User talk:Phil Bridger

Archives

/October 2007 – December 2007 /January 2008 – March 2008 /April 2008 – June 2008 /July 2008 – September 2008 /October 2008 – December 2008 /January 2009 – March 2009 /April 2009 – June 2009 /July 2009 – September 2009 /October 2009 – December 2009 /January 2010 – March 2010 /April 2010 – June 2010 /July 2010 – September 2010 /October 2010 – December 2010 /January 2011 – March 2011 /April 2011 – June 2011 /July 2011 – September 2011 /October 2011 – December 2011 /January 2012 – March 2012 /April 2012 – June 2012 /July 2012 – September 2012 /October 2012 – December 2012 /January 2013 – March 2013 /April 2013 – June 2013 /July 2013 – September 2013 /October 2013 – December 2013 /January 2014 – March 2014 /April 2014 – June 2014 /July 2014 – September 2014 /October 2014 – December 2014 /January 2015 – March 2015 /April 2015 – June 2015 /July 2015 – September 2015 /October 2015 – December 2015 /January 2016 – March 2016 /April 2016 – June 2016 /July 2016 – September 2016 /October 2016 – December 2016 /January 2017 – March 2017 /April 2017 – June 2017 /July 2017 – September 2017 /October 2017 – December 2017 /January 2018 – March 2018 /April 2018 – June 2018 /July 2018 – September 2018 /October 2018 – December 2018 /January 2019 – March 2019 /April 2019 – June 2019 /July 2019 – September 2019 /October 2019 – December 2019 /January 2020 – March 2020 /April 2020 – June 2020 /July 2020 – September 2020 /October 2020 – December 2020 /January 2021 – March 2021 /April 2021 – June 2021 /July 2021 – September 2021 /October 2021 – December 2021 /January 2022 – March 2022 /April 2022 – June 2022 /July 2022 – September 2022 /October 2022 – December 2022 /January 2023 – March 2023 /April 2023 – June 2023

Hello, Phil Bridger,

I'll never forget how, years ago, you scolded me for tagging some articles with a BLPPROD tag and argued that I should have done some investigation to look for references for them rather than tagging them for deletion. I soon stopped tagging these articles BLPPROD after that and moved on to other tasks that still keep me very busy.

Well, I wanted to let you know that there are currently 200+ articles that are tagged BLPPROD for the coming week that you may be interested in reviewing. Just go to User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary to see the master list or you can browse Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion and see if any of them stand out as articles worth preserving. I hope you are having a pleasant summer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: I imagine you were trying to express that the number of edits doesn't matter, as long as they are good edits? Your first sentence, though, seems to imply that as long as you make a good edit, all your bad edits don't matter. Perhaps you might consider rewording it a bit? isaacl (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the bit where I don't say what I mean. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phil Bridger. I just added reply about the evidences of abusing 'extended' status by User:Landnama in WP:ANI on Persistent small edits on multiple pages by User:Landnama section. Idk if these can be considered evidence or not tbh, but I'm quite sure that's why I added it. Thank you. EdhyRa (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has been dealt with. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Phil Bridger!

Thanks for your interest in this page. I definitely do not want to delete anything of potential value to even a small handful of readers. If someone were to come in and work to make this a contentful page, I would gladly assist to the best of my ability. At present, however, it only reports that Heidegger uses a two-word phrase that the article does not define or explain and which, to the best of my ability to determine, is not considered notable by scholars.

The article, just because it says nothing, is quite harmless. For the same reason, however, it does not seem to me to belong on Wikipedia. If you think it should just sit there anyways, that does not bother me. But if you think there should be a discussion, would you mind initiating this on the talk page or wherever is most appropriate?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel qualified to start a discussion. but simply based my contesting of the WP:PROD tag (which calls for deletion without discussion) on the books that I mentioned in the edit summary and on the results of this Google Scholar search. If you still feel that this should be deleted (maybe our other articles about Heidegger cover this topic adequately?) then WP:AFD is the place to discuss it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota in Formula One begins with the following line: "Panasonic Toyota Racing was a Formula One team owned by the Japanese automobile manufacturer Toyota Motor Corporation and based in Cologne, Germany. "

Should we do something similar for DS Penske: "DS Penske is a Formula E team owned by the French automobile manufacturer DS Automobiles and based in Los Angeles, United States"? 78.131.72.186 (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no great interest in motor sport so will make no recommendation. Go to Talk:DS Penske with your suggestion and collaborate with others (who may well include WikiCleanerMan) on the wording, I just know that when anyone claims to have proof, or even more so PROOF, of anything then it usually ends in tears. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. So I reported a user yesterday for what I thought was vandalism due to how they were going about it and you were the one who responded so this is why I came to you.

As another user (who commented on the report) pointed out to me, the person I reported was a VERY newcomer and, as policy WP:DONTBITE should be followed. Well, I think I overstepped the mark with the user who is clearly very new to editing. I'm afraid I did it out of emotion and after a difficult day. I've given a lenghty apology and explanation in their talk page. I would like you to please close the report.

Once again, I apologize for how I behaved towards this newcomer, and thank you for your time. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Phil Bridger: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a quick message about this edit you made. Saying "If your mission is to make Andrew Tite an unemployable laughing stock then you're doing a very good job at it." is a bit uncivil and is a bit like insult to injury. Please refrain from such comments in the future as they're simply unneeded and a bit toxic. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 17:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Museumand AfD, did you mean to type "irrelevant" rather than "relevant"? PamD 20:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. I seem to make more and more typos as I get further into my 60s. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wait until you're 80! I find it hard to get a single word right at first attempt. A word that I've often accidentally omitted is "not". Athel cb (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Special:Diff/1214593734

Perhaps c:Commons:Convenient Discussions would help? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the history of edits in the article, I saw that you once saved an article from deletion and now I would like to ask you to cancel the merger from another article. I hope you can help again to save this article Aharon Erman (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time now to look into this topic as much as it deserves, and contesting WP:PROD deletion is not the same as saying whether this should or should not be merged with another article. You, Smpad, and maybe others will have to come to an agreement about this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the writing tip. I will improve through formal lessons I will attend, acknowledging the extensive impact on my poor communication skills to all aspects of life besides Wikipedia. Your insight has led to a pivotal change. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit - "based out of" and "based in" actually mostly mean the same thing and I think either are fine in that case. English is weird! StereoFolic (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the last sentence of the answer to that FAQ. Encyclopedias are written in formal English, not marketing bollocks-speak. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: I appreciate that earthy language is quite commonly used in Wikipedia discussions, so please feel free to ignore the following comment. Given that the original comment didn't feature any, though, I suggest that you might consider rewording, as I think it overshadows your well-made following point that the community relies on its collectively-agreed upon guidelines rather than individual viewpoints. Nonetheless, I understand if you choose to keep your comment as-is. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Phil, regarding this comment, I just wanted to clarify that I know, of course, that IP changes automatically; what I was talking about here is one's choice to edit or editwar using their account and an IP simultaneously, which gives the false impression of two separate people editing. Piccco (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need your guidance. This page is created by a sock. What steps to take here? Continue to review or should this be declined because it was created by sock? RangersRus (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look into it now, but would give you some general advice. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't just depend on you. Nobody (not me, not Jimmy Wales) is indispensible. Doing nothing and leaving it to someone else is a perfectly valid option. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a brief response to your comment made at WP:ANI: Unfortunately your assessment of the comments and suggestions made at the RFC for Storrs, Connecticut are misplaced. Wikipedia's style clearly shows that, although a common name can be the primarily used name (or even the article title) you must attribute an official name. Even if, as you posit, the official name is the "alternative name".

In our case, "Storrs" was never slated for removal nor intended as such. If you read the suggested text, and other suggested versions, we clearly see examples that align with Wikipedia's conventions, like:

Storrs, officially Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld), is an unincorporated village...

Hopefully that clears up the claims made over at ANI, thank you. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is on the question of whether the lead should be changed to:

Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld) is an unincorporated village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Mansfield in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States. The community is part of the Capitol Planning Region.

Sometimes referred to as Storrs, the village is dominated economically and demographically by the main campus of the University of Connecticut and the associated Connecticut Repertory Theatre.

The RFC was on the question of whether the lead should be changed to

Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld) is an unincorporated village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Mansfield in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States. The community is part of the Capitol Planning Region.

Sometimes referred to as Storrs, the village is dominated economically and demographically by the main campus of the University of Connecticut and the associated Connecticut Repertory Theatre.

Those people were clearly opposed to this, but you claimed that they supported it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the RFC was a place to discuss how and if to make changes, one suggestion of which was to have the lead paragraph in that form. As evidenced by the comment link and example I provided, alternative forms were (and always were, and still are) suggested and approached. A majority of respondents did actually support notating "Storrs" as an informal, unofficial name.

The fact that Storrs-Mansfield is the official name isn't and never was up for debate. Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC header was perfectly clear, so don't say "no". Please stop posting to my talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I was allowed to respond to your comment on the original venue, I would. And, once again, you have misinterpreted the RFC, its purpose, and my comments - The lead paragraph form I excerpted in my initial post here also qualifies as a suggestion on the table. Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you politely, but you still posted and reverted my rollback. The polite approach obviously doesn't work, so fuck off now. If you post again here then I will ask for you to be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]