to find out what sort of references you need." on his/her talk page. Is that biting? Or is that trying to be helpful to someone who won't reply? I do my best to help new editors - when they are willing to be helped. I am still angry about being called disruptive and being accused of biting. How can you help someone who won't respond? I have advised and helped many new editors. But they must be willing to be helped. I don't think this one is. There was plenty of chance for him/her to ask how to sort out the problem - the problem I didn't know about when I replaced the tag. I would have suggested someone to ask who would have been able to sort it out. Peridon (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rothmans Football Yearbook is exactly the the sort of reference needed, so your demand to read WP:RS to find out what sort of reference is needed, after the article author had already supplied that reference, is indeed both biting and disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the damn reference when I put the tag back. Are you listening? I saw an unreferenced article. If I had seen a reference, I wouldn't have suggested - note I was polite and not biting - that he/she look at WP:RS. Whether the other editors considered it a good reference or not is nothing to do with me. As is whatever action they took. I applied a prod blp twice to an article that was unreferenced as it stood. Is that disruptive and/or vandalism? Was the way I communicated biting or suggesting a way of sorting a problem? Peridon (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon of Dr. Dreck
I would think you know how Wikipedia works. If you contest a speedy-deletion you are supposed to put up a hangon tag or at least write why the article is notable on the talk page and why you contest it. I have noticed you just reverting another editors valid speedy delete tags without following protocol. Why? The tag that Francis tagged with was appropriate, because they fell under, "or web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7" How do you explain your actions against another users valid acftions? Dwain (talk)
 * I explained in the edit summary why I removed the tag. The article is about a film, which is not eligible for WP:CSD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul R.Tregurtha
Hi, you unprodded this... in fact there's already an article at MV Paul R. Tregurtha, to which I've redirected it! PamD (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pqcell
Hi Phil, just  letting  you  know: I  originally  PRODed this article a while back. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline
I proposed this article for deletion - you undid my proposal - I gotta ask - why would anyone want to keep this diatribe alive? I wont wait around for your answer - this article is a sinkhole to which I do not wish to contribute - regardez vous. Mark Dask 18:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained in the edit summary when I removed the prod tag why I did so. It's not a matter of wanting "to keep this diatribe alive", but simply that this article is ineligible for the WP:PROD process because it has been kept as the result of a previous deletion discussion. If you want to get the article deleted then you need to start a new discussion at WP:AFD, where I will probably support deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - thank you for the swift and intelligent response - I am a newish editor so still learning - I will propose anew - but how to do that? - Please Sir - should I repeat my PROD? Or is there an appropriate forum?
 * The instructions are at WP:AFD. If you have any problems following them just let me know and I'll give you a hand. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Mark  Dask 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur on grounds of notability
Hi, recently I nominated Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur for deletion on grounds of notability. As you may have seen, the article is on a princeling of a relatively small erstwhile kingdom of India. The only sizeable reference solely focussed on Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur, is related to his marriage, which again failed to make much splash. Although its not the official policy of wiki, but as a rough rule of thumb I tend to do a google search on the topic of article, I found that Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur had less hits than the children of Bill Gates, however the children of Mr. Gates do not have a page of their own. I would look forward to hearing your comments on the issue. I would request you to keep the discussion at your talk page if that does not cause inconvenience to you. LegalEagle (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP Prod
Re İsmet Yılmaz, Fahri Kasırga and Güldal Akşit, please follow this note. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD of G.V. Sreekumar‎ following declined PROD
Hi, you recently declined my PROD of the article on G.V. Sreekumar‎. Per your suggestion I have opened an AFD on the article, which can be found at Articles for deletion/G.V. Sreekumar. Thanks for correcting me and if you would like to comment either way on the AFD then you would be more than welcome. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)



 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! I keep seeing you rescuing BLPs and thought it was time to tell you how much I appreciate that.

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Saeed Al Hajri
Hey, just to let you know I did do a Google search for him before nominating the article. I could not find any reliable sources when I did. And I didn't even nominate it because it was a hoax; I nominated because he seemed non-notable. I said it might be a hoax. JDDJS (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Contested PROD
Phil, You recently contested the PROD I placed on Cook College and Theological School. May I ask why? I've found no evidence that this place actually exists. If you have some, then please share. Otherwise, I'm confused why someone would contest this. -Nicktalk 17:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While contesting deletion I added a reference to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tumut High School
While I agree with you that Tumut HS is notable, and for the simple reason that it is a high school, and therefore equally notable with the other high schools we have, I think you were hasty.

The content in the article is sparse on the ground. It /needs/ to be improved. I intended to get to it at some stage myself (User:Danjel/ToDoList - add any other NSW/Vic schools that are short on content and I'll see what I can do), but, if you have any information it would be great if you could edit it in.

It's one of those schools with which I'm not particularly familiar, so I'd have to trawl through to get information for it, so first hand information (that I can then perhaps add citations for) would be better. -Danjel (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, it needs to be improved, but deleting it certainly won't improve it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely... So... Is there anything you can add to it? :) Don't worry too much about citations, I'm hoping that I'll be able to add them once I know what to look for. -Danjel (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of A Little Soap and Water for deletion
The article A Little Soap and Water is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/A Little Soap and Water 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Somyot Srinuan
Hey I noticed that you contested the prod on this article. I thought I'd drop you a friendly notice to let you know that I nominated the article for deletion. --nn123645 (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So what does make a reliably cited source?
Please enlighten me. Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS and WP:CITE. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats just as I expected. I have, however, read it: could have written it, in fact. Where does it say that you don't have to say where archived material can be viewed?Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITE, which does not mention any of the details that you have asked for. Have you ever come across a citation style that requires the identification of which library (let alone which room, shelf and box) the source was read in? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have. Many, many times.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This sort of detail may be useful when citing unpublished primary source material, but I've never known it to be required when citing published books or journals. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Two further things, by the way: this discussion is taking place in several other places. I do not confuse easily. If you expect me to run-around collecting examples, forget it. Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?
FYI, I started a thread on this question at the Notability guidelines. --Lambiam 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Provocation and Fishing
On 29th December 2010 you posted a message to me which purported to be an admonishment, but which was in fact a crude attempt to badger me into making some kind of retort, ostensibly to support your tacit accusation of rudeness. I repudiate entirely these somewhat puerile allegations. You also made certain conjectural remarks designed to extract a response that would reveal my identity and thus abrogate my hypothetical right to anonymity. I resent your hostile attitude towards me. Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a complete misrepresentation of any message that I have posted. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)