User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2008 – June 2008

Adminship?

Hi Phil,

I've seen you around a bit, and I was actually a little surprised to learn today that you're not an admin. Needless to say, I think this is something that needs to be remedied--you have a clear grasp of policy, your speedy work is impressive, you have measured and logical responses at XfD articles, you have a huge body of great mainspace contributions...all in all, I think you'd have no problem at RfA.

Any thoughts? --jonny-mt 09:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but no thanks. I find that I can do just about everything I want to do on Wikipedia without being an admin - I have no particular interest in deleting articles, blocking users etc. Also I have a medical condition which causes me not to cope very well with stress, and it seems that admin activities involve lots of stress at times! Phil Bridger (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the stress is only as bad as you let it get (says the man who's been an admin for a grand total of one week). I think we could really benefit from your help, but I understand where you're coming from. Let me know if you ever change your mind! --jonny-mt 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edoardo Agnelli

Great job on the article!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Enigma Titanium

Just saw your comment at the above. OK I will admit the prod was in error, but I did not make the initial nomination, I did support it. On the issue of biting, I have to disagree with you. I was civil throughout this whole debate. I tried to be helpful on the issues of notability and reliable sources and was subjected to incivility in return. Teemu Ruskeepää is not a newcomer and should by now understand the concepts of notability, reliable sources and civility. – ukexpat (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the speedy delete tag on Henri Legay. The tag was literally placed within a minute of the article being created and before I had time to make any additions. - Casadesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casadesus (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonas MacKeller

It wasn't me who put the db-nonsense tag on Jonas MacKeller that you took off; but I have put it back because db-g3 covers blatant hoaxes and this article is a hoax cut-and-pasted from Arnold Bennett. I've added a comment box to make that clearer to the admin. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that that this is a speedy deletion case because you have tagged it properly to show what is wrong with it. I removed the other editor's tag because this was clearly not nonsense as defined by WP:CSD#G1. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Kaiser/short article

Hi. No, I didn't see your comment. I put the expand tag on this article because it's too short to serve as a viable stub. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the creator, who in this case I assume was you. Perhaps it's worth putting yourself in the place of the Google searcher. If he or she has made an effort to find the article they deserve to get some solid information, don't you think so? No doubt you intend to work on this page, right? I won't replace the tag in the hope that this message serves the same purpose. Have a nice day. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not the article creator, and do not intend to expand the article as I know nothing about the subject. All I was doing was to remove a redundant tag. There's no need for two tags on the article both requesting expansion. Please see Template:Expand/doc. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with you. Stub and expand are different. Template:Expand/doc is not policy AFAICS. Regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Rant"?

C'mon, Phil, a little civility here? I'm cynical about this commission and all those like it, whose reports make page 23 of the Washington Post, get a smidgen of attention among those specializing in the field, and then get filed and forgotten. They are mostly, in my experienced opinion, empty and meaningless exercises in piety. The article was inserted by an S.P.A. who apparently works for a housing-related NGO and is trying to increase her/his bosses' online profile here. You may reasonably disagree with my estimation of the commission's notability: that's part of the cooperative editing process; but that doesn't make my prod a "rant"! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw the word "rant" if you don't like it, but I do think you went a little over the top in the wording of your nomination. I'm sure lots of these commissions are non-notable, but in this case I think the Google Scholar and Google Books hits show a lot more than Washington Post page 23-style notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can reasonably disagree, that's for sure. I'm old and tired and on my break; I've seen so many of these "file and forget" commissions, committees, etc. come and go over the past three decades and more.... No hard feelings. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For working on the Soldier X article, and getting rid of its nomination for deletion. I had considered doing something like that but I didn't have the time, and considering the shape it was in I just decided it would probably be unuseable. I Think there is a wiki award for this but I am not sure. Thanks. Yojimbo501 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the appropriate barnstar but I am not quite sure:

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for saving the Soldier X article and for other important contributions! Yojimbo501 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Always good to be described as "ridiculous". Guy (Help!) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for an experienced administator to put a prod tag on an article which only takes a few seconds of web searching to show that it is notable is a bit ridiculous isn't it? And please note that I didn't call you ridiculous, only your action. I'm not a Roman Catholic but I do believe in that church's maxim: "hate the sin, but love the sinner". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there's an expression that deserves covering in this encyclopedia... Could it fit into one of the lists in category:Christian terms? or could you find enough coverage to justify an article on its own without straying into WP:OR? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD nomination on 4 Deserts

Good job for finding those links!!! Dusti^{talk to me} 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

American Gas Association

Thanks for the re-work on the American Gas Association article. I understand that links to official sites of the subject is good thing in many cases, but in the case of the AGA, it was in-line with a promotional sentence. After your re-work, the article is clear about the subject's notability. Thanks again --Emana (Talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Good Work

Phil, just a note to say that your work patrolling recent prods is appreciated. I don't always agree with your conclusions, but you do some very good work in straightening out some terrible looking articles. Pastordavid (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, re Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava. I had tried searching Google and Amazon for the original spelling before I prodded the article. Well done! I like to patrol prods myself, but have been too busy lately. Glad you are keeping an eye open. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus for removing such links is at WP:EL

But there was not talk/consensus as to whether or not those links were what you were saying they were. It doesn't make any sense to me what you are talking about until you talk about it in the discussion section of the topic being discussed. Doesn't that make sense to you?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)

This AfD has recently been closed by an admin as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. This decision has been taked to a deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). Since you have voted in the original AfD, you may want to comment in the deletion review discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edlapalli

Thank you for your good work on this article. I really did not have the time to do it myself :-)However your comment that "all villages are considered notable" does not correspond with my interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) and whereas I am not against any non-controversial places being added to WP as such, this article was so WP:POV it did not leave much of an article to preserve. But you did it, so kudos to you. --Triwbe (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)

Thanks, well spotted. The editor that created the page is a menace, copying stuff from Wikipedia but mainly copyvios from lots of other sites. He's created a lot of little articles and edited some big ones, but fortunately people are working on most of them. His ban is up tomorrow, it will be interesting to see how he responds.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jolana Fogasova

Hello. I have just noticed you have removed prod tag from page. I am all right with that, no problem, I have uncovered the page during disambiguation exercise and it seemed to me pretty unnotable, compared to other cases I have seen in the past. So I was trying to learn appropriate policy and hoped to apply it right. That is why I have a question. Which policy applies to opera singers if not WP:Music? Thanks in advance for an answer. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question! In theory WP:MUSIC should apply to opera singers, but the way it is written concentrates on the kinds of activities done by popular acts rather than classical musicians, so a bit of interpretation is needed. In this case I would say that the subjects work with companies in different countries is equivalent to criterion 4 (international touring) and that the position of permanent guest performer with the Slovak and Czech national companies is roughly equivalent to criterion 11 (being placed in rotation on a national radio network), as well as passing criterion 5 with the two albums. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Spilsby railway station

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spilsby railway station, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spilsby railway station. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? DrFrench (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maxwell Show

See the discussion page. I don't think you understand I wanted to see the page deleted. I compromised with the merge after reading everyone's discussions. If I originally wanted a merge I would not have brought it to an AfD. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Discover Science & Engineering

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Discover Science & Engineering, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Phil, this is one of a cluster of spamvertisements created by the same editor, who says "I work for an online consultancy who were given the responsibility of uploading a page onto Wikipedia for them"; in other words, he's a paid spammer hired by this agency. The articles were pretty much cut from the same cloth, with "See also" links to the rest of the cluster. I didn't tag one of them, because it actually had a reference or two; but they're all part of the same publicity effort. Spamming Wikipedia by governments is no more acceptable than spamming by ideologues, porn hucksters or snakeoil merchants. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to add another tradition to the list

Please discuss it here. Wikidās ॐ 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivela

Hi Phil; When I made my sugestions in the talk page of the article, I´ve already tried to find something usual as reference. All the links you sent me and the ones I found are not definitions, but situations like "John Doe and his trivela kick", "His trivela goal", "He mades an assistence de trivela",... What I can tell you is that here in Brazil almost everybody knows what is trivela, and I feel that in Portugal and spanish countries too. The only definitions I could find about trivela outside wikipedia was those poor non encyclopedic forums pt[1] and en[2]. The best definitions are the es:wiki and en:wiki articles that basically tells the same thing (one is son of the other). I'll keep trying to find something. (Caiaffa (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgive Her... (2nd nomination)

So, which do you think I am? Stupid or lazy? Or both? Corvus cornix_talk 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You tell me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ross High School (Tranent, East Lothian, Scotland)

In response to your edit summary in article Ross High School (Tranent, East Lothian, Scotland), "I don't understand what being "the result of a single edit on April 18" has to do with deletion." It indicates that that after nearly one month there has been no attempt to take a totally non-notable two sentence entry that can hardly even be called a stub and turn it into a acceptable stub entry per Wikipedia standards. If it were a new article, one would want to give the editors a chance to actually create a notable entry. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:Realkyhick had previous tagged the article for speedy deletion. I simply took it to the next logical step. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oldprodfull

Hello, Phil Bridger ... When you contest a PROD, as you recently did with Vijayalakshmi Navaneethakrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), please consider adding a {{Oldprodfull}} tag to the discussion page.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)}

thanks

Thanks for contesting deletion of Vijayalakshmi_Navaneethakrishnan. She is a notable figure in folk music in our state, but there are not many online references (I was surprised at this). I'll expand the article when I get access to some hardcopy references.core (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of clocks

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of clocks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of clocks. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeepday (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinem Doğu

Thanks a lot for your intervention to lift up the deletion proposal of LukeTheSpook. CeeGee (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision suggestion

I am trying to "test the waters" to see if there is enough interest in revising WP:PROF to better reflect the arguments that are actually used in practice in academic-related AfDs. I've put a note about it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) with a somewhat more detailed explanation. There is also a link there to a possible draft of a revised version of WP:PROF, which is located in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Since you have participated in academic-related AfDs in the past, I'd like to hear your input about this idea, both in general and in terms of specifics. If you have some comments, please post them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). You are also welcome to edit User:Nsk92/Sandbox3 in the meantime. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kimberly Cash

There is really and absolutely no need for this person to have her Wikipedia page. She is a VERY private person. Unless you have a VERY SPECIFIC reason to keep her (Other than the personal need to expose her against her will), she does not want her page existing here! (Crm76 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC))—Preceding Crm76 comment added by Crm76 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk page Ms Cash should send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org if she has a concern about privacy. One of our volunteers there will then be able to help and advise her. And btw including baseless legal threats would delay this process considerably as the matter would have to be referred to counsel if this is done. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the possibility of Tashanna's statement on Cash's history that Kimberly may as well be fraudulently using Johnny Cash's last name, and that there had been previous claims that Kimberly has a real name, either starting with a "D" or "Michelle". I have met her once and she has claimed to be Kimberly CASH, which I doubt is her last name regardless of whether she may be or may not be related to Johhny. There is a possibility that she could be using his last name for publicity purposes and I don't believe that it's right to advertise it here. (Crm76 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding Crm76 comment added by Crm76 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should get your story straight. You claim to know Ms Cash well enough to know that she wants this page deleted to protect her privacy, but then you say that you don't even know her real name and that she may be acting fraudulently? It's a bit difficult to understand what you are trying to achieve when are so inconsistent in your statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tashanna is associated with her, and Tashanna is my roommate. they were browsing through Wikipedia when I met her. And Tashanna is still having trouble believing that Cash is Kimberly's real last name. Cash claims that she is being exposed here, and wants her article taken down. Maybe she is lying about her real last name and wants her article deleted. And Tashanna thinks that Kimberly is using the Cash name for publicity purposes, and that Kimberly is playing the victim in this mess. (Crm76 (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

I've already told you above what she needs to do if she has privacy concerns. I have no wish to discuss this any further. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, really...

Re: Elliot Handler

This is why-I took the time to download the book and read some of it. Did you? It is about managing multinational corporations in regard to subsidies. Absolutely nothing in the book which would reference the article. That's why. Happy now that you reverted

a good edit by a dedicated wikilover? Mike P ^(WHAT?) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many things on WP that need to be done, and I enjoy contributing responsibly. With your experience here you should do a little fact checking before reverting good faith productive edits and spend time improving horrible articles like this was. Look at the before and after from when my edits started; I'm not just playing around in here.Mike P ^(WHAT?) 01:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You were right here. I was on the watch because of issues in the past with the article and the editor who claims to have written it.Mike P ^(WHAT?) 02:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fulvio Flavoni

Could you say why you removed the prod, rather than just saying that it can't be reinstated? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just looked through the revision history and saw that you've removed it before. Do you have any evidence that C2 is fully pro? 3/4 of the clubs have crowds of less than 1,000 which is the usual figure needed to support a pro club. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was basing that assumption on this quote from the Serie D article: "Serie D ranks just below Serie C2 (the 4th and last professional league)", but that may be incorrect because it is unsourced. Maybe you should take this to WP:AFD to get wider discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask on WP:FOOTY beforehand - wouldn't want to waste people's time with an AfD if it is a pro league. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Josh Winiberg article

Hi, thanks for supporting my Prod note on Josh_Winiberg. I notice that the author has modified the article but still has not established notability. What is the next course of action? (sorry, I was used to AfD and this is the first time I've come across Prod.) Thanks. JamminBen (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you still want it deleted then the next stage is simply to take it to AfD, using the time-honoured WP:AFD procedure. I can't see it being kept there unless someone can come up with a better claim to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Paul Carter

I'm a bit confused about your edit to Gavin Paul Carter. Could you enlighten me as to which tag you think duplicates {{wikify}}? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{deadend}} says "You can improve this article by adding links to related material, within the existing text" and {{wikify}} says "Please help improve this article with relevant internal links". Why say it twice? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate choice of wording on the {{wikify}} tag, because wikifying is much more than adding internal links. It's also correct formatting, and to a small extent, copyediting. If anything, the {{deadend}} might be the redundant one (because a wikified article should not be a deadend article), but the deadend tag has the very useful link to Nickj's tool.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Piwimedia

Hi!
Thank you for helping on the article of Michael Hammers!
I'm a newbie on Wikipedia, I still have to learn ;-)
Thank you, have a nice day!--Piwimedia (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cquan's Philippine PROD tagging

I've been watching this guy since he slapped those PROD tags on the Philippine student publications a few days ago...he even had one AFD'd. I know he's this admin wannabe who takes delight in deleting articles, but he ought to keep his activities in check. Thanks for removing the tag on Ang Pamantasan. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Knox‎

I'm not convinced that a courtesy blanking is appropriate. I agree that unkind things were said, but, when the movie is released and it's determined that he has at most one or two lines, we'll need it restored for reference in the next AfD. Can you point to a specific policy which allows courtesy blanking for other than comments by banned users or specific violations of Wikipedia policy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As explained on the courtesy blanking template this doesn't make the discussion inaccessible. You can still read it by looking at the history of the AfD page so it can be referred to in future AfDs. What courtesy blanking does is simply to ensure that the AfD discussion won't be found by search engines, so in future years if people look for information on the subject they won't find that one of the top hits is a squalid squabble about notability. See WP:CBLANK. Maybe there are other grounds for objecting to this, but you don't have to worry about the discussion not being avaialable for future reference. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

AHar rug

Hi thanks for the note. Some editors don't follow policy and are keen to delete any shorter article they can get there hands on. With more books that article could be expanded fully and get WIkiProject Iran on baord and we could have some images on hand too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eastman Dental Hospital

Thanks for your intervention on this article. My first contribution to a "health" article so I was uncertain about local standards of notability. A supporting explanatory comment in the talk section would be useful. What brought that article to your attention? Personally, I was surprised that the Eastman didn't have a page, so I wondered whether I'd stepped into a dispute. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Hammerschlag

Just so you know, adding {{db-bio}} to Peter Hammerschlag isn't shortcutting the AfD process. The article doesn't assert the subject's notability, so speedy deletion is completely valid.-Wafulz (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering in the extreme, and not the sort of response I would expect from a supposedly trusted administrator. I explained in my edit summary that the German Wikipedia article linked from this one explains notability. How can you say that it is in the best interests of the encylopedia to delete this without discussion? Please choose whether to restore the article and let the AfD discussion continue, or to subject yourself to ridicule at deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

and if you still want to argue that it was right to delete this, try looking at how many books there are that write about the article subject, including a biography[3]. When we have administrators like you, who needs vandals? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've recreated it with some more content. I'll admit I was a bit hasty and I didn't see your edit summary (I still can't find it actually). I'd prefer if you didn't insult me over the deletion of a nine-word article.-Wafulz (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit summary I was talking about [4]. I'll make an admission in return that my language was a bit over the top. I was just rather annoyed that when I had just removed the speedy deletion tag and was gathering the sources together to show notability I found that the article had disappeared. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that again. Thanks for your efforts, even if I screw up in recognizing them.-Wafulz (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hellas On-Line

Thank you very much for your time and effort finding references for the Hellas On-Line article and your support in the page deletion discussion page. Walnutjk (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your help with the references to the Hellas On-Line article. Walnutjk (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Janet Kay Jensen

Hello, Phil Bridger ...

When you contest a PROD, as you did with Janet Kay Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), please remember to add/modify the {{Oldprodfull}} tag on the article's Discussion page so that others will know that it cannot be PRODed a second time.

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)}

Hmm...

You seem to have quite a way with rescuing troubled articles (or at least it seems so). What—if anything—do you think could be done to get this beyond the puff piece it currently is? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I do enjoy rescuing articles when it's possible but I can't perform miracles! I can't find anything about this person other than announcements of her local workshops and a reference to her coming second in a local competition in a very small niche category [5]. I don't think I'd argue against deletion of this one unless someone else can come up with some much better sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for days—not sure why, though—and have come up with nothing but blog posts. Doesn't help that I was unable to find any actual published books by the subject... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry N. Snyder

Thanks for retrieving this article, and, more importantly, establishing notability. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Canoe Club

Hi - Hellno2 has put an AFD on this despite your advice against. I took the liberty of quoting your remarks on the discussion, but then thought perhaps I should have left it for you. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that. You've saved me the job of editing the AfD. I'm always pleased when someone does my work for me! Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bonto

Thanks for catching that Mark Bonto was previously kept at AfD. I missed that when I scanned the history. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Panagoda Maheswaran

Thanks what great job Taprobanus (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of E J McDonald

An article that you have been involved in editing, E J McDonald, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E J McDonald. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Richhoncho (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Moneyfacts.co.uk

Figured I'd reply here so as not to clutter up the AfD. I just want you to note that I'm not trying to argue the point with you about me not looking deep enough and such but, that it is the generalisation saying people didn't bother at all that upsets me. I make mistakes like everyone else but, to say I couldn't be bothered was too much. I can't comment for or against the other people only for myself. I'm just asking that you don't lump a whole bunch of people under one heading like that. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for finding references for the Shivnath Mishra article and your support in the deletion discussion. He is a very well respected musician but surprisingly I could hardly find any decent online references. I'll expand the aricle as soon as I can gather more resources.

Have a barnstar for your willingness to help:

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for establishing notability of the Shivnath Mishra page by finding appropriate references. Shobhit102 (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Iranian horse

Please see my talk page for my response (as well as another WP:Equine editor's) to your query on my prodding of Iranian horse. Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Flagged editors

Hello again, Phil Bridger ... At the risk of violating WP:CANVAS, would you care to comment on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Flagged editors?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)}