User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2019 – March 2019

Removing CSD[edit]

Administrators will consider author reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Only admin can remove speedy deletion tag please don't remove it but i have moved article into draft space for now. Regards, AD ^Talk 18:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Azkord: I did not create this article myself, so was entitled to remove the speedy deletion tag. Your statement that "only admin can remove speedy deletion tag" is simply a lie. If you can't perform the simple task of looking at the history to determine who created an article the you have no business bossing people around with templates. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed that things before you replied me and i'm not bossing here that's all. AD ^Talk 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And author had also told in talked page that he is the owner of that page ane he created the page himself and i think you know very well about WP:COI cause of that it would be better if you hadn't removed csd tag from that page. Regards,

Sorry, but that's not good enough. You said that only admins can remove the speedy deletion tag, which is simply a lie. And the speedy deletion tag was obviously incorrect because this is not about web content, and, anyway, I added sources, and the creator did not ask for this to be moved to draft space. You are obviously incompetent in both determining speedy deletion and in determining whether an article should be moved to draft space, so, if you dont revert your move, I will request that the right to perform such moves be withdrawn from you. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're directly giving an order and that's not fair. Author had clearly asked not to move the page into draftspace or sanbox here for a week[1] but another Praxidicae has suggested him to work on draftspace or sandbox and owner can't create article themself as it's direcrly WP:COI and sorry for that template i told what i knew (as i told you admin can remove csd tag) cause i thought that. Anyway you can check the talk page. Regards, AD ^Talk 19:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the talk page, and the author made a request that is totally in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because this article was not eligible for speedy deletion so, if any deletion procedure should have been used, it would have lasted for a week. The fact that some other random incompetent editor suggested using draft space is irrelevant. If you didn't even know that non-admins can remove speedy deletion tags then you should not be getting involved with the administrative side of Wikipedia until you learn the basics. Are you willing to learn, which would involve reverting your move, or not? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been moved to the draft and deleted under r3 if you feel that should be on mainspace than you can submit it for afc. Cause submitting to afc wont charge you a price and i'm not reverting my move. I am bold on my desicion. But author can submit it for afc. We are not here to serve COI who request not to delete not to move. I did what was appropriate. Cause anyone can perform that task. Wikipedia doesn't run according to your orders. FYI: No one is born talented neither i am. I was learning i am learning and i will learn. Regards, AD ^Talk 19:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in...[edit]

Hi Phil Bridger! I hope you're doing well and that your holiday season and new years celebration were all fun and stress-free (mine were... alright I guess... lol). Anyways, I'm messaging you to express some concerns regarding some recent comments you've made when communicating with other editors (such as 1, 2, 3). I'm not going to go off on you, scold you or talk down to you, or go into huge detail about Wikipedia's civility and no personal attacks policies - you've obviously been on Wikipedia a long time and you obviously know about these policies... so I'll spare you the lecture... lol. I just wanted to point these comments out to you and talk about them briefly...

I've obviously been here for quite some time; I completely understand how discussions and disagreements with other editors can become frustrating at times, how easy it is to become annoyed with others, and how tempting it can be to tell someone to stick it somewhere (lol). Obviously, referring to other editors as "officious" or "incompetent" is not compliant with the policies I pointed out above. Taking that aside, that kind of communication is not going to make the discussions go any better nor will they make things any easier for yourself. Those kind of comments will just draw more frustration toward you from other users... incivility never usually results in other users leaving you alone (obviously, since someone escalated the situation by coming to me and asking me to step in... lol)... they usually just upset other editors more and drive them to escalate the matter and try and point the "admin spotlight" toward you.

Just consider this in the future... and if you find yourself in a situation where you're pretty much about to tell someone off or refer to them as something... not-so-positive, just know that I'm here for you and that you're welcome to come to me any time for input or help with a frustrating situation. My talk page is always open to you and you are always welcome to message me whenever you need or want to. I just wanted to mention the concerns and encourage you to keep these things in mind with your messages in the future. Thanks for hearing me out. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: it's very difficult for me to reply to those comments when I wasn't informed of the discussion where another editor asked you to step in. Could you please link to it? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wynn[edit]

Note that your edit followed one by a human masquerading as a computer. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me chuckle. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Greetings, you are invited to join Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia.

To join the association, add your name to the list here.

To indicate your membership of the association, you may care to add the following template on your userpage

Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia

--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no, thanks. I certainly sympathise with the aims of that group but prefer not to join any association. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYU faculty articles[edit]

Hello, I noticed you were mentioned at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#NYU faculty articles and that you seem to be keeping an eye on some things. I went down the list quickly and found some serious issues as well as made at least one mistake. If you have the time it would be nice if you can look at the others on the list. Otr500 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schools and A7[edit]

The section WP:NSCHOOL says that For-profit schools can be considered Organization as well. Thus, A7 should also be applicable , shouldn't it? Daiyusha (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it qualifies for speedy deletion. WP:A7 clearly says, and it's even bolded, "with the exception of educational institutions". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afd related to Cheng Taining[edit]

Hi have seen your comment in afd on Cheng Taining, yaa i agree with you there may not be no live news sources available but have you seen there mentioned some award prize for him on 2004 with an new page creation link, that's an un-sourced detail.i thought some one is trying to make an orphan article an back link. so what do i want to do wait for some more discussions or close the afd, please advice me. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My strong advice, which you are welcome to take or not, would be to withdraw this nomination as notability has been clearly demonstrated per WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so What do i want to do next, wait or remove the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijesh sreenivasan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to withdraw the deletion nomination then don't just remove the template from the article, because there are other things that need to be done to the deletion dicussion page and the article talk page. The best thing to do would be to simply leave a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Taining saying that you wish to withdraw and someone who knows all the details of what to do will close the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i didnt see this message on your talk page and i have changed every thing related to the afd of Cheng Taining, i have added tags to article talk page and afd discussion page, can you please check that. hope every thing is ok, if there is any mistake happened from my side then sorry. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks pretty good to me, but I'm not an expert in the details of such procedures. Don't worry that you might have done something wrong - if there's anything missing then someone else will come along and tidy up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phil. You will no doubt read the AN report mentioned in the post above from Robert McClenon, but I think taking the matter there was a mistake, and I will just let you know my thoughts on the matter here. It concerns your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdolrahman Razani, where you said, in effect, that the only reason anyone might support deletion was that he "happens to work in Iran". There is certainly, unfortunately, a cultural bias in Wikipedia concerning articles on academics, and I agree with your concern about it. However, what you said went further than expressing concern about a general problem, and amounted, whether intentionally or not, to accusing those who had argued for deletion of that particular page of ethnic bias. My experience of you over the years encourages me to think that you did not intend it as a personal accusation, but I confess to being somewhat offended when I read your comment, being myself one of the editors in question. I did, in the heat of the moment, post a note in that discussion asking you if you had evidence to support your accusation (though I thoughtlessly failed to ping you, so you may not have seen that note) but I now think that was not necessary, and I could have just forgotten the matter. The other editor involved (Robert McClenon), however, took it more seriously, and, as you can see from his post above, took it to WP:AN. As I have already said, I now think that mentioning the matter at all was probably unnecessary, let alone taking it to an admin noticeboard, but now that it has happened, perhaps it would help if you could do one of the following two things. Preferably, simply say that do not accuse me (and perhaps Robert, but that is a matter for him, not me) of ethnic bias; alternatively, if in fact you do believe that I am guilty of such bias then say what evidence has led you to that conclusion. (I do not believe that I have assessed the draft in question any differently than I would have done had the person involved been anywhere else in the world, nor do I believe that my editing history contains anything of the kind, but if you think I am mistaken in that then I really should be made aware of what I have done or said that has given that impression.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, I will reply to this over the weekend because I don't have time to make a well-thought reply today. I'm not ignoring you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there's no hurry. Probably a storm in a teacup anyway. Thanks for at least letting me know you will think about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given this an enormous amount of thought, but let me first say that I'm not accusing anyone of deliberate bias. There are, however, a couple of points that I'd like to make.

The first is that you have taken the time to provide a full, personalised, message to me explaining your position. Wouldn't it have been better to spend that time in giving a personalised explanation to User:Arazani rather than to me? I really don't get any reason for that difference in consideration given other than unintentional national bias.

The other is that any monitoring of deletion nominations demonstrates that articles about non-Western non-Anglophone topics shows that they are held to higher notability standards than American or British or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand or Irish or any other such topics are held. I can't spend the time going through histories to substantiate that claim, largely because it's a matter of statistics rather than proof that any particular article is subject to such bias, but just one such case that I have seen in the last few days is that of Moms at War, the fourth highest grossing film of 2018 in what is, by some definitions, the third biggest film industry in the world, which wasn't just nominated for deletion once, but twice.

I see such examples of systemic bias time and time again, and it is one of the biggest problems for the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note[edit]

Hi Phil. Just to let you know that based upon your edit summary re deleting the notability template on the Afghan poet - which I added after extensive googling and was meant as nothing more than a question for discussion - you may be surprised to have a look at my recent editing contributions. (And fyi my mum was a published poet - selected for many local anthologies as well as winning awards and attracting favourable reviews - but she wouldn't pass the notability guidelines.) Thanks for providing a print source, which was not available to me. Nothing to do with foreignness, so please don't jump to conclusions! I'm very aware of bias on the English Wikipedia, which is partly understandable because most of us editors rely primarily on English sources mostly found online, so reflect this bias. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. Being on a dodgy tablet atm, I didn't check the edit history before (which I just have done), but did look at the talk page and saw nothing there. Perhaps you could add something on the talk page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Are you focusing on what i do most of the time? I'm not mad, i'm just... confused. --TheWin RatHere! 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just happen to have your talk page watchlisted, because I have commented there before and I have the preference selected to watchlist every page that I edit. And if I'm going to comment on anyone's talk page I want to make sure that my comment is fair, so I check the editor's contributions to check whether a mistake is part of a pattern or simply an aberration. I'm afraid that in your case these mistakes seem to be part of a pattern; hence my message. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∯WBG^converse 19:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alert about General Sanctions[edit]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

∯WBG^converse 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Suketu[edit]

From a comment in AfD II, I gather sources are available but never made it into the article. Thanks for fixing it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guiding Phil[edit]

	Namaskar
	Thanks for guiding me on the NCHTUK page, added references...look forward to contributing more from #India :) Amitized (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guianan Creole[edit]

Hi, I move this page, because the real and official name in French Guiana of this language in English, is Guiana Creole, as you can see on the page history, someone move the page to "French Guianese Creole" an unused name, please help me to move to the official name Guianan Creole like before please ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not solved, because you did an improper cut-and-paste move, which breaks the article history. Also, English Wikipedia uses the most common name in English, which is not always the "official" name. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BilCat, for dealing with this while I was asleep. LeGuyanaisPure, the place to discuss the underlying issue is Talk:French Guianese Creole, where a decision about the title can be made based on what name is most commonly used in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrosse teams[edit]

I disagree with your assessment on the two articles from which you removed the CSD.

All 6 teams were sourced by Archers page on the league's website;
The league hasn't had a single game yet, characterising it as a "a top-level league" is just buying into their marketing BS, pure WP:CRYSTAL.

The other 4 got redirected to the league's article, Premier Lacrosse League, for the time being. That's not my first choice outcome, it's helping them build a buzz to become notable, and we should be recording stuff that is notable, but it certainly makes more sense than just removing the CSD. Cabayi (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, the test for WP:A7 is not notability, but a claim of importance, which these articles had. If they don't meet the higher standard of notability then other procedures such as merging or WP:AFD are available. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to justify yourself but to consider an alternative. Cabayi (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I did. I gave you two alternatives. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diabaté[edit]

Sorry about that. I crosschecked their dates of birth, but now see I was a decade out. Will get new glasses. In mitigation, I have a a Toumani album and an EP, both of which I love. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. There seem to be at least four notable members of this family, three of which have "Sidiki" in their names. I have looked at the history of the Sidiki Diabaté article, and it looks like it was started about the even more obviously notable grandfather of the current subject of the article, but was cut back to a stub because of a copyright violation. I'm about to go to bed now, but I'll try to get round to sorting out this mess in the next couple of days. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Article upon Commando 3[edit]

It's clear but it's not written properly Commando 3. Whereas a clear and appropriate article is already there Commando 3 (2019) AR.Dmg (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then the title should be Commando 3. Disambiguation is not needed when there is no other topic with the same name, so you should have edited the existing article (if this film really is notable yet, which I doubt) rather than create a new one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phil Bridger. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Citations in Hallwang Clinic GmbH[edit]

Hi Phil, I´m nor a friend of alternative pseudo-scientific but neither a friend of unbalanced articles, particularly citations of secondary source when the sentence is one to one from the BBC article and not in David Gorski´s book, who maybe wants to promote by adding his citation everywhere possible. So, I think we should cite the primary literature rather than promoting a book. Nevertheless, I will think of an inclusion of his citation, in a more general way. But when sentences have been taken from Jim Reed then they are from them and not from Gorski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkpoint18 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Checkpoint18 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that personal blogs should be cited in general - since they are an opinion piece and potentially libelousCheckpoint18 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]