User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2020 – December 2020

Georges Sada AfD
Thanks for suggesting the AfD process. :)

Nomination of Georges Sada for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georges Sada 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/Georges Sada 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. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Request
Hello Phil, could you write your opinion ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.194.183 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Escola Portuguesa de Luanda
Just a head's up, you have been mentioned in a deletion review : Deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Russell Dennis Lewis
I believe you are being unfair to me regarding this issue, I am educated to degree level, I have reason to believe, and can provide evidence, that articles created in this way have a history of not supported by the creator, and end in a very poor state for their duration. So by protecting this title page of a notable person, in my opinion is denying a real and valued article being created by an author who is going to value it and maintain its quality. It is similar to someone claiming all the best domain names. This is a serious issue for wider debate, we cannot just believe one attitude "the community" is correct, ghost articles need to be deleted. Not being admin, I cannot address this, but I feel this needs debating and action.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't get what you are going on about. You can write an article about Russell Dennis Lewis by simply replacing the redirect with your article. There is no credit involved with creating the page, but individual edits to it are credited, so, if it's really important to you, everyone will be able to see that you turned it into an article. Your replacement of the redirect with a message is vandalism, pure and simple. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Lara Sousa
Thanks for taking off the "db" tag. I indeed appreciate! Kambai Akau (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman Azhari
Dear friend, thanks kindly for pointing out that this needs to go through a WP:G4 process. I am unsure how to initiate that and wonder if you could please assist me. I’m sorry I don’t know how it’s done. Thank you and best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * George, the way to nominate an article for deletion under WP:G4 is simply to put the db-repost template at the beginning of the article, but on further investigation it seems that more sources have been added since this article was deleted, so, if you think they are inadequate, another discussion at WP:AFD is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

About titles and honorifics
Hello once again and greetings,

We were discussing this topic of titles & honorifics @ Village pump (policy). Since I need to engage in some other discussions related to appeal to popularity I want to limit my self on titles & honorifics as of now and any ways one single discussion does not produce much result on WP being to many people involved, so putting point forward and waiting is any ways there.

Still I want to reply you (will try to be brief but not sure).

Titles and honorifics related issues I cited is not just about some new comers making sundry decisions. Even experienced people (and groups) otherwise citing rational logic most times may reserve some areas as beyond rationals and logic it's very human. As such I am my self a strong proponent of fifth Wikipedia pillar Wikipedia has no firm rules do think Wikipedia community need to be more firm on  principle to avoid appeal to popularity for better grounding of encyclopedic value. Why? because titles and honorifics create normative and can end up compromising with lop sided narratives which in turn ends up in compromising neutrality.

Since Wikipedians usually go by commandments and not spirit of values then people follow popular commandments and ignore non popular ones where they get chance. Things are so normalized some one who does compromise on principle or value does not easily realize.

Some one asked me once about a statement in one Wikipedia article saying '.. 2nd Baron was son of 1'st Baron and lady XYZ..' You might ask what is wrong with this statement isn't it? Then there are Popes, Saints, Mothers and Mahatmas and so is Allamah in Wikipedia article titles. We just don't notice them since those are normalized with some or other excuse. If people are determined then many of those excuses can be avoided and alternate ways to name articles can be found out as in 'Mary, mother of Jesus', I repeat it is just appeal to popularity and tradition wins in those compromising cases.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is just to keep you informed that, following discussions seem to move ahead further and may be you want to share some more inputs further.


 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * and Village pump (policy)


 * Thanks, Bookku (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)