User talk:Phil PH/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Tim | meep in my general direction 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

DougSoc
I do not feel it is justified to keep it as a separate entry, so I merged the article into Douglas Adams per WP:BOLD. It seemed to me that it was the logical place for it. I did not think it would be controversial, but now it seems I was wrong.... However, I would be interested to further understand the grounds of your objection. Perhaps you are implying in your message that Dougsoc is principally a drinking club, and the name of Douglas Adams is being used in vain? Even so, I would probaly maintain it is the best place for that stub is as a trivia appendix for the Dougls Adam article. Ohconfucius 12:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Using Adams' name in vain" is pretty much the size of it, yes. I'm currently updating the text of the entry to reflect this, and to give a bit more information -- it was certainly rather sparse before.   I feel that DougSoc as a society is / was notable in its own right, and relegation to an trivium in the Adams entry wouldn't reflect that. Phil PH 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll let you get on with it, then. We'll have another chat in due course ;-) Ohconfucius 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Georges-Pierre
Thanks for informing me of your changes and I have responded to your comments here. Wolf of Fenric 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Newman University College
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. You moved the Newman University College article using cut-and-paste, which means the history is not maintained with the page, I have reverted your edit. Please read Help:Moving a page for information on how to move a page. Edward (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, i disagree with the changes you made (even though they were reverted for other reasons). Whether or not to add 'Birmingham' to the title was already discussed at Talk:Newman_University_College - as Birmingham is not in their official name, its rather a location statement on their website. If you wish to discuss this further, i would be happy to, on the Talk:Newman_University_College page. Thanks H0sting (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating in Doctor Who - - Stacy Townsend
Hi. I'm responding to your request for citation of the dates 2220, 2246, and 3998 for the Doctor Who companion Stacy Townsend. I'm having difficulty finding the source from which I got those dates from I'm sorry to say. At the time though, they did make sense to add them based on whatever the evidence I found was. –– Alan-WK (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Iris Wildthyme
If this company is actually producing those books, you will be able to provide a reliable source that states as much (no their static single page site that says "coming soon") is not a reliable source. The fundamentals of wikipedia are pretty simple, when material is challenged, people either provide sources or the information can be removed. There is no source so I have removed it (oh and the link in external links section - which provides no information that would get it past our external links policy - a single static blank page does not provide useful information to our readers). --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you will have no problem providing reliable sources about the matter, remember we deal with verification not truth. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need better sources - forum threads are not RS and the other source you've provided is just that static webpage. You need a reliable third party source. I'll leave the material in for the moment while you try and find a better source, however I've removed it as an external link because it does nothing to expand the knowledge of the reader on the subject - it's just a blank page that says "coming soon". If and when it gets some content it might be suitable for inclusion. I have to ask - you aren't connected to this company are you? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's the point - how do we or the readers know it's useful information without reliable sources? For all I know you could own the company and are trying to promote it via wikipedia (NOTE: I am *not* saying this is the case but just giving you a everyday example), that's while we work with reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well to be honest, once we started getting into it - I googled you (from your profile on your talkpage) and it lead me to the wikipedia page. I actually don't intend to edit your article any further mainly because I don't really have the expertise to do so, so I just tagged it for others to look at (plus I'm slightly burnt out from dealing with BLP articles at the moment) - I *might* make some stylist changes to it (really just turning most of the weblinks into reference links but nothing else) but that would be about it. As for the Publisher stuff on the IW article - let's em.. leave it where it is in the prose but leave it out of the external links section for the moment. Once they have some actual context on the site, it would pass our external links policy and could go back in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

your article
I've removed the tags (best if I do it rather than you)as I don't see any problem with the tone or the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, then. Thanks for that... Phil PH (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, unlike a lot of people who edit their own articles you understand it can't be a CV or an advert. Obviously if you think something you might add might be considered self-serving (and you never know what people will take offence to here), drop me a line and I'll take a look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Phil PH! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Collier (author) -

Reliable sources
I must confess I'll a little surprised, you have been here since 2006 and don't know what reliable sources are? The publisher's website is fine to show that the book exists but for an article to exist it must be the subject of multiple independent RS of the sort discussed at WP:RS. It's not just the novel, the whole Factor Paradox area seems to be poorly sourced and it might well be that a number of articles in that area should be deleted or merged. As for the reviews, they looked like fansites to me and I don't think we consider them RS but I'll look into them more closely maybe they are. I'll remove the prod for the moment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That would prove 'verification' that the book exists, a question that is not in doubt, I don't doubt the book exists, I doubt that it is *notable*. That is to say that it has been the subject of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that are not simply directory pages or listings. That is the issue. Directory listings and primary sources are not consider enough for a wikipedia article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Past Doctor Adventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gareth Roberts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Burning with Optimism's Flames, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Short Stories and Stephen Marley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lady Stardust (Iris Wildthyme), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Mann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of A Romance in Twelve Parts for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Romance in Twelve Parts 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/A Romance in Twelve Parts 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 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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) 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/Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) 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 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.

(You may or may not be interested in this "debate", I'm just a messenger here, the user who proposed deletion hasn't been notifying people) Rankersbo (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)