This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 1 January 2013 – 31 March 2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Do you have a link to that part of Google, I used to llve it with teh timeline but then they changed it and I couldn't find it and had no idea that was only a search within last 39 days. It would be immensely helpful for my work not only with new page patrol but article creation. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick message to say thanks for improving this article.
I'm not usually a deletionist, but I just couldn't find anything to make this article notable.
Great edit!
Regards
Sirkus ( talk) 18:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rob Trains 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/Rob Trains 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 high-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.
Hi Phil. I note that you haven't voted yet in the AfD. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I take issue with your characterization of my PROD rationale as "blatantly untrue". The article (prior to your edit) consisted of a brief introduction to a story, with a speculation that the story might be talking about a particular town in Turkey, followed by the text from the Qu'ran, with absolutely no other interpretation or analysis. While you might disagree with the validity my rationale, you can't exactly call it "blatantly untrue". WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Phil, I saw that you deleted the proposals for the deletion of the two above articles, stating that "an anachronistic name is perfectly valid as redirect". I have the impression that you have not read the edit history of the article (as it was suggested in the proposal template). My concern was that the town where the castrum is located (modern Cluj-Napoca) bore a special name in Roman Dacia: Napoca. The name "Clus" is a Medieval Latin name, therefore the "castrum at Clus" (an Ancient Roman fort in medieval Cluj-Napoca) is a non-exising term. Could we create articles like " Londonium Eye" with a redirect to London Eye? I think it would be an original approach. Borsoka ( talk) 03:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mistral Aviation 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/Mistral Aviation 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 high-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. FoxyOrange ( talk) 14:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a friendly notice that when you moved Ithaka Harbors, you did not changed the NFUR in the article, I have changed it now. FrankDev ( talk) 13:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Itzik Shmuli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labor Party ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-English_language_articles_-_reconsider_their_fortnight.27s_free_pass.3F Peridon ( talk) 17:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Phil, how do i get that anonymous lunatic off the Samuel Friedman Foundation Talk page? Is there someone I can report it to? Any help would be appreciated. Should I just delete the comments? I have never had this happen before. regards Ybidzian ( talk) 21:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Phil, my deepest apologies regarding possible upsetting language toward others, even it you weren't offended it makes no difference. As you say, others may be, and I need to remain vigilant about that. If I see him/her post again I will simply remove the remarks also. I have a sort of fondness for that article but am not sure how to improve it (it was never going to be a long piece of writing, but it has to be good enough to stay). I am in the position of trying to document something that is genuinely hard to verify, simply because very little is written about Science prizes, apart from the Nobel, and possibly the Fields in mathematics. The universities themselves take note always when someone on staff gets something, but if their mention of it doesn't qualify as an independent source then it's difficult. I think I'll switch to a few different search engines!! cheers and thanks for your suggestions and action on this one. Ybidzian ( talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
On your huge deletion from the 'Iain King' page, your assertion that these are all publisher's quotes is not true - look at the economist review (are you saying they're not independent?), or the quote from the Royal Institute of Philosophy - just because it's cited on the publisher's webpage doesn't mean they didn't say it voluntarily, or come up that judgement themselves, or the quote from the Observer (again, cited by the publisher); the 'Publishers Weekly' review is definitely independent, and I'm sure a large publisher like Bloombury wouldn't say things like the Kofi Annan quote without a basis for it. The Daily Telegraph review, I accept, is 'from the publisher'; the 'National Library of Australia' description seems to be their own. If you think some of the quotes are based on publisher's promotional stuff, then either put that in the reference/footnote, or qualify the comment appropriately in the text. But your deletion has just taken out lots of references, most of which are perfectly valid, even by your unfairly strict criteria. Alex AlexMoore300 ( talk) 12:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
It has been noticed that you have saved multiple pages from getting deleted. atnair ( talk) 17:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
How is producing notable TV series an indication of importance/significance? Notability isn't inherited. Hence, it's not a claim of importance. Lower standard only means that an article needs to contain a credible assertion of importance and it can be without a source. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Mr Phil,
Thank you for removing the speedy deletion thingy on the page. I was so scared that the page might be deleted. I worked so hard, it is my first time creating a page. Thank You again Mr Phil. Hope to hear from you again.
God Bless.
Sincerely, Miss Ameba Parasit Ameba parasit ( talk) 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
and others In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
again Something has to be done about the AfD and Prod guidelines. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Context. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
About that passage you deleted, we're on the same page as far as it being delusions and what prompted the entry was that some weeks ago another editor deleted some of that as not matching the reference (it did- and note I specifically mentioned direct C/P because of that editor's erroneous assertion used to justify deletion of long standing content). What I was trying to reflect there was a brief description of what the Times was saying their claims were describing gang stalking- the mere presence of red and white cars for instance- I'm in no way trying to legitimize that silliness, actually only show how silly it is. I do feel if I were to tinker with the text from the Times too much I'd be pushing into OR territory. So we need to figure a way to expand on the NY Times material with the intent of establishing that gang stalking as it is widely believed is simply delusional thinking, if there aren't examples of what their delusions are as included in the article, that's difficult. Batvette ( talk) 21:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Movement Control Group 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/Movement Control Group 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 high-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. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 11:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Second Holmes 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/Second Holmes 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 high-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. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
thank you so much for your help. I am still new to wiki and learning the "proof" links from those considered spam. I appreciate your input. mary Paulhus15 ( talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
I see that you have been asked before, but that was a while ago. How would you feel about running for adminship? You would pass RfA very easily, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Não tenho conhecimentos na língua inglesa. O artigo principal está sob nome errado, e preciso que esse redirecionamento seja eliminado para a página ser movida para esse título. RmSilva can talk! 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil Bridger!
Thanks for catching my mistake on Udayachal high school. Not sure why I decided to nominate it for deletion since the only problems with the page were technical. Anyway, thanks again!
Sosthenes12 ( talk) 20:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
Context. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right in one respect - I shouldn't have said what I said, and for that I apologise. However, your claim that my comments were "completely untrue" is itself completely untrue - see [1], [2], [3] - I could go on - PROD tags removed without you dealing with any of the issues raised. Giant Snowman 15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
your comment included. This looks to me like a case of Not here/didn't hear that. Btw, I support you for admin above ;) . In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
If "one person" can only find 60 hits on Google, all originating from Wikipedia, then I would say yes, hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping a watchful eye on the Lizzie Phelan article. I worked on saving this article from deletion and only got involved because she seems to inspire a strong negative reaction. Crtew ( talk) 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Crtew ( talk) 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |