User talk:Phil Bridger

Yuvika Chaudhary

Perhaps while you're trying to help build this encyclopedia, you could look up WP:CIVIL as well? Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So do you think that demanding deletion of other people's efforts to build the encyclopedia without taking a few seconds to look for evidence is civil? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do look for evidence; I appreciate I'm not infallible, and will, in the future, pay more attention. As it happens I think that what I do is not uncivil, no; since the problem here was WP:ENT, I confirmed that her roles were in most cases minor and in other cases not major enough to pass the guideline. The irony of a man accusing me of being uncivil and acting rashly after your actions is not lost on me. Ironholds (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Ndum

I'm sorry for the bad speedy delete template. When looking through I thought I saw the information, but looking back after your edit it wasn't there. However, I'm not sure if the page violates some other policy, per Nkin and would like to ask for your advice regarding the matter. I saw that Nkin was WP:PRODed because "foreign language vocabulary entry with no indication of potential for expansion -- WP is not a dictionary" (I'm not trying to justify my mistake as WP:Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument.

The user moved Bankon language to a bad title.

How should I deal with Ndum? Thank you for you advice, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think

About this article in my user space [1]? I noticed you opine at AfD's and on subjects of other countries, and I think if I remember correctly also on the Balkans. This article was my first one and was deleted after an AfD. I have been improving it and continued working on it. What is your opinion on it and are you able to offer me some assistance/guidance/suggestion on it? Thank you in advance for your opinion. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly got plenty of sources there. I don't have time right now to look through the article in detail, but should be able to do so in the next few days. I can't claim to be fluent in Croatian, but do have some knowledge of the language from having studied linguistics (specialising in Slavic languages) at university over 30 years ago, so I'll try to evaluate the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bagh-i-Muattar

Since numerous (dozens of) Wikipedia articles already exist about individual writings of Aleister Crowley, why should an article about this particular writing be redirected when the other articles are not so redirected? (To see a list of the writings of Aleister Crowley on which there are already Wikipedia articles, please see Works of Aleister Crowley.)0XQ (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For diligently finding sources for Fatah Hawks where none previoulsy existed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
		I, Sulmues, award Phil Bridger with this star for saving Rexhep Demi Azis Tahir Ajdonati, Veli Gërra, Jakup Veseli, Zenel bej Begolli, Dervish bej Ipeku, Hajdin bej Draga, Bedri bej Ipeku, Dhimitër Zografi, Zyhdi Efendi Vlora, and Taq Tutulani from AFD. Since the AFD went well, all these articles are to be considered as if you owned them...Thank you for your helping Wikipedia be a better place!-- sulmues> (talk)--Sulmues 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bohdanow article

Greetings Phil,

Just saw the comments about the Boghdanow article. I added a comment from my side providing several links. I hope that this will clear the field. However, I do have problem with my other article that is mensioned in the comment about Bohdanow. I simply dont understand what to do. If You have time to help me in this matter, I would be really gratefull for You help and assistance!

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your contacting me. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Phil Bridger

I want to thank you for saving Mayor of Nicosia article. How can we stop disruptive users? Is their anyway we can tag disruptive users or warn them and warn others? Once again thank you. Also someone who I think shares our values is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#David_S._Barnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michalis Zampelas Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

King Radio

Thank you so much for adding references to the King Radio article. I was hoping to add some myself but my copy of Calypso Callaloo has gone missing. He was an important calypsonian and should have an article. James Fryer (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sedum burrito

Just wanted to say thanks as I was not completely sure what to do with that article. I had considered a redirect, but for some reason I did not proceed that way. It looks a lot cleaner this way. Cheers, Numero4 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mililani Trask

Thank you for your good work adding sources to Mililani Trask and saving it from deletion. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Marcello Guido

Apologies if my ranting comes across as too personal. I'm afraid that one of the various Wikipedia things that get me worked up is the deletion of subjects that clearly merit an article before the article is complete. There are quite a lot of articles that start out as a stub/invitation to contribute,and gradually get added to as they go from being possibly worth keeping, to probably, to secure. As long as a subject is clearly not notable it seems to be frustrating the whole object of Wikipedia to make knowledge available to block the flow of the process. Opbeith (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Guido Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bekim Bejta

I would appreciate some help regarding Bekim Bejta. The article was first proded here on 2009-11-19. The next day, 91.187.103.5 blanked the page without comment here and Coffee soon reverted that edit. Then, on 2009-11-21, 91.187.103.2 deleted the prod tag without comment or discussion. Minor changes were then made to the article until I replaced the deleted prod, which you indicate has been previously contested. Is deleting the prod or blanking the page the same as contesting it? I'm a novice at this. Tim Ross (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, deleting the prod tag does count as contesting it, as described at WP:PROD. The proposed deletion process is a quick and dirty mechanism by which an article can be deleted without discussion if nobody thinks it should be kept. Once someone has indicated by removing the prod template that they do want it kept then it needs to go for wider discussion at WP:AFD before it can be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Tim Ross (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emelio Caligdong

You reverted the edit with a reference but you didn't even put the link. I also checked that source and it doesn't even mention anything related to the topic of Emelio Caligdong. Pbnjtime (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the citation - I must have taken the information from the wrong browser window. Please note for future reference that there is no requirement for sources to be available online, so the fact that I didn't provide a link is irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of that, but I'm also aware that Manila Bulletin has an online site which they also post news which comes from their newspaper. That's why I had to bring that issue up. Pbnjtime (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Graham Langley restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rantevou stin Kerkyra

Good point. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yugoslav University Debate Network

An article that you have been involved in editing, Yugoslav University Debate Network, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yugoslav University Debate Network. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

Thanks! The line "woman who changes" rang the bell. I moved it to the official orthography. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thorndike Proctor

Actually, there is no shred of notability in the article as it sits. I was giving it time to develop, so the picture would become clearer. That's why I declined the speedy-- he's obviously significant, but has no indication of notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 08:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Just wanted to pop by and thank you for input here. Still thrashing around a bit, trying to assimilate the different guidelines, rules, formats, etc., so your clarification is much appreciated. --Haruth (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick message to say thank you for your support to the David Pugh (Conservative politician) article which I created during it's deletion proposal. The end result was a keep so thanks for your vote. I'm especially pleased as I was up till almost 3:00am writing it and didn't want that work to go to waste!! Editor5807^speak 21:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, Phil

for your help in El Shaitan article. Furthermore, I need a qualified look at another article, dedicated to fictional character, which is also proposed for deletion. If You will find a time to have a quick glimpse there and tell your opinion about it, I will appreciate it a lot. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

El Shaitan

Hi, I saw you deprodded this article stating that "there are loads of sources cited apart from the source work)". Are you sure that these sources are not just trivial in-passing mentions of this character while discussing the (certainly notable) movie itself? --Crusio (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Some of them did not discuss the movie itself. E.g. Shaheen's "Reel bad Arabs", Rovin's "The encyclopedia of super villains" and Everson's "The bad guys" have nothing to deal with movie, they are all about the c h a r a c t e r. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Cox prod

Thanks for catching that it was a repeat PROD -- I had missed that, and I hate when I miss things like that....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. It was easy to miss because the previous prodder didn't provide an edit summary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could that be fixed with a bot? We already have bots indicating "section blanking" and "very short article"; why not "prod tag added" when the edit has no summary? B.Wind (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it could, but I'm not the best one to ask for advice, because I haven't done any programming for over ten years, and prior to that my experience was in IBM System/370 and System/390 assembler language rather than in any of these new-fangled languages that today's youngsters use for programming bots and the like. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Novyi Tevriz

Thanks for renaming the article. I couldn't find anything about it at its current name, and did look on the Russian Wikipedia. I wasn't sure what to do with it so just prodded it hoping a helpful editor would come along and fix, so thanks for doing so. Aiken ♫ 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lennox Raphael

Just so you know, sourcing or not had nothing to do with why I WP:PROD'd the article. The earlier version did not make clear why he should be included in WP. Maurreen (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I think it's a good idea to at least do a Google Books search before proposing such an article for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote India

If this article is to remain than it either needs more significant coverage, needs to seem less like an advert, and needs to not be an orphan. -Cam^T|C 19:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of significant coverage in the sources in the article, making it less like an advert can be achieved by editing rather than deletion, and being an orphan is utterly irrelevant to deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Edgecombe

I notice that you have proposed the deletion of this entry for a very self effacing, brilliant chemist. I have known Chris for many decades, initially in the pharmaceutical chemistry field and latterly in industrial chemistry. I asked him to write a short piece explaining some of the more important work that he has done which has a significant contribution to ensuring we live in a clean world. Chris has always worked quietly in the background and generally has an aversion to any self-seeking or publicity of any sort. It is interesting that a person such as yourself seeks to eradicate any mention of him or his contribution to world science. In fact, he will be quite pleased to have his entry removed as he finds any acknowledgement of his talent an embarrassment. You say there is no mention of him or his work on search engines - I'm not surprised as this is quite deliberate on his part. (If you judge the value of a person or their contribution to society on whether they have an entry on Google then this is a very sad forum) If, however, you were involved in his area of expertise in either Europe or USA, you would find he is very well known indeed. It is true that he is not well liked either in Government circles (because of his work with Biofuels (Government has to pay subsidies !!)) or with Greenpeace and the like, who don't want power stations cleaned up they just want them all shut down (even tried to use MV Rainbow Warrior to block his ocean tankers from reaching UK power stations). All of this is another subject and one on which he doesn't want to be drawn. I now have a different opinion of Wikipedia as it seems to be at the mercy of any ill informed radical who wants to suppress information that he or she doesn't agree with or cannot comprehend. A very sad situation. Geekiep (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the above explains how Mr Edgecombe is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. We have a simple requirement, which is that articles should be based on reliable published sources which are independent of the subject. How else could we prevent disinformation from being posted? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for Removal of NPOV on Erich Schumann page

The sentence “His role in the project was obfuscated after the war by German physics community apologia.” is an accurate statement concerning Erich Schumann and it reflects the published findings of historians, such as Mark Walker and Klaus Hentschel. The well-documented section “Post World War II” lays out some specifics.

The myth of the German atomic bomb was a highly visible part of postwar apologia. The apologia was that a small group of Nazis had taken control, but they had been removed. Note that the real leaders of the German nuclear energy project, Abraham Esau, Erich Schumann, and Kurt Diebner, were ostracized after the war. Hence the German scientific community denied its past and purged itself of the Nazi elements, thus making way for their acceptance back into the international scientific community. Mark Walker, in his book “German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power 1939 – 1949” [pp. 231-232], said: “The role of Heisenberg as spokesman for the German nuclear power project was important for the apologia as well, for his erroneous claim, that he had been in control of nuclear power research, was accepted uncritically by friends and critics alike. In part, this acceptance is to be attributed to the perception of science by scientists and laymen as reducible to the work of a few ‘great’ scientists. Control is the key aspect of the apologia, for only if Heisenberg and his colleagues had been in command of their research, could their claim, that they had steered it deliberately away from nuclear weapons and towards ‘peaceful nuclear energy,’ appear believable.”

I firmly believe the material in the works of the historians Walker and Hentschel, as cited in the Wikipedia article on Erich Schumann, warrant removal of the NPOV tag.Bfiene (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)