I think WP:VICTIM needs to consider the death as part of the life, i.e.
WP:VICTIM does not say "take coverage of death, put it in a box and ignore it, and just focus on the rest of the subject's life", does it? Perhaps that needs clarifying? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
Thanks for helping to fireproof aluminized cloth. I did some interesting research about this myself but was loath to waste time editing only to have the work consigned to the flames. Your efforts have encouraged me and so you have led by example - kudos. Warden ( talk) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Found a source for David Jang founding International Business Times: [1](Mercurywoodrose) 99.14.218.50 ( talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The reject and revert you did at Asaf Khan is wrong, (at least that was I think...). Because the WP:MOSDAB says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." And if you remove all those links, the disambig is empty, so...please review you edit and reject.
I am waiting gladly for your reponse and opinion. -( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil, would you mind checking this edit. I am no expert on templates. The editor has been messing about with other pages so am just checking. Cheers Span ( talk) 19:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thank you Phil Bridger. You proposed to keep my article about the Boue Sisters and it is online now!
Ellen Goldberg ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC) |
Could you please explain your removal/contesting of the Tigon Speedy Tag? I will assume that you didn't in fact look at the Tiglon talk page as if you had you would clearly see the discussion about the name TIGON, as stated in my CSD Tag I will add disambigs in regards to the other two articles that are not soley named Tigon therefore dont need a disambig page on thier own. Regards Zoo Pro 07:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, in regards to guarantor loan page that has been redirected to loan guarantee, I really think the guarantor loan page should be its own page.
The loan guarantee page is referring to the act of guaranteeing a finance agreement, whereas the guarantor loan page that I created was about the UK guarantor loan industry, which is a growing type of unsecured loan in the UK, receiving plenty of media coverage. Loan guarantee page covers government loan guarantee projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, Do you feel that it would be appropriate to do so? Don't want to revert if you feel there's no case to have its own page. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) OK, I've reverted the redirect, restoring the page. Thanks for you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the same article you did and used a tool to decline it, and notify the user, but it seems the article edit never went through. At least I wasn't the only one to think the article isn't a speedy. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you figure references to the man's own website are unreliable? - Denimadept ( talk) 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
section heading added by Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Phil, I went over your editing history and couldn't find a single article made by you. Yet you're quick to judge the content made by others. If you're seeking compromise talk to the users who contribute to the page, but please do not enforce your own view on the community by starting a revert war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averio ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll copy the latest comments to Talk:Statistical association football predictions, because discussion of specific article issues should be on the accompanying talk page where other interested editors can get involved. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Have you read the book? Or have any clue in what way it mentions this drink, at all? -- Jac16888 Talk 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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/University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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 notice from the top of the article. Uberaccount ( talk) 23:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent job saving that. I made the mistake of not placing quotes around the name when I did a Google book search, so the first three pages were unrelated and I figured someone was pulling a funny. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil, thanks for removing my misplaced prod from Satvasheela Samant.-- Dewritech ( talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you start an AFD on this one? As written, it obviously fails to meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot start AFD pages. 69.181.253.230 ( talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Phil, thank your for removing the speedy deletion. I am not sure why that editor views it as an "attack article" or if that person even read any of the sources at all (it appears that she did not, since she made no suggestions for improvement nor looked at the article's history that existed long before I came to it). The company engaged in business practices that are not ethical (plagiarism, false bylines, fabrication, intimidating interviewers, lying about firing people who really quit, and more) This is all in The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, Crain's Chicago Business, Poynter, NPR, The Guardian, The Chicago Reader, and more. The prior version was simply written by one person citing "The Journatic Journal" which was clearly not from a neutral POV. So, I just rewrote it using 24 new sources. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApolloLee ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil, Thanks for contesting the speedy deletion of Deena Weinstein, a much-cited heavy metal scholar. The deletion tag went up within SECONDS of starting the article! OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 20:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've responded at WP:VPR to your statement opposing Forward to Libraries; as I see it, the situation is radically different from what you've said. Would you please respond to what I said? Nyttend ( talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[4]. Edit summary win. Thanks.  :) -- j⚛e decker talk 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The Rescue Barnstar | |
For all your tireless work in saving the neglected articles in the AfDs! Zayeem (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
Please reconsider the renaming of the article List of longest serving higher education presidents at least until you've read the talk page I've set up explaining a vision for the article to include international presidents/chancellors. Also, please refer to the talk page at the University Chancellor article for the ongoing discussion on the distinction between Chancellor and President. The list was named specifically with these issues in mind. Your renaming A) Makes the title redundant as is, since outside the United States, the head of the University is called the Chancellor and B) Prohibits the article from growing to include Universities outside the US, which seems contrary to your point that "there is a world outside the U.S." If anything, rename the article "List of longest serving higher education presidents and chancellors" to permit a multinational audience and to accurately use the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.Hartley ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B B S V Peeth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gurudev ( 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) 11:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I suspected that anyone will misunderstand my criteria. Actually I am right that it is about a person Dr. Job Kozhamthadam S.J. Read the whole article. The title of the article is misleading. Solomon 7968 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Understood, however, why has no administrator addressed the user who has now twice inserted the same copyright violating and promotional material? 93.186.22.122 ( talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.117 ( talk)
You commented here about comments about individuals who don't claim 100 percent mental health.
The assertion keeps being made in WP:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes, and in related discussions, that WP:BLP requires total excision of all coverage of individuals who seem to have mental health issues.
For me, this reminds me of the older attitude towards individuals with mental health. In the 19th Century, and earlier, individuals with mental health issues were locked in attics -- as in the novel "Wuthering Heights", or they were locked out of sight in "mad-houses", where they received no treatment, and might be shackled all day, or restrained with a strait-jacket. This is still the treatment of choice in much of the third world, and in cultures with no tradition of trying to understand and integration.
I agree with you that mental health issues should be addressed in respectful terms. Articles that cover individuals who seems to have mental health issues in a respectful way probably won't turn out to be a concern if those articles are fully compliant with WP:NPOV.
I don't agree that it is in the best interests of improving the conditions of all individuals with mental health issues for the wikipedia to excise all coverage of individuals with mental health issues, based on assertions that silence is in their best interests.
Silence, and locking suffers up, out of sight, was said to be in their best interests, in the 19 Century.
I am old enough to remember when Rock Hudson outed himself as dying from AIDS. He had been a popular movie star, whose public persona was that of a heterosexual man who was devasting to women, when he was actually a gay man. Up until his high-profile decision to out himself we would have seen the same kind of arguments we see that mental health issues can't be touched for individuals suffering from AIDS. But I don't think there is any question that the best interests of AIDS sufferers were best served by open and respectful discussion of all aspects of AIDS.
Similarly Betty Ford was a high-profile sufferer of alcoholism who changed the public dialogue on alcoholism for the better through her decision to out herself as a sufferer of alcoholism.
It may turn out that Angelina Jolie's recent decision to be open about her decision to have her breasts removed, due to her genetic predisposition to develop breast cancer may similarly change the public dialogue of that kind of preventive operation.
I don't believe that removing all coverage of mental health issues, under claims of BLP, best serves the specific individuals, or for what it is worth, I don't think it best serves the general public.
I am going to draft an essay on this topic: User:Geo Swan/opinions/You can't say that here!. I'd appreciate your opinion on it.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S.
I read the transcripts from the Guantanamo captives annual reviews. There were about a dozen of them, maybe two dozen of them, who knew they were crazy, who were driven to "volunteer" to engage in jihad by their frustrated families, who had run out of patience with them. They came from cultures with no history or belief in treating mental issues, or accommodating mental issues. These individuals were told that they were a huge burden, that their lives were pointless, worthless, would always be pointless and worthless -- unless they went to volunteer as a jihadist. They were told that if they died fighting for jihad their families would finally have something to be proud of about them. These transcripts made for heart-breaking reading, because some of these individuals were clearly extremely reluctant to die in battle, weren't genuine volunteers. One guy described running away as soon as shots were exchanged, because he really didn't want to be a martyr. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done
Hi,
I nominated Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal for deletion because, it does not have any notable references. I had even started a discussion in the talk page of Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal. Can I again place 'contest for deletion' template? Thanks! - Vatsan34 ( talk) 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for nominating 108 Upanishads for deletion based on incompleteness, as you are correct in your assertation that it does not violate policy in being so, but I would request that you perhaps suggest an alternative? In its current state it requires real cleanup... I've proposed potentially merging it with the article Upanishads until it becomes more complete, or complete enough to warrant its own article perhaps? The main problem is it can't link anywhere really, which means it remains a dead end.
Merely trying to help clean up articles and/or clear out things that just don't work. Thanks, El3ctr1csheepz ( talk) 07:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you justify your removal of tag [5] will it be possible to translate to English what the article is about? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think WP:VICTIM needs to consider the death as part of the life, i.e.
WP:VICTIM does not say "take coverage of death, put it in a box and ignore it, and just focus on the rest of the subject's life", does it? Perhaps that needs clarifying? Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
Thanks for helping to fireproof aluminized cloth. I did some interesting research about this myself but was loath to waste time editing only to have the work consigned to the flames. Your efforts have encouraged me and so you have led by example - kudos. Warden ( talk) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Found a source for David Jang founding International Business Times: [1](Mercurywoodrose) 99.14.218.50 ( talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The reject and revert you did at Asaf Khan is wrong, (at least that was I think...). Because the WP:MOSDAB says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." And if you remove all those links, the disambig is empty, so...please review you edit and reject.
I am waiting gladly for your reponse and opinion. -( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil, would you mind checking this edit. I am no expert on templates. The editor has been messing about with other pages so am just checking. Cheers Span ( talk) 19:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thank you Phil Bridger. You proposed to keep my article about the Boue Sisters and it is online now!
Ellen Goldberg ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC) |
Could you please explain your removal/contesting of the Tigon Speedy Tag? I will assume that you didn't in fact look at the Tiglon talk page as if you had you would clearly see the discussion about the name TIGON, as stated in my CSD Tag I will add disambigs in regards to the other two articles that are not soley named Tigon therefore dont need a disambig page on thier own. Regards Zoo Pro 07:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, in regards to guarantor loan page that has been redirected to loan guarantee, I really think the guarantor loan page should be its own page.
The loan guarantee page is referring to the act of guaranteeing a finance agreement, whereas the guarantor loan page that I created was about the UK guarantor loan industry, which is a growing type of unsecured loan in the UK, receiving plenty of media coverage. Loan guarantee page covers government loan guarantee projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, Do you feel that it would be appropriate to do so? Don't want to revert if you feel there's no case to have its own page. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby ( talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) OK, I've reverted the redirect, restoring the page. Thanks for you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flingsby ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the same article you did and used a tool to decline it, and notify the user, but it seems the article edit never went through. At least I wasn't the only one to think the article isn't a speedy. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you figure references to the man's own website are unreliable? - Denimadept ( talk) 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
section heading added by Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Phil, I went over your editing history and couldn't find a single article made by you. Yet you're quick to judge the content made by others. If you're seeking compromise talk to the users who contribute to the page, but please do not enforce your own view on the community by starting a revert war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averio ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll copy the latest comments to Talk:Statistical association football predictions, because discussion of specific article issues should be on the accompanying talk page where other interested editors can get involved. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Have you read the book? Or have any clue in what way it mentions this drink, at all? -- Jac16888 Talk 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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/University of Agriculture, Makurdi 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 notice from the top of the article. Uberaccount ( talk) 23:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent job saving that. I made the mistake of not placing quotes around the name when I did a Google book search, so the first three pages were unrelated and I figured someone was pulling a funny. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil, thanks for removing my misplaced prod from Satvasheela Samant.-- Dewritech ( talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you start an AFD on this one? As written, it obviously fails to meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot start AFD pages. 69.181.253.230 ( talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Phil, thank your for removing the speedy deletion. I am not sure why that editor views it as an "attack article" or if that person even read any of the sources at all (it appears that she did not, since she made no suggestions for improvement nor looked at the article's history that existed long before I came to it). The company engaged in business practices that are not ethical (plagiarism, false bylines, fabrication, intimidating interviewers, lying about firing people who really quit, and more) This is all in The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, Crain's Chicago Business, Poynter, NPR, The Guardian, The Chicago Reader, and more. The prior version was simply written by one person citing "The Journatic Journal" which was clearly not from a neutral POV. So, I just rewrote it using 24 new sources. Again, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApolloLee ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phil, Thanks for contesting the speedy deletion of Deena Weinstein, a much-cited heavy metal scholar. The deletion tag went up within SECONDS of starting the article! OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 20:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've responded at WP:VPR to your statement opposing Forward to Libraries; as I see it, the situation is radically different from what you've said. Would you please respond to what I said? Nyttend ( talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
[4]. Edit summary win. Thanks.  :) -- j⚛e decker talk 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The Rescue Barnstar | |
For all your tireless work in saving the neglected articles in the AfDs! Zayeem (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
Please reconsider the renaming of the article List of longest serving higher education presidents at least until you've read the talk page I've set up explaining a vision for the article to include international presidents/chancellors. Also, please refer to the talk page at the University Chancellor article for the ongoing discussion on the distinction between Chancellor and President. The list was named specifically with these issues in mind. Your renaming A) Makes the title redundant as is, since outside the United States, the head of the University is called the Chancellor and B) Prohibits the article from growing to include Universities outside the US, which seems contrary to your point that "there is a world outside the U.S." If anything, rename the article "List of longest serving higher education presidents and chancellors" to permit a multinational audience and to accurately use the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.Hartley ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B B S V Peeth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gurudev ( 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) 11:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I suspected that anyone will misunderstand my criteria. Actually I am right that it is about a person Dr. Job Kozhamthadam S.J. Read the whole article. The title of the article is misleading. Solomon 7968 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Understood, however, why has no administrator addressed the user who has now twice inserted the same copyright violating and promotional material? 93.186.22.122 ( talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.117 ( talk)
You commented here about comments about individuals who don't claim 100 percent mental health.
The assertion keeps being made in WP:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes, and in related discussions, that WP:BLP requires total excision of all coverage of individuals who seem to have mental health issues.
For me, this reminds me of the older attitude towards individuals with mental health. In the 19th Century, and earlier, individuals with mental health issues were locked in attics -- as in the novel "Wuthering Heights", or they were locked out of sight in "mad-houses", where they received no treatment, and might be shackled all day, or restrained with a strait-jacket. This is still the treatment of choice in much of the third world, and in cultures with no tradition of trying to understand and integration.
I agree with you that mental health issues should be addressed in respectful terms. Articles that cover individuals who seems to have mental health issues in a respectful way probably won't turn out to be a concern if those articles are fully compliant with WP:NPOV.
I don't agree that it is in the best interests of improving the conditions of all individuals with mental health issues for the wikipedia to excise all coverage of individuals with mental health issues, based on assertions that silence is in their best interests.
Silence, and locking suffers up, out of sight, was said to be in their best interests, in the 19 Century.
I am old enough to remember when Rock Hudson outed himself as dying from AIDS. He had been a popular movie star, whose public persona was that of a heterosexual man who was devasting to women, when he was actually a gay man. Up until his high-profile decision to out himself we would have seen the same kind of arguments we see that mental health issues can't be touched for individuals suffering from AIDS. But I don't think there is any question that the best interests of AIDS sufferers were best served by open and respectful discussion of all aspects of AIDS.
Similarly Betty Ford was a high-profile sufferer of alcoholism who changed the public dialogue on alcoholism for the better through her decision to out herself as a sufferer of alcoholism.
It may turn out that Angelina Jolie's recent decision to be open about her decision to have her breasts removed, due to her genetic predisposition to develop breast cancer may similarly change the public dialogue of that kind of preventive operation.
I don't believe that removing all coverage of mental health issues, under claims of BLP, best serves the specific individuals, or for what it is worth, I don't think it best serves the general public.
I am going to draft an essay on this topic: User:Geo Swan/opinions/You can't say that here!. I'd appreciate your opinion on it.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S.
I read the transcripts from the Guantanamo captives annual reviews. There were about a dozen of them, maybe two dozen of them, who knew they were crazy, who were driven to "volunteer" to engage in jihad by their frustrated families, who had run out of patience with them. They came from cultures with no history or belief in treating mental issues, or accommodating mental issues. These individuals were told that they were a huge burden, that their lives were pointless, worthless, would always be pointless and worthless -- unless they went to volunteer as a jihadist. They were told that if they died fighting for jihad their families would finally have something to be proud of about them. These transcripts made for heart-breaking reading, because some of these individuals were clearly extremely reluctant to die in battle, weren't genuine volunteers. One guy described running away as soon as shots were exchanged, because he really didn't want to be a martyr. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done
Hi,
I nominated Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal for deletion because, it does not have any notable references. I had even started a discussion in the talk page of Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal. Can I again place 'contest for deletion' template? Thanks! - Vatsan34 ( talk) 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for nominating 108 Upanishads for deletion based on incompleteness, as you are correct in your assertation that it does not violate policy in being so, but I would request that you perhaps suggest an alternative? In its current state it requires real cleanup... I've proposed potentially merging it with the article Upanishads until it becomes more complete, or complete enough to warrant its own article perhaps? The main problem is it can't link anywhere really, which means it remains a dead end.
Merely trying to help clean up articles and/or clear out things that just don't work. Thanks, El3ctr1csheepz ( talk) 07:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you justify your removal of tag [5] will it be possible to translate to English what the article is about? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)