User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2012 – March 2012

University of Concepción Student Federation

You questioned by Speedy, perhaps rightly--cpmnsoideromng the utterly non-encyclopedic contents, I've nominated it for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Concepción Student Federation DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of PAF Fazaia Degree College

Hello Phil! I think you didn't see the article Pakistan Air Force schools and colleges and also the history of Fazaia Degree College, Faisal, to ascertain the background of my rationale for the speedy nomination of subject article and removed speedy tag instead of contesting it. --SMS ^Talk 07:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the speedy tag on this article that you deleted. --SMS ^Talk 19:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And I have removed it again, with an explanation in the edit summary and a change of the redirect target. A redirect doesn't have to be from an "official" name, but from a name that a reader might possibly use to look for an article. If you really think this should be deleted, after reading and understanding the edit summary and my comment here, then start a discussion at WP:RFD rather than edit-war over a speedy deletion tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I will never edit war over it. Your action of removal of speedy tag seemed a little rude to me and also you didn't reply to my first message that made me revert your edit. --SMS ^Talk 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, contesting deletion is not rude, but a difference of opinion. Secondly, reinstating a reverted edit is edit-warring - see WP:BRD for best practice. Thirdly, editors here are all volunteers, usually with limited time available, so you should wait for more than 12 hours before expecting a reply to a message. Fourthly, you provided no valid speedy deletion rationale per WP:CSD - the process for deleting redirects that don't meet those criteria is to start a discussion at WP:RFD. Do I need to carry on till I match the apocryphal story of the Oxford don overheard starting a sentence with "seventeenthly", or is that enough for you to reconsider your approach? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Shaikhpur, Handaur, Pratapgarh

Sorry about that - I got mixed up on the deletion types (IIRC, there's another one that, if the originator removes it, it gets automatically put back by a bot?). The removal of maintenance templates was improper in any event, however; I should have just restored those. Allens (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of trademarking and MEDUS Study in Accropode artcle

I'm doing research on harbour construction, so have followed the links through the Breakwater_(structure), Seawall, and Accropode articles. In the Accropode article itself, I note that the Trade Mark symbols associated with Accropode have re-appeared, despite your earlier request that they be left removed. Several of the underwater image filenames (Artificial reffs with the ACCROPODE(TM) IDMer 1.jpg et seq) in this article also feature the same trade-marking and are all marked with what appears to be a copyright or ownership logo of 'IDMer'. IDMer states on its website (http://www.idmer.net/index.php?langue=en&id_cat=) that is it a company "...that specialises in the expertise of maritime civil engineering structures, and assistance for the construction of one layer armouring for breakwater with concrete blocks: ACCROPODE™, CORELOC TM and more...".

Secondly, I'm surprised to find each of these three above mentioned articles contains a more or less identical section, with duplicated images, entitled: 'Advanced Numerical Study'. The original source article, which was presumably a primary source and written in Italian, is no longer available at the link given (http://www.diciv.unisa.it/docenti/dentale/medus_.php) for the University of Salerno.

As a novice editor, I'm still struggling to catch up with Wikipedia's extensive set of policies and guidelines but to me there appears to be a question over self-promotion here. Inspeximus (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

Why do you support Wiki Hounders ? - Jihje Or (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't, but I do support the removal of spam links added by obvious sockpuppets. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Brosix

Hello! There Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brosix (2nd nomination) is now going on. As both sides of discussion have different views on the outcome of this discussion you participated in, I would kindly ask you to join AfD to state your opinion in more explicit way. Thanks in advance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD: Chris Moore (businessman)

While requesting that you follow WP:CIV and WP:NPA, may I direct you to WP:NOTAB - Any Biography: (1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; (2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. If you feel that Chris Moore passes this criteria, and there are WP:RS to support this, then please do so within the debate. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Central Provident Fund (South Africa) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central Provident Fund (South Africa) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Provident Fund (South Africa) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Contextual Behavioral Science

Consensus in this discussion was clearly that the sources available do not meet the requirements of significance of coverage, independence and reliability. Please reconsider you closure. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments that there were no sources are disputed by the existence of those sources, which are linked to from the AfD page. Using the links provided in the discussion, I put in three cites to independent sources which provide some information - other sources are available. Sometimes it is possible to miss what is there, and that is what I assumed had happened with those who were saying there were no sources, or that the sources were not dealing sufficiently with the organisation. I feel there may be an argument in how best to present ACT and ACBS, and how our articles on them should be linked, and perhaps some thought can be given to merging Association for Contextual Behavioral Science into a section in Acceptance and commitment therapy; though the argument that there was not enough sources to establish notability for ACBS I didn't think was proven enough to delete the material completely. That people may not have found or looked at all the sources is not in itself sufficient reason for deletion when adequate sources are there. This source, for example, has an entire paragraph in a dedicated section on the organisation, written by two independent authors and published by Oxford University Press. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have started a merge discussion at Talk:Acceptance_and_commitment_therapy#Merge_discussion, and will inform the participants of the AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack O'Dwyer

Hi Anjwalker,

User:Opjack271 (Jack Odwyer) has been in touch with me regarding his dispute with the PRSA and attempted edits on Wikipedia, though I haven't been able to find any detailed dispute page on the issue at a glance. It's clear many of his contributions violate copyright issues, No Original Research, Notability, multiple accounts and so on and so forth, however the PRSA issue caught my attention.

He told me Wikipedia:Notability was used to prohibit him from making this addition, but I see now this was probably because he was nominating a new article for creation even though one already exists. He also said WP:Verifiability was used, however - even though Wikipedia discourages the use of press releases - it seems like the official statement from The Press Club is the most reliable source for an encyclopedic comment like "The Press Club issued a public statement saying they were disappointed by PRSA's behavior." However - again at a glance - it appears unlikely such an encyclopedic comment was made and the content Jack contributed probably fell under the category of Verifiability policy for "likely to be challenged."

I guess what I'm getting at is that I will encourage Jack to stay off of Wikipedia. His inexperience and bias has been disruptive, however there is an acorn of encyclopedic content. O'Dwyer is a notable figure in the PR field, the PRSA wrote a 23 page statement and The Press Club responded - I feel there is information that can be added by a neutral party. What do you think?

King4057 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ram Narayan Sharma

Thanks for helping with notability. I can't pull up your source, can you let me know if he's also recognized as a poet there? I ask because we also have Ram Sharma and I'm trying to determine if they're one and the same. I also asked at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics‎ so no worries if you don't know StarM 02:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Angélica Lozano Correa AFD Tag

Phil,

I hope you did not restore the AFD just because I might have inserted the wrong Tag? i did not see any arguments in the deletions discussion page. Also, the article does read like an essay on the topic. Maybe, a 7 year old's essay but that's how complete the article is. Wikishagnik (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD tag needs to stay on the article until the discussion is closed. If you want to withdraw the nomination then just say so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angélica Lozano Correa and someone conversant with our procedures will tidy things up. And no, this doesn't read anything like an essay by a seven-year-old or anyone else. It's simply an encyclopedia entry that, like nearly all of our articles, could do with a bit of improvement. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

La Pyramide

Kindly add the sources you found. I sure as hell didn't find any of that when I Google Books'ed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Team Gallery

I tagged a sentence in the Team Gallery article "often credited with a major role in the development of the careers of such notable young artists" for failing verification. Can you confirm whereabouts in the citation it says this? ThanksTheroadislong (talk)

Ok I thought I might be missing something kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it just before getting your message. I would point out that Gardar Eide Einarsson is pretty clearly notable, per these books and these news articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've requested an article [1] All good wishesTheroadislong (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matata Ponyo Mapon

His article cites two stories as to him dying in that Katanga plane crash. Neither article[2] however says[3] that Mapon died. Only that an advisor to Congo's President did and that Mapon was wounded. Please note also that the second article is dated four days after the crash....William 15:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim that Mapon died, but that Augustin Katumba Mwanke, who is clearly notable as a former provincial governor and chief advisor to President Kabila, did. The Mapon claim was made by The Bushranger. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher

Man, I know it is sock puppetry, but im only making reference to Nusbacher's former name. Its fact and should be included. Here's a source from IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1655167/). Sorry if i got a bit personal earlier on, just trying to improve the encyclopaedia like you. (Green-Halcyon sock puppet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.242.24 (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The former name already appears twice in the article, in the relevant sections linking Nusbacher's work under the former name to the current name. The main point now is that you shouldn't be making disputed changes without consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not remove Biographies of Living Persons prods from an article unless it contains at least one reliable source or was created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider sourcing the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the policy that you are invoking. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Biographies of Living Persons prods without addressing the issue, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You do not understand blpprod. I am not claiming the sources are not good enough to establish notability. (Although I think they likely are not). BLP has very specific requirements to avoid legal liability, those requirements are not being met. You need at least one RS to keep a BLP article, and you DO NOT HAVE ONE. Do not revert the blpprod template again without adding a reliable source, or you will be blocked. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop being silly. Worldcat is a perfectly reliable source, and, anyway, WP:BLPPROD only requires that no source of any kind is in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It specifically states reliable source, and there are several pages dedicated to discussing this. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

reported to AIV. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Iran football PRODs

Hello Phil. You seem to be missing the point that these articles have been prodded because they are unreferenced and have no indication of notability. Nothing exists on Wikipedia without these requisites. As I'm sure you're well aware, WP:OCE is not a valid reason for keeping articles. Is there another reason to keep them? 46 articles is gonna be one big AfD... Cloudz679 21:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Playing at the third level of Iranian football is an indication of notability. And my statement wasn't that other crap exists, but that other articles are routinely accepted as notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't know whether you put all those pages on your watchlist, but I will be sure to let you know when I AfD one to test the water. Cloudz679 05:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

John_Augustus_Abayomi-Cole

FYI, the article John Abayomi-Cole is a redundant duplicate of a much better article: John_Augustus_Abayomi-Cole. I think the stub should be deleted, or redirected. I've reinstated the delete proposal. Let me know if you continue to have objections. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it's pretty obvious that this should be redirected, not deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you just beat me to the redirect - I'd spotted this about 20 minutes ago, reformatted and copied across the one good reference (as the one thing worth merging) and then got caught twice in edit conflicts. PWilkinson (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Copypaste is not included in {{article issues}}

With respect to this edit you should be aware, for future reference, that copypaste is not included in article issues and needs to remain a separate tag. Dpmuk (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)