User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2021 – December 2021

Arabeyes up for deletion
You previously participated in the AFD for this article. WP:Link rot is not a reason to delete. Open source publisher trying to aid Arab language users with their computers etc. It was established in early 2001 by a number of Arab Linux enthusiasts. Trying to find sources is hampered by the presumed language of sources. It is a systemic bias in Wikipedia. Arabic language speakers needed. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The thread was closed before I could save my reply :)
Just wanted to say re this: @Phil Bridger Stop by the talk page, there was an RfC still not archived that could've used more input (still can...). I think this page is salvagable as a cool piece of wiki trivia, but we do need to AGF things more (a lot of the stuff called hoaxes, with implications of "deliberate attempt to mislead", can be some variation of innoccent error; I also recall the recent discussion here related to ARS where some folks tried to sanction an editor (User:7&6=thirteen?) who used wrong reference, accusing them of doing this on purpose withotu any good evidence...). We really need to stop overusing the term hoax, not to mention, AGF stuff more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Piotrus Thank you. A very trying experience.  Building up full and complete references to books takes me a lot of time and shuffling between web pages and my word processor.  I apparently made a mistake, for which I apologized and then unduly pilloried.
 * Mistakes happen. That is why they put Delete keys on computers.  140,000+ edits and 14 years of service.  If that was my only mistake in all that, I would be astonished; and I would be deserving of accolades, not rail riding and Tarring and feathering.  But it is both a warning and a wearing.  I don't need this S....
 * Calls into question my desire to work for the project. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you: Mud sticks. On Wikipedia, people may occasionally forgive, but nothing is forgotten. Or even lessened by years of service. The dirt accumulates until there's enough to drag you down. Which is why some folks WP:VANISH and reappar. Hard to do when you are playing on hard mode like those of us who chose not be anonymous... sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Eulogy
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SittingDuck (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Potshots at Afd
I object at you taking potshots on the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISKCON Temple, Salem. Did it occur to you that not everyone may be aware of all these exceptions and corollaries that you are aware of? Was such an offensive comment necessary there? The AfD is not a place to start such a side discussion, could have posted on article talk page. I will not respond there as it is not the right place. However, I suggest you remove the unnecessary offensive parts. Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wriote nothing offensive. But trying to get people's hard work speedily deleted for reasons that do not conform to policy is offensive. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever you wrote, it was off topic not about the temple. That AfD was not the place for such discussion.
 * Using Wikipedia for promotion of a cult should have been much more offensive. But looks like you have your own priorities and want others to follow those. Venkat TL (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While you are right to AGF about the creator of the page, do note that he has another (seems undeclared?) account which also has multiple red flags - coi, promo, deleted warnings etc. Came here from AfD and had to comment because of that "speedy delete hard work is offensive" part in your reply above. Hemanthah (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Indian village prods
Hi Phil. Just as word of explanation, the article creator in question made dozens of such articles spending a few minute on each one, and when I asked them about it simply blanked the one article I raised as an example. Just so you can understand what's going on here, there are many, many such articles going through NPP all the time and GEOSTUBs are a favourite of people who are just trying to rack up article creation stats so they can engage in COI editing, because the low notability standards for GEO articles allow articles to be kept that are essentially unreferenced and with minimal/no content. As you probably noticed when you got to it, there is no actual village called Bhilkhedi on the 2011 Indian census in Dewas district, Madhya Pradesh state, nor is there a Badnawar village in Dewas, nor is there is there a Ajnas village in Dewas, nor were there a number of other ones I checked on before PRODing the whole series. Obviously I could have checked all of them and seen that some of them do correspond to real places (though possibly just coincidentally?) but given that the creator hadn't responded to my questions except by just blanking the Bijapur Village article (which also can't be found on the 2011 Indian census in Dewas), had provided sources that didn't even mention the subject of the article, and a sampling of villages (on an often very slow website) had shown them to likely be bogus, I didn't do this. I hope this explains what I was doing, and maybe you can reconsider the tone of some of your edit summaries about this. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I found all three of those villages in the 2011 census results with no problem. You seem to looking in the wrong place. Searchable census results are at . Phil Bridger (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil. Well, now I've got egg on my face, because obviously I must have been searching the wrong part of the website when checking this. Sorry. I hope you can at least see why the editing pattern looked suspect, but yeah, gonna go revert those PRODs. FOARP (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

James Bidlack
Phil, I'm not certain that your recent edits to James Bidlack did what you intended. Did you mean to remove his PhD and re-add a mention from a limited-notability christian scientific organization? (I had removed the presbyterian award and Who's Who, and changed the use of his thesis as a primary source to use as a source for his PhD.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that an edit comment conflict wasn't flagged when I had suffered one. I am happy for you to remove the trivial stuff from the article, or if you don't do it soon then I will. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, removed Presbyterian award, re-added thesis info (also made one other minor fix). Sorry to bug you, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't misunderstanding.  The article certainly does need the eyes on it against the COI editing.  Wishing you a relaxing New Years season! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a scam?
I believe it is a scam beware 2001:8003:E840:C901:70DB:DA01:198:F902 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I knew what you believe to be a scam then I could reply to the question. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

AN/I Closure
Because I can no longer contribute to the discussion on AN/I, I am posting this same comment on multiple user's talk pages. You are one of those users, and I apologize for bringing this to your talk page instead. I am disappointed that the issue I posted on AN/I was closed so quickly, without giving me a chance to respond. Not everybody is on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. This was my very first time reporting anything to AN/I and, yes, I should have included more detail, and I apologize for not doing so, but now I do not have the opportunity to do so.

The very fact that Hammersoft assumes that I simply don't understand Wikipedia does not assume good faith (and, yes, there is the clear implication that it is my fault that I do not understand what Hammersoft doesn't actually state). The fact that I asked questions repeatedly that Hammersoft did not answer (for no specified reason) is uncivil.

I do not believe Hammersoft is trying to improve Wikipedia here. Someone who wanted to improve Wikipedia would help figure out how to get this notable information in the article, not reject it no matter what. And they would explain why they think Pantheos is not acceptable here while it is acceptable in hundreds of other articles. Whether or not this is uncivil by the Wikipedia definition of the term, it is uncivil by the definition of the word. On notability, I argue that the proposed addition is notable simply because of its direct connection to the SCOTUS case, an "unintended consequence" of it, just like Gavin Newsom's proposal to advance gun control in California based on the Texas law that it looks like SCOTUS will uphold. Every SCOTUS case is notable and unintended consequences of those cases are notable.

Hammersoft is very good at citing all sorts of policies. I don't like citing policies as they are frequently used as a fake "appeal to authority." For example, in Hammersoft's response, they cite WP:NOTSILENCE incorrectly. I did not say that their silence meant consent, nor did I chastise them for a general failure to respond. Not responding is their right. But they did respond and, given that, I said that their failure to respond to my questions and my attempts to confirm my understanding of what they were trying to say meant that I would assume they are incorrect. (Note: Hammersoft did what WP:NOTSILENCE says they shouldn't do — they repeated the same things without providing additional information.)

The discussion in AN/I is also tainted. Does Cullen328 refer to other religions as "guerilla theatre groups"? Or just The Satanic Temple? Cullen328's personal opinions on a particular religion they don't like — essentially an attack on that religion — are absolutely not NPOV and do not belong in this discussion.

I do not intend to make this minor addition to Wikipedia my life's work, but it exhibits one of the things I hate about Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be much better off if people spent more time figuring out how to add important and useful (and notable!) information to Wikipedia rather than trying so hard to remove things. It's sad. I will follow up with an RfC on the issue of whether Pantheos can be cited or not (note that I have already tried, unsuccessfully, to get Hammersoft to engage on this issue).

RoyLeban (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you should not have included more detail. You should have included much less. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)