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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Halo sir i am mr talha i belong to kalam 39.63.171.66 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2025 (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]

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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turaiha, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turaiha until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't name call, like you did on WP:AN. There are ways toexpress frustration communicate without calling me names. Thanks! Legend of 14 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded above comment Legend of 14 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] I said how you come across, and I meant it. I chose my words carefully. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Do not call me names in the future. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody on Wikipedia can take away your life, liberty or money -- of course with the exception of disruptive WP:PE which of course could hit people in their pocketbooks. TiggerJay (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize for my edit warring at ANI. I didn't even consider the fact that the templates were left by an admin -- I will remember that going forward. Thank you for helping to call me on that. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice that the editor that left them was an admin. I could simply see that that was a better way to format things, whoever did it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree that it was a better way to format things. I'll make sure to remember that in the future, I appreciate your being forthright on this matter. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry, but I thought this discussion was being held in public. I can't say any more, not because you seem to want to exclude me, but because I have no idea what you mean by "SMH" and "BMI". Please communicate in English." just isn't civil [1]. The first is a common abbreviation of an English language phrase and the second is a wikipedia term of art (WP:BMI) which again is an abbreviation of English. You were communicated with in English, please apologize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that even if the communciation was not in English the level of scorn and derision in your comment would be uncivil. Its just a bad edit all around, especially from an Admin... No excuse here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not an admin.
2. There was nothing uncivil in my remark. You have told me what BMI means, but I still don't know what SMH means. Don't try to communicate in abbreviations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was wrong about you being an admin. What stops you from googling "SMH abbreviation"? There is nothing wrong with communicating in abbreviations... Examples of abbreviations used on this page (including by you) are BLPPROD, BLP, ANI, PROD, AFD, NPA, FAQ, WMF, ArbCom, RFC, and AN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] I try to always link any abbreviations that I use. If I didn't do that then I apologise. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] The point is that communication on wikipedia is abbreviation heavy, we all use abbreviations and we don't always link them. Next time just use google and wikisearch instead of attacking someone for not communicating in English (a bizarrely offensive claim even as explained). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] No. There is nothing offensive about not communicating in English. My spouse usually communicates to me in Polish, and I don't find that offensive. I simply didn't understand the abbreviations used, but they were explained to me after I said that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hey Phil - I ended up here after following another editor's contributions (in my capacity as a nosy so-and-so sysop), and saw this thread. Can I just say that I find it utterly baffling that anyone would take objection to your comments here? 'SMH' is an abbreviation that is generally used to express derision - it is uncivil in and of itself. The idea that someone would take you to task for responding to it in the way that you did makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to fan any months-old flames here; I just want to voice my appreciation of your consistent civility and cool-headedness, even in the face of preposterous accusations like this. Girth Summit (blether) 02:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] +1 to this wisdom. Accusations of incivility are particularly ironic from an editor of whom less than a month ago "the community agreed ... engaged in a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour". SMH, indeed. —Fortuna, imperatrix 08:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reverting this user's edit on Alison McAtee's page. We should probably keep an eye out for him/her though. As they've made their account in 2019 and the only edits they've ever made were on that actress' page. So there might be some sort of Conflict of Interest there. There was another editor(who's now blocked) that was also making similar edits last year and only on that page.[2] I think it's the same person. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very much like the same person. I would guess that they want to remove the year of graduation from high school because the reader can work out her approximate age from that, which is different from the age that her publicists give. We seem to get this problem of silly vanity from actors quite a lot. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For sharing you personal health challenges

Wishing you well. Dw31415 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality, tone, and sourcing on the Ryan Holiday article involving editors me and Vegantics. Given your experience with biographies and Wikipedia guidelines, your perspective would be valuable. If you have a moment, please share your thoughts here. Thanks in advance for your help!--IndyNotes (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects team is currently looking for feedback on Wikidata inclusion in the Wikipedia Watchlist/Recent Changes lists.

Would you be willing to join a call for 45 mins. ~ 1-hour with our UX researcher? The interview would be conducted in English and compensation is available. If you would like to participate, please register your interest as a reply to this post and we will get in touch with further details. Thank you, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. But I can tell you (no compenation needed) that I never use the "recent changes" list and often use my watchlist, but haven't elected to see Wikidata edits there. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Understood and thank you for replying. - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About simple Template "This user ..." -- Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#c-Seregadu-20250529025300-Phil Bridger-20250519073900

5. You are not familiar with the technical term "template". I'm familiar with it. But nevertheless, you have identified yourself as one of the fictional majority who, like you, have not heard of "templates".

6. You yourself openly admit to your low technical literacy, and yet you allow yourself to accuse me of being a "troll." You didn't ask "what are templates?" . You immediately called on society to ignore me on the basis of the "Troll" rule.

7. Now they are calling for mutual respect on my "User Talk page". Would you like me to redirect this appeal to your page?

7. When will you apologize to me? Seregadu (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed part of your recent comment as uncivil and bordering on a personal attack. Please treat WMF staffers as you would expect to be treated in a professional setting. RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis are bad, I agree. But telling them they are not accepted is the opposite of the Wikimedia's Foundation stated goals. Especially, with your type of position. Nazis that do not push an ideology or are disruptive should be accepted. They are still human.[citation needed] 86.49.236.22 (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so tempted to revert this bullshite but I will leave that up to Mr B Knitsey (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Nazi's ideology is racist and antisemitic so it doesn't matter whether or not they "push" it, 86.49.236.22. They are not accepted here. But I think you knew that and are just trolling. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I actually think The Bushranger may be onto something with WP:LOUTSOCK, as this is most likely in response to this edit. Natg 19 (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks to everyone who dealt with this, and the ANI and teahouse threads, while I was sleeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly requesting that you revert the edits that you made to @dane diliegro not only am I the subject of that page and can confirm but that information has been publicly confirmed via the sources. Dadilmotos (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove content about a one-year former relationship, which is maybe the sort of thing that belongs in a social media profile, but certainly not in an encyclopedia article, Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Regardless of how long the relationship was. It’s still objectively true, confirmed by DiLiegro himself. This isn’t social media. But encyclopedia is our sources of truthful information. Dadilmotos (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] We have a sourced confirmed relationship between two noteworthy people. definitely beyond a reasonable doubt and encyclopedia worthy. Dadilmotos (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hes not checking the discussion. posted it again on tp Astrawiki3203 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] no response Astrawiki3203 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made that point to the old titan in 2012 or 2013, when I was very new. He didn't listen, obviously, which is a shame. I guess even as a busybody teenager I had a decent sense of when an admin was doing something not-okay... even if it took a while for ArbCom to come around to see it the same way. Overall I'm a lot happier with how things work now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, didn't want to belabor a tangent on ANI, and you're right about the British context which is the most relevant to the article in question, but I'd say that while most of Europe and the former USSR does not see abortion as a hot-button political issue, that's less true about the rest of the world. The marea verde was a pretty prominent phenomenon across much of Latin America; meanwhile, our article on Abortion law suggests that abortion access is rather restricted across most of Latin America, Africa and Asia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right. My main point was that abortion being a political issue in one country does not necessarily mean that it is in another. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for your information, as you were involved in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists or the RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT at WT:NOT, I wanted to let you know that the discussed broader RfC has been opened at WP:VPP#RfC - The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. Many thanks! Danners430 tweaks made 20:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Phil Bridger, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Ravenswing 19:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding } to other user talk pages.

Ravenswing 19:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your amazing work. --Your signature here

You're a good person Ahmad Rajeed (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll treasure it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil Bridger, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just to add that if, in your new NPP role, you find yourself draftifying a lot of articles, I'd be happy to give you the page mover perm also (which, among other things, allows you to suppress the creation of the main-to-draft-space redirect, which then needs to be deleted by an admin), in which case let me know please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding } to user talk pages.

Hello, I'm MrDenjiLover. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:MrDenjiLover that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrDenjiLover 🗣️ (Non-binary) 21:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's much more important to civility not to post a comment that ends with a blur for a signature rather than to avoid naughty words. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of urban areas in Norway by population has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Violates WP:NOT because the article duplicates the one source it is based on.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Logoshimpo (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Just wanted to say that I understand you're frustration at the editor, but don't think the comment "I would suggest that anyone who boasts on their user page about having a high IQ should display more genuine intelligence" is very in line with Wikipedia:Civility. Wikipedia:Don't be rude, editors who are in trouble are often in a very negative emotional state, and comments like that look like kicking them when they're down. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Just because someone is down (entirely by their own hand, in this case), it doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be metaphorically kicked. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] On Wikipedia, generally no one deserves to be metaphorically kicked. Commenting on a users intelligence in a mocking way is really not WP:Civil. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I've been doing some thinking, and have to say that, if it is possible, I disagree with you even more now. User:Purplebackpack89 contains a clear invitation to ridicule, and I simply followed it. You have, in addition, posted a load of bollocks to WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request: purplebackpack89. I can only conclude that you are a humourless prig. That needed to be said even if it is blockworthy. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Don't take the bait when given a clear invitation to ridicule someone, don't engage in Wikipedia:Gravedancing, and Wikipedia:Two wrongs don't make a right. Being rude damages the encyclopedia, the rules don't exist just to protect peoples feelings. I may be a "humourless prig", probably depends on your particular taste, however I don't generally take pleasure in seeing someone punished even if they deserve it. You're entitled to your opinion, per my "load of bollocks" posted on the unblock request, I think it would be the height of stupidity and waste to report an editor with 50,249 contributions since 2007 (especially as you might just be calling a spade a spade in your description of me), but I should note that your comment here and there is not that much different from stuff that PBP has said to me and others, you two might get a long. I mean that, PBP is a person behind a keyboard, in real life you might think they're great, you'd probably appreciate their humor more then mine at least. My opinion is that blocking people who aren't quite in line with the current guidelines for civility and conduct is dumb. I will point out when I think someone is out of line though, which I think you were there, and are here. It is not necessary to pick on someone who is already incurring the wrath of the community. It is also not necessary to try and block editors for colorful language or for having a few bad days now and then. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the country is "Türkiye". This is the name of the country according to the UN (United Nations). This is the only name of the country that is used by national law and the only name of the country that is used by international law. You need to educate yourself and follow the standard that is used in respect to the naming of a country or state by the people of that country or state. Your opinion isn't relevant and doesn't matter. Your opinion isn't a standard. ~2026-94725-3 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Anon, please see MOS:COMMONNAME. We follow the lead of other English publications for the spelling of proper nouns, and to my knowledge with the exception of Al Jazeera no major English-language publication has adopted the Turkish government's suggested spelling. signed, Rosguill talk 15:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, Rosguill. You wrote pretty much what I would have written if I had been editing, only more politely. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]