User talk:Bridgeplayer

RFD

Hello -- at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Pro-Palestinian. Best, —Ireilly ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sigh. Sorry for the hassle, and many thanks. Best, —Ireilly ^talk 14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_7#Dutch_cheese

Thanks for closing. What does "NAC" mean? And, any advice to me for future RfD discussions? This one took a while because it was a bit of a puzzler to me... --Lexein (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NAC=Non-admin close. Non-admins are only permitted to close non-controversial discussions and are expected to declare their status since a non-admin close can be reversed by any admin. I thought that your contribution was excellent; if I was to be ultra-fussy then I would say that the retargetting and removal of the rfd template should have been left to the closer but in the circumstances that would be a quibble. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I did not know that about the closing steps - I blithely treated the process perhaps too informally, based on my assumption that redirects are less consequential than articles. Doh. I retargeted, treating that the same as, say, adding refs to an article under AfD: as the "obvious" consensed improvement. And I sorta jumped the gun, instead of just letting the 7 day clock run. Doh². --Lexein (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message on my user page from IP contributor, I am sure in good faith, saying oops to pre-empt Brigeplayer. I know Brigeplayed does a hell of a lot of good work at RfD, and I am AGF with the IP contributor, especially because he or she said oops, but not sure quite what he was on about. I think Lexein did the right thing but perhaps we should have discussed it farther rather than a speedy close. In my opinion the decision was the right one, but perhaps it was taken a bit too speedily? If Brigeplayer would care to have a look at my talk page I would very much appreciate it. I also appreciate very much his hard work, also Lexein's in bunging in a list article (which essentially was what I said to do) so no complaints against either. I do appreciate your hard work, both of you. Si Trew (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful feedback; thanks. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 1

Hi Bridgeplayer. Thanks for catching that mistake and reverting it before any additional recommendations were added. -- 110.49.225.238 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; I am just sorry that your well intentioned work was in vain. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Raymond Bessone

On 11 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raymond Bessone, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that hairdresser Vidal Sassoon was trained by 'Mr Teasy-Weasy'? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond Bessone.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Layman

Since you participated in this recent AFD you might be interested in this follow up discussion.TMCk (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD decision

Please bear with me because I've never done this before, and I'm trying to understand the policies. WP:NAC has a section on non-administrative closures of AfDs. As I read it, the part that applies is: "experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep" (deletion discussions that have lasted more than 7 days like the one here). Yet, you did a non-administrative closure with a "no consensus".

As I read WP:DRV, the first step in challenging your decision is to talk to you first, which is why I am here. Could you explain how your NAC was appropriate? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was well-overdue for closing so I made what seemed to me to be a clear call to move matters on. The weight of keep !votes were offset by the rather better arguments of the deleters. The guideline is, as you stated, but non-admin 'no consensus' closes have been made before when clear. If you consider that my close conclusion was in error, please indicate why and I will reconsider. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Some of your reasoning about "muddled" and my nom itself was, in my view, at least unnecessary and possibly inappropriate, but, nonetheless, probably not relevant to our discussion now.)

I don't disagree with your conclusion that there was no consensus, but I don't think you should have closed it. What I've seen in other discussions when it goes beyond 7 days without consensus is it is relisted for further comments. WP:RELIST seems to permit either a relisting or a no consensus closure, but given that I don't believe a NAC was appropriate, I think you should have left it alone, either for an administrative closure of no consensus or a relisting.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored my close comments in the light of the valid comment that you have made. The revised statement about the nomination is accurate though; you posed the nomination as a question, I agree, but you did not specify policy-compliant grounds. Relisting takes place when there has been insufficient discussion; that is not the case here. Considering the strength of feeling that clubs at this level are notable, I do not believe that relisting would have brought a 'delete' conclusion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to take this any further because it's not worth the trouble. Although I still disagree that a NAC was permissible, I suspect you're right about the relisting. So, if I were to formally challenge your decision, I would be doing precisely what I objected to regarding the nom, going forward on a technicality. It would waste everyone's time, not something I'm fond of.

Just out of curiosity, if I had stated in my nomination the exact same question I did but preceded it with, "Doesn't meet WP:GNG", would that have eliminated the procedural complaints about the nom?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is 'yes'. If a football club is notable then having played for just one season and being sold wouldn't be relevant. Notable things/organisations can be shortlived. For example, there is a WP:FOOTYN standard that if a person has played one minute in a Football League Two match (4th tier in English football) then they are notable. I don't feel comfortable with this standard but it is a consensus amongst editors on that project. Stating "Doesn't meet WP:GNG" is always a sound basis for a deletion nomination IMHO. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the "doesn't meet WP:GNG" is pretty much implied by the nomination itself and saying it was unnecessary. However, I'll reconsider my more direct approach in the future, if for no other reason than to avoid the sometimes strident complaints from other editors on this nomination. Truly making a mountain out of a molehill. In any event, thanks very much for the discussion; you've been very courteous, and I appreciate that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your statement Indeed, the only policy based argument was that by Stuartyeates who rightly pointed out that WP:GNG was not met. when closing the above, would you consider re-listing this as an alt to a NAC, give it another week and see if consensus could be reached ? Mtking^(edits) 06:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Taaki

Hi, Carrite said they'd help me with fixing up the problems on my bio page, but they're protesting against a sysop's demotion this month. I'm fine with waiting until then to work with an editor- I don't want to touch my own page according to the guidelines.

But would you mind changing that awful picture? I put it up for my user page and didn't realise it would be used for an article. Please use this instead. License is Public Domain. Also the original editor asked my birthday which is 06 Feb 1988- not sure if that's needed for some reason.

Thanks. Genjix (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you think that photo is bad you should see some of the ones of me!:-) Seriously, though, I have no problem replacing the image. What you need to do is to upload it (Left panel, toolbox, Upload file) with a suitable licence, first. The point about the birthdate is that some core personal information is always good in a biography. It humanises the profile. Typical information that could be included would be where/when born, marital status, schools/college attended etc but it is your call whether you wish to declare any of these. HTH. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steaua in Europe

The current version of FC Steaua București in Europe is the wrong, please edit back to version from 06:06, 27 September 2011. Current page has no aesthetics, please look at the page of Chelsea, format of Steaua is very bad, a small table, large table, then a small, large table... Another example: Every change are making is changing from a direct link (like Budapest Honvéd FC) to a redirect (like Honved FC). Since the title of the article is Budapest Honvéd FC, we should match that in the article. While it's okay to have redirects in an article, there is no reason to intentionally change to redirects. In addition, many of those names are governed by our policies like WP:Article titles and WP:MOS, and so they may need to remain in their current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmihai (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry about this but I am not an admin and, consequently, am not able to edit that page. The best way forward would be to air your concerns at Talk:FC Steaua București in Europe and seek to reach an accommodation with the other user who keeps reverting your changes. Concerns over redirects are best taken to WP:RFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Koch (musician)

I have userfied it to User:Bridgeplayer/Karl Koch (musician) as requested. Davewild (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of incomplete ships

Do note that ships do not have to be completed to be notable: see Grom class destroyer (1939). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; thanks for this. However, for the two ships in question we have good information at the target so I don't think that we should delete the redirect unless some clear evidence of notability is presented. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar and an enquiry

		The Redirect Barnstar
		For your continuing good work at WP:RFD, with tireless contributions and willingness to do the tough jobs in this important but unregarded area. Also awarded for your good judgement evidenced on many occasions, in particular your closing statement at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 23#Wikipedia:DGUIDE Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's the barnstar, and now the enquiry - would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? I've seen you in action often enough at RFD to know that you have the judgement it takes to become an admin, and the willingness to wield the mop when required. The awards on your userpage and the discussions here on your user talk also indicate that I'm not the only one who thinks you're capable and I highly doubt I'm the only one who thinks you are deserving. So, are you interested? Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying but I've been away for a few days. Many thanks for the barnstar, it is much appreciated. Certainly the buttons that come with being an admin would greatly enhance my RFD work; both in closing more discussions and being able to action obvious speedy deletions. So, yes, I would certainly be interested. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. I'll work on a nomination statement when I get time over the next couple of days (probably wont be much tomorrow) at user:Thryduulf/BPRFA. Probably aim for making the actual nomination this weekend. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not going to be able to react much until Saturday evening anyway because I will be chasing around sorting out some real life tasks (isn't it really annoying how real life gets in the way of our more important Wikipedia work :-) ). Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later than I planned to do it but the first draft of my nomination statement is at User:Thryduulf/BPRFA. Make all the comments on it you want, particularly if there is anything I haven't covered that you'd like me to mention. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay but my wife's parents are not too well so I have been distracted by the necessary running around. I have just made a few grammatical tweaks. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, and your edits are just fine. Let me know when it's a good time for you to run, RFA is a much more stressful (and more complicated) place nowadays than it was back in 2005. It's probably going to be best to wait until your real life will let you spend the time on it, but it;s entirely your choice. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enric Garriga i Trullols listed at Redirects for discussion

Thanks for notifying me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]