It didn't take long to find an example of Phil Bridger saying what he means.There seem to be more and more discussions lately where I cannot comment because if I said what I think it would be uncivil or a personal attack, and there's no point in commenting if I don't say what I think. I don't know if this is a function of my tolerance level or if we get more thickos editing Wikipedia now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If there are more thickos on Wikipedia these days, it's more than likely to be because smart people are sick to death of the arrogant bluster of half-wits like Phil Bridger.
Should Wikipedia have an article on "Solitaire"? Phil says yes. Phil says it's fucking obvious. Sky is blue obvious.
So, what goes in this notional article titled "Solitaire" that Wikipedia might be able to serve people in ways that a dictionary or a Dickhead's List Of Any Old Shit With Solitaire In The Name cannot?
As became rather obvious in the debate, nobody really knows. And rather humiliatingly one would hope (but alas, probably not), Phil Bridger wasn't in the least bit embarrassed to realise that, as often happens with people turning up with sky is blue reasoning, when asked to put some meat on those bones, well, he couldn't, could he?
His genius contribution to that AfD was the ground breaking, earth shattering, and monumentally helpful opinion that on Wikipedia, "solitaire" should be a blue link.
Wow! And you volunteer your time, for free, when you so clearly could be getting paid for such astounding insights?
As actual experts in writing Wikipedia would know, he wasn't even right about that. Something can be a blue link and still not be an article. And in those cases where some fuckwit has already created a useless pile of mostly made up crap masquerading as an article, then AfD is where you go to hopefully bring reason to chaos.
Or at least it was, until morons like Phil Bridger became representative of the quality of debate and indeed civility on Wikipedia.
"Soitaire" could be a redirect to a generic article on single player games, or it could be a redirect to the specific game most commonly just called Solitaire.
"Solitaire" could also be a disambiguation page, listing all the Wikipedia articles on things called Solitaire.
"Soltaire" could even be an article that expands on the dictionary definition in an encyclopedic way, assuming you can find sources which talk about that in a significant way. As we saw from the AfD, these probably don't exist, and the people claiming they do are utter bullshit merchants.
So here we are. The presence of morons on Wikipedia means that there is now officially no consensus on the matter.
As we can all see, even if you unleashed ten Phil Bridgers on the task, people who are "qualified to write an encyclopedia" in his view, and excluded everyone else, in ten years time, the blue link Wikipedia offers you at "Solitaire" will still look like it was written by someone so fucking retarded that even a thicko looks down on them.
Wikipedia. The smartest move is not to play.
Phil Bridger has made over 50,000 edits to Wikipedia. What actual knowledge in encyclopedia writing has he acquired in all that time?
Fuck all that I can see.
I tell you what is a red link on Wikipedia.....
* Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phil Bridger
Wouldn't that be a riot?
If only he had stayed as an IP.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =665374395
.....but perhaps he found that people on Wikipedia aren't sufficiently offended when some random IP is calling them thick?
